Lords Sitting of 8 April 1954

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

TOWCESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (ABTHORPE RATING) BILL.
Read 3, and passed.
CAERNARVON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Pethick-Lawrence to advance his Motion on the Economic Situation (now standing for Wednesday the 5th of May next) to Tuesday the 27th instant.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ENTENTE CORDIALE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I have to inform you that I have to-day received a telegram from the President of the Conseil de la République: in these terms. I have ventured, my Lords, to translate it, thinking that you would prefer it to my rendering of the French. The message is as follows:
"On this day when Great Britain and France celebrate with the same fervour the 50th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale, I beg you to be so kind as to offer to the House of Lords in the name of the Conseil de la République, together with our sincere good wishes for the prosperity of the
1138
British people, the assurance of our lively friendship. The bonds which unite our two countries are all the stronger because they express a common belief and sympathy in matters of great importance.
"The Convention of the 8th April, 1904, embodied the agreement of our two peoples on the necessity of safeguarding the spiritual values of which we are the common trustees. The Entente Cordiale made sure, on two occasions, the defence of these values and the triumph of freedom, without which they are nothing. Sacrifices agreed to in common, the feeling that neither of us could bear a life which was not marked by freedom, are for us a guarantee that far beyond any divergences of interest, the ideal of our two nations remains—respect for individual human life and constant struggle for the achievement of prosperity and peace in the world."
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to move, That this House, in recognition of the fact that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Entente Cordiale, and that for the past half century the close and friendly relations thus established between France and Great Britain have been loyally maintained and of great mutual value both in war and peace; that Franco-British friendship—of which the Dunkirk Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance is a recent manifestation—is one of the foundation stones on which the post-war policies of France and Great Britain have been built, and is essential for the security and prosperity of Western civilisation; and that it is the common desire of the peoples of our two countries that this close understanding, which has so well withstood the test of time, should be preserved and diligently developed, resolves, That a message of greeting and goodwill be conveyed to the Conseil de la République to mark the first fifty years of the Entente Cordiale and. to give an assurance that the tradition of Anglo-French solidarity which has grown up during this period will continue to be a constant and guiding principle of our foreign policy over future decades.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have the honour to follow up the message which the noble and learned Lord on the

1139
Woolsack has just read from the President of the Conseil de la République by the Resolution which stands in my name upon the Paper. One cannot, I think, readily recall the making of the Entente Cordiale without thinking first of King Edward VII. The distinguished French delegation that will be coming to London at the end of May, under the leadership of the Foreign Minister, M. Bidault, to join with us in celebrating the Jubilee of the Entente, have, I understand, very much in their minds a tribute to King Edward VII's memory, for like us they think of him as "The Peacemaker." That title seems very remote when contemplated from the horror of this atomic age, but it was in fact King Edward's understanding of the French people and the great sympathy that he felt for them which enabled him to prepare the way when statesmen proposed the reversal of British foreign policy involved in making a Pact with France.
King Edward's liking for France and the French went back to his visits to Paris as a boy during the Crimean war; and this year of 1954 is not only the fiftieth anniversary of the Entente: it is also the centenary of Franco-British co-operation in the Crimea. Nearly fifty years later the King's official visit to Paris was described by that great diplomat M. Paul Cambon, the then French Ambassador in London, as a political event of great significance; that, and afterwards in the autumn the very successful visit paid in return by President Loubet and M. Delcassé, the French Foreign Minister, considerably smoothed the course of diplomacy and brought about a marked change in public opinion in both countries. A well-known French author wrote soon afterwards that the journey to France of one single man had the power to transmute in less than a week the sentiments of a whole people. So eventually the agreement concluded on that day, April 8, 1904, brought about the settlement of all the existing disputes between us, the most important, as your Lordships will recall, being those with regard to Morocco and Egypt. So ended the long story of rivalry between our two countries, and the balance of power was restored.
To-day, fifty years later, the Entente still stands, in spite of all the storms that have rocked the world in the interval,
1140
a foundation of the foreign policy of both our countries. There is indeed a serious storm that faces the French now in Indo-China; and if, with your Lordships permission, I may digress for one moment, I should like to say that, as Allies, as old comrades in arms and as friends of the French people, we should, I feel sure, desire to express our profound admiration of the gallantry of the French troops fighting a very difficult campaign in Indo-China, which, as we all know, has culminated in the defence of Dien Bien Phu under the heroic command of Colonel de Castries. We earnestly hope for a satisfactory outcome of this difficult struggle.
To return again to the story of the Entente, the names of two Ambassadors, great friends of France, who made of that title a title of honour and who were Members of your Lordships' House, will perhaps be in the thoughts of noble Lords in connection with the Motion before the House this afternoon. The late Lord Derby, who was Ambassador to Paris in the last years of the First World War, was beloved by the French people. On his return home and for the rest of his life, he constantly exerted all his great personal influence in the cause of friendship with France. He founded the Association which, since the last war, has become known as the Franco-British Society, with which I am associated and with which I am glad to think the Leaders of the three Parties in this House, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, are also personally associated. It seems quite natural that the President of the Society to-day should be the Englishman who is dearest to the hearts of all the French people, the present Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill.
The other Ambassador and great friend of France, who will no doubt be in your Lordships' thoughts and whose recent untimely death is still fresh in our minds, was Lord Norwich. It was only the other day that we recalled how Sir Alfred Duff Cooper rendered great service to the State by the part he played in Franco-British relations at the end of the last war and during the post-war years, when he was Ambassador in Paris. The present French Ambassador in London, M. Massigli, in a broadcast message on

1141
Lord Norwich's sudden death, said he gave away no secret in saying that Sir Alfred Duff Cooper was one of the chief architects of the Franco-British Alliance signed at Dunkirk in 1947 by Mr. Ernest Bevin. There is no doubt of that. Lord Norwich was profoundly convinced that, whether they like it or not, the destinies of Britain and France are indissolubly bound.
The fact that now we are both members of a much larger organisation, of the vitally indispensable, all-important N.A.T.O., does not weaken, I suggest, but rather strengthens, the very special links that bind our two countries together. If we look back, we can say that we have suffered together and we have rejoiced together. We will continue to march forward together. The links that bind us are indeed indissoluble. Some such thoughts as these, I suppose, were in the minds of the founders of the Entente. We recall particularly, on this side of the Channel, the great part played by Lord Lansdowne as Foreign Secretary, which was described at the time by Lord Spencer, speaking on behalf of the Opposition Peers, as a great achievement. The importance of the Entente remains, I believe, the conviction of your Lordships to-day, and it is in that belief that I have placed the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, in recognition of the fact that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Entente Cordiale and that for the past half century the dose and friendly relations thus established between France and Great Britain have been loyally maintained and of great mutual value both in war and peace:

that Franco-British friendship—of which the Dunkirk Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance is a recent manifestation—is one of the foundation stones on which the post-war policies of France and Great Britain have been built, and is essential for the security and prosperity of Western civilisation:

and that it is the common desire of the peoples of our two countries that this close understanding, which has so well withstood the test of time, should be preserved and diligently developed:

