§ 6.21 p.m.
§ House again in Committee.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI 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 METHUENThat pool is not for scattering pictures all over the place where they are not accessible to the public.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe 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 METHUENAre 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 SELKIRKI 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 METHUENThat 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 SELKIRKI 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 METHUENThe 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 SELKIRKThe 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 ILCHESTERI 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 BALCARRESMay 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 MOYNEMay 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 WELLINGTONMay 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 ESHERWould 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 ILCHESTERI 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 HUNTINGDONWhen 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 SELKIRKI 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 BALCARRESA cellar cannot be eight feet from the ground, surely—especially in Trafalgar Square.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThat 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 HUNTINGDONI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI 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 METHUENMay 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 SELKIRKI 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 HUNTINGDONI 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 SELKIRKFor the noble Earl's private information, I propose to accept it.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONI thank the noble Earl.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.