Lords Sitting of 8 December 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE ANIMAL HEALTH TRUST
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the organisation known as the Animal Health Trust has premises registered and workers licensed for vivisection.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, four research stations belonging to the Animal Health Trust are registered under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. Nineteen scientific officers of the Trust are licensed for work under the Act at these stations, In addition, some research Fellows working at universities under the auspices of the Trust also hold licences under the Act.

  THE SUDAN ELECTIONS
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they regard developments in the Sudan in regard to the elections and the results thereof as reconcilable with the official statement of policy as set out in the Despatch to His Majesty's High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan in 1924 (Egypt No. 1, 1924, Cmd. 2269) that the British Government had contracted heavy moral obligations by the creation of a good system of administration; that they could not allow that to be destroyed;

  1007
  that they regarded their responsibilities as a trust for the Sudan people; and that there could be no question of their abandoning the Sudan until their work was done.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, if the House in general, and the noble Lord in particular, will bear with me, I should like to make a short statement on the position in the Sudan which I hope will answer, incidentally, the noble Lord's Question. Almost thirty years have passed since the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald made the statement of policy quoted in the noble Lord's Question. During that time neither the Sudan nor Her Majesty's Government's policy has stood still. The establishment of the Advisory Council for the Northern Sudan in 1944 and the setting up of the Legislative Assembly in 1948 were the first steps in the process of building up representative institutions through which the Sudanese would govern themselves.
  On November 15, 1951—soon after the present Government took office—I communicated to your Lordships a statement which had been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on the subject of the Sudan. My right honourable friend said that Her Majesty's Government would give the fullest support to the steps being taken to bring the Sudanese rapidly to the stage of self-government as a prelude to self-determination, and that he hoped that a new Constitution providing for self-government might be in operation by the end of 1952. The noble Lord who has put down the Question for to-day was kind enough to say in this House some days later that he had been delighted to hear the declaration which I had read. It was, indeed, a reaffirmation of Her Majesty's Government's support for a policy which had already been pursued for some time and which was implicit in the whole history of the Condominium administration in the Sudan.
  Our hopes that the new Constitution would be in operation by the end of 1952 were not fulfilled because, in accordance with the wishes of the Sudanese political Parties, Her Majesty's Government negotiated with the Egyptian Government an
  1008
  Agreement which secured the abandonment of Egyptian claims to sovereignty over the Sudan and an undertaking that Egypt would accept the decision of the Sudanese on their future status. This caused a postponement of the elections and hence a delay in the time at which the new constitutional arrangements could take effect.
  Elections to the new Sudanese Parliament are incomplete, and the report of the International Electoral Commission has yet to be submitted; but when the new Parliament has met and a Sudanese Government has taken office, the first stage of the policy reaffirmed in 1951 will have been reached. Her Majesty's Government's policy is, therefore, to see that the new constitutional arrangements come into operation in as expeditious and orderly a manner as possible, and to assist the Sudanese Government in their progress towards the next stage—that of self-determination. I think, therefore, that this is an appropriate occasion for us to send our good wishes to the Sudanese people. From now on, it will be their Parliament and Government which will have the chief responsibility for safeguarding the institutions of a free and independent people; at the same time, they will have the task of preparing for self-determination.
  These would be heavy responsibilities, even without external pressure. But experience has shown that there will be strong and unremitting pressure from Egypt, where each successive régime has manifested a constant determination to control, directly or indirectly, the destinies of the Sudan. Britain, for her part, has no aim other than to see in the Sudan a sound Parliamentary system and arrangements under which the Sudanese will be able to choose for themselves their relations with other countries. I know that the people of this country will watch developments with friendly interest and attention; and I should like to assure Sudanese patriots, of every Party and creed, that Britain will, in the future as in the past, be ready to play her part in helping them to secure for themselves the benefits of the self-government they now have and the free self-determination which is to follow.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer: it is very good of him to give the House such full information. I take it that this meaning can be read into the statement, namely, as I said in my Question, that there can be no question of our abandoning the Sudan until our work is done—I think it amounts to that. I should like that stated more fully for the record.
  May I put one supplementary question? Would the noble Marquess not agree that the methods of electoral Propaganda and lobbying pursued by the Egyptian Government, and so rightly condemned by Her Majesty's Government in recent statements in Parliament, are liable to jeopardise that
  "fundamental principle of common policy, namely, to maintain the unity of the Sudan as a single territory"
  stipulated in Article V of the Agreement?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, that of interpretation of the statement, the position, as I explained, is that control now passes substantially into the hands of the new Sudanese Government, when it is formed; but so far as, at the request of the Sudanese, we can give them help and assistance, it will be very fully at their disposal. With regard to the second question, certain activities on the part of the Egyptian Government, which have been deprecated by Her Majesty's Government on several recent occasions, do not assist in the promotion of the full and free attainment of self-determination which the Agreement contemplates.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to identify noble Lords on this side of the House with the statement which has been made, which is, I think, merely a carrying out of the policy which has long been accepted by Her Majesty's Governments, of all complexions. I should like to associate myself, particularly, with the good wishes of the noble Marquess to the Sudanese people. In coming to the end of this chapter, I feel that we should also pay our tribute to the work which the Sudanese Civil Service has done during its long years in the Sudan, which has been beyond praise.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure all sections of the House will welcome the important statement that has
  1010
  been made this afternoon by the noble Marquess, the Minister of State. It does not contain any new features, but it is an admirable summary of the past policy and present position of Her Majesty's Government, and it is such as will, I believe, command the general support of the House and the country.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as one who was formerly a District Commissioner in the Southern Sudan, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether any steps are being taken to safeguard the rights of those people. He will know that they are entirely different from the Arabs, in race, religion and language; and for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the Arabs have been their enemies.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that one of the provisions of the Agreement is that the Sudan shall remain one entity. It is the duty, therefore, of both signatories to that Agreement, Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, to see that that, as other provisions of the Agreement, is properly and fully carried out.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend to clear up a point which is obscure to some of us. He accepted the statement of my noble friend on the Cross Benches that there had been an attempt improperly to influence the elections in the Sudan. Do Her Majesty's Government take the view that the result of that action is such as to render the results of the election not a true expression of the opinion of the people of the Sudan? It appears to me at the moment that the Government are in somewhat of a quandary over this matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I said that the elections are not yet complete; but to say, therefore, that the elections which have taken place are not such as can be accepted by Her Majesty's Government as properly held and properly conducted elections is not a proposition which I should for a moment be prepared to accept, unless I were much more fully informed than I am at present of what the noble Earl has in mind.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, what I had in mind was the statement of Her Majesty's Government, made on more than one occasion, that attempts had been made by the Egyptian Government improperly to influence the effects of the election.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, attempts do not always succeed.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
  2.47 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they adhere to the view that the African candidates for the two seats in the Federal Legislature reserved for representatives of African interests in Southern Rhodesia should be chosen by African organisations, and whether this view was endorsed by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS(VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, the Regulations made by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia provide that nomination of an African candidate shall be supported by not fewer than twenty-five Africans qualified to vote.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, I should like to say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, how glad we are to see him back, and to welcome his return. May I then ask him whether he is aware that of the four candidates nominated for the two specially elected seats for Southern Rhodesia, only one, to the best of my knowledge, was nominated by an African organisation.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl and his colleagues for their kindness. I had a wonderful time, but it is nice to be home. In answer to the supplementary question of the noble Earl, I am not sure whether more than one candidate was nominated by an African organisation, but I should like to say this. I told the House just before I went to Rhodesia—and the House rather endorsed it—that I hoped to have an opportunity while I was there
  1012
  of seeing a number of representative Africans, of all sorts; and this I did. I found that there was strong support for the point of view that the Africans who stood and were elected should not regard themselves just as watchdogs of African interests, but should be people competent and determined to play their full part as Members of Parliament in everything which the Federal Parliament had to do. From such information as I have, I can certainly say that the African candidates who are standing are all men of responsibility, any one of whom, I believe, would be fully qualified to play his full part in the House. Therefore, I feel well satisfied that there will be good representation there, and that these will be men who will not merely look after a sectional interest but will be effective both as Parliamentarians and in that policy of partnership which I am sure we all want to see fulfilled.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, one would not wish to dissent from the views which the noble Viscount has given; but he will no doubt agree that for the benefit and the good working of the Federation it is of the utmost importance that these specially selected Africans should have the confidence of their fellow Africans in Southern Rhodesia.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I entirely agree, and I feel confident that any of those who have been nominated will have that confidence from the start. What will really earn and sustain that confidence is how they discharge their duties after they have been elected.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  2.51 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, on the Motion now before your Lordships, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government one question. On the Second Reading, a point on subsection (3) of Clause 1 was raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnaird. The effect of that subsection would seem to make this Bill into a Hybrid Bill. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Bill has been examined by the Examiners with reference to my noble friend's objection and, if it should prove to be a Hybrid Bill, whether they would be willing to send the Bill to a Select Committee in the usual way and re-commit the Bill later, after the Committee's Report had been received.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, those who advise the House in this matter have advised that this is not a Hybrid Bill, and accordingly it is proper to take it in Committee stage here in the ordinary way. While it is not for me to interpret their findings, it is, I think, quite clear that there are no private interests in this particular trust. The only interest is the public interest, and for that reason it seems appropriate that the Bill should be taken in Committee in the ordinary way.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Transfer from National Gallery Trustees to Tate Gallery Trustees of responsibility for Tate Gallery collection
  (2) There shall vest in the Tate Gallery Trustees all the pictures and other works of art which on the said date form part of the collection at the Tate Gallery and which immediately before that date were vested in the National Gallery Trustees.
  (3) The funds representing the bequest made by the will of Miss Margaret Helen Knapping to the National Gallery Trustees (under Which the income of those funds is to be applied for the purchase for public exhibition of paintings or sculpture by artists of any nationality living at or within twenty-five years before the time of purchase) shall on the said date vest in the Tate Gallery Trustees.
  LORD MOYNE LORD MOYNE had given notice of two Amendments, the first being to add to subsection (2):
  "except for the group of thirty-nine Continental Pictures which were bequeathed by the late Sir Hugh Lane."
  1014
  The noble Lord said: In rising to propose this Amendment, and that which follows, I think I should make it clear that I am speaking as a British citizen and subject, closely connected with Dublin but not on behalf of anyone but myself, and that the only interest I have to declare is a lifelong interest in pictures and in the picture galleries of London and Dublin. I can claim to speak with some rather exceptional impartiality, as I divide my life about equally between Dublin and London, or anyway, England.
  Before coming to the Amendments which stand in my name, I should like to say a few words on the clause as drafted. I would point out that it would permanently divide the legal ownership of the thirty-nine Lane pictures. Renoir's "Parapluies" and about nine others are, I believe, at the National Gallery, while the rest either hang at the Tate or are stored in the cellars there. Since the introduction of this Bill some have been turning in their cellars, and are to be moved from one Gallery to the other. I suggest that it is almost as serious an offence against the wishes of Sir Hugh Lane to divide up the group of thirty-nine pictures as to retain them in London. In the disputed codicil, Sir Hugh Lane talks of the thirty-nine pictures and certain others, formerly in Belfast and now in Dublin, being housed together. But if the codicil is rejected, the will stands; and the will says that he bequeaths a group of pictures to found a modern collection of Continental art in London.
  Now a collection is a gathering together of works of art, not the dispersal of them. A collector selects one picture to set off against another, and his collection cannot be truncated without marring his achievement. If anything would make Sir Hugh Lane turn in his grave it would be to know that his collection was spit up, and especially to know that some of it was not displayed at all. He is known to have bitterly resented in 1914 the refusal of the London National Gallery Board to hang more than fifteen out of the thirty-nine pictures. I feel that if these pictures are retained in London, we owe it to the memory of this great collector, endowed as he was with sensitiveness, imagination and generosity, to show his collection, in the way that he would have wished, as a whole. The question

  1015
  before us reminds me of the decision that Solomon had to make. London has cut the baby into small pieces, and hidden some away, while Dublin has a special cradle (I mean the empty room) in which the pieces can be brought together and made to live again as a collection. I argue, following the precedent of Solomon, that Dublin is the rightful mother; even though London has begun to dig up some of the pieces, it still proposes to keep the baby cut into two portions, with one in the National Gallery and one in the Tate. My Amendments, which I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to take together, are designed to return the whole collection to Dublin.
  I must begin by giving, as shortly as I can, a summary of the events which led to the sad controversy which I desire to end. Sir Hugh Lane, an Irishman by birth, a nephew of the celebrated playwright and woman of letters, Lady Gregory, and himself keenly interested in the Irish artistic and literary movement, established in 1907 a municipal gallery of modern art in Dublin. He later proposed the building of a permanent modern gallery to house the collection, which contained his own thirty-nine continental pictures on loan, as well as others presented by many eminent people. Various sites have been considered, but eventually Lane insisted that the gallery should be built on a bridge across the Liffey and be designed by the late Sir Edward Lutyens. Disagreement with the Dublin Corporation was finally reached in 1913, and some £11,000 collected from the public was returned to the donors. Lane then, in 1913, brought his thirty-nine continental pictures away from the municipal collection to London and lent them to the London National Gallery. He bequeathed them to the London National Gallery on October 3, 1913, by will. In February, 1914, the Board of the London National Gallery changed their minds while Lane was in America—not the time he did not get back, but on a previous journey—and they refused to hang more than fifteen out of the thirty-nine. Among those they rejected were Renoir's "Umbrellas" and Daumier's "Don Quixote." A stipulation was also made by the Board, in their letter of February 15, that the pictures should be
  1016
  given or bequeathed to the Gallery. Lane, on his return from America replied:
  "I should never have dreamt of submitting my pictures for selection to the Board who, however distinguished in other respects, have no competence as experts in modern painting; the omissions and exclusions prove that I am right in that view."
  They certainly did. Lane then went on:
  "You ask my intentions as to the ultimate destination of the pictures. The question it seems to me should have been asked before the offer was accepted. I refuse any definite promise, as I do not intend to act hastily."
  It is noteworthy that he refused to commit himself for the future, even though his will leaving the pictures to the London National Gallery was already signed. The pictures were accordingly taken down from the wall during the spring of 1914 and stored in the cellars.
  On February 26, 1914, Sir Hugh Lane was elected a director of the National Gallery in Dublin. On February 3, 1915, in anticipation of a journey which he was to make under war-time conditions to the United States, he drew up a codicil and left the thirty-nine pictures to the City of Dublin, on condition that a suitable spot was provided within five years of his death. The codicil was written on the notepaper of the Irish National Gallery, was signed, and an alteration in the date was initialed; and he left it in a sealed envelope on his desk in the National Gallery in Dublin. It is perhaps relevant that I should mention that the journey on which Sir Hugh Lane lost his life was made on behalf of an insurance company against which the late Lord Duveen had made a claim. There was no love lost between these two great men, Sir Hugh Lane and Lord Duveen, as is evidenced in a letter by Mr. Alec Martin in the Burlington Magazine of June 18, 1948.
  Sir Hugh Lane was drowned in the "Lusitania" on his return journey from America the following May. Although he did not mention the codicil as such to anyone, several affidavits, as to the intentions which he expressed during his last days in England and Ireland testify to his decision that the pictures should come back to Dublin. Most noteworthy is that of his close friend, Sir Alec Martin, of Christie's, who travelled with him to Liverpool before he sailed on his last journey to America. Sir Alec, who would

  1017
  himself have preferred Lane to give the pictures to London, is quite categoric in saying that Lane told him on the journey to Liverpool that his mind was made up that they should go to Dublin. Affidavits by A. E. (George Russell) and three others are to the same very definite effect. Mr. James Quinn, the distinguished American lawyer and art collector, who was the last person in America to see him has given the same account of his intention. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will agree, in due course, that this is a factual and accurate account of events which are not in dispute. I have to apologise to the Committee for saying on the Second Reading that the codicil was not signed, when it was only not witnessed. Otherwise, there would be nothing to discuss. It was not only signed, but an alteration was initialled and the whole thing is in Lane's own handwriting. As it stands, it is without legal effect in England, although it would, I understand, be perfectly valid in Scotland. I hope that this Scottish consideration may appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in particular, to illustrate how narrowly the codicil as drawn misses having any legal effect.
  In 1924, the British Government set up a Committee of three to report whether, first, Sir Hugh Lane thought he was making a legal disposition when he signed the codicil; and secondly, whether in view of the international character of the matter at issue the legal defect should be remedied by legislation. The Committee found by a majority that Lane did think he was making a legal disposition. No minority Report is given, and no reasons are advanced for the minority view. The Committee went on to reject the remedy of legislation, except to propose a short Act to enable the pictures to be lent within a lesser period than fifteen years. Now such an Act was never passed, though Lord Carson made some attempt to introduce one in your Lordships' House. It was disqualified by the Examiners a sit had not been published in London. Major Jack Hills, one of the Committee of Inquiry, also made an unsuccessful attempt in the same direction by suggesting an amendment to the National Gallery Overseas Loans Bill in 1930.
  The Committee's reasons for not recommending the absolute return of the
  1018
  pictures by Act of Parliament were that Lane would have been so much impressed by the Tate Gallery, then being enlarged, that he would have changed his mind. This seems to be an unwarranted assumption in itself, in view of Lane's dislike of the late Lord Duveen, but it is preceded by the extraordinary assertion that
  "… on the assurance that possession would be in perpetuity the London Gallery had secured the gift of a gallery in which the pictures were to be housed."
  That is taken from the Committee's Report. If any such assurance was given by the Trustees of the National Gallery, which I frankly do not believe of them, it was as much as to say that they were prepared for a price to do something which they might feel in honour bound not to do. The facts regarding the codicil were already public knowledge and the argument simply cannot be entertained.
  Another reason against legislative action advanced by the Committee was that they knew of no case in which a legal defect in a will or codicil had been removed by Act of Parliament to give effect to the true wishes of a testator. Well, it so happens that within four years of their deliberations a private Act of Parliament was passed to give to London certain pictures which my own grandfather had intended for Ken Wood but which he had in fact left to my father. I suggest that we ought not to have a one-way traffic in such things, and that what is permissible to bring pictures to London ought to be permissible to bring pictures to Dublin. If it be argued that the Trustees of the National Gallery cannot, owing to the terms of their Trust, be consenting parties, as was my father and the rest of us, I would suggest that the national conscience rests ultimately in Parliament, and that this is essentially a question for Parliament to decide.
  There is one more hurdle to be faced before I come, as quickly as I can, to my concluding remarks; I have been much too long already. The hurdle is this. The gallery was not provided within the stipulated time. First there was the War, and then there were what we call "the troubles," and then people said, "It is enough for us to pledge ourselves now to build the gallery if and when the pictures come." But there were men and women of faith in Dublin: men and women who believed in our sense of