1142
Resolves, That a Message of Greeting and Goodwill be conveyed to the Counseil de la République to mark the first fifty years of the Entente Cordiale and to give an assurance that the tradition of Anglo-French solidarity which has grown up during this period will continue to be a constant and guiding principle of our foreign policy over future decades.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to support most warmly the Resolution which has been so happily moved by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. This year, 1954, as we have just heard, both from him and from the message of the President of the Council of the French Republic, for which we are all so deeply grateful, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France. The year 1904 was certainly a fateful date for both our countries. Indeed, to students of history in the future I think it may well go down as one of the most encouraging dates in the whole history of Europe. For it marked the end of a centuries-old period of mistrust between the French and the British peoples, and the replacement of that mistrust by a close and cordial relationship, based both on mutual interest and on deep mutual affection. Ever since mediæval times, I suppose, Britain and France have regarded themselves as rivals, both in Europe and throughout the newly discovered areas of the world. It was one of those things which people regretted; but it was a fact; and if anyone had said in those days, in either of the two countries, that the time would come when they would become comrades in arms, fighting side by side in a common cause in two world wars, it would hardly have been believed. Yet to-day that conception of the essential importance of friendship between France and Britain is so firmly established that, I suppose, in either of the two countries, no one but a lunatic would seek to dispute it.
What has brought about this great change? No doubt there have been a variety of causes. First, there were the personal effort; of King Edward VII. To

1143
which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has referred. That achievement was certainly the most memorable one of his great reign—and it was, indeed, a great achievement. Also, in part, no doubt, it was due to the rise of Germany as a great Power at the beginning of the century, which forced both Britain and France at that time to reconsider their attitude to each other. Partly, possibly, it was a recognition of our common interests in the Colonial sphere: and partly, perhaps—and, to my mind, this was the strongest of all reasons—it was due to the sheer shrinkage of space which came about as a result of modern inventions. After all, Britain and France are divided geographically only by about twenty miles of sea, and however wide a barrier that may have been in earlier days, it has shrunk to a mere ditch since the conquest of the air. We are both equally vulnerable to attack from the air from each other's territories—and, indeed, from an area far wider afield than that. In the terrible modern world in which we live, therefore, nations so closely associated as we and the French nation are cannot afford to quarrel; our fates are to-day far too intimately linked.
The necessity for a closer friendship between the two countries was, as your Lordships know, already apparent as far back as 1843, when M. Guizot, the Foreign Minister of France at that time, first coined the phrase "Entente Cordiale." But the friction which was an unhappy legacy of the past still continued, and, as we have heard this afternoon, it was not until 1904, exactly fifty years ago, that the combined efforts of King Edward VII, Lord Lansdowne, the then British Foreign Secretary, and M. Delcassé, the French Foreign Minister, culminated in those Agreements which we are celebrating this afternoon. Since then, though there may have been individual issues on which we have not always agreed—and I am afraid that that is quite inevitable, even between the closest and dearest friends—it may broadly be said, I believe, that the need for Franco-British friendship has become ever more firmly established with every year that has passed, until to-day in this country it is taken quite as a matter of course by every man and woman.
1144
We have fought shoulder to shoulder in two great wars; and now we are both championing the cause of freedom, not only in Europe but in Asia as well—we in Malaya and the French in Indo-China. I should like, in this connection, to echo what has already been so well said by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and to pay a heartfelt tribute to Colonel de Castries and his heroic force, who are to-day so bravely maintaining and sustaining the cause of liberty in Indo-China. We have all watched the dauntless defence of Dien Bien Phu, on which so much depends for us all, with pride and admiration. There can have been nothing finer, I imagine, in the whole history of French arms, and I am happy to pay a tribute to them to-day.
Nor is it only on the field of battle that our interdependence has been shown. By our joint signatures to the Brussels Treaty and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation we have shown our determination to act together for the preservation of peace. In the economic sphere, too, our collaboration has been in recent years equally close. Long may that continue, my Lords! After all, the inexorable facts of geography will not change; they will only become, with the widening discoveries of science, ever more compelling. To-day, fifty years after the Entente Cordiale first came into being, let us re-dedicate ourselves to the purpose which inspired its creators. It is inevitable, I suppose, in some ways, that the character of the contributions which our two nations have to make to the maintenance of our common heritage and our common interest may not be absolutely identical. To my mind, that does not matter. What does matter is that they should be complementary; that the policy which each of our countries adopts in Europe, in Asia and in Africa should harmonise with the policy of the other. It is that which should be our joint aim. We are moving, as we know only too well, into uncharted seas. We are faced to-day with new perils—perils in some ways more formidable than we have ever known before. It was never more important that we, with the other free nations, should stand together.
I should like to end on this wider note. It must be our hope that this Entente Cordiale which we celebrate to-day may prove the exemplar and prototype of other more extensive arrangements and

1145
agreements between nations for the removal of the ancient enmities and mistrusts which at present divide them. That must be the aim and the object of all our policies. On that, most surely, the survival of all civilisation, and perhaps the survival of humanity, will depend.
4.28 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is wholly fitting that this House to-day should discuss the message which we should send to our friends on the other side of the Channel; and it is wholly fitting, too, that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, should have been chosen to move this Resolution. He has rightly referred to the great names of the past, British statesmen who have kept our friendship alive in every way they can—Lord Derby and, more recently, Lord Norwich. Now the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, is himself playing the same part. as Chairman of the Franco-British Society. Fortunately, there are on the other side of the Channel to-day people who are playing a corresponding rôle. The Ambassador, M. Massigli, who is so good a Frenchman, has come to be regarded as one of us over here, and to his services and those of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, we all owe much. I desire to identify my Party with everything that has been said in appreciation of what the French are doing to-day and the burden they are carrying in the war in the Far East.
But I desire to say something more than that. We are accustomed to these examples of French gallantry. But just stop for a moment and think what the whole world owes to France in the sphere of peace, in the art of living, in the art of painting, in the art of literature. What a dull world this would be without the contribution that Frenchmen have made and are making! So far as the Entente Cordiale itself is concerned, I, too, have been making my historical researches. If there were two Frenchmen to whom it was primarily due, they were, I suppose, M. Delcassé and M. Paul Cambon. After Fashoda, M. Delcassé became Foreign Secretary, and he selected M. Paul Cambon to come to London. When Lord Salisbury, the grandfather of the noble Marquess, was still at the Foreign Office—he left. I think, in November. 1900—he judged it then too early to attempt to settle all the many outstanding problems; and, indeed, whilst the Boer War was still
1146
active, he was almost certainly right, for in all these matters timing is of the essence of the thing.
It is recorded that in 1902, at a party at Marlborough House, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and M. Cambon had an animated conversation lasting for halfan-hour. We now know, because the German archives are available to us, that this was reported to his Government by Baron Von Eckardstein. He described the conversation, which he said was very animated, but he explained, rather apologetically, that he had been unable to hear very much. All he had heard were the two rather significant words "Morocco" and "Egypt." Then, in 1903, King Edward VII visited Paris. In Sir Sidney Lee's book it is recorded that when he went there his reception was to say the least of it, a trifle reserved. Cries of "Vive les Boers!" "Vive Marchand!", "Vive Fashoda!" were heard, amongst other rather more cordial greetings. But, after a few days. when the Parisiens had got to know the King better, when they had been captivated by his personality, his wit and his gallantry, and when they had listened to his speeches proclaiming his desire for friendship, there was no sort of reserve in their welcome. When finally he left the British Embassy for the Gare des Invalides, accompanied by the President of the French Republic, the route was lined with a madly enthusiastic crowd, and the universal cry was now "Vive notre Rol!" That visit made it possible for Lord Lansdowne and M. Delcassé, and the Ambassadors of the two countries, to clear up all the problems, from Siam to Newfoundland and from Morocco to Egypt, which had vexed the relationships of the two countries.
Meanwhile, in Germany, Holstein and Bulow, with characteristic blindness, were informing their master that the rival claims of France and England to influence in Morocco were bound to keep the two countries permanently apart. Yet exactly fifty years ago the Agreement clearing up all these troubles was signed, and the consequences of that Agreement belong to history. I cannot myself pretend that thereafter the two countries have always managed to keep completely in step. Indeed, I believe that if they had kept completely in step there might have been no Hitler and there might

