HL Deb 08 April 1954 vol 186 cc1151-76

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—

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

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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' 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 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 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 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- 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, 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 "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.