§ House again in Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESFrom 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 HUNTINGDONNo; they are consequential.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESI also gather that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, will not wish to move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11?
§ THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESThat is so.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTERI 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 COMMITTEESWhat 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 SELKIRKYes.
§ 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
- (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 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 SELKIRKI 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 HUNTINGDONI 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 ILCHESTERI 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 COMMITTEESI 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 HUNTINGDONThat is right.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.52 p.m.
§ 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 SELKIRKThis 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe 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 METHUENThe 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 BALCARRESI 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 SELKIRKI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKSo 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 METHUENIn the event of transfer, would these Galleries have power to "cash in" on these pictures if they wished?
THE LORD CHANCELLORYou cannot transfer to one of these institutions or museums against their will; it can be done only if they want that to happen.
LORD METHUENBut 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 ILCHESTERI 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 SELKIRKThe 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 ILCHESTERI 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 SELKIRKThat 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 ILCHESTERPerhaps 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 SELKIRKWith 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 METHUENThe 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 SELKIRKI 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 METHUENI 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.
1098§ (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 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 SELKIRKIt is one of the peculiar things about this Bill——
THE EARL OF ILCHESTERPerhaps 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 BALCARRESI hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will be able to answer me, and we can get this matter closed.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMay I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, that he sends me a copy of the memorandum?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIf 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 BALCARRESWhat I said was that we should maintain the status quo.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI 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 BALCARRESThe 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 ILCHESTERMay 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 SELKIRKI 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 JOWITTI 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 KINNAIRDI 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 HUNTINGDONIs the noble Earl withdrawing his Amendment?
§ THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRESI 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 HUNTINGDONAs my name attaches to this Amendment, I want to understand what is meant here by the status quo.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIt 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 HUNTINGDONThen 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 CHANCELLORI 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 HUNTINGDONI think I am right in saying that that is so only for the National Gallery, and not for the Tate Gallery.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONAnyhow, 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 SELKIRKIf 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 SALTERAre 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 JOWITTI 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 HUNTINGDONI 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 BALCARRESIf 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 SELKIRKI will certainly look into that matter.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTERMay 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 BALCARRESI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
1104§ 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 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 SELKIRKI 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 METHUENIf 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.
1105§ 7.28 p.m.
§ 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 SELKIRKWould it help the noble Earl if I told him I was prepared to accept the Amendment?
§
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 BURDENBefore 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.