1147
have been no Second World War. However that may be, the necessity for keeping step in the future must be a cardinal point in the foreign policy of each country. It matters enormously to us that France should remain strong, free and independent, and I fancy that Frenchmen feel the same about England. My Lords, I have much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I rise to support the Motion which has been so ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who has himself rendered such great services for so many years to the cause of Anglo-French friendship. It is now only the oldest among us who can remember what was the international situation before 1904. It was a situation that was always uneasy and often dangerous, mainly owing to the rivalry between Britain and France. In the preceding half century and more, the whole of Africa had been divided among the Powers in Colonies, Protectorates or spheres of influence; and a considerable part of Southern Asia as well. This had been accomplished without any war between them, but often with the danger of war. Sir Edward Grey has described the situation in his book of memoirs under the title, Twenty-Five Years. He had been Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office in Mr. Gladstone's last Administration of 1892, when Lord Rosebery was Foreign Secretary. In his book he writes of:
"The constant friction, rising on the slightest provocation to quarrel and hostility, between Great Britain and France or Russia."
He adds:
"The ground-swell of ill-will never ceased."
It is now quite forgotten that in 1893 Britain and France were on the very edge of war. The dispute arose over the question of Siam. France had a frontier dispute between her Colonies in Indo-China and Siam, and had declared what was termed a "pacific blockade" of the coast. Britain refused to recognise that there was such a thing as a "pacific blockade," and sent a cruiser to those waters. This cruiser was ordered away by the French commander on the coast, and a French warship steaming past the British cruiser that lay at anchor trained
1148
her guns upon the ship. Grey records that
"for twenty-four hours it was thought that war between Great Britain and France was inevitable."
And he adds:
"It was told me that one of the most influential men on the Opposition side had said that it was evident that war between ourselves and France must come, and that it would be better to have it at once"—
that sinister and fatal doctrine of the inevitable war, the preventive war, which has done, and is doing, such infinite mischief in the world. Had the Government of the day taken that advice and regarded the war as inevitable, it would have become inevitable. As events have turned out, sixty years have gone by and that "inevitable" war has, happily, not come.
Five years after that incident, in 1898, when Lord Kitchener led his army after the Battle of Omdurman to occupy the Sudan, he found there the expedition of Lieutenant Marchand at Fashoda having hoisted the French flag, and another grave situation arose. However, that was overcome. Then, after a few years, the shadow of German militarism began to spread over the international situation. Already having a powerful Army, Germany was openly seeking to build the second greatest Navy in the world, to become, if possible no doubt, the greatest Navy. Those events compelled Britain and France to reconsider the whole of the situation. Someone has said with much truth:
"We are told that we should love our neighbour, but often it is the neighbour who is the one person most difficult to love."
We all know that, very often, the closer the contact, the greater may be the friction; and it must be confessed that it was not a universal good will or a common humanity, so much as the fear of a common danger, which in those years brought together Britain and France. But soon, that ripened into something much better.
Just tribute has been paid to the memory of King Edward VII and the part that he played in those events. He did so always within the limits of constitutional principle and practice. Grey, who had become later, of course, Foreign Secretary in the latter part of the reign of King Edward VII, says about that:
"A legend arose in his lifetime,"—

1149
that is, King Edward's lifetime—
"which perhaps was believed more widely afterwards, that British foreign policy was due to his initiative, instigation and control. This was not so in my experience. He not only accepted the constitutional practice that policy must be that of his Ministers, but he preferred that it should be so."
Nevertheless, as tribute has been paid to-day, it was his friendliness, his good humour, his good will, which relieved the, French suspicions that existed at the outset and soon converted the political entente into a real cordiality.
The growth of the German Fleet, and the fact that the German Army was becoming more and more formidable, brought the two countries still closer together; and a Russian entente also was added. There came the crisis of 1914 I am now the last member of that Cabinet left in your Lordships' House, and in another place there is only left the present Prime Minister. I had already then, in 1914, been five years in the Cabinet and so was well acquainted with all the circumstances. It has been widely said that, when that great crisis came, the British people had already been bound, by secret understanding made by the Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Sir Edward Grey, to come to the support of France in such circumstances as had arisen. That was not the case. There was no such obligation. The matter had, at the desire of the whole Cabinet, been thoroughly discussed with the French Government in 1912, and there were some exchanges of correspondence between Sir Edward Grey and M. Cambon, whose name has been mentioned, that in the event of such a crisis occurring—and it was looming in the future—the two countries should consult together as to the course to be taken. Nothing more than that was said, and nothing more than that was claimed by the French.
In those terrible days at the end of July and the beginning of August, 1914, M. Cambon, on behalf of the French
1150
Government, neither in official dispatches nor in private conversations, declared or claimed that any such obligation rested upon the British Government. The British Government was free to judge the matter on the merits of the case, and did so, holding that France and Belgium were the victims of sheer aggression, that the provisions of the Anglo-Belgian Treaty had become operative, and that that Treaty most be either honoured or dishonoured. Those circumstances led to the Cabinet being substantially united, and with that union there was a united Parliament, a united country and a united Empire. The British Army stood on the left of the French line, small but efficient and very valiant. It was defeated at the outset by overwhelming forces, but it held fast on a line further back and saved Paris. Since then, in two wars over a period of nine years the two countries, side by side, have faced a double ordeal and won a double victory.
The age is past when in France, or in any other country, glory is to be found in war. The French no longer regard the greatest period of their history as the conquests of Louis XIV or Napoleon. They recognise, as we recognise and as the world does, too, that the finest services of France, to her own people and to mankind, have been in the realms of the sciences, the arts, philosophy and learning—all the achievements of a high civilisation; and also in the love of liberty, national freedom and personal freedom. So that, for a long time past, it has not been only the fear of common danger, then in one quarter now in another, that has bound the two countries, Britain and France, together, but the love and the service of common ideals.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentients.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be your Lordships' wish that I should send the appropriate Message to the President of the Conseil de la République.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Powers of transfer between the National Gallery and Tate Gallery collections
(2) The said two bodies of Trustees shall from time to time consult together to consider whether any loans or transfers should be made under this section; and in exercising their powers under this section the said two bodies of Trustees shall have regard to the desirability—

(a) of maintaining in the National Gallery a collection of pictures of established merit or significance,

LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out" of established merit or significance, "and insert" to illustrate the history of Western painting." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to propose this Amendment over which I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I am reluctant to return to this matter, but it does involve, in my opinion, an important question of principle. It is really a revised form of the Amendment I proposed to this subsection at the Committee stage on March 30 last and which I withdrew after discussion. Since then the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has kindly examined with those concerned the wording that I suggested, and he has advised me that it is too restrictive. He has reminded me that it would exclude, for instance, any American painters whom the Trustees may wish to show in the National Gallery. I think this is an important point. It is to meet the noble Earl's objection that I now propose the insertion of the words: "to illustrate the history of Western painting."
When the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, kindly replied to my speech on March 30 last, he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 186, col. 798):
"… it is certainly not the intention of the Bill to change the character of the National Gallery."
In spite of this assurance I am still not happy about this clause and I should like to say at this point that several leading, scholars with whom I have discussed this matter are not happy about it either and have urged me to ask your Lordships to reconsider it. I appreciate the assurance given by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about the intention of this Bill, hut, if he
1152
will allow me to say so with great respect, we are not dealing with intentions but with Statutes. I realise that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Trustees wish to change the character of the National Gallery; but I am thinking of the future, and this Bill gives a loophole if anyone should wish to change it. I would not mind so much if it were not for Clause 4—it is because of that clause that I think it is vital that we should define clearly in Clause 2 (2) (a) the exact function of the National Gallery, to ensure that it will remain a fully representative collection in spite of the removal elsewhere of large numbers of pictures, which is going to happen under this Bill.
As the Bill stands at present the Trustees could send away any picture that was not "of established merit or significance." On the last occasion I attempted to point out to your Lordships the difficulty of defining exactly "established merit." The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in reply said, "That is a matter for the Trustees," That, my Lords, is precisely the danger. We are going to leave this definition to be reinterpreted afresh by every generation. What do we mean by "significance"? The noble Earl, I know, interprets it as "significance in the history of art." That, I think, is a very good definition. If the noble Earl cannot see his way to accept my Amendment, would he consider this compromise? Thus the paragraph would read:
"of maintaining in the National Gallery a collection of pictures of established merit and significance in the history of art."
I prefer my Amendment, but this corn-promise Amendment would go some way to meet the objections of art historians.
Originally it was certainly not the intention to limit the National Gallery to pictures "of established merit and significance." It is most interesting, and a fact that I have only recently discovered, that in 1853 the Select Committee of the National Gallery reported—and this report is in your Lordships' Library—(p. XVI):
"Your Committee think that the funds appropriated to the enlargement of the collection should be expended with a view not merely of exhibiting to the public beautiful works of art but of instructing the public in the history of that art, and of the age in which, and the men by whom, those works were produced."
Furthermore, the report of the Director of the National Gallery for 1857–58, a