  1019
  equity and who were prepared to cast their bread upon the waters. At the suggestion of that inspiring and determined lady the late Miss Sarah Purser, herself a painter of great talent, that lovely building Charlemont House, designed in the eighteenth century by Sir William Chambers, was by 1932 converted into an admirable picture gallery; and there, in the midst of the municipal collection founded by Lane, the collection of which he remained an honorary director till the end of his life, the empty room for his thirty-nine Continental pictures is waiting for them.
  Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, implied that rather than see his pictures in a Republic, Sir Hugh Lane, if he were still alive, would turn in his grave. The "bull," I may say, is mine, not his, and is deliberate. Bulls are expected of Irishmen and I should not have liked to disappoint your Lordships. But I do not think these sepulchral speculations are really relevant. We must bear in mind the principle underlying the law of wills and testaments. That principle is to look to the last formally expressed wish of the testator. He has the right to revoke such a wish up to the moment of his death. The formality in this case was not complete. But the question remains one of his last intentions, not what he would have felt yesterday, when the Duveen Galleries were built, or to-day when frontiers have been re-drawn.
  My Lords, I think the pictures ought to go back, not to get anything in return, not as a political gesture, not for any ulterior motive, but simply as a matter of justice, simply because I believe the evidence shows that Lane, at the time of his death, wished them to go to Dublin. There has been talk of lending or giving a part only of the collection but, as a British citizen, I should feel ashamed of that kind of offer. A distinguished art critic remarked to me some years ago: "Oh, let them have everything, but not 'The Umbrellas.'" My mind does not work that way. If I think something is owing, I want to give the whole of it, and not to keep back the bit I like the best. I feel sure that, whatever view noble Lords take as to Sir Hugh Lane's last wishes, and therefore as to where our duty lies, they will not feel
  1020
  that obligations of honour can be matters of compromise, or that we can do right by halves. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Moyne.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, for the moderate way in which he has moved this Amendment. I confess that I am sorry that he found it necessary to move it, because it is entirely outside the scope of this Bill and has nothing to do with anything else in the Bill. The subject, as your Lordships know, has already been in the courts, as far back as 1917. It has, I imagine, been considered by every Government over the last thirty years. It has been the subject of a report by a special committee dealing with this subject, which was composed of three senior Members of Parliament, men with long Parliamentary experience and drawn from each of the three major Parties. I should like to read their second finding, which is very clear:
  "It would not be proper to modify Sir Hugh Lane's will by Public Act of Parliament. To do so, would, in addition to constituting a legal precedent of the utmost gravity, not justified by the facts, have the effect of bringing about a result contrary to the real spirit of Sir Hugh Lane's intention. Our reply to the second question is therefore in the negative."
  There is no question at all of the legal position here. The noble Lord appealed to justice or to the moral argument. If we are going to talk about the moral argument, let us pretend for the moment that there is no law at all. It is no use taking, a lump of moral right in one hand and a lump of legal right in the other hand and mixing them together into a sort of pate de maison. It does not get us very far. If we are going to argue this in the framework of abstract justice we have to take the whole picture into consideration. The noble Lord has given your Lordships a substantially factual story—if he will allow me to say so, with one or two omissions—of what has happened. Sir Hugh Lane was born in Cork, the son of a Protestant minister. He came to London in the early 1890's with little backing, and made his way as an art dealer, in which he showed considerable ability. He not only collected together some valuable pictures of a high order but seems to have made a good deal of money. For a time these pictures hung in Dublin, as the noble Lord said, and I believe Sir Hugh Lane hung other pictures

  1021
  in Belfast; but in 1912, he made a resolute effort to persuade Dublin Corporation to build a modern gallery of art, and, as the noble Lord has said, with this object in view, he enlisted the support of Sir Edwin Lutyens as architect. The scheme, however, fell through and resulted in a violent disagreement between Sir Hugh Lane and the Dublin Corporation. The result was that he took most of his pictures away and lent them to the National Gallery in London.
  Thereafter, he made a will, in October, 1913, in favour of the National Gallery, though it is fair to say that he left the residue to Dublin. After that, his mind seems to have changed from time to time; it seemed to turn on whether London or Dublin would treat him best. He allowed the promise of his pictures to be instrumental in securing the Duveen Galleries. That is a matter which is well established by three witnesses with affidavits.
  LORD MOYNE: Could we have the names and the details?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord wants to go into a debate on this matter, but it has been discussed at great length. Mr. Aitken is one, Sir Robert Wick is another, and there is a third whose name I have not in my list; but those affidavits are all available. I agree with the noble Lord that at the time Sir Hugh Lane also told other people that it was his intention that his pictures should go to Dublin, but, as the noble Lord has so properly said, to none of those people did he mention that he had made a codicil. That remained most obscure. But what runs through all the discussions way back when he first went to Dublin, way back through the wills, as noble Lords who have the report on Sir Hugh Lane's pictures can see, is the one idea, and that is to create a modern picture gallery. It is perhaps worth noting that none existed at that time, and I am certain that Sir Hugh Lane would be delighted to find that there are to-day galleries both in London and in Dublin. Frankly, what he wanted on May 7, 1915, when he was drowned, is, I think, anyone's guess, but what is clear is that his mind was swinging from one side to the other as to whether it was in Dublin or in London that his ideas would best be
  1022
  fulfilled. I think it is impossible to maintain that the will in effect did produce a result which was directly contrary to anything which he wanted.
  In these circumstances, I suggest that, so far as the moral honour is concerned, the case is about even, but what I do say strongly is that the moral case is not so overwhelming that you can completely disregard the law in every respect. I have been talking as if we were living in a world of abstract justice in which there is no law at all, but we know that we are living in a world where law does exist, and I think we must lake that into consideration. Are we really going to consider expropriating the property of public trustees which they have held for forty years and which has been their undoubted legal right for thirty-five years? What view would they take of it, particularly in regard to their clients, the general public, if Parliament were suddenly to take such an action? I do not know. Are we, in the second place, to change the direction of a will by Statute, without the agreement of the beneficiaries? I suggest that that is not only an unparalleled but a very dangerous precedent indeed.
  The noble Lord took the case of his grandfather whose will had been changed. I understand that his grandfather put in a codicil which was in some way defective, leaving his own pictures to the nation. It is typical of the generosity of the noble Lord's father that he should have been a willing agreer that a measure of that sort should put forward and agreed to in Parliament; but it is quite a different thing to ask us to do such a thing with regard to a public body such as the Trustees of the National Gallery.
  LORD MOYNE: I did make the point that the Trustees cannot do such a thing; that the Trustees cannot have consciences outside the terms of their trusts; that it is really for Parliament to take action. I suggest that the conscience of the nation lies in Parliament as a function of the general will.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not want to get into a discussion on the general law on this moment, but if we have charged trustees with a task it is a very high-handed action indeed, forty years later, for Parliament to step in and take it away from them. Sir Hugh Lane was undoubtedly a great Irishman and I

  1023
  feel a certain regret that his pictures have not been shown in Dublin for forty years. I should like to recall to the Committee what Lord Baldwin, as Prime Minister, said in 1926. On behalf of the Trustees of the National Gallery, he said that they would be prepared to lend a substantial number of pictures for a substantial period. This offer was not accepted. I cannot say whether or not the Trustees would be willing now to make a similar offer—the decision is one for them—but I do suggest that at the present time we should be most unwise to overturn the present situation by Act of Parliament.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Earl who has just spoken is a man of justice; so is the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, and so are we all; I think there is no difference in that respect between us. Also I think that, apart from the noble Earl, we are all speaking in this matter as individuals. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, informs me that he will not take it amiss if I express my own point of view. I think that anybody hearing this case deployed for the first time, and after the two speeches to which we have listened, will sympathise very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. If the noble Earl will forgive my saying so quite bluntly, I think that that will be the general effect of the discussion. This is not a Party matter; it is a matter of justice; and I do not think that the fact that the various inquiries on this subject will have come to nothing will influence us too much this afternoon. We are all anxious to arrive at what is a fair result. The noble Earl made a legal point with which I certainly would not be competent to deal effectively without advice, but I gathered that he was admitting that it would be possible from a legal point of view to do what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, suggested if the moral case were clear; it is, however, the essence of the noble Earl's argument that the moral case is obscure and equally balanced. There I am bound to say that I thought the noble Earl fell a long way below the usual standard of argument we expect from him—no doubt, again, acting on the best advice open to him.
  He submitted that there was no clear indication of the final intention of Sir Hugh Lane in respect of these pictures; that his mind was swinging about and that it was impossible to say whether,
  1024
  during the tossing of the Atlantic, it might have swung this way or the other way. Is there any noble Lord here who seriously believes that there is any prospect whatever that Sir Hugh Lane altered his opinion whilst out on the Atlantic? On his journey to Liverpool he told Sir Alec Martin, a gentleman of the highest repute, who I understand has given an affidavit to this effect, that he wished to leave these pictures to Dublin. I do not believe anybody will take seriously the argument that he might have swung away from that before he passed away from this life. So the argument that he was swinging about seems to me, with great respect, to be frankly absurd. I would submit that there is no doubt whatever of Sir Hugh Lane's intention: he wanted to leave these pictures to Dublin. That was his clear intention, whatever you may argue about the past. His intention was frustrated simply by a slip, and all these years this country has been taking advantage of and exploiting most unworthily a technical slip. Therefore, I being like the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, someone who is of Irish extraction who works and lives in this great country, I would say that if we continue in this way any longer we, the British people, shall be doing something that is mean and "mingy" and, above all, un-English. And because I believe that the course submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, is the one course worthy of England, I support him heartily and hope that he will take his Amendment to a Division.
  EARL JOWITT: I rise merely to say that I disagree with the speech which has just been made. I am attracted by the way in which, as good Irishmen, both Lord Moyne and Lord Pakenham have put their case. It seems to me, however, that the fallacy underlying the whole argument is this. Let it be assumed that Sir Hugh Lane had finally made up his mind to leave these pictures to Dublin—let that be assumed; you cannot ask more than that. Then, what were the conditions of his bequest? The bequest in his codicil was: "I now bequeath these pictures to the city of Dublin, on condition that a suitable building is provided for them within five years of my death." This was no absolute gift; it was a gift subject to a condition. Ten years after that codicil the Irish had taken no practical

  1025
  steps whatever to provide any gallery, suitable or otherwise, for these pictures. Why, I do not know. It seems to me quite plain that if, in fact, this codicil had been witnessed, the result would have been that in the absence of any suitable gallery the gift could not become effective. Therefore, I cannot think that we are being mean, "mingy," despicable or anything else, in saying that, in the circumstances, there is no earthly reason why, in good morals, good sense or good law, these pictures should go to Ireland, when they did not take any step whatever to provide a gallery which was a condition of their getting the pictures.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee but I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Earl for the observations he has just made. I do not think any of us would wish to part with this subject in an atmosphere of trying to get out of some proper obligation. We, in the British Parliament, as in the British people, have a tradition of our word being as good as, or better than, our bond. But, in addition to what the noble and learned Earl has said, surely in a matter like this Parliament has to be careful of the precedents it creates. Let us assume for the moment that noble Lords from Ireland are right and that the noble and learned Earl is wrong—and on a matter of legal construction I am bound to say I would rather take the view of the noble and learned Earl than that of a layman, particularly when it seems also to coincide with common sense. Would it not then come to this: that although a majority in Parliament might think that a form of trust was not a good trust and that they would rather the trust had taken a different form, whether the trust be a private trust leaving £1 million to one of my noble friends instead of to another (Parliament might think that one noble Lord was more deserving than another) or a charitable trust, surely it would be for the testator to decide and for the law to prevail. Surely the testator is entitled to leave the thing as he pleases, and the law must construe his bequest. I hope we shall not hear any more about being "mingy," because if there is one thing more than any other that Parliament has to do, it is to be extraordinarily chary of interfering with the legally expressed wishes of testators and with the established law of the land.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It seems to me that in our discussion two points have emerged: one, that there is no legal doubt whatsoever that these pictures belong to us; and the other, which is not so clear, is whether a moral right would give them to Dublin. I suggest that it might be possible to reach a compromise solution, perhaps on the lines of Lord Baldwin's suggestion—namely, to make a gesture by giving these pictures to Dublin, subject to the understanding that the Irish Government shall agree to lend, say, half of them permanently back to us. On the one hand, more people will see these pictures if they are hung in the Tate Gallery than if they are hung in Dublin; on the other hand, we must recognise that there is a great feeling of moral injustice by the Irish, that they have, by a technicality, been deprived of these pictures. If we could find some compromise which would satisfy Irish feeling and yet allow the English public to go on seeing a large section of these pictures, we might remove a lot of bitterness from Irish and English relations on this subject, and perhaps satisfy our consciences with the thought that we have done a moral right.
  3.30 p.m.
  LORD MOYNE: I understand that I have a right of reply, and there are one or two matters with which I should like to deal. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has replied with his customary patience, care and good humour. But I do not feel that he gave me any answer to my case. He spoke of affidavits. I think he will find they were either by trustees or by people closely connected with those who wanted to keep the pictures in London, and that they were not in the least impartial witnesses, like Sir Alec Martin, whose conscience made him feel, and led him to state on oath, that he knew that Sir Hugh Lane intended these pictures to go to Dublin. It is to be remarked that the Committee, by a majority, found that Sir Hugh Lane did intend this to be a legal disposition. The noble Earl made one assertion with which I do not agree. He said that Sir Hugh Lane was concerned in the building of the Duveen Rooms; I do not think that is so. The point which is made by the other side, so to speak, is that a promise was given to Sir Joseph Duveen on June 9, 1916. I quote from an article which appeared

  1027
  in the Burlington Magazine of June, 1924:
  "On June 9, 1916, Sir Joseph Duveen being on the point of returning from America, Mr. MacColl saw Lord D'Abernon about the project and the latter secured a definite promise from Sir Joseph Duveen which turned upon the possession of the Lane pictures as a nucleus."
  I say that no trustee had a right to give such a promise. Lady Gregory had been seeing Lord Curzon, the most active of the London National Gallery Trustees, and had been assured that the whole matter was in the hands of legal advisers.
  I think I should quote from a speech made by Mr. W. B. Yeats in the Irish Senate on July 14, 1926. This is what he said:
  "On September 15, Lord Curzon wrote as follows: 'It seems to be a matter on which the executors will have formally to approach the Board who will no doubt consult their solicitors.'
  "A year later I was in London and heard privately that the National Gallery intended to have a gallery built for modern French pictures and to put the Lane collection into it. I told lady Gregory of this, and she wrote to Lord Curzon who answered as follows, on October 10, 1916: 'The matter is not in my hands nor at this moment even in the hands of the Board. They are waiting to be advised by their legal advisers, and in the interim it would not be right for any individual trustee to intervene.'"
  The date of that letter was October 10, 1916.It contains a promise which had already been given on June 9. The Duveen aspect of the matter was never argued before the Committee, or was never argued in such a way that those who were putting the case for bringing the pictures to Dublin were told. They had letters and evidence, but they were not told of that aspect and they did not argue it. They had no chance to do so.
  There is one other point upon which the noble Earl did not answer me. That is about the division of the collection which is legally envisaged by the Bill, and has actually been in practice for a long time. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, mentioned that the City of Dublin had failed to build a gallery within ten years. As I pointed out, there was the war and there were the troubles, and these people had been told that the pictures were not coming. So they pledged themselves to build a gallery. Legally, they are out of court anyway. It is only because some of them
  1028
  took a bold course and cast their bread upon the waters that the gallery was built. It was out of date; I have already conceded that. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said that on a matter of legal construction he would naturally agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, rather than with an ordinary barrister like myself. I would do the same. But the whole force of my plea was that there was no legal case—that it was purely a moral case.
  Feeling that no answer has been given to my case, feeling that the Committee has to decide on the facts before it; and feeling also that if there are other facts which Lord Selkirk has not been able to produce, they can be produced in another place, when we have passed my Amendment (for the matter will have to be considered in another place), I think that I should divide the House. The noble Earl promised during the Second Reading debate that he would look into the matter. He has done so with great care, but he has found nothing new. I welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, but that was a compromise suggestion, and compromise suggestions can be followed up afterwards. If they are followed up I think they should be publicly followed up in such form that the matter may be generally known. It is best that the whole intention should be known to the public, as sometimes in these cases it does not become generally known, with the result that nothing happens and everything fades out. I prefer the solution of an out-and-out transfer, and I think that is what we are in honour bound to do, however much it hurts. As I have intimated, I am disposed to press this matter to a Division.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There are just two points upon which I should like to put the noble Lord right with regard to these pictures. We know that the will makes no reference at all to keeping the collection together. There is no question of disagreeing with the terms of the will. Then, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has pointed out, in the final paragraph of the codicil we find this:
  "If within five years a Gallery is not forthcoming, then the group of pictures"—
  at the London National Gallery—
  "are to be sold and the proceeds go to fulfil the purpose of my will."
  LORD MOYNE: I have answers to these two points, if I may speak again.
  A NOBLE LORD: No.
  House resumed.

  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN NORTHERN RHODESIA
  3.48 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER):My Lords, I should like to interrupt proceedings for a few moments to make a statement similar to that which my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary is making in another place about constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia. My right honourable friend has agreed, at the request of the Elected Members of the Legislative Council, to advance the date of his visit to Northern Rhodesia, and he now proposes to arrive there early in January, to discuss the constitutional position with Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council. During his stay he will also meet members of the African Representative Council and have discussions with them.
  On Question, Whether the said new words shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 51.

  CONTENTS

  Huntingdon, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and kincardine.)

  Moyne, L. [Teller.]

  Pakenham, L. [Teller.]

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Goschen, V.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Hudson, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Samuel, V.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Swinton, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Woolton, V.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Reading, M.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Lloyd, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Mancroft, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Belstead, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Clwyd, L.

  Rea, L.

  Jowitt, E.

  Courthope, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Munster, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Rockley, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Freyberg, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Webb-Johnson, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Grantchester, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

  Furness, V.

  Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  In agreeing to pay this early visit, my right honourable friend has explained that, whatever may be the outcome of his discussions with the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council and with members of the African Representative Council during his visit, there will be no variation in the constitutional changes which are set out in Part II of his announcement of September 23 last.
  My right honourable friend has also confirmed that the reference to the franchise in Part III of that announcement related to future political development, and that he does not contemplate introducing any changes in the franchise to become effective during the life of the next Legislative Council (which he sees no reason to suppose will be less than the normal five years), unless all Parties are agreed in desiring such changes during that period and Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept them.
  In these circumstances, the Elected Members have decided to withdraw, with effect from December 9, their resignations from Government boards and committees, and Mr. G. B. Beckett and Lieutenant-Colonel E. M. Wilson have decided to

  1031
  withdraw their resignations from the Executive Council, with effect from the same date.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl warmly for the statement he has made, and to say how glad I am to hear that the Secretary of State has been able to fix a date for his visit to Northern Rhodesia, and also that the European Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council will now resume co-operation with the Government of the Territory. I should like to add one other comment. I feel sure that it would do a tremendous amount of good if the Secretary of State were able, during his time in Central Africa, to visit the adjoining Territory of Nyasaland. In view of the important changes that have taken place in Central Africa, I think it would be of great advantage to all the communities of the local population if they could have an opportunity of meeting the Secretary of State personally, and of expressing their views about local matters and about Central Africa generally.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly convey the views of the noble Earl to my right honourable friend.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could enlighten me on this. Does this declaration mean that, in effect, the present provisions, under which British-protected persons have no vote in Northern Rhodesia, will hold good not only until after the next election but until the election after that? In other words, does it mean that if no alteration is introduced during the period of the new Legislature, the subsequent Legislature will still be elected on the extremely limited basis which is now operative?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there will be no change in the franchise during the forthcoming election, which takes place in February; and, as I think I pointed out in the course of my remarks, the Secretary of State does not see any reason to believe that the new Legislative Council will not last its full period of five years. But there can be alterations in the franchise during the life of this coming Legislative Council if all the Parties are in agreement and if Her Majesty's Government approve.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has quite taken my point. My point is this. Is the possibility completely written off that a new electoral roll, or a new electoral system, might be introduced within the five years but before the next election? Could the election—not the immediate next election, but that following—be on a different basis?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next election will be fought on the existing franchise. The future depends on whether the franchise is altered during the period of the next Legislative Council.

  NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  3.55 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1. The noble Lord said: Clause 1 (3) is of great interest to all noble Lords who are trustees. It will have been noticed that this subsection practically puts its pen through the trustees appointed under Miss Knapping's will, who were carefully appointed, and transfers the funds of the Trust from one body to another—and that, as the Bill says, a body with very different objects. I should like to emphasise again that this subsection has nothing to do with the main objects of the Bill, and will not affect the Bill in the slightest degree—indeed, one wonders why it was included. In my opinion, this subsection is not wise, it is not justified and it is morally wrong. We have talked a great deal to-day about moral rights, and I was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, talk of the tradition of the House. In passing, I should like to say how pleased I am to see the noble Viscount back after his long absence.
  We have many sacred duties to perform in this country for the sake of the Commonwealth, since we are the centre of the Commonwealth; and one is that we faithfully carry out the terms of a will. In this case, I have the will with me, and if we are going to talk about the will it might be as well if I read a short extract to your Lordships. The will uses the words:
  "… in trust for the Director and Trustees for the time being of the National Gallery England and their heirs executors administrators and assigns Upon trust to apply the

  1033
  annual income thereof in the purchase for public exhibition in England Scotland and Wales of Works of Art being paintings in oil water-colour tempera or any other medium or sculpture by Artists of any Nationality living at or within 25 years before the time of the purchase And I empower the said Director and Trustees to frame a scheme for the administration of the said trust …."
  The first point one notices is the date of the will, which is important. The date of the will is 1932, and Miss Knapping died in 1935, only eighteen years ago. The date is important, because it raises the point: How soon can the will of a testator be disregarded? That is a difficult question to answer in regard to pictures, but not difficult, I think, with regard to the capital and the scheme.
  Your Lordships might have preferred, as my noble friend Lord Saltoun said, that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee as a hybrid Bill. I could not understand the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who said that it did not concern any private matter. It seems to me that if a private individual leaves £40,000 to the National Gallery, with a scheme to be carried out, and so on, then if Parliament says that the bequest is to go to somebody else, we are considerably concerned. It is most disturbing. If the Bill had been referred to a Committee as a hybrid Bill, it would then have been brought before the present trustee of the will. The present trustee seems to me to be a person to whom one would naturally refer. But he has not been referred to. I wonder whether the noble and learned Earl knows that there are still proceeds of the will to come. We have not even got the whole capital sum, and we are already giving away part of what we have got. It will concern a private individual, because he can only give the money to the National Gallery—perhaps that has been provided for, I do not know.
  I should like to ask three questions. First, is the will being carried out, or is there some difficulty? Secondly, is there a compelling reason for altering the will? In my view, unless there is some compelling reason we should hesitate to alter a will made in 1932. My third question is: Does Clause 1 (3) carry out the will? With regard to the third question, all I will say is that I cannot accept the reasoning which my noble friend Lord Selkirk put forward on the Second Reading. He said that they were carrying
  1034
  out the will "as nearly as possible." It must be as nearly as possible if a change is made, but to change the Trustees, to give the money to another body, a body which will have completely different ideas as to what the ultimate collection of pictures is to be, is not carrying out "as nearly as possible" the will which Miss Knapping made. I spoke on that point on the Second Reading so I will not detain your Lordships on it again.
  Is the will being carried out? Yes, up to a point. The first thing the Trustees had to do was to frame a scheme for the administration of the Trust. There was one thing I meant to say, in order that your Lordships may be clear. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, when he interrupted me on the Second Reading, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 9), col. 457):
  "Does he know that the Knapping fund has for years been in the hands of the Tate Gallery—that it has been transferred to the Tate Gallery—on the ground that it was intended to deal with contemporary works?"
  That rather surprised me, and I think it was, quite unintentionally, misleading. I went round to the National Gallery and asked them. They told me that they still hold the funds; that they have signed a cheque for every picture which has been bought, and that the only power given to the Tate Gallery was the responsibility for choosing a picture. So the funds are still with the National Gallery. After the scheme had been formed, the next step was to buy works of art for public exhibition in England, Scotland and Wales. Those are not alternatives. The words are not "England, Scotland or Wales": they refer to all three countries. The National Gallery, quite correctly, passed this responsibility to the Tate Gallery, and the Tate Gallery proceeded to purchase the pictures. They bought 191 pictures, of which 118 are hanging in the Tate, sixty are in store, nine are lent to Arts Councils, two to the Ministry of Works, one is in the United States of America, one in New Zealand, none is in Scotland and none in Wales. The will was not carefully adhered to.
  The next step was that the Tate Gallery was to buy pictures or works of art by artists "living at or within twenty-five years before the time of purchase." What has misled nearly everybody I

  1035
  spoke to about this will is that they at once said, "Modern pictures—Tate Gallery." The Trustees thought, "They can carry it out. The best thing is to pass it to them." They had a perfect right to pass it to the Tate Gallery, but not to take that control from the fund. As a matter of fact, the pictures purchased—quite a few dozen or so; I have not counted them but the Tate Gallery kindly sent me a list—do not come within the dates mentioned. I mention that point only for one reason—we are not considering to-day whether the will was accurately carried out. I mention it for the reason that I think it shows that it is essential for the Trustees, who have the responsibility of seeing that the will is carried out, to keep control. I think that is the essential point. The pictures may be eighty years old—indeed, since the will, the National Gallery has bought pictures by Degas, Daumier and Renoir, and they are now hanging in that Gallery. History will repeat itself; it may be that the National Gallery will be glad to have the benefit of this money at some time in the future, and I think it is wise for them not to part with the capital fund. My second question is: Is there any compelling reason why the Trust must be altered? I can see no reason. The Trustees can carry it out, and if the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery were not prepared to carry out the Trust, they would not have accepted the trusteeship. I think the corollary is true, that, since they have accepted the trusteeship, we should leave the power with the Trustees of the National Gallery.
  Now we come to the important part of the question, and that is the scheme itself. I must read the end of the will, and I would ask your Lordships to think what tremendous power this gives to the Trustees. The will says:
  "… I empower the said Director and Trustees to frame a scheme for the administration of the said Trust including the investment of the trust funds and to declare the trusts upon which the said trust estate and the Works of Arts purchased from the income thereof shall be held as fully as I myself could have done if then living and with power to vary the said scheme from time to time in the discretion of the said Director and Trustees or other Trustees or Trustee of the said Trust. …"
  1036
  Miss Knapping was a wonderful woman with a tremendous vision. She created a valuable Trust which must have an income, I think, of some £1,600 a year. The Report and others have referred to £900, but they have recently averaged another £700, and there is still more to come. Think of having that for all time! What power the Trustees have! Power to encourage the right type of art, power to encourage the right artists, power to help any gallery in England, Scotland and Wales. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to listen to this point, because he has said that it is awkward for one gallery to buy for another. But under this Will the Trustees can appoint any gallery to buy for them. They can in their discretion make any scheme as Miss Knapping herself, if living, could have done. It is a wonderful Trust to be given responsibility for. If they find that some direction they had given—for instance, to the Tate Gallery—is not satisfactorily carried out, they can say, "We will give this power to the Victoria and Albert Museum and enable them to buy some statues, or to the National Gallery of Scotland, perhaps one year in ten or something like that, to buy a picture." But, in my view, they must retain control.
  I would only say, in conclusion, that if you were giving such powers in your will, would you not be careful to get the right trustees—trustees whose judgment you relied upon and whose integrity was undoubted? Miss Knapping chose the National Gallery, with its great tradition. The question we should think about is not: Do you, in your Lordships' House, think that the best people to administer the Trust are the Tate Gallery? The point which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made on Second Reading was that the main object was how the Trust could most conveniently be carried out. But that is not the point. The point is, what did Miss Knapping say? She chose the National Gallery; and I cannot think that it is right for us, within eighteen years of Miss Knapping's death, to say that we know better. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Kinnaird.)
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: I rise to support, very briefly, what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me a dangerous precedent that we are considering, in wanting to turn over the terms of a will so soon after the testator's death. I have a copy of the will in my hand, and there is nothing vague in it. It is, indeed, very decisive: there is no question of looseness about what Miss Knapping wants to do. I am no lawyer, but I understand that the money was left to the Trustees of the National Gallery. The only other party that might be favoured in this case is the body in Shoeburyness, supposing those Trustees find that they cannot carry out their Trust. The Tate, it may well be, deals with modern paintings more than the National Gallery does; but I do not think that was what Miss Knapping wanted. No doubt it would appeal to the bureaucratic mind, which likes to make everything neat and tidy, that modern paintings should go to one place and other paintings to another. But personally I do not agree—and I do not think Miss Knapping would have agreed. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I support in part, if not in whole, the view of the noble Lord who has just spoken. This money was left to the National Gallery in 1935. It seemed to the Trustees of the National Gallery—because the will referred to modern purchases—sensible that the income should be transferred to the Tate Gallery; and, if I may say so, there is very little difference of opinion between what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, said and the intervention of the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench opposite. In effect, the income was given—whoever paid the cheque—to the Tate Gallery. The National Gallery was no doubt persuaded the more to do so by the fact that at that period the Tate had no Government grant. Three years later, the Trustees of the National Gallery sought legal advice and were told that it was in order for them to allow the Tate to use this income. That position has been accepted by everybody—by the Treasury auditors, by counsel and, indeed, now by Parliament, or at any rate by the Government.
  1038
  It was also accepted by the Standing Commission on Museums, which stated:
  "We have not examined the terms of this bequest, but if it should not be found to be contrary to the testator's wishes we suggest that this fund should be handed over to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery."
  If the Trustees of the National Gallery have erred, they have erred in good company—or, at any rate, in fairly good company. What they thought they were doing was both sensible and, in the circumstances, convenient. This Bill merely gives legislative effect to what was thought to be uncontroversial.
  I find the words in the will absolutely clear. I think, too, that Miss Knapping's intentions are clear. She left this money to the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery, to apply that money for certain purposes; and she empowered them to frame a scheme for the administration of the said Trust. Surely nothing could be clearer than that. Surely all the legal advice to the contrary must fail, in view of the words, which are perfectly clear. If Miss Knapping had wished to leave this bequest to the Tate surely she would have left it to the Tate, and if she had done so, her instruction to make a scheme would have been nonsense. That is sufficient reason to suppose that she meant what she said. We cannot tell, of course, what her purposes were. It may be that she thought it desirable that another purchasing body should be set up, an unofficial and independent body. She might have thought that the Chantrey Bequest, as it was then worked, was Charybdis and the Tate Scylla, and that her new committee would steer a middle course between the two. But whatever her wishes were, is it not a fact that we do not, under these provisions, meet them?
  She did not—and here I differ from the noble Lord who has spoken—leave this money to the National Gallery outright, and we must not assume that she did. She left it to the National Gallery to prepare a scheme; and my feeling is that the National Gallery should now set about preparing a scheme. I think that a scheme could be devised which would not only work but would be useful. The scheme should be run, I think, by a committee set up by the National Gallery but independent both of that Gallery and of the Tate Gallery. No doubt the Tate

  1039
  and the National Gallery would wish to have on that committee representatives to deal with the matter. To this committee, as I visualise it, the different Galleries would be able to appeal for help. The Tate could ask for assistance for one picture; Scotland and Wales—which have been forgotten—should most certainly have the right to do so for their countries. I would add that I think provincial museums also should be represented; perhaps even the Arts Council should also have these rights. Miss Knapping, wished to buy modern pictures. She does not say anywhere that they should be confined to the Tate Gallery. Such a scheme as I have suggested would put the Tate and the other Galleries in exactly the same position in relation to the committee as they find themselves to-day with the National Art-Collections Fund or the Contemporary Art Society, to which they turn for help. But what is more, in this case the powers of this new committee would be so limited—or, rather, the purchases that it could make would be so narrow in scope—that within that purpose it would be a far more effective body than any of the others.
  I put forward these suggestions merely because the matter clearly needs careful thought. I hope that that thought may be given. As has been said, the provision transferring these funds appears in a clause which deals with the separation of the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery. That is the essential clause of this Bill—indeed, I think it is the only clause which should have been included. This provision relating to the Knapping Bequest is not an essential part of that clause; in fact, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The clause deals with autonomy. The suggestion which I have made will in no way affect the autonomy of the Tate. In no way is it a suggestion that another body should dictate to the Tate what the Tate should have. In no way does it suggest a lack of confidence in the Tate. The relationship of the committee to the Tate would be precisely that of the National Art Collection Fund and the Tate, which no one for one moment suggests is in any way derogatory to the independence of the Tate. But what I regard as the most important part is that we should follow the words and
  1040
  the meaning of this will. Those words and that meaning are perfectly clear. I think Miss Knapping's intention is expressed: that she meant what she said, and that she said what she meant. I hope that my noble friend who will reply to this point will consider that the admirable answer he gave on the last Amendment with regard to the Lane pictures would answer my point completely.
  4.22 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to express my view of this matter, which does not quite coincide with the view which has just been expressed. The first thing, as I agree, is to get the meaning of the will clear—and here I part company with the noble Earl who has just spoken. The will gave this money:
  "in trust for the Director and Trustees for the time being of the National Gallery … to apply the annual income thereof in the purchase for public exhibition in England, Scotland and Wales of works of art, being paintings in oil, water-colour, tempora or other media or sculpture by artists of any nationality living at or within twenty-five years of the purchase"
  and it goes on:
  "and I empower the Director and Trustees to frame a scheme."
  The noble Earl was not quite right in saying it was not given absolutely to Trustees. It was. But in addition to that gift, they had a further right given to them: they were empowered—I repeat "empowered"—to frame a scheme if they wanted to. That was the will.
  What happened, if I may just recite it again, was this. The lady died in, I think, 1935, and in November, 1938, the Trustees of the National Gallery took legal advice about this matter. Here I part company with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. He kept talking about the transfering of this matter from one body to another. That is the whole fallacy, I think. This Bill for the first time constitutes two bodies. Up to this time the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery have been, to all intents and purposes, one. They are Siamese twins and they are being divided. It is a fallacy to talk about money which was given to one body now being transferred to another. What happened, therefore, was this. In that the National Gallery are concerned primarily not with modern pictures but with ancient pictures, and in that the National Gallery have nothing whatever

  1041
  to do with sculpture—and the purchase of sculpture was one of the express objects of the will—it was decided in 1938 by the Trustees of the National Gallery, after taking legal advice, which they were entitled to do, that they would hold this fund and make it available for the Trustees of the Tate Gallery, which is part of the one concern. I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord. I quite see that I did.
  What happened, then, was not that the National Gallery divested themselves of the securities representing the fund—I suppose they gave a promise that the income should be paid over to the Tate Gallery. Whether they did so or not, the Tate Gallery thereafter used to make the purchases and send in the bills to the National Gallery, and the National Gallery would pay the money. And year after year, as this was done, the executors of the Knapping estate were informed of what had been done and what had been spent. Nothing was kept back from them. They knew perfectly well that the Tate Gallery was undertaking this task and, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has pointed out, the Standing Commission on Museums suggested that that which was in fact then being done should be regularised and that the fund should be made over to the Tate Gallery in the way I have suggested.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: They said they had not read the will.
  EARL JOWITT: They did say they had not read the will.
  LORD KINNAIRD: What I said was, not that the executors had not been informed of the purchases, but that they told me that they had not been informed of this Bill.
  EARL JOWITT: I am sorry they were not informed of the Bill, but I know nothing about that. No doubt it is true. It is quite true that the Standing Commission said they had not read the will and were not aware of the terms of the will, and their recommendation was conditional. They said: "We have not examined the terms of this bequest, but if it should not be found to be contrary to the testator's wishes, then we suggest …" I did not see the legal advice taken by the National Gallery in
  1042
  1938; I presume it was given by the Treasury Solicitor or possibly by the Attorney-General: I do not know. I take it, however, that it was based upon the fact that the Tate Gallery was to all intents and purposes in those days, as it is to-day, part of the National Gallery. That should be borne in mind in considering this matter.
  I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to the Government will not accept this Amendment to-day. I should certainly not question for a moment the propriety of his saying that the matter will be looked into carefully to see what the right position is; and, if possible, between now and Report stage some of us who are interested and the noble Lord who moved this Amendment might meet him and see what is the right course to take. But, for my part, I look at it in this way. Here we are separating these Siamese twins for the first time. Therefore it becomes necessary, for the first time, to consider which of the specific bequests shall be allocated to the one and which to the other. This, being a bequest which concerns modern pictures and sculpture, is, I should have thought, more appropriate for the Tate Gallery than for the National Gallery and should go to them. For those reasons, I hope that the Bill will stand as drafted, though, as I say, I welcome inquiry into the matter.
  With regard to the other point, the noble Lord stated that some purchases of pictures had been made outside the twenty-five years. I was rather concerned to hear that, because I have been for seven years a Trustee of the National Gallery and also a Trustee of the Tate Gallery. I was a little alarmed to consider that I, as a Trustee of the Tate Gallery and being at the time Lord Chancellor, had been guilty of breaches of the Trust. I looked through the list and I am not conscious that any picture was bought outside the appropriate twenty-five years, except in the year 1939—there may be other instances—when a picture by Copley and two pictures by Ward were bought, manifestly outside the twenty-five years' time. I do not know what the explanation is, but I am glad to say that I was not a Trustee then. I did not become a Trustee until 1946, which was seven years afterwards, so I knew nothing about that. There may be

