Lords Sitting of 30 March 1954

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

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received a letter from Mr. Justice Ormerod stating that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, a Member of this House, was on the 24th March convicted at the Hampshire Winter Assize of certain criminal offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twelve months.

KENT WATER BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of the 18th March: That they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House, viz.: "That it is expedient that the Kent Water Bill he committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons message be now considered.ߞ(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for a few moments as representing the Isle of Thanet, which is affected by this Bill? I would appeal to the Government to postpone the acceptance of this Motion, in that there has been very little time for me to consider the new position which has arisen in the light of the amended Resolution, which has only recently appeared on the Order Paper, the Lord Chairman having previously had down on the Order Paper a Motion, "That this House do not agree." There are numerous objectors to this Bill. There are no fewer than

773
twenty-five Petitions against the Bill, and the majority of the petitioners ask that there should not be this Joint Select Committee. I will not pursue the matter further to-day except to appeal to the Leader of the House that the Government should give greater time than we have had, so that the objectors can reconsider the new position.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, one is, of course, always reluctantߞthat is the position of all Governmentsߞto postpone any Business which is on the Order Paper unless there is very good reason for such a course; and my first instinct would be to say that, the matter having been placed upon the Order Paper, we should proceed with it. But the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has put forward certain considerations which I feel that we must take into account. It appears that there are objections to this Bill and that he has been asked to voice these objections at the present stage, and that for various reasons it has been impossible for him to be in a position to do that. I imagine that the last thing any of us would wish would be that there should I a feeling of injustice in any quarter with regard to the procedure adopted by this House. In those circumstances, I think it would probably be the wish of your Lordships that we should agree to what Lord Balfour of Inchrye has suggested and postpone the consideration of this Bill for a few days in order to enable proper examination to be given to it. In saying that, I am not expressing any view about what the ultimate attitude of the Government will be with regard to the Bill: it is merely a question of procedure to enable proper consideration to be given.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, with great deference to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who has far greater experience of the procedure of this House than I have, I always thought that in such matters as that which has been introduced to-day, it was all a question of whether there was an expression by the Government that a proposal was in the public interest: that it all depended on whether or not this was in the public interest. Whilst I should personally be unhappy to interfere with the liberty of noble
774
Lords to raise objections, I should have thought that if it had already been ruled, or advised (whichever is the proper word), that this was in the public interest, objections could best be staled before the Joint Select Committee. Moreover, as the House of Commons has already, so far as I can gather, recommended this course, I should have thought that it would be the proper one to take.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It may be that that course has been adopted in another place, but we in this House are not bound by that. Our object, so far as I know, is always to give every measure which comes before us the fullest and fairest consideration possible. In these circumstancesߞI am only advisingߞmy view would be that, were we to proceed with this Bill to-day, after what has been said, we might be open to the suggestion that adequate consideration has not been given to it; and I am sure that neither the Government nor anyone else would wish that. No doubt the views expressed by another place will be given full importance, but we must come to our own decisions in these matters.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have had some experience of Committee work upstairs, and I feel that many of those Bills do need looking into twice. I remember one Bill, in particular, some few years ago which was hotly contested in another place. When the Bill came here it was referred to a very strong Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and those clauses which had been hotly contested were finally disposed of amicably. It appears to me that there is a great deal of argument about certain parts of this Bill, and I feel that it would be fairer to all parties if this Bill went through the normal course of being considered separately by both Houses of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg formally to move, That consideration of the Commons Message be postponed.
Amendment moved, That consideration of the Commons Message be postponed. ߞ(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1, and to be printed.
JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I, with your permission, ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can give us any idea as to whether the Bills which have just been introduced and given a First Reading are to be taken before Easter?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give any very definite information on that point, but I think it probable that the Judges' Remuneration Bill will be taken before Easter. So far as I know that is so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Will the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill not be taken?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am now informed that that Bill will also be taken, in all probability, before Easter. I understand that the Second Reading has been provisionally fixed for Thursday week.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps we had better discuss this through the usual channels.