1153
few years later, dealing with the acquisition of the Lombardi-Baldi pictures in 1857, made clear that what it described as
"the unsightly specimens of Margaritone and the earliest Tuscan painters were selected solely for their historical importance aril as showing, in the opinion of the then Director the rude beginnings from which, through nearly two centuries and a half, Italian art slowly advanced to the period of Raphael and his contemporaries."
So much for the vicissitudes of taste.
The point I am trying to make clear is the fact that, although this particular painter, Margaritone of Arezzo, who was active in the middle of the 13th century, was not then admired for his own sake, as he is to-day, the picture was bought for its historical importance. I am glad to say that it has always hung upstairs in the National Gallery since the Gallery was reopened after the war; and I hope that nobody who is looking for furnishings for his room in some Ministry will like it as much as I do and will try to persuade the Trustees at some future date to lend it under Clause 4, on the ground that in their opinion it is not "of established merit or significance." The words in the Report of the Select Committee of 1853 seem perhaps a little old-fashioned to-day, but the intention behind them is sounder, if I may say so, than the loose definition which it is intended to put into this Bill.
The National Gallery at the present time is the most representative collection in the world now that the Kaiser Friedrich collection has been practically disbanded. I should mention in this connection that one of our leading art historians, a writer whose name is almost a household word, has said that the quality of the pictures at the National Gallery is of a very high average throughout. I think we should bear this in mind in view of what was said last time about "furniture pictures." But I hope the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Methuen and myself are to propose later will go some way to meet the understandable objections of those who are concerned at the possible break-up—and that is what it is—of this fine and representative collection.
London in the last twenty years has become one of the leading centres for the study of art history. This has been to our lasting benefit, and this country can now boast of several British-born scholars
1154
with art international reputation. The National Gallery is there to serve these scholars just as much as other visitors. However, I do not feel that they have been sufficiently considered in this Bill. There is a tendency at the National Gallery to concentrate too much on what I may call "window-dressing" for the benefit mainly of the ordinary visitor. This tendency will be given authority to by Clause 2 (2) (a) of the Bill. It is the opinion of those who realise the importance of this principle, that the National Gallery must be kept fully comprehensive and not allowed to degenerate (I use the word "degenerate" advisedly) into a small collection of world-famous masterpieces. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("of established merit or significance,") and insert ("to illustrate the history of Western painting,").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD METHUEN:My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. May I repeat that we quite realise that neither the Government nor the Trustees wish in any way to change the character of the National Gallery; but unfortunately Clause 4 (1) clearly seeks to do so. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has already told us that he interprets the word "significance" as relating to the "history of art." Would it be asking too much, therefore, that he should add precisely those words that he has already used, so that Clause 2 (2) (b) would read:
"… or significance in the history of art "?
Throughout the debates on this highly contentious Rill there has appeared a misunderstanding, to which the noble Lord who has just spoken has alluded, about the character and concept of the functions of the National Gallery. In spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said on Second Reading, when he alluded to the collection as "by far the most representative collection in the world," the misunderstanding has obviously come into the debates. The Select Committee of 1853 said in their Report that the National Gallery was a remarkable achievement of our ancestors, built up, like the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, to illustrate the history of Western art as fully as possible—and that has been the set purpose, I would remind your Lordships, of those responsible for its administration right up

1155
to fairly recent times. As the result of this achievement, the National Gallery became famous for precisely this quality, comparing favourably with many other Galleries abroad whose contents had come together largely fortuitously.
The Second World War, with the evacuation of the pictures to Wales and the bombing of the National Gallery, created a new condition which has led—many of us think unfortunately—to the hanging of a privileged class of masterpieces on its walls and the relegation to the first floor of a large number of other pictures, which, however "significant in the history of art," were not considered worthy of a place amongst the elect; and a virtue began to be made of what was partly the result of unfortunate circumstances. The original nature of the Collection came to be forgotten, while showmanship, as the noble Lord mentioned, seemed to be accorded a higher place than scholarship. As a temporary expedient to make the best of the usable rooms after the war, no doubt this was all to the good. But nearly a decade has passed, and I suggest that the fundamental problems, based on the proper and original functions of the Gallery, should be carefully reconsidered. The matter is not made easier by the slow rehabilitation of the Galleries, which compares most unfavourably with what has taken place on the Continent. The Brera Gallery in Milan, which lost its entire roof, was reopened four years ago; the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna, which was damaged much more extensively than our National Gallery, is shortly to be reopened; and others could be mentioned.
The sparse spacing on the walls of the National Gallery (I am not criticising it, but merely drawing attention to it) has naturally aggravated the present problem, and has no doubt affected the policy of purchases, and probably of benefaction—that is to say, the acceptance of pictures. I believe that only pictures considered to be in the highest category are now being bought or accepted, which can mean only that the old and well-tried policy of getting and keeping together a collection of pictures "to illustrate the history of Western art as fully as possible" has been—though I hope only temporarily—abandoned. What more natural, therefore, than that those who,
1156
through ignorance or apathy, or for other reasons, should clamour to be allowed to draw on the so-called "surplus in the vaults"—an expression in every way as far from the facts as possible, as the noble Lord opposite has already mentioned—for decorating and furnishing some of our public buildings, embassies and so on.
As the Government seem determined to continue on this course, I have put this carefully reasoned protest on record, and I hope that, in the meantime, they will take the initiative in making use of such places as Lancaster House and Osterley, to supplement the wall space for the National Gallery treasures. I should like to remind your Lordships that as the National Land Fund is made use of, at last, to accept for the nation historic houses together with their historic contents, a great transformation is likely to come about as regards the accessibility to the public of historic chattels, and a vastly increased interest in such things is bound to take place. For some years, the National Trust has been taking a leading part in the acquisition of such places and private collections. It is all the more desirable, therefore, that the National Gallery should remain the centre of such an activity. By all means let us have wise and moderate showmanship, but not at the expense of scholarship. I trust that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, either as it stands or in the modified form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Before I sit down, I should like to make an apology. I am sorry to say that I had intended to put down an Amendment to omit paragraph (b) of Clause 4 (1)—the one we are discussing, to which I have shown determined opposition from the start; but unfortunately I "missed the boat." I should, therefore, like to give the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, notice that on Third Reading I propose putting down an Amendment to omit that paragraph.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, I do not really feel that this subsection is necessary, and it was for that reason that I moved its omission at an earlier stage of the Bill. But since then, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has moved an Amendment to which your Lordships have agreed, which I think has materially improved the clause. No longer are the Trustees of the National Gallery directed, as they