  1043
  a perfectly good explanation. I confess I do not know what it is, but I do not feel compelled to stand in the dock about that particular breach of the Trust.
  LORD METHUEN: I did not intend to intervene at this stage at all, but as the best legal brains have been considering this matter without arriving at a definite conclusion I should like to appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to consider very carefully what my noble friend Lord Crawford has just suggested as a way out of the difficulty. It seems to me admirable in various ways; it gets rid for the moment of this difficult and controversial question about which at first sight my noble friend Lord Kinnaird seemed to be on a pretty good wicket, but which on closer examination (I speak as a past Trustee and I know perfectly well the difficulties) is not practical politics. But I think the ingenious and excellent suggestion by Lord Crawford should be very carefully considered, because I believe it is a way out of the difficulty, and I appeal to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill to give it serious consideration.
  LORD SALTOUN: I had intended to delay speaking until I had heard the noble Earl's reply, but the Committee will recollect that a few moments ago he was with the crowd round Caesar's corpse shouting "The will!" and now, I suppose, he will be on the other side: he will be deluded by the passionate eloquence of Mark Antony (the noble and learned Earl) into forgetting the will altogether. However, this seems to me to be a question of the strict interpretation of a private will. After giving full weight to the "Siamese twin" operation that is being carried out by this Bill, that is still my opinion. I cannot help being very much surprised by the finding of the Examiners, in the light of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Kinnaird on Second Reading. I think it must be a borderline case, and I beg the noble Earl to examine this subsection before the next stage of the Bill, to see whether we cannot drop it until such time as the Trustees of the National Gallery may have framed a scheme.
  I should like to add a point about one of the main purposes of this bequest, which is to buy modern pictures. The taste of the present age is that our
  1044
  modern pictures shall be hung in the Tate Gallery. I am not going to enter into the argument that as London is the capital of England, Scotland and Wales, the Tate Gallery is in all three kingdoms. I do say, however, that the taste of the future may be to hang modern pictures as closely as possible to ancient pictures, for the value of comparison. If tastes change in that way it will naturally be better that this bequest should be vested where it was originally vested, in those ladies and gentlemen who are par excellence—the Trustees of the National Gallery. Therefore, I beg the noble Earl who is to reply, to say something conciliatory on those lines and to set this question at rest for the moment.
  THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: As the present chairman of the Trustees of the National Gallery, I feel that I should intervene shortly in this debate. I should like first to defend the wisdom of my predecessors in 1935, and above all in 1938, when under the very competent chairmanship and guidance of my noble friend Lord Crawford they decided that the most sensible thing to do was to hand over the administration of the Knapping Fund to the Tate. At that time, it was, I repeat, Lord Crawford who was chairman of the Trustees. Certain play has been made with the fact that Miss Knapping made the Trustees of the National Gallery her Trustees rather than those of the Tate, at a time when the Tate was in existence and had Trustees. I think that her lawyers told her that the Trustees of the Tate did not possess the property which they administered, and it was for that reason that she chose the perfectly well constituted body of the Trustees of the National Gallery to administer her estate. But she gave them very wide powers.
  We have been told that they did not draw up a scheme. What exactly does that mean? You can take a piece of paper and write at the top "A scheme" and below you can write "We hereby devise under the will of the late Miss Knapping, to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery …." That would have been drawing up a scheme, and in point of fact that was what the Trustees did. We had a special meeting of the Board of the National Gallery this morning, and we were somewhat disturbed to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has

  1045
  "nosed out," that the terms of Miss Knapping's will have not invariably been observed by those who were administering her funds. In view of that, the Board of the National Gallery do not wish to press for the retention of this clause in the Bill, and they would not mind the dropping of the clause. If that were done, I think we could promise that some sort of ad hoc committee on the lines suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, would be set up, which would, I think, be a more satisfactory way of administering the Trust than that which has hitherto been followed.
  4.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Clearly, we are going to have a rather controversial afternoon. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of the main purpose of Clause 1. It is to separate the Tate from the National Gallery. If I may make one other observation, the Government have no anxiety—after all, we have had agreement on the principles of this Bill—to force through every detail of the Bill at the point of a bayonet. What we want is this. These are national treasures and, so far as we can, we want to get the common-sense judgment of your Lordships as to what is the most sensible way of handling this matter. Lord Kinnaird has done a useful thing in casting a spotlight on a piece of public property. He has, however, approached this matter rather in the manner of a Scotland Yard detective, pulling up a board and finding a skeleton in a Government Department, and then accusing the Department of knowing that it was there and doing nothing about it. That is not really the case.
  I disagree with my noble friends Lord Crawford and Lord Amulree, who say that it is a clear will. I venture to suggest that it is an exceedingly difficult will to interpret. That is the basis of our trouble. If it had been a simple will to interpret, this difficulty would never have arisen. I would ask the Committee to look at the matter a little more closely. My impression is that Miss Knapping had a fairly clear idea of her purpose, but a very slight idea of the means of carrying it out—indeed, that appears from other passages of her will. She has left the residue of the estate to be dealt with under paragraph 9, which says:
  "The Trustees"—
  1046
  that is, her executors—
  "shall stand possessed of the residue … in trust for the Director and Trustees for the time being of the National Gallery, England, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, upon trust."
  I think it must be fairly clear that in regard to the National Gallery, the words "heirs, executors and administrators" are nonsense. Then we come to the word "assigns." Of that word "assigns" I think, you can take two views. One is that it is sui generis of the previous words and is equally nonsense. That is fortified by the view that for trustees to have the power of assignation is contrary to the whole principle of trusteeship. Alternatively, you can take the opposite view, that if anyone puts such an odd word into a trust document it is put there for a special purpose and we have to accept it; and in any case, as it stands the effect is to give the trustees the power of assignation. I think it is anyone's guess what this word really means—indeed, this whole sentence has little meaning.
  With regard to the next paragraph in the will (I will not read it again) I think that is the central point of the clause. It is the clear intention that the money should be used for buying what I should describe as modern works of art. I do not think that the noble Lord can escape from that. It is a provision for buying modern paintings and sculpture. Now I come to the last part. There are here two matters: one is the framing of a scheme, and the other the power to vary. It is a fairly wide power. I think there is no doubt that the National Gallery Trustees were correct in what they did. They were fully empowered to take the action which they did. Lord Kinnaird has suggested that we are disregarding the will. I really do not think we are doing that. I think the noble Lord should attach some importance to the words in Clause 1 (1),
  "independent of the National Gallery Trustees"—
  that is to say, that the Tate Gallery should be entirely independent. I suggest that we should not set up a situation in which one Gallery is buying pictures for another Gallery. If we do that, I am sure that we shall get very much into the old kind of controversy which used to reign in respect of the Chantrey Bequest and all the problems which were involved.

  1047
  Lord Kinnaird asked what is the compelling reason for this provision. The compelling reason, as Lord Jowitt has said, is a division of partnership. We are now in a sense dividing up a partnership of two, one very senior and the other very junior; and it is not unreasonable, apart from other considerations, to make some provision, where it is clearly appropriate, for the former junior partner. I suggest that the central intention of the will is the purchase of modern pictures for public exhibition. For many years it has been the accepted policy that the Tate should buy modern pictures. Now, for the first time, Parliament, by Statute, is giving formal recognition of this situation. We are laying down the duty of the National Gallery as being to purchase works of significance, of established merit or significance, of all countries and all periods, whereas the Tate Gallery should buy British pictures and modern pictures. I think one must assume that the Tate Gallery Trustees are peculiarly well qualified for that sort of thing.
  The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has suggested the setting up of a separate committee. But there are difficulties about the scheme which he suggested. First with regard to ownership. To whom would pictures belong under a separate scheme? Secondly, I doubt whether the words in the will are enough to set up such a trust. We can certainly frame a scheme, but I doubt whether the words "frame a scheme" are enough to do more than deal with administration, as opposed to the vesting of a trust. Supposing they did that, that scheme would certainly be revoked. I suggest that it is difficult to set up a committee whose powers may at any time be revoked by someone outside. I ask the noble Earl: Does he want to set up another committee? Is the amount concerned here sufficient to justify the setting up of an entirely new organisation for the purchase of works of art? I still think that what we propose is the common-sense thing to do at the present time. I think that we have put a common-sense interpretation upon the intention of this will, and I certainly think that the most satisfactory course, from the point of view of the administration, is to do what is suggested in the Bill. The Trustees have known about the Bill; they have known what is happening, and they have raised
  1048
  no objection to it. I think this is a successful way of clarifying the administrative position. If your Lordships think it does not do so, we will certainly try again. I shall be glad to arrange any meetings, between now and the Report stage, that may seem desirable.
  LORD SALTOUN: The noble Earl seemed to me to identify the Trustees of the National Gallery very closely with the National Gallery itself. Is it impossible for them to exercise a trust without special reference to the National Gallery?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sorry but I am afraid I have not understood the noble Lord's point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): May I intervene for a few moments just to say this? Surely there is one point which ought to be considered here, and that is a point which particularly occurred to me after I had heard what the noble Duke the Duke of Wellington said. Ought we not to consider whether it would not be competent for the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery to frame a scheme which would be identical with the provisions of this will. I throw out that suggestion. It is exactly what the Duke of Wellington and his co-Trustees have in fact done, though, as he has said, they have not written it down on paper. It seems to me, after studying this matter carefully, that they could make a scheme which would incorporate the terms of this Bill. If so, they can assent by way of a scheme to the terms of the Bill. The only doubt I have had about it arose when I read the words at the conclusion of the Trust:
  "with power to vary the said scheme from time to time."
  It seemed to me that if the scheme were embodied in an Act of Parliament that was a power which they could fairly disclaim. So, if your Lordships will forgive my intervention I suggest that we should get together and consider, before the Report stage, whether that aspect is not worth considering and whether the Bill cannot stand as it is, it being recognised, as is stated in the Preamble, that this is a scheme of which the Director and Trustees of the National Gallery have approved. I throw out that suggestion.
  EARL JOWITT: I think, if I may say so, that is a very valuable suggestion. If it were followed out I believe that we should get the substance of the Bill and we should get it in a way which would be entirely unexceptionable. If I can be of any assistance I shall be very glad to take part in discussions on the lines which have been suggested.
  THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: I think I may say, on behalf of the Trustees of the National Gallery, that we should be most ready, in consultation with others interested, to undertake the task which the Lord Chancellor has indicated.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very glad indeed to accept the suggestion which has been made, and I thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his assistance in finding a solution. If the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, will withdraw his Amendment I shall be only too pleased to do what I can to arrange the necessary discussions.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I have been greatly interested in what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I cannot altogether agree with the interpretation of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on some point of detail. There is the question as to whether the National Gallery Trustees can give to anyone their duty of buying pictures. As Lord Crawford has said, the crux of the matter is the scheme. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, says that he is willing to consider it and the Lord Chancellor has made a most valuable contribution. I understand that if a scheme is considered I shall retain the right to reserve my Amendment and put it down again at the Report stage if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to-day, but retaining the right to put it down on Report stage, though I hope that we shall have reached agreement before then.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Allocation of gifts and bequests
  (2) The Treasury may by order contained in a statutory instrument add any institution in the United Kingdom to those listed in the
  1050
  First Schedule to this Act and the reference in the foregoing subsection to that Schedule shall be construed accordingly.
  4.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to delete subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I should like to make it clear that in moving this Amendment in no wise do I quarrel or disagree with what is suggested in the Bill. The institutions listed in the First Schedule are unexceptionable and it is perfectly right that they should be there. I also agree that the Government should have power to add institutions to the list, but I disagree with the machinery for doing this; and that is why I have put down this Amendment. I think the powers given are too wide and are not well enough defined.
  Subsection (2) reads:
  "The Treasury may by order contained in a statutory instrument add any institution in the United Kingdom to those listed in the First Schedule to this Act."
  I think that "any institution" is a very wide expression. It could mean, I suppose, a prison or a lunatic asylum. The subsection does not even say "public institution"; it may be a private institution. Manifestly the intention of the Bill is not to use the provision in that way, and I am rather perturbed about this wide use of a term when there is little Parliamentary control over the matter. I would suggest to the noble Earl that if he is going to use such a wide term the procedure should be a positive and not a negative one; and if he would agree to alter that accordingly, I should be only too glad to withdraw my Amendment. Alternatively, he might agree to define "institution" in a more precise way. Perhaps the list could be limited to museums and art galleries of local authorities of a certain size, or something of that kind. Your Lordships will note that this subsection also refers to Clause 5. If paintings of importance and value are going to be lent or transferred under Clause 5 to other institutions, it is important that Parliament should watch carefully the institutions added to the list. I did not put down this Amendment with any hostile intention, but in order to persuade the Government to define the provision more clearly or to put it under closer control of Parliament. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I rise to support the noble Earl because I think this provision goes too far, in regard both to subsection (1) of Clause 2 and Clause 5. I have been careful not to put down any Amendments to Clauses 1, 2 and 3, because I have never been a Trustee of the National Gallery and I do not know its practical working. I have, however, been on the boards of most of the other big galleries in London, except the Tate, and I have been on the Standing Commission on Museums for a number of years, so I feel I have some right to say a few words on the matter. We have argued the question of wills, bequests and gifts for the last two hours, and it seems to me that we should ask ourselves: Is any body ever likely to give a bequest again if it is going to be altered within twenty-five or thirty-five years? We ought to be very careful that we do not dry up the source of gifts and bequests. In subsection (1) of this clause there is reference to Section 3 of the National Gallery Act, 1856, which relates to gifts or bequests where the donor or testator has made no special provision. Does it not strike one that thirty or forty years ago a great many people made bequests or gifts without the slightest hesitation, in the belief that those bequests would not be altered? Yet here we are, after a few years, altering them. I do not believe that ever entered anybody's head. They trusted in the good faith of the Trustees and thought it was perfectly all right. Had they realised that their bequests were to be altered, there might have been many more conditions put down in the old days.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think there is any question here of the good faith of Trustees. What will happen under this clause is simply that if someone leaves a picture to the nation, instead of its going automatically to the National Gallery it can go to another institution. I do not think there is any question of good faith involved at all. I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has a point here. He will see that a certain number of national institutions are named in the Schedule, and, frankly, we do not intend
  1052
  to extend the list beyond national institutions. I agree that the word "institution" is rather wide and it may well be that something better could be thought of. I do not know whether he really wants a positive procedure: that seems to me to be rather cumbersome. If the noble Earl feels strongly about it, we might talk it over. The noble Earl wants to see something more definite, to ensure that these institutions are national institutions of standing. For instance, a national modern gallery might be set up in Scotland or elsewhere. If the noble earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will have the matter looked at between now and Report stage.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The intention of my Amendment is to safeguard these pictures by ensuring that the institutions to which they are loaned or transferred are national. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Powers of lending exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees
  4.—(1) The National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees shall respectively have power to lend pictures or other works of art vested in them—

  (a) for public exhibition, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; or

  (b) for display—

  (i) in a public building or official residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for the furnishing of which the Minister of Works is responsible; or

  (ii) in the official residence of the Governor of a colony.

  (2) A loan under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall require the consent of the Treasury and shall be effected through the Minister of Works.
  (3) A loan under this section shall be made for such time and subject to such conditions as the Trustees in question may determine.
  (4) In the case of a picture or other work of art which has been given or bequeathed, the powers conferred by this section shall not be exercisable—

  (a) until fifteen years have elapsed since the date on which the property passed to the nation, unless the donor or his personal representatives or the personal representatives of the testator, as the case may be, have consented to the exercise of those powers; or

  1053

  (b) in any manner inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest unless either twenty-five years have elapsed since the said date, or the donor or his personal representatives or the personal representatives of the testator, as the case may be, have consented to the exercise of those powers in that manner.

  (5) In this section the expression "colony" includes a protectorate or protected State within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and a United Kingdom trust territory as defined in that Act, and the expression "Governor" has the same meaning as in that Act.
  (6) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for the provisions of the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883, and the National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Act, 1935; but nothing in this subsection shall affect the terms of any loan made before the coming into operation of this Act.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
  "(a) for public exhibition in the United Kingdom; or"
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment and Amendments 10 and 11 are in a sense alternatives. Perhaps it will be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak on them together. They are all designed to protect earlier pictures, in particular foreign pictures, from the dangers of travelling abroad. I think my first Amendment is the best one, because though the words may be incorrect—and they could easily be altered—the intention is to preserve the status quo and allow, as to-day, only British pictures to be lent abroad. The only exception to that is one which personally if am reluctant to accept—namely, that under the first Amendment pictures can be lent to Embassies and the offices of Colonial Governors. It is not that I object to their having the pictures, but because I am certain that the right way to do it, as has been pressed for many years, is that the Ministry of Works should make the equivalent of what is called in France the Garde Meuble, by which they could buy decorative and fine pictures, tapestry and so on, with which to decorate those houses. The Amendment to refuse permission to allow panel pictures to go out of this country is not as good an Amendment, because it allows many of the later masterpieces freedom to travel; and on that point I much prefer the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, which would include gesso and metal, as well as the wooden panel to which my Amendment was
  1054
  limited. Even better than that Amendment, I think, would be the Amendment of a date limit of the year 1700, which would, at any rate, protect some of the later masterpieces. But, as I say, these are, in a sense, alternatives, and, from my point of view, by far the best Amendment is that which would prevent the lending abroad of foreign pictures.
  As your Lordships will remember, the case for the lending abroad of foreign pictures is not a new one. It came before this House in 1930, and was rejected; it came before your Lordships in 1935, and was again rejected. In 1935, while this House refused to allow foreign pictures to be lent abroad, it made a compromise by which British pictures should be allowed to go abroad. Your Lordships' House did so, I think, for three reasons. The first was that there should be a measure of reciprocity to other countries which lent us their treasures, and that we should therefore be allowed to lend British treasures in return. In the second place, it was because British art was virtually unknown on the Continent, extremely badly represented in the Continental museums, and completely disregarded, and it was felt that it should be better known. Thirdly, it was because the risks to a British picture are, on the whole, far less than the risks to a foreign picture, for the simple reason that, for the most part, British pictures were painted in the eighteenth century and later, whereas the more important foreign picture were painted before that date. But those of your Lordships who accepted this compromise did so, as the debates will show, with considerable reluctance. I am sure they expected that the compromise which they had reached would be honoured, and I, personally, am sorry that we are asked again to reverse the position. I hope that the position will not be reversed and that we shall continue to exercise the status quo.
  The reasons against lending foreign pictures, or, indeed, all pictures, are primarily questions of danger. Everyone who knows anything about these matters and who has been concerned in them would accept the fact, without question, that the dangers are often very great indeed. Those dangers are of two kinds. The first is common to all pictures, whether British or foreign; that is to say, dangers of theft, of travel, of fire, of mishandling. I could give your