PENSIONS AND COST OF LIVING
2.43 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision that "no return to the system of pensions linked to the cost of living is possible" is a general statement of policy applying to all emoluments derived from public
776
moneys, or to all pensions so derived, or is limited to those pensions in respect of which an undertaking was given in 1919 to maintain such linkage and annulled in 1935.]
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the statement to which the noble Lord refers in his Question was made in a recent Defence debate in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. It was made with particular reference to pensions of retired officers affected by stabilisation and consolidation in 1932 to 1935. The Government policy in this matter was fully explained in the White Paper, Command 9092. I can confirm that it remains a fundamental principle of policy that once public service pensions in general are awarded they are not subject to change either up or down. Exception has, however, been made to this general rule in the past in cases where pensioners are suffering from hardship which can be ascribed to the rise in the cost of living.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his clear statement. It gives rise, I think, to two supplementary questions, which I will ask as briefly as I can. One question is this: Does what the noble Earl has said embrace pensions such as old age pensions and superannuation pensions, the funds for which are found, either wholly or in part, out of public money? My second question is this. I take it that when Her Majesty's Government annulled the old condition of the 1919 pensions they were actingߞthemselves and their supportersߞas trustees of the national income. I suppose they felt that that condition was ultra vires, and it was on that account annulled. If that is so, will the Government consider this question anew, for three reasons? One reason is that it will cost very little to review it. The second reason is that if, unfortunately, the cost of living should rise again, they would again be faced with the same kind of complaint with which they have been faced recently. The third reason is this. Speaking as a taxpayer myself, I feel that even if the undertaking given in 1919 was rash, it was none the less sacred as a Government undertaking, and should, if possible be reinstated as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord can bring forward these matters in a Motion if he wishes to do so. But the issue which he is now raising is far too wide to be dealt with by question and answer. What I have said expresses general policy in this matter, and I do not think I can usefully add to it in any way.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, with reference to the question in point, may I ask whether the Government have any fear lest the present-day aspirants for commissions may reckon the value of the new promises now being made in the light of the undertaking given in 1919 and subsequently annulled, and are the Government prepared to accept such a position?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hardly think that that question arises on the original Question. The noble Lord and I have had a long debate on this subject before, and I would rather not enter into it again.

SCOTTISH DRESS AND THE SKEAN-DHU
2.47 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they have noted the case where a man under the Prevention of Crime Act, after being punished for threatening to use a skean-dhu, was punished in addition for carrying it; and having regard to the fact that a skean-dhu is carried openly, and also to the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government when the Second Reading of the Bill was debated, whether they propose to take any step to assure the people of Scotland that a customary native dress is not to be proscribed, as in the years after 1745, with all the dismal consequences that ensued upon the proscription.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this man was convicted of having an offensive weapon with him in a public place because he brandished his skean-dhu in a manner which indicated that he intended to use it to injure two policemen. My right honourable friend,
778
the Lord Advocate, is, however, taking steps to ensure that if a similar case arises again the statutory charge will not be included against the offender. I can assure the noble Lord that no departure from the assurances with regard to the wearing of a skean-dhu as part of Highland dress is intended.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I am very grateful.