1157
were in the Bill as presented to your Lordships, to trench on the duties of the British Museum. But, while this subsection has been improved, I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that it is capable of still further improvement, which in my view this Amendment accomplishes, though I think that his Amendment itself would be improved if, before the word "Western," he had included the words "post-classical." My noble friend Lord Selkirk tells us, no doubt rightly, that this is not a definition; but the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, I think, that, if it was not a definition, it was a very strong pointer, and because it is a very strong pointer I think we must assure ourselves that it points in the right direction.
The words to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred—"of established merit"—are difficult to define. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said he could not define them, but he trusted the Trustees to do so. In this case, I fear, he is much too trusting, because no one, I think, not even a Trustee, would be capable of doing so. As has been already said, each generation would define it in a different way. Indeed, I think one could go still further and say that each individual in each generation might make a different definition. After all, while knowledge of the history of art has made great strides and phenomenal advances in recent years, the fact remains that there are vicissitudes of taste. I can illustrate that with only one example taken from the history of the National Gallery. In the same year, the National Gallery bought a large picture by James Ward for about twice the price it paid for a famous picture by Botticelli. I might also illustrate those vicissitudes by reminding your Lordships that Sir Robert Peel urged the Trustees of the National Gallery not to buy what he called "curiosities." The "curiosities" which, in spite of that advice, the Trustees in fact did buy include many of the most famous and familiar masterpieces in the Gallery to-day. So it is possible that on occasion, Trustees are even wiser than Members of Parliament.
In these circumstances, is it wise, I wonder, to put into a Statute a phrase like this, which, by its very nature, defies interpretation, particularly when it seems to point in the wrong direction. Does
1158
it not point to a collection of so-called masterpieces—something like the books that used to be published called The Hundred Best Pictures? That is the sort of ideal which, so far as I can make out, some of the great American museums now in process of formation put before them. But that is neither the ideal nor the function of the National Gallery. Their function is something both wider and more valuable and, surely, more significant than that. It could hardly be better expressed than in the quotation given by Lord Strabolgi, from a report written a century ago. I was not able to take down the exact words, but I recall that the effect of it was that not only was it the function of the Gallery to show beautiful pictures to the public, but that the public must be instructed in the history of that art and the age in which that art was produced. It is precisely because the National Gallery has followed those instructions in the past that it possesses its unique status and prestige throughout the world, and that it is the envy and the admiration of every other Gallery that exists.
This was, I agree, easier to appreciate before the war than it is to-day. To-day, fewer pictures are on exhibition to the public, for two reasons. One of them is the reason mentioned by Lord Methuen, that pictures to-clay are more sparsely hung than before, but a much stronger reason than that is that many of the most important galleries in the building are still closed, and have not been open to the public since they were bombed in 1940. Rehabilitation has been slower, I imagine, than the rehabilitation of museums in any other European country. But it would indeed be unwise, I think, if we allowed these temporary conditions to obscure the permanent principles which I have tried to enounce. I emphasise that, because it seems only too clear that there may be a danger that they may be forgotten. The National Gallery is not only a place where familiar and famous pictures are exhibited for the pleasure of the public; it is also a museum where the history of post-classical Western art can be studied in all its immense variety and richness, better, I think, than anywhere else, without exception, in the world. On the first floor one can find the great familiar peaks and summits of that art. But on the ground floor below it are the foothills which

1159
explain the summits, without which the summits could not exist and the rivers which derive from those peaks.
This is, I think, a great conception. It is the basis on which the Gallery has been built up through generations; it is the basis of a coherent whole, a scheme in which both the famous pictures and the obscure pictures play their essential part, and in which pictures which one may say are neither of established significance nor of established merit have their own essential and special rôle. I feel it would be true to say that in the Gallery there is hardly a picture which has not its place and its purpose, either in its own right as a work of art, or as a document containing perhaps a signature, in a particular context, as illustrating some phase in the development of some movement or of some artist; as a criterion, for judgment, or criticism, as a comparison, even, perhaps, as a forgery, and, as such, as a warning. All those pictures are not pictures necessarily of established merit and significance. It is this conception of the Gallery which has made it the most famous centre for the study of Western Art in the world, and which has done more than anything else to create the present state of British scholarship, which now stands, I think, above the scholarship of any other country.
Many of those pictures are, I know, in the reference section of the Gallery. In these debates we hear criticism of the National Gallery for keeping pictures in cellars or vaults or basements. I do not pay much regard to that form of criticism, because anyone who has ever been to the reference section could not possibly call it by these names. That criticism must necessarily be not well-informed. Nor can I, as a Trustee of the National Gallery, accept the criticism that the accommodation is inadequate. Why should the Trustees be scolded for that by the Government? Surely it is rather for the Trustees to scold the Government, who are not prepared to make proper and adequate accommodation for our great national Collection.
This conception of the Gallery is something which is both unique and very precious. To-day I emphasise more the historic side than what I may call the æsthetic side, largely because the debates
1160
have shown some lack of understanding of this fundamental and essential side of the Gallery's work and because the Bill, particularly as first introduced, allowed these pictures to be poured into the Ministry of Works pool and to be transferred, and facilitated their sale. However, may I say how grateful I feel to my noble friend on the Front Bench for having met so many of these points, and to your Lordships for having agreed to remove the power of sale, to remove the power of transfer to the Ministry of Works and to remove the power of other transfers so far as the National Gallery is concerned. This relieves much of the anxiety on this point, because they refer to the very pictures which were most in danger of loss and dispersal. I do not think there is, or should be, any difference of opinion among us about the proper functions of the National Gallery. I feel that the Amendment proposed goes some way to improve the position as I see it, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Selkirk will consider whether it is possible to accept the Amendment.
5.23 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I say a word, although not about the National Gallery? On the last commitment of the Bill, at the request of my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, I withdrew an Amendment on the definition of the functions of the Tate Gallery. Now the question has been brought up again. My noble friend Lord Crawford says that he entirely agrees with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Bill does not give a definition, and I accept that; but he said it is a pointer and I think it is important that a pointer should point in the right direction. My noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested that, instead of having a definition in the Bill, the better way to deal with it would be by Treasury Minute. I should like to ask him: Will he tell us on Third Reading, whether he is able and willing to make the Treasury Minute available to the public? There is no doubt that many people are interested in the future and functions of our Galleries, and I think that it would be very welcome if the noble Earl would agree to make the Treasury Minute available to the public or to this House.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate

1161
on the Amendment, but may I say that noble Lords never got anywhere near the Amendment? Not one has spoken to the point raised. Here we are not talking about the exact functions of the National Gallery, or considering the principles underlying its work: we are dealing merely with the considerations which are to be borne in mind when a picture is transferred from one Gallery to another. To say, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested, that the indications were that all pictures which were not of established merit and significance would be sent away from the National Gallery is complete nonsense. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but I said that with reference to Clause 4. I said that I was particularly worried about this subsection, because Clause 4 gives the National Gallery the right to loan pictures for indefinite periods.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this gives no indication of what the National Gallery keeps. It is merely an indication of the basis of the transfer of pictures from one Gallery to another. The noble Lord has now had two shots at defining the National Gallery. I gave it up much earlier than the noble Lord. I suggest that it is an extremely difficult thing to define. It is clear that the noble Lord has got his second definition wrong, too, as was pointed out by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Straholgi, should have said, "the post-classical history of Western painting "—but that is by the way. It all indicates that the definition of these Galleries is extremely difficult. If this discussion has brought out anything clearly and distinctly, it is that the Government were right in not attempting to define the Galleries as they stand. We agree that the National Gallery is the most representative collection of Western art in the world, but why should we now step in by Statute and try to define it more closely? In my view we should be very foolish to do so.
I think the noble Lord's Amendment is wrong also because it makes no reference at all to what I might describe as the æsthetic element of the Gallery. I agree that the historic element is important, but I suggest that it is fully covered by the words "works of established significance." They seem to me to include anything of significance historically. As
1162
for the word "established," I would say frankly that that would largely depend on the opinion of the Trustees. The words in the clause have been agreed by the National Gallery Trustees, and unless they ask to have the words changed. I should not think of doing so. In any case, the words fully cover transfers between the two Galleries. There is no intention here of altering the functions of the National Gallery. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Methuen and Lord Crawford, for their support on what I consider to be an important matter. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his reply. Is there any possibility that the noble Earl would consult with those concerned to see whether either of the two suggestions that I made would meet the objections raised?—first, the one that I referred to in the course of my speech, which was to acid the words "in the history of art" after the word "significance"; or the other, which was my own, which I admit is half way there, perhaps, and which has been vastly improved by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who has pointed out that the words "post-classical" should be inserted before "Western painting." Before I withdraw my Amendment, is it possible for the noble Earl to say whether he could go into this matter a little further? I realise that he has been most patient about this, but, as I said just now, we are dealing, riot with functions but with Statutes, and I sincerely feel that we should try to get these Statutes right for for the sake of future generations.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I think it is essential to put—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has spoken once. would remind him that this is a Report stage.
LORD METHUEN: May I not say one word?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of accepting the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Earl say that, but in view of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Powers of lending exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees]:
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL of SELKIRK THE EARL of SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The said Trustees shall not lend for exhibition or display outside the United Kingdom a picture or other work of art which appears to them to have been executed by a foreign artist before the year seventeen hundred unless they have laid before Parliament a statement as to the proposed loan identifying the picture or other work of art which it is proposed to lend, the place where it is to be exhibited or displayed, the person who will be responsible for it while it is on loan and the period for which it is to be lent, and unless the loan has been approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when this Bill was re-committed I said that I would move the Amendment which is now on the Marshalled List of Amendments. The effect of this Amendment is that it will not be possible for foreign pictures believed to have been painted before the year 1700 to be lent for exhibition or display outside this country without the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. This Amendment will, of course, apply only to the National Gallery, because there are no pictures painted before 1700, or virtually none, in the Tate Gallery. Criticism has been made of this Amendment: it has been said that it is a clumsy instrument for this particular purpose, and that it amounts to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I should explain that the Amendment is the result of a good deal of discussion in which, quite frankly, it has not been easy to reach even the measure of agreement that was reached under which the Government undertook to put forward this Amendment in the hope that it would attain a wide measure of agreement in this House.
It is perhaps worth recalling the sort of consideration that we had in mind. We are not talking here of the 4,000-odd pictures which are not normally exhibited in these two Galleries. We are talking of the great masterpieces—what have already been described as certainly the most representative collection, and possibly one of the greatest collections of European art in the world. I do not suppose that anyone would seriously contradict me when I say that there are probably fifty pictures there which, at one time or another,
1164
might well have changed hands at the price of £250,000. We are dealing with pictures which, so far as it can be said of any material object, are in the true sense immortal. The Government, of course, entered into full consultation with the Trustees before introducing this Bill, and we understood that it was more or less agreed when it was brought before Parliament. Now, however, the Trustees have indicated that they are worried at the new powers which Parliament is proposing to give them in respect of these pictures, and I suggest that it is the duty of Parliament to listen carefully to any representation which the Trustees feel they would like to make. They carry a big responsibility. They are all busy men, and they are unpaid. We owe them a great deal for the care and devotion with which they look after our great national treasures, and for the manner in which they serve the general public. I can readily understand that they carry a burden when one of these pictures may at any time leave the country. It is for all these reasons that the Trustees have now asked that, if they are to do this at any time, their decision may be homologated by Parliament, who would thereby share the responsibility in giving its consent.
In saying this, I do not want to be misunderstood in any way. There is no question of relieving the Trustees of their primary responsibility and their initiative in this matter. The first stage would always be whether the Trustees were willing to lend. It is only if they were that Parliament would come into this matter. The Trustees' discretion remains complete. There are probably three matters which they take into consideration: first, whether the exhibition is worthy of one of their pictures; secondly, whether the picture in question is fit to travel; and thirdly, whether they are satisfied that the receiving gallery will treat it with the requisite care and attention. It is only when they have answered all those questions in the affirmative that the matter will come before Parliament. I would repeat that, in putting forward to your Lordships the proposal that Parliament should share the responsibility in some way, there is no intention to modify in any way the untrammelled freedom of the Trustees to make up their own minds—which means, of course, their willingness to say "No," which is, sometimes

1165
a difficult thing to do. Your Lordships may or may not think there is something in this point; and you may or may not think that, even if there is something in the point, there may be a better way of doing it. I am quite happy to leave this to the common sense of the House as to whether the Trustees' feelings in this matter are most easily satisfied in this way, or whether there is a better way to do it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, to leave out all words after "unless" and to insert in their place:
"the loan has been approved by an order of the Treasury contained in a statutory instrument; and a draft of any such statutory instrument shall be laid before Parliament."
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, in that he is prepared to leave the matter to the House. I should like briefly to review the position and to say where I stand. At the present time, the National Gallery have no power to lend these old foreign pictures abroad. That is a great advantage. You have not the difficulty of saying: "I am not going to lend to you, because I do not like you"; you just say: "I am sorry, but I cannot lend at all"; and you can add, if you like: "If only I could lend, how delighted I should be to lend to you!", and try to please people in that way. That is the position, and I realise it is a strong one, but I believe it is a position that we cannot maintain to-day. It means that what we want is for other people to lend to us, without our lending to other people. That seems to me to be a completely "dog in the manger" attitude.
Any picture that travels, whether to Scotland, which is within the United Kingdom, or to anywhere on the Continent of Europe or across the seas, is necessarily subjected to some risk, and steps are taken to make that risk as small as possible. When we had those masterpieces of Botticelli, or the great Spanish paintings, they were all subjected to some risk. Anybody who lends a picture must lake a risk. It seems to me absolutely wrong to-day, when we want to establish a greater interest in works
1166
of art, that we should say that we will not lend lo anybody, but we hope that everybody w ill lend to us. I do not think that is possible any more, and I believe we must depart from that rule.
If we are going to lend, what will be the conditions of the lending? I say, frankly, that I am in favour of leaving that matter to the Trustees. The Prime Minister appoints a body of Trustees, and presumably he appoints people who he feels are responsible people, interested in this subject and knowing something about it. As a general rule, I do not believe that by potting up, as it were, a second barrier you increase your safeguards. I believe it is better to put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Trustees, and say: "You have to decide." I feel that, generally, that is better than saying, "You shall decide in the first instance, and after you Parliament shall decide." Whenever that sort of arrangement is made there is always the tendency for the people in the first position to be more lax than they would otherwise be, because they can say, "There is another body which is going to have the last word on this matter." Therefore, for my part, I would put this responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Trustees. I would give them a discretion, and I would allow no one to interfere with them. I believe that in that way the discretion will be more carefully exercised than it will if this other barrier is erected behind them.
I am a man of peace, and I am always anxious to see whether I can do a deal with the other side. I am appalled at the arrangement the Government have proposed. I have some knowledge of what we call the other place and this place. Just consider a practical issue. A request is made by the Prado (who have lent us some beautiful pictures by Goya) that we should lend to them some picture painted before 1700. What happens? The noble Lord is quite right. I sat as a Trustee of the National Gallery for seven years, and I know that you consider first whether the Exhibition to which you are asked to lend is worth while; and, secondly, what is the condition of the picture which you are asked to lend. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, will agree with me here. I cannot imagine any body of Trustees of the National Gallery ever