  1055
  Lordships many examples but I will tell you only of cases with which I have been concerned myself during the last two years. One was a collection of British water colours which was sent abroad. The truck in which this cargo was held was placed in a siding, and next to it was pushed a wagon with film waste. A young man who had a private cinema went through this truck of film waste to see whether there was anything that would suit his own private cinema. I need hardly say that he left behind in that film waste a lighted cigarette: there was a large conflagration, and these drawings were all seriously damaged.
  Let me tell your Lordships what has happened in the last two years in Edinburgh, to pictures from the National Gallery of Scotland. Three pictures which we have lent abroad have returned with flakes of paint off their surface. A fourth picture, one of our most famous pictures, was returned from the Continental gallery to which we lent it, with the fillet which we had placed to keep the glass from touching the canvas removed, with the result that the painted surface of this famous and precious picture was rubbing against the glass throughout its journey from the Continent. A fifth picture we sent to Italy. It arrived in Italy with water having been poured over the packing case, and its condition was quite appalling. The paint was flaking off and blistering, and the picture had to undergo a major operation that is to say, the operation of relining, which, as your Lordships know, means putting it on different canvas and cleaning it from top to bottom. In making these inquiries, I asked the Director of the Gallery: "Is it true that every picture we have lent during this year has been damaged?" He answered: "Oh, no. The Greco we lent to France has not been damaged. It arrived back perfectly safely, but it was sent to the Duke of Devonshire at Chatsworth and not to the National Gallery of Scotland." I myself lent to an exhibition in Italy, which closed two months ago, two early Italian pictures. I received a letter to say that they would be returned to me "during the second decade of November." Whatever the "second decade of November" might be, I take it that it was over by Novem-
  1056
  ber 20, but no word about those pictures has been received. This is typical of what we all suffer, and what we all know happens, and typical of the risks which I hope this House will not be prepared to take in regard to the earlier pictures.
  Those risks, however, are common risks to every picture, and what we are more particularly concerned with to-day is the special risks which attach more to foreign pictures, and, in particular, to the panel pictures, which are referred to in my Amendment and in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. These panel pictures date from the fourteenth century onwards: they are on wood, friable, dry, worm-eaten, and so fragile and delicate that the least shock may disintegrate them; so much so, that they are affected even by changes of temperature and humidity. Because of the fragility of these pictures, which to-day we are asked to allow to be sent abroad, the National Gallery have made an air-conditioned room. There the conditions are ideal—or at any rate, so the scientists tell us—in that there is a mean level of temperature and a mean level of humidity, which prevents contraction, expansion and all the different things that happen to these fragile and precious pictures.
  But while air conditioning removes one danger, it most certainly creates another, and one which is most relevant in your Lordships' consideration to-day. It creates the danger that when once the picture has been kept in an air-conditioned room it becomes more than ever susceptible to the changes in the atmosphere. We saw this in practice very clearly after the pictures had been in their war-time caves, in their war-time hiding place, where we had been able to build rooms where, for the first time, they had the ideal conditions of air-conditioning. But some months after they returned to the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of Trafalgar Square the process of damage began to show. I think it must be laid down, therefore, that no picture which has been in an air-conditioned room should be allowed to travel abroad and suffer the changes of atmosphere and temperature which inevitably would follow such a journey.
  This air-conditioned room in the National Gallery is the first of other rooms. Already work is being done on a

  1057
  series of other rooms, which will be open in a few months; and it is intended that ultimately the major part of the Gallery shall be air-conditioned. This means, I maintain, that practically none of the pictures on which we are legislating to-day can be safely allowed out of the Gallery. In my view so much the better for the pictures. But it introduces a rather uncomfortable element into the legislation which we are considering if, ultimately, none of these pictures is to be allowed to be lent. This, after all, is a new point which was not considered when your Lordships rejected the proposal in 1930 and 1935, but I think it is one which needs careful consideration. If we eliminate those pictures from the possibility of export for exhibition, there is another category of pictures which I should be equally reluctant to lend abroad. They may be perfectly stable physically; they may be in perfectly good order; they may be on canvas, but they are pictures which, in my view, are such masterpieces as to make it highly important that they are not subjected to the risks of the type which I have described to your Lordships before.
  There have been in Venice a series of magnificent exhibitions—a series of all the great Venetian painters, Titian, Veronese, Tintoretto and, more recently, Lotto. Of every one of those masters the nation possesses great masterpieces. To every one of those exhibitions is it not quite certain that we should have been asked to lend, and would not the Board of Trustees have been profoundly wrong to risk such pictures to the dangers of transport? After all, one of the duties of any Trustee is to keep safely; and the first duty, I think, of Trustees of the National Gallery is to keep safely the works which they hold in trust. Does this not mean that we shall have to prepare "black lists" of pictures which are too good to be lent anywhere? Does it not also mean that we shall have to prepare "black lists" of galleries which are too bad to be lent anything? Such galleries exist, and they include some of the most famous in the world—galleries in which we know the conditions to be such that we could not allow any of our pictures to go there. There are also galleries of which we have no experience. When we are asked to lend a picture, a masterpiece, to Leningrad, we shall not
  1058
  know whether the conditions in the famous Hermitage Gallery in Leningrad are such that we should or should not lend.
  I mention these things as some indication of the type of difficulty with which the Trustees will be faced. What are we to tell these galleries when we do not want to lend? Are we to tell them the truth? Are we to tell them that they are on our "black list"; that we do not trust them, and that we are prepared to lend a certain picture to another gallery but not to them? What sort of excuses are we going to trump up to get out of the difficulty which this Bill creates for us? This Bill will, I think, create uncertainty. It will compel the Trustees of the National Gallery to give offence. It will be the cause of international friction. To-day, that does not exist, and the position is perfectly clear. Parliament has laid it down that the Trustees may not lend foreign pictures. That is the law. The law cannot be broken, and the fact that the law cannot be broken most certainly can give no offence. But the position under this provision will make the future very different.
  We must not disguise from ourselves the fact that there are political considerations involved, just as, of course, there are political considerations involved in the mammoth International Exhibitions which are held so frequently these days. Will not the Foreign Secretary be pressed by Foreign Ambassadors to ask the Board to lend some masterpiece or other to an exhibition held in that country? Surely, the Foreign Secretary must be compelled to put the case to the Board; and is it right that the Board should have to take the decision of refusing the request put forward in that way by a foreign Government? May I read from a statement made in the previous debate in your Lordships' House (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 79, Col. 703):
  "The situation may be even more difficult than that. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may have no strong feeling himself on the subject, but the political conjuncture may be such that he is really exceedingly anxious to gratify any request made to him by a particular foreign Government. In that case he would certainly pass on the request to the Trustees of the British Museum with a strong recommendation that in the interest of foreign policy they should accede to the request. The Trustees of the British Museum or the National Gallery ought never to be placed in

  1059
  that position. Their duty, and the responsibility placed upon them as Trustees, is to preserve these great national works of art in the interest of the public who visit the museums and in the interest of the nation. That is the responsibility placed upon them. They ought never to be placed in a position where their decision will have political reactions or political responsibility."
  I quote that—and I could quote many other cases—because those are the words of Lord Grey of Falloden; and he, as Foreign Secretary, spoke with greater authority than anyone else. I do not know whether when the present Foreign Secretary spoke many years ago against this very provision, he had this particular point in mind. That sort of situation is not impossible, and it would place the Trustees in a most unenviable position. They would have to balance diplomatic advantage against the safety of a picture of which they had been placed in trust. To-day they are protected from that dilemma and from such improper pressure. Adoption of the Bill as printed would remove that protection and place them in an intolerable position.
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in answer to a similar point on Second Reading that in all these difficulties we should trust the Trustees. This is what he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 9) Col. 477):
  "I feel that the calibre of the Trustees is the greatest safeguard that we have."
  I am all for trusting the Trustees. I have been a Trustee of the National Gallery far longer than anyone else in the country; and even to-day, while I have my Chairman to keep me in order and tell your Lordships that my views are not the views of my fellow Trustees, I am still prepared to give views which I expressed years ago and which I still believe to be right. By all means trust the Trustees, but trust them to carry out the purpose for which they were appointed. These Trustees were not appointed to be faced with a dilemma such as I have described.
  We have been told that if we did not lend foreign pictures abroad, foreigners would not lend their pictures to us. I think it wrong to use the pictures of the nation as bargaining counters; I think it is wrong to risk injury to the masterpieces belonging to the National Gallery in order that Burlington House may have
  1060
  a loan. I think it is out of perspective to risk a permanent loss in exchange for a temporary gain. But even if it were right to do so, surely this argument—the sole argument we have heard—falls to the ground. We were told in 1930 that people would not lend to us—but they went on doing so. We were told in 1935 that we should not get loans from abroad—and the number of exhibitions from abroad increased and increased, rather than decreased. Then we were told that we should not get loans in 1953. Yet to-day I should say that there are far more exhibitions held in this country, and far more loans from abroad, than ever before. The noble Earl has, perhaps, had bad luck in the timing of the Committee stage of this Bill, for within one week we have had one of the finest and largest exhibitions of Flemish art ever held in the world. It is taking place at the Royal Academy in London. It includes many generous loans from abroad. At the same time, the Royal Academy in Edinburgh has this week opened an exhibition of Raoul Dufy. Of the eighty-seven exhibits, all but one come from abroad. So I think we must agree that it is wrong to say that we shall not get works of art from abroad unless this provision is allowed to stand.
  I have spoken for a long time, and I apologise to the Committee. Let me, in conclusion, say that in the National Gallery in Edinburgh we have no such protection as that which exists to-day—and which I hope you will not remove—for the National Gallery in London. We are free to lend to whomsoever we wish, and to lend what we wish; and if there is one thing we envy it is the present protection which the Trustees of the National Gallery in London have. I dare say that I am the only person who has at present this double experience. No one would for a moment wish to consent to a change, but all would agree that the position in London is far more satisfactory and far more safe than that in Edinburgh. I hope that my noble friend will consider these points. They are, let me assure him, very important. They would be agreed, I think, by the great majority of the directors of Galleries abroad, because they lend, and are forced by political considerations to do so. They have to lend, even if they dislike and are rather dismayed by what is happening

  1061
  to-day. The only point that I regret about inability to lend—and it is a real point—is that these exhibitions do give scholars a great opportunity of increasing the sum of their knowledge. Against that, however, the risks, which I believe to be very great and very real, must, I think, win the day.
  5.26 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like to say a word of congratulation to the noble Earl on his admirable speech. He has covered the ground extremely well. I was going to say a few words on these matters, but he seems to have dealt with them adequately. I still wish, however, to say two or three words which I think may interest your Lordships. I had put down an Amendment to leave out this clause, because I thought it very dangerous in some ways, though good in others. If we can get the three Amendments which he has put down, I feel that we shall be going in the right direction. There are two points with which I should like to deal. The first is that personally I should prefer an Amendment which is going to be moved, I understand, by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to exclude paintings on gesso and metal, as well as on wood-panels, from those which may be sent outside the United Kingdom. The second question I wish to ask is whether the year "1700" in the new Clause 8 could not be "1800." Otherwise, we should be leaving out our magnificent Reynolds's and Gainsboroughs and a large number of other pictures which it would be possible to send abroad.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: May I answer that question now? It was not my intention to exclude Reynolds's because that would not be maintaining the status quo. I think that, as I said, my words are probably wrong. If my words included the word "British" then my noble friend's point would be met. If my first Amendment does exclude Reynolds's that was not my intention, and the wording would have to be altered.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I am delighted that he resisted the dangers of sending pictures abroad. I would mention, by way of addition to the recent
  1062
  occurrences which he mentioned, that about four years ago, when some valuable drawings were sent to Holland, under, I understand, the auspices of the Dutch Government, they were left for a while lying on the quay at Rotterdam, without anyone to look after them. In the result, a man came along, smoking a cigarette. He threw down the cigarette end; in a moment there were flames; and all this very valuable consignment—from the Whitworth Gallery, in Manchester, I think—was destroyed.
  Another point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is the dangers which we sometimes bring upon ourselves. In this case, it was a matter of books which were sent over to the great exhibition about two or three years ago at the Bibliothèque Nationale in France. I was asked to lend a valuable manuscript, and my friend who asked me, a keeper at the British Museum, suddenly came to me and said, "I think you ought to know the way your book is going to be sent over with all the other books"—which were to be valued at something like £1 million. It was about this time of the year, and they were to be put on a very small ship which was to go down the Thames, possibly through fog or storm. They were then to go into the Seine and be taken up to Paris. The idea was almost laughable only it was so serious. I said. "Very well, my book shall not go," and I advised everybody else of what was going to happen. I am glad to say that the whole scheme was altered at once. This immensely valuable consignment went over in twelve to fifteen hours by the ferry and it was delivered in Paris the next day. Under the other scheme the journey was to take about three days and the books were to come back the same way. That is the sort of thing one is up against. I think your Lordships should remember those dangers.
  My noble friend mentioned the subject of loans from abroad. We at the British Museum have always been very strict indeed. Our rule is strict; we do not allow exhibits to be loaned abroad. On one special occasion, however, we did send over one of the copies of Magna Charta—we have two or three. One of them went overseas but we had to have an Act of Parliament to allow that to be done. There is always that way of doing it. I

  1063
  can assure your Lordships that the number of wretched little suggestions, and some very important suggestions too, that come up to us is great. We are fortunate, and I hope we always shall remain so, in the position that we cannot loan. My noble friend referred to galleries. It is not always the galleries abroad which are dangerous; there are certain galleries in this country which are dangerous, though I think they are fairly well covered now by recent regulations. But there are some very poor galleries and some which are badly invigilated, and that is another matter which ought to be studied. I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time, because, if my noble friend's Amendments, which I so strongly support, are carried, I feel we can continue with Clause 4 in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I rise to support the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. It is rather difficult, because there are several Amendments on the Paper which are dealing with the same subject. As I understand Amendment No. 5, it would restrict the lending of pictures and paintings to the United Kingdom. In the Second Reading debate I took the line that, with due safeguards, we might lend some of our public treasures abroad as an act of reciprocity. Having listened to the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on this subject, however, both on Second Reading and also to-day, I am quite converted, and I do not think we ought to lend. If there may be as much damage as he says is done to these paintings, I should support the noble Earl in wishing to prohibit their being sent abroad at all. However, if it is the view of your Lordships' House that we should send them abroad, then we must safeguard them, either through the noble Earl's Amendment, through my Amendment or through the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, to see that the early paintings, the panels of the fourteenth, fifteenth or sixteenth centuries, whatever happens, should not go abroad where they might suffer irreparable damage.
  Another point that cannot be emphasised enough is the extreme difficulty in which the directors of galleries are placed if they have the responsibility—and they are the people concerned—of refusing to allow pictures to go to certain galleries
  1064
  abroad and allowing them to go to certain other galleries. It is an almost impossible situation. For that reason alone, I think we ought not to allow these paintings to go forward for exhibitions. I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time. The case has been well put by the noble Earl who moved this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, will also support it with his Amendment. I should like to leave it at that for the moment.
  LORD METHUEN: I have an Amendment down later, and I, too, wish to say something after hearing the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, which are certainly most convincing. What I had in mind was that the discretion should be left to the Director and Trustees to decide whether or not it was wise to allow certain pictures to go abroad, with the absolute proviso that all pictures painted on gesso, copper, tin or panel ought not to go. I have a perfectly open mind about this matter but I feel largely convinced by what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said about the damage—one has heard so much about it. I remember well the occasion when the water colours in Amsterdam, I think it was, were ruined by sheer carelessness. I think sometimes it happens in this country too. I do not think we should entirely blame the Continent.
  I should have thought it was to everybody's advantage to be able from time to time to lend certain pictures of no very great value which are at present on the ground floor of the National Gallery, or perhaps out on exhibition or round some of our so-called public buildings. I should have thought it would be an advantage to rely on the Director and Trustees to send them entirely at their discretion; and perhaps there could be compiled a "black list" of pictures which on no account should be sent abroad. That might satisfy everybody. I should like to know what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, thinks about it. It is most important that we should be in a position to send abroad if we really want to and if the Director and Trustees are convinced that there is no harm in so doing.
  The question is not as simple as it looks. It is not a purely permissive matter, as those who have experience know. Take, for instance, the Bologna

  1065
  exhibition of Guido Reni which is coming on shortly. The National Gallery is not allowed to send. Private owners like myself are taking the risk—perhaps we are fools to do so, but we think we should. I do not see why the National Gallery should not send some of their pictures. I do not suppose they are any more valuable than those in private collections. This artist is not at present very fashionable, but he may be in time. That is what I have in mind when we come to my Amendment. I should like to leave in that clause. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of this Bill will consider whether, from the administrative point of view, it would be possible to have an absolutely strict rule about certain marked pictures which on no account should go out of the country—including pictures painted on panel and metal—but that there would be no harm in sending out the rest, which are kept down in the basement of the National Gallery. That is my contribution towards this particular subject.
  5.41 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I take it that we are discussing generally Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 10 and 11, and not l3 at the moment. I entirely agree, as everyone must, that there is a certain risk whenever you move a picture. I entirely agree that the trustees of great national collections should not be subjected to unnecessary pressure to do so, and I recognise that they have a high duty to the general public to see that these pictures are available. Of course that is so. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, speaks with great authority—indeed, I believe it is true that there has been hardly any time in thirty-five yeas when an Earl of Crawford has not been a Trustee of the National Gallery. Of course he speaks with great authority on this subject, and he is absolutely right. But should we not here keep some sense of proportion? These Trustees are men selected by the Prime Minister personally to look after great national treasures. Of course, Prime Ministers, like other human beings, make mistakes, but with any man in that position there can be no doubt of the nature of his responsibility or the authority which necessarily his word will carry. There is a question of principle between the Amendment which the noble Earl. Lord Crawford, has put down and what is in the Bill.
  1066
  Quite frankly, we proceeded in the Bill on the line that you can trust the Trustees, and it seems to me that every Amendment put down here which in some measure, however big or little, restricts the discretion of the Trustees, in fact lowers the responsibility which we are clearly able to place upon them.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: On the contrary; if the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, it is not a question of restricting the responsibility of the Trustees. Everything established by these Amendments and, on his suggestion, in the Bill, is increasing the responsibility of the Trustees. Nothing here restricts. It is merely a restriction of a proposed increase. There is a great difference. I wish the noble Earl would not keep using the "Trust the Trustees" argument. I trust Trustees; but I trust Trustees to do that for which they are appointed. Even so, I trust Statutes more than I trust Trustees.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That, of course, is perfectly clear—the noble Earl does not trust Trustees. But I do make the point quite clearly, that if you say to trustees——
  LORD CHORLEY: Would the noble Earl agree with me that we have Trustee Acts establishing investments into which trustees can put trust money, because trustees cannot be given very much discretion?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is for private beneficiaries, I agree. The trustees are not always appointed by the Prime Minister which seems to me to make some difference in this case. Let us deal with panels. There is no question of panels going out of the country—certainly not panels which have been in air-conditioned rooms. If you say to the Trustees, "We do not trust you not to do a thing like that," you are thereby restricting the measure of their discretion. Clause 4 (3) can be strengthened, perhaps, by including the words "in their absolute discretion" or something of that sort. I do not think that adds anything legally, but at least it emphasises a great deal the nature of their responsibility. One must remember that this is not something that has suddenly come out of nothing. This proposal was recommended by the Royal Commission in 1929, and by the Standing Commission in 1945. I thought the noble

  1067
  Lord was very clever in facing the embarrassment he had with the Flemish Exhibition. It is difficult for us to face that at present, and to say that in no circumstances are we going to let a picture out of any of our national galleries. Let us consider what Sir Gerald Kelly says here in his introduction. I think it is proper that we should recognise the value of these words:
  "If this Exhibition is splendid it is because of the amazing generosity of many owners, among them the Queen, the citizens of Bruges, Brussels, Antwerp, private collectors in Belgium, museums and galleries in France, Italy, and Austria, especialy the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna, and perhaps most of all the private owners and galleries in this Island."
  It seems to me a little difficult for us to go on receiving, without ever allowing anything to go out at all.
  I think this is a matter which those responsible can carry without undue burden. We shall be delighted to strengthen their hands if in any way they feel that this is not enough. If they like to make their ideas felt in their own regulations by saying, "This we will do, and this we will not do," they are quite free to do it. If we can strengthen them by putting such a code of conduct into a Treasury minute and giving it extra power we shall be very glad to do so; but to adopt the position of saying that no picture can go out without an Act of Parliament is really to be out of perspective, in view of the great advantages which we have in this country in national collections, particularly at the present time. I have not dealt separately with Lord Huntingdon's Amendment, which goes very much further than he probably intended. We should be glad to hear the noble Earl's opinion, but it seems to me that it is a choice between whether you can trust those who are responsible or whether you cannot. I should have thought that there is no question in regard to the older and more fragile pictures, and those who are in charge can be trusted to carry the responsibility. If they say they cannot carry it, that is a different matter; but I think we can leave it fairly and squarely to the men who are appointed in the way I have described.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to answer one or two of the questions the noble Earl has raised. I
  1068
  think that of the two developments which were mentioned by Lord Crawford, the one which has come most recently is air-conditioning. That is one aspect that was not reviewed in the old times. It is a completely modern development which must very largely alter our minds in regard to this question. I was glad to hear the noble Earl who is promoting this Bill say that he is prepared to strengthen our hands, or do something to satisfy our fears to a certain extent. I suggest that if he believes there is no question at all of these early panels going out of the country, there is no harm in putting a provision into the Bill. It would satisfy the desire that at least these pictures should be protected. I find myself in some difficulty because we are really discussing the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that he assumed we were discussing, the three Amendments together. If the first Amendment—that is, Amendment number 5—is not agreed to by the Government, I would advocate strongly putting words in the Bill which, whatever happened, and whether we can trust the Trustees or not, would prevent paintings on panels and metal from going out of the country, for this would be utterly disastrous. It seems to me that the trouble of putting in a few words for that purpose would be well worth while.
  The fact that we refuse to put these words in the Bill might in future lead Trustees to think that they have the right to send these pictures out of the country. They would be able to recall this debate and say: "This matter came up before Parliament; it was proposed that restrictions should be placed on these pictures leaving the country but the proposal was turned down—the Government refused to accept it. Therefore, we have every right, in these particular circumstances, to send any pictures we like out of the country." So I urge the noble Earl, if he does not accept the Amendment, at least to agree to put in some such words as:
  "prevent paintings on panels, on gesso metal or wood, leaving the country."
  I think that would be well worth while.
  5.50 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: May I just add this thought. As the law stands at the present time we are in a very favourable position.

  1069
  We now have the best of both worlds. We can simply say to other nations: "We are sorry, but we cannot lend you any of our pictures. Please will you lend us some of yours?" Thanks to the generosity of foreign peoples, we have had in the last few years some marvellous exhibitions in London. The Italians have lent us some of their finest art treasures including pictures by Botticelli, and the Spaniards have lent us some of their great pictures. Indeed, as the noble Earl has said, we have repeatedly had some most wonderful pictures lent to us. I remember when the Holbein exhibition was being discussed. We were going to get some Holbeins from Basle, and there was just the beginning of a little trouble about it. The people over there said: "Look here, we are lending you our Holbeins; what are we going to get in return?" We were able to say that we could not lend our pictures. I think there was some understanding that Her Majesty was prepared to lend some of tier Holbeins, but I am not sure that I am right about that. Now this Bill has been introduced and this discussion has taken place, it seems to me that we are in a different position from that in which we were formerly. After hearing the noble Earl, I am inclined to wish to God that we had never had this Bill introduced. But the fact is that this Bill has been introduced.
  I myself have said—and I expect other noble Lords in recent years have more or less said the same: "We are sorry we cannot lend any of our pictures, but the whole matter is coming up for discussion." Now the matter has come up, and it has been widely canvassed. This debate will be very much reported on and considered. If, now that this matter has been presented to us, we are going to say that we are never in future going to lend any of our pictures, then, my Lords, I tremble to think what is going to happen about other people. I humbly venture to suggest that, faced with the situation which we are in, having got this Bill and having had the talks about it which we have had, we cannot take that line. It is clear that there are some pictures which no sensible body of trustees would ever think of lending. If those could be enumerated, it might be an idea to consider the insertion of the words: "with the consent of the
  1070
  Treasury." Then the Treasury could formulate certain rules. If the Trustees merely formulate rules for themselves they can avoid those rules if they like.
  The position, if you follow the course I have outlined, might then be that the Trustees would be able to say: "We are sorry but we cannot lend; it is all the fault of the Treasury." And the Treasury might be able to say: "We are sorry, but it is all the fault of the Trustees." That might be useful. I suggest, however, to the noble Earl, that to say that as a result of this particular discussion we are never going to be able to lend any of our pictures would really have a most unfortunate effect on the prospects of exhibitions coming to us in the future. Though it is the fact, as Lord Selkirk has said, that when you send a picture by sea or rail or car there is always an element of danger, I would respectfully point out that that applies whether the picture is sent somewhere in this country or abroad. Lord Crawford's argument, carried to its logical conclusion, comes to this; that you ought never to lend a picture anywhere. I think that is an impossible proposition. Therefore, I very much hope that the broad, sweeping principle of "No loans at all" will not be accepted.
  For myself, I find it extremely difficult to lay down any hard and fast rules as to what may or may not be lent. I do not know enough about these matters even to attempt to do so. I imagine some pictures painted on panels might safely be lent and others it would not be safe to lend. I rather think that each picture must be considered on its own merits. It might be worth while considering whether the consent of some third party, such as the Treasury, should be deemed to be necessary. Clearly this is not a matter to be undertaken in a lighthearted way. In view of what has happened, I cannot feel, now that this Bill has been introduced, that we can stand on the existing position—which, of course, in a sense is far the best for us—that "We lend nothing; you lend everything." I do not believe that that is practicable.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to make one further point in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. Something has been said about the difficulty of making a hard and fast rule. I

  1071
  take only this point. Suppose we take the year 1700 and say that nothing painted before 1700 is to go out of the country. Would not that be to some extent an invitation to send things produced after 1700 out of the country? There may be things produced after that period which are not fit to be sent abroad. If you leave the matter to the discretion of the Trustees in individual cases, as has been pointed out, the fact of doing so is not an indication that we want anything to be sent abroad which is of a fragile nature; it merely emphasises the measure of discretion which we think should be left to the Trustees. I should be glad if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment, and we will have discussions on this matter before the next stage of the Bill. I am certainly prepared to take steps to arrange for that to be done.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I am certainly prepared to assent to that if we are going to be enabled to have discussions with some little encouragement from the Government.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I put this question to the noble Earl: Are you really strengthening your position by putting, in a limitation?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I wonder whether you are really doing so. I wonder whether you are not saying, in a way: "We are not trusting the Trustees with these old panels." I should think it would be easier for them to say "No" if they had the whole ambit open to them than if they had merely a restricted one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "or" and insert:
  "provided that paintings on gesso, wood or metal shall in no circumstances be sent outside the United Kingdom."
  The noble Earl said: I am afraid that I am not clear about the position. I take it that we have discussed Amendment No. 6. The Amendment of the noble Earl has been withdrawn and I understand
  1072
  that discussions are to take place between now and the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is correct.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like an assurance from the noble Earl that the next Amendment in my name will be discussed also. Would that be discussed, too, or would it be better for me to move my Amendment now? Whatever happens, it seems to me an extremely able device for safeguarding the paintings. If it can come into the general discussions promised, I shall be happy not to move my Amendment, but if not, I shall move it now. If your Lordships reject the first Amendment, this at least would safeguard the greatest treasures. It has been said that it would be difficult to fix a date and that it is extremely difficult to put down a year—1700 or 1648. I think it is possible, however, to fix a line on the materials on which paintings have been done. We know that metal contracts and expands, and we know the flexibility of gesso. My Amendment, I feel, would be a good safeguard. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to put it now or whether there will be discussions on this between now and Report stage.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Earl moves the Amendment and it is negative don a Division, obviously it would be excluded from the discussions, because the House would have decided the matter. On the other hand, if the noble Earl does not move the Amendment the question of whether the ban should apply to pictures on a metal panel or on a wooden panel can come into the general discussion. I take it that the noble Earl would prefer to have an opportunity of discussing the question, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a long debate and decide upon the matter and then reopen it in discussions.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be happy not to move the Amendment. What I wanted was an assurance from the Government that this would be included in the discussions.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl put the Amendment down only this morning. I shall be glad to discuss it with him.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I only wanted that assurance. I shall not move the Amendment.
  6.4 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: the object of this clause is to lend paintings from the National and Tate Galleries to be used
  "for display—

  (i) in a public building or official residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for the furnishing of which the Minister of Works is responsible; or

  (ii) in the official residence of the Governor of a colony."

  I am extremely doubtful about this provision. It seems to me that the idea is that the Ministry of Works should get what I might call cheap furnishing for Embassies, Legations, ministries and public buildings by bringing this furnishing out of the stores of the National and Tate Galleries. At first sight, this is an attractive and sensible idea. I should like to know whether the noble Earl can give me a reply to the questions which I have sent him, because I think that the information he may be able to give will help your Lordships in deciding what ought to be done. I know that I have given the noble Earl short notice but perhaps he could let me know the answers.
  The questions I sent him were: How many pictures are listed in the inventories and catalogues of the National Gallery? How many of these pictures are exhibited in the National Gallery, excluding loans to the National Gallery? How many of these pictures are exhibited in provincial galleries and museums? How many of these pictures are in store or in buildings other than galleries and museums? How many rooms in the National Gallery suitable for exhibiting pictures are not used for this purpose at the present time? I think that if we knew more about the reserve stocks of these galleries it would be helpful.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very sorry but I am not following the noble Earl. He says "these pictures": what does he mean by that?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am referring only to the National Gallery, not to the Tate. I posted a letter to the noble Earl with these questions. Perhaps
  1074
  he would give me information on Report stage.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I think the last question should be a little more specific, otherwise the noble Earl cannot possible answer it.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I will send the questions to the noble Earl again for Report stage, if I may. In any case, I did not give him notice. As I said, at first sight the idea of using the reserve pictures which are in the cellars of the National and Tate Galleries is an attractive one, but on thinking it over, I wonder whether it is a wise one. These pictures will be sent off to Embassies at Tokio, Rome and Paris, perhaps to the Legation in Bogota. Will they be properly looked after? Will they ever be returned to this country? Once a picture has been sent a thousand miles away, it will be unlikely administratively to come back, and might stay there. After all, these pictures were bought by the Galleries, or bequeathed to them, for the use and pleasure of the public and for the instruction of students in art and in the history of painting. Is it right or fair that we should take these paintings, which for the moment may not be on the walls of the Galleries, and push them out to places where the public have no access and no means of seeing them? I think this is an unwise provision. I think it is particularly unwise to send these pictures abroad. Many of the official residences of Governors of Colonies are in tropical and semi-tropical areas, and tropical heat will be absolutely disastrous to these paintings. I wish the Government would look at this point more carefully.
  It may be asked: if we do not use these paintings in this way what are we going to do with them? I suggest that there are many ways in which we can use them. In the first place, I should like to see more of them lent out to provincial galleries. Secondly, they might be used as libraries for research and study. This is an idea that has been taken up in foreign countries. There is a famous library of this sort in Genoa, where the ground floor is taken up by an exhibition of paintings. The upper floor is a library of paintings. You ring a bell and an attendant lets you in, and after you have seen the paintings, you ring a bell and he lets you out again. The pictures are fixed

  1075
  on rails which can be swung out so that the student can see them in different lights. I think that is an idea which might be developed here.
  I wonder whether we could not house more pictures in Lancaster House. I understand that at present the public are allowed to view the interior on two days a week. I think it would be an excellent idea if some of the paintings not on view at the Galleries should be used to adorn Lancaster House, to make that a sort of subsidiary gallery, where the public could have a chance of seeing them. Here, incidentally, Government entertaining goes on and pictures would also be seen by distinguished foreign guests. In any case, I do not think that the terms on which these pictures have been bought and given should allow them to be dispersed in this way where the public cannot get at them. I would beg the noble Earl to consider this and to see whether some way cannot be found of obviating the difficulty or of something else being done with the pictures. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 20.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  LORD METHUEN: As I have an Amendment down to be taken a little later, I should like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. The contents of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 seem to me so entirely contrary to the spirit and functions of the National Gallery that it seems necessary, in spite of the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and the Duke of Wellington, to say that the National Gallery had two main functions: one to exhibit masterpieces; and the second to form a collection of Old Masters to illustrate as fully as possible the history of paintings of Western Europe as it is generally understood.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I should like to add a third function to those—namely, to preserve the masterpieces which they hold in trust. It is because of that duty that I feel so distressed at what may be happening to-day.
  LORD METHUEN: The National Gallery was not formed to provide furnishings for public buildings administered by the Minister of Works, buildings
  1076
  which are hardly ever accessible to the public, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has pointed out; nor to provide decorations for the walls of Governors' residences in the Colonies, including those in the tropics which obviously would not be good for our pictures. Because there are many pictures on the ground floor of the National Gallery it does not mean that these are redundant and can be disposed of to Government or public buildings to which, as I have said, the public generally may not have access. Probably all the principal galleries of Europe have a surplus of pictures over and above what can be hung in the exhibition galleries. These surplus pictures should be made easily available to students and artists, and to those who may wish to make a critical study of certain Old Masters.
  I am going to repeat something which was said by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, if only to emphasise it. Many galleries overseas do recognise this, and have had their galleries adapted or newly built expressly to house this overflow. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Fogg Museum, a historical museum attached to Harvard University, to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, to the Savoy Gallery in Turin and to the Palazza Bianca in Genoa, which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has just mentioned and which was badly bombed. The walls, however, were left standing and, as the noble Earl said, the building has recently been renovated and modernised so as to have on the top storey a secondary collection of pictures to study. These pictures are usually hung on small screens placed at right-angles to the walls and can be easily moved by a single attendant, as they usually run on ball bearings. As the screens are placed close together, they occupy very little room, and it follows that a large number of pictures can be housed in this way with a minimum of staff to look after them.
  Wishing to refresh my memory—because I have not been a Trustee since the war, and I do not think I have been down to the vaults of the National Gallery since they were bombed, and were consequently empty then—I paid a visit to the National Gallery yesterday, and subsequently to the National Portrait Gallery, to see how they do these things at both places. All surplus pictures on

  1077
  the ground floor of the National Gallery are hung on very heavy screens which must be far too heavy for a single man to move. It must be necessary to take down pictures required to study as the screens themselves are too close to allow of this being done in situ. The lighting leaves a good deal to be desired, though this could be easily remedied with more suitable artificial lighting if a more up-to-date system of screens were adopted in the National Gallery. The National Portrait Gallery has an excellent long gallery well lit from one side and furnished with tall screens which run on ball bearings on rails and which can be easily operated by one attendant. This appears to me to be a very good arrangement, whereby students and others can readily examine any picture they desire by having the screen on which the picture hangs pulled out to the middle of the gallery. What can be done at one end of Trafalgar Square could be done at the other, with the good will of the Ministry of Works, who presumably will have to pay for it.
  I have gone into these details to emphasise the desirability of recognising the proper function of a great national gallery such as we have here; it was certainly not intended for the objects suggested in the clause under discussion. The Minister of Works, may I add, has set a noble example in purchasing contemporary paintings for the various public buildings for which he is responsible, for which we painters desire to express our best thanks. We only trust that he will continue in this vein, and leave the Old Masters at the National Gallery severely alone. That is all I have to say about this particular Amendment. I should like to emphasise all that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said about this, and to say how important it is to recognise that this secondary collection of pictures which is now on the ground floor of the National Gallery is really a collection for students, historians and critics to examine at their leisure in a properly lit place, and where the pictures can be easily manœuvred. At present, it must cause great trouble to the National Gallery Trustees to arrange to show these pictures to visitors. I know that they have to give twenty-four hours' notice. But what a trouble it must be, compared
  1078
  to the excellent arrangements which are to be found next door in the National Portrait Gallery.
  House resumed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  6.18 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether, without transgressing any rules, I may make a suggestion to the House as to business. Obviously this Bill requires some further discussion this evening, and I should propose that we conclude the Committee stage of this Bill. There is on the Order Paper, also, the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill, on which a number of Amendments have been tabled. Obviously your Lordships would not wish to embark upon that at half-past seven, or later, to-night. There is, further, on the Order Paper the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in respect of which, in case a Committee stage should be required, we must get the Second Reading completed to-night, which I think we can conclude purely formally. I have had some consultation with the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, and if it be convenient to the House I suggest that we should take the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill on Wednesday, December 16. That would involve putting down a formal Motion to enable it to be taken first. There is a Private Member's Motion on the Order Paper for that day, but that can follow in due course.
  I hope that we may be able to get through the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill in an hour and a half or two hours at the outside, if noble Lords are not unduly loquacious—it would be an encouragement that they might wish to get on to the further Motion on the Order Paper. Then, as I understand it, the Motion which has been put down on the Charitable Trusts (Validation) Bill for Thursday, December 17, will be withdrawn; and I further understand that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already tabled a Motion for a general debate upon Foreign Affairs, which would begin on Thursday the 17th and probably continue on into Friday the 18th. I want to suit the convenience of the House as much as I can,

  1079
  while at the same time making progress with these Bills. If this procedure is convenient to the House, I will undertake to put down a Motion to enable the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill to be taker on December 16. We will conclude the Committee stage of the present Bill to-night, and then I would ask your Lordships to complete only the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I think that arrangement is quite satisfactory. With regard to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who is otherwise engaged to-day, has asked me to make a small point, but I think I can do it quite shortly. Otherwise I think that is the best arrangement we can make, in view of the difficulties.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. I will undertake to carry out that arrangement.

  NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  6.21 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Earl is moving Amendments 7, 8 and 9 together. He is taking out all reference to public buildings, official residences and, of course, Embassies. I have great sympathy with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, about a Garde Meuble and the furnishing of public buildings. It is true that the Ministry of Works already have a considerable pool which is used for this purpose. That is the pool which it is intended primarily should be drawn upon for this sort of thing.
  LORD METHUEN: That pool is not for scattering pictures all over the place where they are not accessible to the public.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know whether the noble Lord heard me. I said that the Ministry of Works had a pool of pictures which was primarily intended for buildings for the furnishing of which they were responsible.
  LORD METHUEN: Does it belong to the National Gallery? To whom does this pool belong?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The pool of pictures belongs to the Ministry of Works. The noble Lord will see in the following paragraph that it is intended that in certain cases pictures which are not required by the Gallery may be transferred to this pool. The noble Lord raised the question whether it is permissible for certain public buildings to be furnished with pictures not required for exhibition from the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery. Particular reference was made to 10, Downing Street, the Foreign Office and places like that. I say—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me—that it is important that this type of building should have an adequate dignity. Do not think that there is any suggestion—I have heard some use the word—of "dismantling" the National Gallery. That is an abominable expression. There are some pictures in the vaults which are not being used at the present time. It is not suggested that any picture should be moved which is required for exhibition in either Gallery. But I think it is right and proper that some pictures that are not being used could be used for this purpose. Noble Lords made a point that in some cases it will be a little more difficult for students to go and see the pictures. I agree that it probably will, but, measuring the value of a student's looking at a picture and the proper decoration of a public building, one finds it does not go all on one side.
  LORD METHUEN: Are we not confusing two things? The sending of pictures abroad for exhibition is one matter to which personally I have no objection, within reason. But the question of lending pictures to public buildings, such as, if you like, 10, Downing Street, I think is entirely against the rules. It is done, and I am not for a moment suggesting that the pictures should be sent back, because they look very nice in Downing Street. But I think it is entirely illegal. However, let that pass for the moment. My point is that these pictures were not intended for the decoration of Government buildings as such, particularly those which are not accessible to the public. That is entirely against the spirit of the National Gallery.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate the noble Lord's point, but I am saying

  1081
  that it is better that these pictures should be at 10, Downing Street than in a cellar, and that is what it amounts to.
  LORD METHUEN: That is precisely my point. These pictures are for study. In the museums in Amsterdam, Genoa, Turin and Milan there are reserve galleries where students can go and study Old Masters and get to know them. How can students do that here, when the pictures are dotted about in various public buildings to which they would not normally have access, though I believe one was refused access who should have been allowed in?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know the noble Lord is interested in students, as we all are, but I think some of our buildings have a right to be properly decorated. Pictures were painted for hanging and not for putting in cellars, so I think we have it on our side that this is quite a useful purpose for which pictures should be used. It is fair to say that the number of pictures in this category will not be great. I must make the point that it is entirely within the discretion of the Trustees. They need let no picture go if they do not want to. I should have thought that most of the pictures would be from the Tate Gallery rather than the National Gallery, but if there are such pictures there, it seems to me a pity that we should not be able to use them for our more important public buildings. The reason why the Ministry of Works come in here is that in certain cases the pictures will be lent to the Ministry of Works, who will then be responsible for their welfare. That takes responsibility off the shoulders of the Trustees themselves, because the Ministry of Works have a considerable expertise in this matter.
  LORD METHUEN: The Ministry of Works have not the expert staff to deal with this sort of thing. Who is to decide whether a picture is deteriorating and should be looked at?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is expressing an opinion, and I shall certainly see whether my right honourable friend agrees with it. I am informed that they have a staff which is competent to deal with that question. Before any action of this sort can be taken, it requires the consent of the Treasury. As I explained on Second Reading—I think the
  1082
  noble Lord was not here—the reason for that was that if anyone wishes to raise a Question in Parliament, there is a Department who can answer it. So there is a check on what happens to these pictures. I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. It is not intended to make extended use of this power, but I think it is a proper and valuable one to make.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I understood, but I hope I was wrong, that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was belittling the value of the ability of students to see the pictures. This is an important point, and it has to be dealt with. The noble Earl calmly suggested that the pictures were in the vaults. They may be; but why not have a better system and put them in a repository where students can see them? I have tile honour to be Chairman of the National Portrait Gallery, and Lord Methuen examined our arrangements there. The pictures are in a very good light, and on screens which can be pulled out at any moment. Any picture which is required in our Galleries can be seen at any time. Why cannot the National Gallery do the same?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: May I rise for one moment to speak on the lines that my noble friend has submitted? I did not wish to speak on this Amendment but I felt, with him, that the noble Earl underestimated greatly the position of students and scholars. British scholarship to-day on these subjects is the highest in the world. It has achieved a prestige which is unique and which it has never had before. It attaches the greatest importance to these reserve collections, and it is the greatest pity that they should be dispersed. My noble friend spoke of cellars, and as I spoke I heard another whisper of the word "cellars." Let him not prejudice the position. They are not in cellars: they are in large rooms eight feet above ground level. We should stop the misuse of words and the introduction of prejudice. What is wanted is that the accommodation for these pictures should be better—that we should adapt our accommodation to the national collections and not adapt our national collections to fit the accommodation. I am sure it is wrong, though it may be practical and convenient, that the national collections should be sent abroad to

  1083
  Embassies and, indeed, to Government Departments. But I think it is right that those places should have pictures and tapestries like these. The only proper answer is that they should not be taken out of the reserves of the National Gallery, but should be taken out of a Ministry pool, which would be created not by dumping things from the National Gallery into it but by purchase of new works, attractive pictures, decorative but of no great monetary value, suitable for that purpose. I hope my noble friend will take a rather different view from that which he has expressed so far.
  LORD MOYNE: May I be allowed to make a compromise suggestion? It is that the pictures should be loaned only for two years. That would give the students a chance to see them again. They should not be left, after being lent for that period, for, say, five or even ten years.
  THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: May I be allowed to clarify the remarks about students? The other day I happened to be in a quite unimportant room in No. 10, Downing Street, and I was raising the whole question whether students could see the pictures loaned from the National Gallery to No. 10, Downing Street. I was told they could always see them two days in the week, Saturdays and Sundays, if they gave notice. There have been cases in comparatively recent times.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: Would not the Government consider lending only pictures of the Chantrey bequest to Government buildings and Embassies abroad? These are the sort of pictures that Ambassadors like and the sort that are appreciated in Downing Street. No student ought to be allowed to see them in any circumstances whatsoever.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I am sorry that the noble Viscount should have spoken of the Chantrey bequest in that way, because I happen to be a Trustee of it.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: When I said "students," I meant also art historians. There are many people who are interested in pictures and who are not young students. But the thing that worries me most is the sending of these pictures abroad. I understand that during the
  1084
  Mussolini régime in Italy the Government adopted a policy, for prestige reasons, of sending some of their best paintings to their Embassies in Tokyo, Berlin, Paris and many other places. They realised later the unwisdom of that step, because they reversed the policy and are trying to get the pictures back. This would be very difficult. In any case, it was found to be an extremely undesirable policy and, as I say, has been reversed. I think that sending out these pictures to Colonial Governors' houses, legations, Government houses and Embassies is disastrous because it is very difficult indeed to get them back.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I have been rather unfairly treated by the noble Earls, Lord Ilchester, and Lord Crawford. I have not said a word against the importance of students. I only pointed out that the question of students was not the only aspect of the matter, and that the proper place for a picture is on the wall and not in a cellar.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: A cellar cannot be eight feet from the ground, surely—especially in Trafalgar Square.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is as it may be. But Lord Huntingdon assumes there is no such thing as students abroad. Yet students abroad are just as interested as students here. Are we not trying to spread a measure of culture to every part of the world by showing something that is best? And all these things mean something to those in other parts of the world. They go into Government buildings and see things which are worth seeing. Is that of no account? The same thing applies to Embassies. We should show the people who visit them that we have things of dignity and good calibre to show. I have listened carefully to noble Lords on this subject and they have suggested that pictures are going to be spread all over the place. But that is not so. The matter rests entirely in the discretion of the Trustees. If they think they can spare a picture, they do so, and if they cannot, they do not. I am going to ask the noble Earl, if he will, to withdraw this Amendment, and I will certainly discuss the points which he wants to raise. I am sure he does not really mean to suggest that the people of this country should not have the opportunity of seeing pictures of any value.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should be happy to discuss this matter with the noble Earl. I am not suggesting for one moment that the people of this country should not have good pictures to look at. In fact, I am very much in favour of our public buildings having good pictures and statuary. I think that they ought, however, to be brought separately from the Ministry of Works pool and not taken out of the national collection.
  LORD METHUEN: Why rob the National Gallery? Why not buy some contemporary paintings for the purpose?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not propose to rob the National Gallery. I do not think the Trustees of the National Gallery are very worried about this question at all. They have a full discretion in this matter and they are quite happy; in fact, they would not release a picture from either the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery if they were not happy about it. The matter is entirely within the responsibility of the Trustees.
  LORD METHUEN: May I remind the noble Earl that Italy in the time of Mussolini did exactly as the Government are now proposing to do, for reasons of prestige, I believe? Many of these pictures were sent overseas, even as far as Tokyo, and to the Embassies and to public buildings in Italy, and so on, and were lost sight of. Of course, I know that that would not happen in this country. Now the Italians are realising their mistake and are trying to get back some of their "lost" treasures. It may be very interesting to know what is the result. You can easily lose sight of these pictures, especially if there is no one to care for them.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can only repeat that we already have powers under the 1935 Act to lend to Embassies abroad; and the only thing of consequence that we are adding here is public buildings. I should have thought that pictures would not get damaged there, or at residences of Colonial Governors. I am sure it is very desirable that we should advertise the sort of things we consider important and valuable. I must say I should be grateful if the noble Earl
  1086
  would withdraw his Amendment and I will discuss the matter with him.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the noble Earl, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. It would help me, at the same time, to know whether my next Amendment is to be accepted.
  TEE EARL OF SELKIRK: For the noble Earl's private information, I propose to accept it.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I thank the noble Earl.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  6.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I once again intervene on Business? I was informed that December 16 was a convenient date to take the Food and Drugs Bill. I now find—I apologise to the House—that the Chancellor of the, Duchy has to be in Manchester on that day, but it would be possible to take the Bill on the 15th. It would require to be put down. There is on that day, after a couple of Starred Questions, a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, which I do not think should take very long but which should keep its place. We should then put the Food and Drugs Bill Committee Stage down for that day. Then there is the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, which would follow. It is second Order on that day, "To draw attention to the Seventh Report of the International Labour Organisation," but there should be plenty of time. We meet at half-past two. I now understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has put off his Motion.
  LORD BURDEN: Yes.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is very convenient. We will put down the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill after the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys. That will interfere much less will the Business. I ask leave to make that correction. I think that will be still more for the convenience of the House.

  NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  House again in Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: From the discussion that has taken place, I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will not move Amendments 8 and 9 to-day.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No; they are consequential.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I also gather that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will not wish to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: That is so.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: And that the Earl of Ilchester will not bother to move Amendment 12?
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I am quite prepared not to move it. I understand that a conference is to be held. I think that is most important.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, going to move Amendment No. 13?
  LORD METHUEN: I do not know where I am about this. I am completely lost.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: What I understood was that there was going to be a discussion between now and Report stage in which this Amendment would be considered. That is what I understood.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
  LORD METHUEN: That is right.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Then the noble Lord will not move this Amendment now?
  LORD METHUEN: No.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Powers to transfers works of art from National Gallery or Tate Gallery for display elsewhere
  5.—(1) The National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees shall respectively have power to transfer a picture or other work of art vested in them—

  (a) to any institution listed in the First Schedule to this Act, or

  1088

  (b) with the consent of the Treasury, to the Minister of Works.

  (2) A picture or other work of art transferred to the Minister of Works under this section shall be held by him for display in a public building or official residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for the furnishing of which he is responsible, but may be lent by him for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section.
  (3) In the case of a picture or other work of art which has been given or bequeathed, the powers conferred by this section shall not be exercisable in any manner inconsistent with the gift or bequest unless, in the case of a gift, the donor has consented to the exercise of those powers in that manner; and where a picture or other work of art transferred under this section was subject to any trust or condition in the hands of the National Gallery Trustees or, as the case may be, of the Tate Gallery Trustees, it shall be subject to the like trust or condition in the hands of the transferees.
  (4) The reference in this section to an institution listed in the First Schedule to this Act includes a reference to any institution added to that Schedule under section three of this Act.
  6.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we could have a discussion on this Amendment and the next at the same time. May I just put my point on this? I think that if lending is bad, transferring is worse. I am very much against the transfer of these paintings to the Ministry of Works to become their sole property, to be looked after by them. The reason for that is that I think the paintings would disappear from the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery, and would be lost sight of. By lending, we have some sort of strings by which to pull them back; by transferring, we have none at all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that I do not think the Ministry of Works are the proper people to look after valuable paintings.
  I remember in this House a little time ago pleading with them not to dismiss something like half of their staff which they used to look after the Royal paintings. I am glad to say that Her Majesty's Government had second thoughts on it, and that that did not happen; but, if that is the attitude, it is not one which encourages us. I was going to suggest in the following Amendment No. 17 that, instead of using all

  1089
  these paintings from the National Gallery, there should be a fund given to the Arts Council to buy paintings which could be used for decoration of these Embassies, Legations and public buildings, and possibly that might be done better by the Ministry of Works pool. I will not argue on that I should be prepared to accept either. I am wondering whether the noble Earl will allow me to discuss this matter with him afterwards and whether it would be better to include it, with the previous Amendment, in general discussion before Report stage.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I shall be glad to accept the noble Earl's offer on this, but I think there has been a little misunderstanding here. As I have said, we do suffer from a lack of pictures in this field, and that is exactly why we are trying to set up this scheme. I think it is right that we should put it in this way and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works has taken several steps to set it up. There is an annual sum for buying pictures, usually £l,000, but £5,000 or so for this year. There are gifts which people make to the Ministry of Works, and I think a sum of £10,000 has been raised, also by gifts, to enable this sort of thing to be done. But it is felt that, over and above this, there are a certain number of pictures which could quite reasonably and properly be transferred from the National Galleries. I do not really see, if there is any question of cataloguing them, why they should not remain connected with the catalogue of the National Gallery or the catalogue of the Tate Gallery, as may be necessary. I see no difficulty about it. The important thing about it is that it does relieve the Trustees of some responsibility for looking after the pictures, and I think they are glad, on the whole, to be freed from this responsibility. The whole matter would then be the responsibility of the Ministry of Works, and they are able to do it. That is generally the situation which we should like to create.
  The noble Earl has mentioned the Arts Council. I am not quite clear what he had in mind there. At the moment the Arts Council are free to buy or commission if they want to, but I think I am correct in saying that most of their
  1090
  money is taken up in staging exhibitions in many parts of the country. We do not think that they are the body to build up collections for this purpose. The assumption behind the noble Earl's Amendment, so far as I can read it, seems to be that a large Treasury grant should be made. There is a sort of suggestion that that should be made available. I do not think that is practical politics. I think that sort of thing is probably done rather better by the Ministry of Works pool. I do not know whether I have met the noble Earl's point. I hope that I have to some extent. It seems that he objects to the word "transfer." Again, I cannot see the Trustees transferring except what they think can reasonably be spared. I see no reason why some arrangement for cataloguing pictures of sufficient importance should not be made.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should be glad to agree to do that, but I think it comes under the general discussion on lending or transferring pictures. I am glad to have the assurance of the noble Earl that pictures could remain in the catalogues of the National and Tate Galleries. That is a step forward, but I am still not at all happy about these national pictures going out of these particular Galleries for this purpose. And I think it is worse to have them transferred than to have them lent. If, by leave of the Committee, I may for a moment speak on my Amendment No. 17 (because the noble Earl has asked me what I meant about the Arts Council) I should like to say a few words on it. What I had in mind was that there ought to be a Treasury grant for buying paintings. I agree with the noble Earl that our public buildings ought to have paintings and works of art, at this particular juncture in our history when the wretched artist is suffering from the fact that the private patron has virtually disappeared; the wealthy man who bought pictures on a large scale just has not the income today to do it. I think that the Government, the local authorities, and the big companies and corporations ought to step into the breach and commission modern painting from artists who are still alive, or obtain pictures by artists recently dead.
  I think it would be an excellent thing, as opposed to "raiding" our Galleries,

  1091
  that we should persuade the Ministry of Works pool to be a patron of the arts and to furnish their public buildings, their Embassies and so forth with modern, rather than with old, works. That is what I had in mind, and why I suggested the Arts Council. I thought they would be a better body than the Ministry of Works to buy and to know what they were buying. The Minister of Works does not necessarily seem to be the ideal person to choose paintings, whereas the Arts Council have a learned President who knows a great deal about art; and if anyone is going to buy well I should have thought the Arts Council are as likely to do it as anybody. I was suggesting only that they should be the actual buyers of paintings, which could go into the Ministry of Works pool. Thereby you would have expert buying to the best advantage, and the Ministry of Works could then distribute and use these paintings in the way they thought best. I shall not press this Amendment to-day; it suggests an alternative to taking pictures from our national Galleries, a practice about which I am very doubtful.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I do not wish to belittle the Arts Council, but does the noble Earl remember five pictures that they bought about four years ago at a cost of about £500 apiece? I never saw such awful rubbish in my life.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think perhaps we ought to deal with Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. I understand that, by leave of the House, the noble Earl wishes to withdraw Amendment No. 14, and will not move Amendment No. 15.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is right.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.52 p.m.
  LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN moved to leave out Clause 5. The noble Lord said: As regards Clause 5 (1) (a) I should have thought that the present system of loans worked well enough. Frankly, I do not like the idea of the proposed transfer outright of pictures from one institution to another. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, could give us some further information on this point. I do not understand why there is the wish to do that.
  1092
  With regard to paragraph (b), what I have already said applies with equal force. It seems to me to set a most dangerous precedent. It is not enough to say, "We mean to transfer only pictures that have no interest or value to the collection as a whole." The whole principle seems to me to be entirely wrong; and anyhow, as has been repeated ad nauseam this evening, to exhibit a picture in a public building is not the same thing as to exhibit it in a building accessible to the public. That is the whole point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 5—(Lord Methuen.)
  The EARL OF SELKIRK: This clause gives power to the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to transfer pictures to any institution listed in the First Schedule to the Bill. Those are institutions which, for one reason or another, it is assumed are more interested in the particular item than the Tate or National Galleries. That is the first purpose of that clause. The noble Lord has not referred to that side of it; perhaps I am wrong, but I assume he has no objection to that.
  LORD METHUEN: What is the objection to a loan, as now?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The objection to a loan is that the Galleries concerned would much rather not have pictures on permanent loan round the country. A full transfer transfers with it responsibility, and I understand that it is, quite naturally I think, in the interests of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery that the matter should be finalised in that respect. That is the reason why that particular course has been taken. The second point of this clause is in regard to its being "with the consent of the Treasury, to the Ministry of Works." I admit that there are two sides to that provision. One is that, in their reference library, if you like, all works that have ever been in the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery should be retained. I have expressed a view that in a number of cases it is right and proper that our public buildings, and other buildings the furnishings of which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Works, should be properly decorated; and I suggested that there may be in both Galleries a certain number of pictures of that type which might be transferred