1167
agreeing to lend a picture if their experts say, "Having looked at this picture, we find that it is in a very dangerous condition." Obviously, the Trustees would say, "We cannot lend it." It is only with regard to pictures where that remark is not made that the practical question arises.
If a picture is fit to travel, then you have to consider whether you shall lend to the Prado. Here you get what in insurance circles they call "the moral hazard." You have to consider the qualifications and the character of the people to whom you are going to lend. Have they a reputation for being careful with their pictures? Are the inhabitants of that country likely to show their resentment to this country by poking umbrellas through the picture? All those problems arise. Is it really said that this is a fit subject for a debate by Parliament on an Affirmative Resolution? I can imagine that in one House of Parliament or the other—I will not at the moment say which—if this question arose it would develop into a discussion on the rights or wrongs, the merits or demerits, of the Franco rægime, and the question would not be seriously considered at all.
I should have thought that if you wanted any further safeguard you might ask for the consent of some Minister who is perhaps better in touch with the political situation than the Trustees. But as a compromise solution, I am prepared to offer this: instead of having an Affirmative Resolution which would be subject to a great deal of possibly rather immaterial discussion in one House or the other, let us have a Negative Resolution. I understand that my Amendment, which was drawn up for mc, imports that. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will correct me if I am wrong, but the effect of my Amendment is this: that if the Trustees decide to lend a picture—it is for them of course to decide; no one can control them at all—then the matter will have to be approved by an order of the Treasury contained in a statutory instrument, and a draft of any such statutory instrument will have to be laid before Parliament. That is to say, anybody in either House of Parliament will be entitled to pray against it, but unless and until they do the order is an effective order. Of course, it follows that the pic-
1168
ture cannot be sent out of the country, or should not be sent out of the country and would not be sent out of the country, until the time has expired which is available for a Prayer. I presume that that would be the case.
That is the suggestion which I make to your Lordships. I am not in the least wedded to it—indeed, I would rather have nothing of the sort at all—but I suggest that it is much better to have it done in this way than to have it done by an Affirmative Resolution which involves Parliamentary discussion in both Houses. Therefore, I beg to move an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The substance of my Amendment is this: that instead of an Affirmative Resolution, which invites a debate in both Houses, being required, it should be done by Negative Resolution, which means to say that it goes through unless one House or the other decides to the contrary. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 4, of the proposed new subsection, leave out from ("unless") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Wellington is at present engaged in taking the chair at a meeting of the Board of the National Gallery, and he has asked me to take his place and to apologise for his absence. He and the Board have asked me to speak on their behalf. I know that, in the first place, they wish me to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for moving this Amendment. This Amendment deals with what, in practice, is the most dangerous clause in the Bill, because loans clearly involve danger. I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me, in order that I may try to get the matter of this individual Amendment into perspective, to refer generally to the position as it is at this stage of the Bill with regard to loans.
To-day, under the existing legislation, the Galleries are enabled to lend at home any picture which they possess. They can lend to municipal galleries, to other national galleries, to such bodies as the Royal Academy and the Royal Scottish Academy, or to any other society or body approved by the Trustees, any picture

1169
which they hold in trust. Those powers are very wide, and some of us may feel that they are wide enough. The Bill extends these powers and gives permission to lend pictures to Government offices in this country—and, in doing so, legalises a practice which has grown up over recent years—to the rooms of Ministers and of senior civil servants. That, I am sure, gives pleasure and, I hope, instruction to these people, but that is not the function of the National Gallery. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Selkirk has realised during these debates that the National Gallery's first function has not been to give him a pleasure.
The National Gallery does not wish for this extension. It would be pleased to lend to specified places of particular importance, like No. 10, Downing Street, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's room or the Foreign Secretary's room, but it does not wish this extension to lend to any Government office in the country. The Gallery feels that the pictures should be accessible to the public, and though the noble Earl has, I am glad to say, moved an Amendment by which scholars will be allowed to visit these pictures at reasonable times, nevertheless they cannot be said to be really accessible. Moreover, I feel that the policy of the Gallery should be to lend its pictures out in coherent and consistent groups, and not as individual pictures to individual rooms in individual Government Departments. The position to-day, so far as pictures to be lent abroad are concerned, is that the Gallery is allowed to lend British pictures to Embassies. The National Gallery would prefer that that power should be withdrawn, again because they feel that the pictures should be accessible, especially to the public of this country. They do not accept the theory that pictures which formed part of the national collections should be looked upon as suitable objects for furnishing Embassies abroad. That is not to say that the proper furnishing of Embassies abroad is not, to my mina, a most important matter; but we feel that it could be done more properly by the Ministry of Works so-called pool, which is being extensively developed by the present Minister of Works. We feel that that pool should be the proper source of these furnishings.
The Bill adds to the present powers the power to lend to Colonial Governors'
1170
houses. The National Gallery does not wish to have this added power. Not only is there the objection about accessibility, but there is also the question of inappropriate climates. When I heard one noble Lord suggest during the recommittal stage of the Bill that pictures might be lent to Sierra Leone, I could not help wondering whether the climate in Sierra Leone is the sort of climate to which any Trustee could possibly entrust a European picture. There is also the difficulty of supervision. Here again, I got little consolation from observations made by your Lordships. One noble Lord said, "It will be all right because most Colonies have keepers of antiquities." Surely, the purpose and duty of a keeper of antiquities is to keep antiquities, which have nothing to do with the preservation and maintenance of pictures. My noble friend Lord Selkirk tried to console us by saying that he had seen an advertisement in the Southern Rhodesian Press for a director of art. The question of supervision is, of course, serious and difficult. To-day, the Gallery can lend abroad any British picture. That power remains under the Bill, and the National Gallery is content that it should so remain. But the Bill extends this provision to allow the Gallery to lend abroad any foreign picture; and here, of course, the Gallery is not happy, because it knows, as I say, that the loans will create a danger and that foreign pictures being, as a general rule, earlier than British pictures, the dangers to foreign pictures are greater than to English pictures. We should therefore have much preferred that there should be a limitation so that no foreign picture painted before 1700 could be lent.
If one looks at the balance sheet as I have drawn it so far, it must be confessed that the wishes of tie National Gallery are considerably "in the red." But my noble friend, I am glad and grateful to say, has recognised these dangers, and in the Amendment which he has moved to Clause 4 he paints clearly to them. That is a welcome improvement, even if, in practice, it may not have very much effect. His new Amendment I also welcome as another effort to meet the fears of the Gallery, which I think are legitimate. The Gallery would like me, as I myself should wish, to thank the noble Earl very much for moving this Amendment and to welcome it cordially. The Amendment

1171
to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has in effect something of the same character and purpose. So far as the National Gallery is concerned, it would be happy to welcome either the Amendment or the Amendment to the Amendment. Personally, I have no very strong views as to the merits of the two Amendments, but I should have supposed that perhaps the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl sitting opposite might have been more welcome to your Lordships. However, I am entirely in your Lordships' hands and shall welcome whichever Amendment commends itself the more. Let me close by again thanking the noble Earl for much consideration during the negotiations, which he must have found troublesome, and for having on so many occasions gone so far to meet the points which have been raised.
5.58 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, there is one point that I should like to make on this Amendment. In the course of this debate reference has been made to the pressure that may be brought to bear on the Trustees by the Foreign Office or by some other Department in this matter of lending pictures. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt emphasised that he would far rather leave this matter to the Trustees and let them decide it, without anybody else being involved. I thought he was quite right when he thought it might weaken their position if they knew that there was somebody behind them. It is a good argument. He said: "Leave it to the Trustees." The only point about that is who the Trustees are. We in your Lordships' House have been fortunate, as we all know, in having some of our most respected Members as Trustees—including, of course, the noble and learned Earl himself and and the noble Lord, Lord Methuen—but have we any guarantee that in the future the Trustees appointed will be men of such absolutely independent views? It is possible that a Trustee might be appointed who was under the influence of the Government offices. That danger makes me feel that it is wise to have some protection, in addition to the Trustees alone. I should like in that way to support the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Lord Jowitt's Amendment to the Amendment is acceptable and, so far as we are concerned, we are grateful to him for it.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.1 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Pictures or other works of art which, under paragraph (b) of subsection (1), are lent to buildings not regularly accessible to the general public shall not be absent on loan for periods exceeding ten years in every thirty years, nor may the total number of pictures on loan to such buildings exceed at any given moment thirty in the case of the National Gallery or one hundred and twenty in the case of the Tate Gallery."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the next Amendment which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and myself. We consider this Amendment most important because, even with the Amendment which your Lordships have just approved, many pictures will not be covered by this clause as it stands. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me briefly to review Clause 4. First of all, subsection (3) as it stands now gives a certain protection to any picture to be loaned for either of the purposes under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), if the Trustees take into account its age and material and the hazards to which it is to be exposed. It says quite clearly that the period of the loan is to be determined by these.
Secondly, the new Amendment which your Lordships have just passed—and may I say here that we are most grateful to the noble Earl for moving it—limits the period of the loan, which has first to be approved by a Resolution of each House. But, my Lords, the Amendment refers to loans outside the United Kingdom and to foreign pictures painted before 1700. Many pictures to be loaned will not fall into these

1173
categories. Neither the new Amendment nor subsection (3) of Clause 4, as the Bill now stands, takes into account the period of the loan for, first, pictures of any period which can travel without damage, but are to be loaned in the United Kingdom; second, pictures painted since 1700 which can travel overseas without damage; and third, English pictures painted before 1700, which are to be sent overseas and can travel without damage—pictures which, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford mentioned, have been for some time in various Embassies. If pictures in these categories are to be loaned overseas, or to inaccesible places in the United Kingdom, I submit that the period of their loan should be limited to ten years in every thirty years.
I should like to make it clear that this Amendment does not refer to paintings to be hung in places in the United Kingdom which are accessible to the public—for instance, the National Galleries of Scotland, the National Museum of Wales, provincial galleries and houses belonging to the Ministry of Works, such as Lancaster House, and also Osterley, which is leased to the Ministry by the National Trust, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pointed out during the last debate. The loans to all these will be for an indefinite period. On the other hand, there are certain places, such as No. 10, Downing Street, the Foreign Minister's residence in Carlton Gardens and the rooms of Ministers in Her Majesty's Government and certain senior officials of the Civil Service, where the pictures will be virtually inaccessible to the public.
There is also the question of loans overseas. I feel that a good case for these loans was made last time by certain noble Lords who have great experience of the countries of the Commonwealth. It is right that these pictures should be seen overseas. If that is right, it is surely right that more should be seen, and this will be accomplished under this Amendment, which will enable the pictures to be changed over every decade. They will then stay in the Old Country for twenty years, when we shall have the benefit of seeing them; and after this period they will go somewhere else for a further ten years. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said last time in your Lord-
1174
ships' debate on this matter, when dealing with transfers to the Ministry of Works,
"The Galleries have both preferred to take the line of indefinite loans."
If my interpretation is correct, it seems that some of these loans are to be more or less permanent. This, I think, is undesirable, both for the reasons I have already given and because it is much better for these pictures to come back every so often to the National and the Tate Galleries for the purposes of conservation and so that the public can see them.
I do not feel for one moment that the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery would not resist requests for a large number of permanent loans. However, we are drawing up a Bill for Ole future, to cover, one hopes, every eventuality; and I think. I can do no better than to quote the words of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who speaks with great authority on these matters. On December 8 last year, the noble Earl said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 1066):
"I trust Trustees; hut I trust Trustees to do that for which they were appointed. Even so, I trust Statutes more than I trust Trustees."
This Amendment also seeks to limit to 150 the number of pictures which will not be accessible. These figures can, of course, be amended by agreement. What is important, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my noble friend Lord Methuen, is that the right to abstract pictures from the public view should be limited by Statute. I realise that there are two schools of thought on this Bill, and that both have a great deal to be said for them. This Amendment, I submit, goes some way to reconcile these conflicting views. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at 2iid insert the said subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, this Amendment arises from some questions that I asked the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on March 30 during the last debate. The present Amendment arises, in fact, from the proposal I then made to limit both the time of loan and the numbers of paintings sent out on loan by the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery at any one time. I have very little now to add to what has been said by the noble Lord,

1175
Lord Strabolgi, with his usual clarity and force, and I hope that his words will not fall on deaf ears. Two important matters are covered by the Amendment: first, the care of pictures themselves, and secondly, the responsibility of Trustees and directors for the proper care of their pictures, which are like delicate patients and require expert treatment. Ten years, I should imagine, is the absolute limit for them to be away from home; I suggested five years, but my noble friend thought it ought to be ten, and, reluctantly, I gave way. The second point is that while these pictures are away they are obviously not accessible to the public. The importance of that point requires no stressing—it has been said already very often during these debates. It must be clearly understood that we exclude such buildings as Lancaster House, Osterley, and so on. I beg to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, here the noble Lord is seeking to do two things: first, he is seeking to put a statutory limit on lending; and secondly, he is seeking to put a condition on the way in which pictures are lent. Both of these things, I think I can say, are fully covered—as indeed has been pointed out—by subsection (3) of Clause 4. Under that subsection the Trustees can lay down any condition which they think fit, either in regard to time, or to the condition or, to some extent, to the accessibility of pictures which are lent out. That point is therefore fully covered. The point which the noble Lord has in mind is that he does not like to leave the matter to the Trustees; he wants to put it in the Statute. Ten years, or even five years, may be too much for some pictures. This is a matter which the Trustees must judge for themselves. It is quite impossible to suggest in a Statute that ten years is a fit period in regard to any particular picture. I think it is a matter which Parliament should not go into. There is, of course, a superficial difficulty about the Amendment, which I am afraid I do not follow. The noble Lord says "no regular accessibility," but in the course of his speech he used the words "virtually inaccessible." I do not know what the noble Lord considers is the difference between "not regularly accessible" and
1176
"virtually inaccessible." For instance, I was not clear whether he meant that the pictures were sent abroad and so became inaccessible, or whether he meant that pictures which were, say, in No. 10, Downing Street, were not regularly accessible. The noble Lord referred to Lancaster House. It is possible that that may be the intention, but the meaning is not by any means clear.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but I specifically excluded Lancaster House, as a place that was accessible to the general public.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes; but the noble Lord must remember that it was a Statute that he was taking the trouble to explain to us. What he says in regard to excluding Lancaster House has no effect on this Amendment. This phrase "not regularly accessible" really has no meaning at all; it is not distinctive in its meaning. I do not want to go back over ground which has been fairly well covered. We do not want to break up these Galleries, but there are some 4,000 pictures which are not very frequently seen, and the view is that a number of them could perfectly well be lent. The proof of the pudding is that the Trustees have lent them, in some cases even outside the law; and what we are doing here is not very much more than to say that we homologate the position, that we legitimise the decision which the Trustees have taken by themselves. I think this is a matter which can be left to the Trustees, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Earl would be able to accept this Amendment, even if it had to be slightly modified. It does not in any way limit the lending of pictures—in fact, it encourages the lending of more, because they will be circulated more frequently. I am sorry the noble Earl is unable to accept the Amendment, and in that case I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.