  1093
  without in any way causing loss in that respect to the public.
  LORD METHUEN: The noble Earl spoke of pictures of a certain type. That is to-day. But they will be of a completely different type in ten years' time, and of a completely different type again in ten more years' time. It all depends on fashion, particularly in the Tate Gallery. I think it is a most dangerous precedent.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I am wondering why my noble friend really insists that it is better to transfer than to loan the pictures. I am connected with a great number of these galleries to which loans are to be made—for instance, the National Library of Scotland. In that respect, I should infinitely prefer a loan to a transfer. The National Library would certainly welcome loans, but is quite incapable of looking after pictures; we have not the experience or the men to do so. I see no objection to loans, but I see considerable objection to taking the pictures out of the National Gallery's possession and permanently transferring them to galleries which may have nothing whatever to do with pictures.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I see the force of the noble Earl's point. Certainly I have been given to understand—indeed, to some extent it was a point made by the noble Earl himself, in the course of his remarks—that it was not really the function of the National Gallery to lend. That was the point made by Lord Crawford earlier. Their function was to preserve.
  LORD METHUEN: There are two or three hundred out on loan now.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know that. But it is not really their function to lend out; their function is to maintain and show to the public the pictures they have. It imposes an extra duty on the Gallery to have pictures out on loan for which the Gallery is responsible, particularly if the picture is some distance away. They have not the personnel to go round to see what is happening to pictures, and this is an extra burden on the staff. I am given to understand, that in a number of cases the Galleries concerned would prefer to adopt the proposal here and have transferred a picture which they no
  1094
  longer want. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has raised this eternal question of fashion. There is no answer to that question—pictures come into fashion and go out of fashion.
  LORD METHUEN: Therein lies the danger.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: So do ladies' dresses and everything else. But the point is that these people are responsible not only for buying but for looking after the pictures. Is it not rather a smaller responsibility—that of transferring them to another department, so that in some measure they would be decorating another building? I am told that it is well within the compass of the Director and the Trustees of the Galleries concerned. I do not think it will be used extensively. In spite of what my noble friend says, I think the Galleries may prefer to use the instrument of transfer, rather than loan. In any case, they are of course free to use loans if they want to. This is merely an alternative.
  LORD METHUEN: In the event of transfer, would these Galleries have power to "cash in" on these pictures if they wished?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You cannot transfer to one of these institutions or museums against their will; it can be done only if they want that to happen.
  LORD METHUEN: But would they have the power or option of "cashing in" on the pictures at any time, if they wished to do so?
  7.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I wonder how the noble Earl would feel about a suggestion that as Clause 4 is going to be examined before the next stage, Clause 5 should be examined at the same time. It seems to me that that would be the best course to follow. I am not happy about it as it is. I have an Amendment down, but I am certainly not going to divide the House at this late stage. I think this is a matter which ought to be considered carefully, and that plenty of time should be devoted to it. I will certainly withdraw my Amendment, if the noble Earl can see his way to agree to my suggestion.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl speaks with very great authority; might I ask what he has in mind? Transfer is a matter of choice, both of the transferor and the transferee. If both parties prefer that particular line, does he consider it wrong to allow it? After all, if both parties want to lend, they can lend; there is no difficulty about that. The other course is transfer to the Ministry of Works pool. That is the easiest way of disposing of pictures in certain cases. A picture dealt with in that way goes under the charge of the Ministry of Works. It seems to me that something of this character is wanted as a power for the Galleries. This is only a power; it is not an authority. There is no compulsion.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I agree that it sounds all right, but I am not sure that it will work out in practice. Who is going to pick out these pictures?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is perfectly clear—the Trustees themselves will do it. Do not let there be any misunderstanding about that. There is no question of anyone walking gallantly into the National Gallery and saying: "I will have that one, and that one, and that one; put them into my office." THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: How else can it work? Are we to go round and say, for instance: "Lord Selkirk, would you like to have this, or would you like to have that? Of course not. It always happens in precisely the way that my noble friend has suggested.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: Perhaps the noble Earl will suggest that the Treasury will have the selection of these pictures. I would remind the Committee that since 1948 we have just had the third of the new heads put into the Ministry which deals with museums. I do not think it will help the position very much.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, I should think there is no question of the Treasury making the decision. I cannot believe that Trustees appointed by the Prime Minister would be ridden over roughshod by any Minister who walks in. If that is the way the noble Earl interprets his duty as Trustee, I am amazed. I think we can accept it that Trustees in this matter have full and
  1096
  ample discretion. They find a picture in their reference collection which they do not want; no doubt someone at the Ministry of Works will ask for it, and, if they can spare it, it will be transferred. If they want to lend it they can do so. The matter is absolutely in the discretion of the Trustees, and I do not think that this is excessive power to give them. I believe that there are pictures which both Galleries would be willing to transfer to the Office of Works. As matters stand, even if there is only one such picture, we are preventing it from being transferred unless we give these powers. I hope that the noble Lord is mollified by what I have said. I shall be happy to arrange to have discussions with him between now and the next stage of the Bill.
  LORD METHUEN: The noble Earl constantly comes back to the question of the Trustees, and emphasises that they will have ample scope to do what they like; they can either refuse to lend or lend as they wish. May I quote one or two cases where trustees who have been empowered by the Act of 1856 to sell have been proved subsequently to have been at fault? That is the crux of the whole business. The trustees are empowered to sell something that is not wanted. The whole question turns on what is not wanted. What is not wanted to-day may well turn out to be wanted in some years' time and to be of great value. May I quote first the case of the Crivelli altar piece of the Annunciation, now at the National Gallery and formerly at the Brera, Milan. That was sold by the authorities as no longer required. It was exchanged for a picture which most people consider far its inferior.
  In the Kruger Collection, the Trustees were allowed by the Act of 1856 to sell what they considered rubbish. Amongst the "rubbish" was the Soest altar-piece which the Trustees sold. It consisted of thirty pieces. Two panels were sold for large sums, presumably, to the Deutsches Museum, Berlin, in 1932. Some of these pieces are now for sale in London. That, to my mind, is sufficient indication of what happens through changing fashions. What is one day considered of no value, later is found to be of great value. That is the danger of giving Trustees the power to sell, especially if they are going to keep the money. There has been no sale since

  1097
  the Kruger sales, presumably because the Treasury always kept the money if they sold.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite recognise that the noble Lord has a point there. But a work of art remains a national asset, either with a museum in this country or with the Ministry of Works. There is no certainty in human nature; you have to trust it. Though pictures that could have been bought fifty years ago very cheaply, are now going for enormous sums, someone has to trust someone. I suggest that we are trusting already people who are not going to have powers which they cannot properly exercise. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would withdraw his Amendment. As I say, I shall be glad to arrange for discussions.
  LORD METHUEN: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment if it is understood that it can be restored, if that is considered desirable, at the Retort stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Powers of sale exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees
  6.—(1) If the National Gallery Trustees or the Tate Gallery Trustees, as the case may be, have resolved that a picture or other work of art vested in them is unfit for, or is not required as part of, the collection for which they are responsible, they may, with the consent of the Treasury, sell that picture or other work of art:
  Provided that a picture or other work of art which has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been exhibited in the National Gallery or in the Tate Gallery as part of either collection shall not be sold under this section unless and until a statement containing details of the proposed sale has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days.
  In reckoning for the purposes of this proviso any period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
  (2) The consent of the Treasury under this section may be given subject to any conditions, including in particular conditions as to the method of sale.
  (3) The Treasury shall lay before Parliament a statement as to any sale effected under this section, setting out the manner in which the sale was effected and the amount realised.
  (4) The net proceeds of a sale under this section shall be retained by the Trustees by whom the sale was effected to be applied by them in the purchase of other works of art.
  (5) The power of sale conferred by this section shall not be exercisable as respects a picture or other work of art which has been given or bequeathed unless the donor or testator has authorised a sale.
  (6) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for sections one and two of the National Gallery Act, 1856.
  7.10 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES moved to omit Clause 6. The noble Earl said: I had thought that this would be an opportunity for giving reasons against the sale of National Gallery pictures, for giving reasons why I consider the Gallery should be maintained as a whole, and for giving reasons why I consider it of great value to students that it should be so, but this morning the Board of the National Gallery agreed that they would prefer that the status quo should be reintroduced. The main difference is that hitherto the proceeds of any sale have gone to the Treasury. The only sales that have takers place have been referred to, and they are most unfortunate. Under this provision the proceeds will go to the Trustees—in other words, there will be some inducement for the Trustees to sell, and the general feeling among all people connected with the world of museums and scholarship is that it would be most unfortunate if the National Gallery sold. In this case the Trustees ask not to be trusted and that the noble Earl, to whom "Trust the Trustee" is a motto and a banner, will maintain the status quo without any temptation. If the noble Earl will agree to consider this, I can save the time of the House by not speaking further.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 6.—(The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is one of the peculiar things about this Bill——
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: Perhaps it will save time if I speak now, because I have here a very important memorandum addressed to the Standing Commission on Museums, which, owing to the extraordinarily short time that we have been given to study this Bill since Second Reading, has not been discussed by them. They are to deal with it on Friday, because they could not arrange anything

  1099
  before. This memorandum is signed by a number of former Directors of the National Gallery and by some of the younger critics and it is extremely important. If I am to go on with this, I should like to read from this memorandum, and I am afraid that it will take another fifteen or twenty minutes. The memorandum is most interesting. It gives the views of the signatories on why sales should not be allowed. I do not know what the noble Earl would wish me to do.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will be able to answer me, and we can get this matter closed.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, that he sends me a copy of the memorandum?
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I have an extra one in my pocket.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord will let me have it, I shall be grateful. I was going to say to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that the National Gallery have had the power of sale for a century, and this is really a restriction on the power of sale under the Act of 1856. The Bill provides that no picture if exhibited in either gallery can be sold without information being laid before Parliament. That is not the case under the 1856 Act, and is a restriction on the power of sale.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: What I said was that we should maintain the status quo.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not certain that the status quo is better. The 1856 Act provides that money should not be referred automatically to the National Gallery but should go to the Treasury. But I do not think that is the case for the Tate Gallery, which may reach a stage in its development when the Trustees will have to sell. I should like to consult my advisers before I speak on that. But I certainly accept the noble Earl's point in regard to the National Gallery and will try to put an Amendment down to meet it. The provision that information should be laid before Parliament before any picture is sold by either Gallery——
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: The answer to my point
  1100
  is really that if the noble Earl will recommend that the status quo should be maintained, then I will not weary your Lordships with my reasons for asking for this. If I cannot have that assurance, I am afraid that I shall have to make a speech.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I draw the noble Earl's attention to subsection (3)? That subsection says that information must be laid on the Table for forty days before sale, yet in subsection (3), there is the statement:
  "The Treasury shall lay before Parliament a statement as to any sale effected under this section, setting out the manner in which the sale was effected and the amount realised."
  That is rather late in the day. The picture has been sold. What can Parliament do about it then?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can give the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, every hope that something of that sort will be put down by the Government or through their initiative.
  7.15 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: I confess that I am in a muddle now. Is the position this: that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is to consider whether he is to reproduce in this Bill the conditions of the 1856 Act, which were that when the Gallery sells a picture it does not get the money, which goes to the Treasury? That being so, there is no possible inducement to sell. That seems to me to be a rather sensible arrangement, which should be considered. I think the right to sell is desirable in some circumstances, unless we are to have the Galleries cluttered up with a lot of what I venture to think is frightful rubbish. Pictures have to be stored somewhere, whether in a cellar or fourteen feet above ground, and I can see that circumstances may arise when it is very desirable to sell. But in view of the apprehensions that have been aroused about dispersing the National Gallery collection, I think it would be well worth considering whether we should not have the same provision as in the Act of 1856, that when the Gallery does sell, the money goes to the Treasury.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Crawford said about the objection on the part of students to selling, that from what I can hear there is great objection also on

  1101
  the dealing side. I am afraid there will be ill-feeling among dealers, one being privileged as against another.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Is the noble Earl withdrawing his Amendment?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I think the position is that I should withdraw my Amendment, as we have been assured that an Amendment to maintain the status quo, or something very nearly that, if put down on Report stage, will be accepted by the Government. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As my name attaches to this Amendment, I want to understand what is meant here by the status quo.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It means that the money raised by the sale of pictures will go direct to the Treasury and not to the National Gallery Trustees, as the result of this unusual and unexpected request from the National Gallery.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Then I part completely from my noble friend Lord Crawford. I am reluctant to give power of sale at all. I agree that if the funds go to the Treasury, instead of to the Gallery, that is a good point and will mitigate abuses.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid the noble Earl has missed the point. If the Amendment is carried and the clause is left out of the Bill, the old power of sale will still remain.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think I am right in saying that that is so only for the National Gallery, and not for the Tate Gallery.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You are probably right, but I am not sure.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Anyhow, that is how I understand it. Part of my argument, I admit, was on the question of the incitement of the Gallery to sell. If you let the funds go back to the Treasury, it will remove that danger. However, there is a danger which I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. One of the great difficulties is that fashions change astonishingly. Pictures which are
  1102
  worth £150 to-day may be worth £20,000 in fifty years' time—that is not an exaggeration. I know personally a man who was offered two Gauguin paintings for the equivalent of about £25 during his lifetime, and he refused them because he thought they were worthless. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, could probably say what they are worth to-day, but I imagine that it is something like £20,000 or £30,000 or more. At the moment, the pre-Raphaelites are very much out of fashion, but in a hundred years' time they may be looked upon as the greatest paintings of the age. I do not want to stress this point too much, but you are up against this dilemma: that if you sell rubbish for the Galleries you will not get anything for it. If you put up for sale a picture that we consider had to-day, you will get no return relatively, except for the frame. At the same time, you risk losing what in years to come may be considered a very good picture.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Earl presses this Amendment, it simply means that we go back to the position of 1856. I do not know whether that is his object.
  LORD SALTER: Are we not getting into a confusing position? Those who fear the danger of sale are, in the way the debate is being conducted, apparently going to abolish what is, after all, a substantial safeguard—namely, that not only do the Trustees have to agree to the sale, but that Parliament also has the opportunity of rejecting it. It may be taken, therefore, that even if the great majority of the Trustees are in favour of a sale, even a small minority can easily see that that power of Parliament is a very real one. I should have thought that it would be a great pity that this safeguard should be lost, as it were, by accident.
  EARL JOWITT: I feel that we must be careful about this. I have been looking up the records of the Tate Gallery. I think we must guard against this sort of position. We had a picture given to us by Mr. Samuel Courtauld, the "Pont de Morat" by Sisley. It was in 1927, long before I was a Trustee. We did not think it a very good example, and were therefore minded to sell it, or at any rate to exchange it for another picture. Mr. Samuel Courtauld was approached.

  1103
  and he said that he thought it was right to do it. In fact, we did sell it, and we bought with the proceeds another picture, "Water Lilies" by Monet, Mr. Samuel Courtauld advancing us another £1,000 to make up the appropriate sum. I assume that we were right to get the "Water Lilies "instead of the Sisley, which I cannot remember myself. Anyhow, everybody agreed to its being done, and, as I say, Mr. Samuel Courtauld gave us the extra £1,000 which we had to pay. I think it would be a pity to word this clause so that that sort of thing could not be done in future. I think that is worth bearing in mind, and I thought I would mention it so that it might be considered.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I suggest to the noble Earl that we should withdraw this Amendment. But will the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, put down another Amendment, or will the Government put down an alteration to reduce the powers to the status quo?
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: If I put down the Amendment, the noble Earl will tell me that it is nonsense. If the Government put down an Amendment. I am sure we should all be happier. But in putting down that Amendment, I should like to ask that we take into account the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Salter, to the effect that the Amendment I have moved eliminates one of the safeguards under the present Bill. Might that point be included in the proposed Amendment?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly look into that matter.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I suggest that the memorandum I have promised to give to the noble Earl afterwards might change his stony heart, because he may find some ideas in it. It is an important memorandum, which the noble Earl should consider carefully, because it is full of common sense all the way through.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  change of status of director of National Gallery
  7. References to the National Gallery Trustees in section one of this Act shall be taken as references to those Trustees together with the director of the National Gallery but, subject to the provisions of that section, any property which, immediately before the date of the coming into operation of this Act, was vested in the National Gallery Trustees together with the said director shall on the said date vest in those Trustees alone and any functions previously performed by those Trustees together with the director shall thereafter be performed by those Trustees alone.
  LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN moved to delete Clause 7. The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is really to find out why the Director, who is appointed by the Prime Minister or the Treasury and who is technically, I believe, an adviser and Trustee, should be divorced from responsibility. Why should he not accept the same responsibility as the Trustees, as he does at present? I feel that some explanation is required. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Methuen.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad the noble Lord has raised this point, if there is any doubt about it. The reasons are really rather formal. The normal procedure in the galleries and in museums—as in the British Museum—is that the property should be vested in the Trustees only. All that is happening here is that the property is to be vested in the Trustees, and not in the Trustees and the Director. That brings the position into line with that at all other Galleries, and that was thought desirable. I do not think this in any way reduces the status of the Director; it certainly is not intended to do so.
  LORD METHUEN: If it is purely in order to make the position conform with that of other museums, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Short title, repeals and commencement
  8.—(1) This Act may be cited as the National Art Collections Act, 1953.
  7.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "National Art Collections Act, 1953" and insert "National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1953". The noble Earl said: I do not think I need take long on this Amendment. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Crawford on the Second Reading showed some surprise about this point. I must say that I felt immense surprise. I thought the National Gallery were proposing to take over the fund of the noble Earl, which he deals with so splendidly. But I cannot feel that their title is a good one.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would it help the noble Earl if I told him I was prepared to accept the Amendment?
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: Yes. That being so, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 28, leave out ("National Art Collections Act, 1953") and insert ("National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, 1953").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD BURDEN: Before we pass from this clause may I say a word or two? This is in no way a Party political measure; there are no Party politics involved. Broadsides have been delivered on practically each clause from all quarters of the House, and those broadsides have been effectively met by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. There are twenty Amendments on the list, and the noble Earl has gallantly accepted one, to change the title of the Bill. It is true that he has promised to meet those interested in one or two other Amendments which have not been moved or withdrawn. We shall look forward with intense interest to see what happens in the discussions which presumably are now going to take place between those interested in those proposals between now and the Report stage.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Woolton, may I say that I understand that the Committee stage has been postponed.
  Order of the Day discharged.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  7.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Bill is to perpetuate for one further year certain Acts or parts of Acts which are due to expire on December 31 this year, together with others which lapse on March 31 next year. A similar Bill was passed in the middle of December last year, and the difference between last year and this year consists of the addition of a portion of the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952, a portion of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1951, and a portion of the Licensing Act, 1953, while on the other hand there has been omitted this year a portion of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, and the whole of the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should just like to say a few words, because I have promised to do so. Amongst the Bills which are being continued is the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. When this matter came up last year there was some discussion in this House about it. I have it before me. It is reported in Hansard, Vol. 179, col. 979. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, then raised a point, which was, in effect, that a pledge had been given that the next time this Bill was introduced that Act would go altogether, except that existing Orders would be saved. I do not want to say anything more about it now, but I promised the noble and learned Viscount that as I was going to be here

  1107
  I would indicate the point. I daresay the noble Lord has already been made aware of it, and I desire, on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount, to point out that when we get to the Committee stage he will move an Amendment, the nature of which is before me, that this Prevention of Violence Act should go, but that we should have a clause preserving the Orders which have already been made, but no new Orders. Perhaps the noble Lord will bear that in mind, and I hope he will be able to take that course. In that case it will be unnecessary for the noble and learned Viscount to move the Amendment which he otherwise will do, because he feels that this promise was made to him last year.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say one word? This Bill also continues Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and also the main Act of 1914. There was laid a statutory instrument, No. 1671, with thirty clauses. A discussion took place on this Bill in another place, and reference was made in that discussion to this post-statutory instrument. At this hour it would not be appropriate for me to develop any argument in connection with that statutory instrument, even if it were in order, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps it is worth looking at to see
  1108
  whether this proposed statutory instrument, as it was suggested in another place, might soon take the form of a Bill which would be discussed and dealt with in the ordinary way by both Houses and be subject to Amendment. In view of the important issues involved in this statutory instrument I throw out the suggestion that it might be a good thing if it were examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses, when the proposals in the suggested order could be looked at in an impartial spirit, until it became possible to put them on the Statute Book in the ordinary way.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Earl for giving me notice of the point about the Prevention of Violence Act. I was not unaware that some such point might be made, in spite of the fact that we thought we had managed to meet the points made last year. However, the Committee stage will be the right stage on which to argue the question. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will certainly be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to see whether a fresh Act is a suitable repository for this particular thing.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.