BANKSIDE POWER STATION FUMES
2.49 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the discharge of fumes from the Bankside power station is having any injurious effect upon St. Paul's Cathedral.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the new Bankside power station is equipped with the most modern type of gas-washing plant. The performance of this plant has been under constant observation since it was put into operation last July, and a high degree of efficiency has been maintained in the extraction of sulphur dioxide from the flue gases. I am advised that there is no reason to think that the small amount which passes into the atmosphere from the new power station has any harmful effect on St. Paul's Cathedral. If, on the other hand, any evidence were advanced to the contrary, Her Majesty's Government would of course be prepared to undertake most immediate and searching investigations.
LORD DERWENT: While thanking the noble Lord for his very detailed reply, may I ask him whether he can give any indication as to the volume of the fumes given out by the new power station as compared with the volume of the fumes given out by the old power station?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I understand that the new Bankside power station gives out about 10 tons of fumes a month, compared with over 150 tons a month which were given out by old Bankside power station, which the new one was designed to replace.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that his answer will give great satisfaction in many quarters, including the quarter which is at the moment putting the question to him? Is he further aware that I have been the victim of savage attacks in a number of newspapers over the effect of these fumes on St. Paul's, and can he take any steps to ensure that his answer receives at least as much publicity in the Press as the original attacks received?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid I have no means at my disposal of ensuring that the publicity given to my Answer is equal to that given to the attacks on the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. If it is any comfort to him, I can assure him that I think the attacks made on him are quite unjustified.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.ߞ(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Transfer from National Gallery Trustees to Tate Gallery Trustees of responsibility for Tate Gallery collection
(3) The funds representing the bequest made by the will of Miss Margaret Helen Knapping to the National Gallery Trustees (under which the income of those funds is to be applied for the purchase for public exhibition of paintings or sculpture by artists of any nationality living at or within twenty-five years before the time of purchase) shall on the said date vest in the Tate Gallery Trustees.
(4) The Tate Gallery Trustees shall have the like powers and duties in relation to the pictures and other works of art and funds vested in them by the foregoing provisions of this section as apart from those provisions would have been exercisable by and incumbent upon the National Gallery Trustees.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember
780
that on the Committee stage, which we had in December, the Chairman of the National Gallery, the noble Duke the Duke of Wellington, said he would look at the terms of the Knapping Trust and see whether he could make a scheme fully implementing the intentions of that Trust. I am given to understand that he is satisfied that he is able to do so. Accordingly, we now ask the House to remove from this Bill the clause dealing with the Knapping Trust. I should like to add one other remark. In moving the original Amendment, my noble friend Lord Kinnaird sought to pinpoint certain principles. I suggest to your Lordships that in doing so he has carried out a notable public service. So far as I am concerned I am glad to take this opportunity of thanking him for what he has done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (3).ߞ(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD KINNAIRD: I thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for his kind remark. May I make a suggestionߞthat, when making the scheme, the Trustees of the National Gallery will consider making it public? I think it would be of immense interest to a great number of people interested in art.
EARL JOWITT: May I say something about this matter? I have been abroad recently, and when this matter came into the papers I discovered that I had become an object of unusual interest in the Pressߞquite unusual, indeed. They all thought I was a kind of fugitive offender and wondered whether I was coming back to this country. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has performed a public service by calling attention to this question. Incidentally, he has revealed the fact that there were breaches of the terms of the trust. I am certain that all the Trustees would be most reluctant—indeed, horrifiedߞto think that, albeit innocently, they had taken part in any proceeding which was in any way illegal or seemed to disregard the wishes of a testator.
I stand in a whited sheet to tell this to the House. One bequest is called the Carr Fund. The system we had in the Tate Gallery was this: after we had voted upon whether we should purchase

781
a particular work of art, the chairman at the time had to sign an authority to the bank to use a particular fund to pay for the work in question. Sir Jasper Ridley, who was chairman, was ill at the time and I was asked to sign a notice to the bank authorising the use of a sum of money from the Carr Fund to purchase a piece of statuary we had agreed to buy. I am guilty in that I ought to rave known that the Carr Fund was available only for pictures and not for statuary. In authorising the Carr Fund to be expended in buying a piece of statuary, I was in error. I am sorry, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for the grievous breach I then committed. I have no excuse to offer. I will try to behave better in future. So far as I know this was the only case in which I was in error in using a fund confined to pictures for purchasing statuary. I thought your Lordships would not mind my saying this, though it does not bear strictly on the subject matter under discussion.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on the one which has just been passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out (" and funds ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
" . The Tate Gallery Trustees shall have regard to the fact that the Gallery has been provided primarily for the display of British art of all periods, and of modern art."
The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to put on record in this Bill the functions of the Tate Gallery and so try to secure that the intentions of benefactors to whom the nation owes this Gallery shall be carried out. No doubt we should all agree that, if reasonably possible, these intentions should be carried out. The Gallery has been given to the nation for specific purposes. There is a danger in all trusts and in all these matters dealing with funds and gifts that the intentions of the trust may be forgotten. There is also the danger that they may be intentionally altered, as in my view the Massey Report intentionally
782
means to alter them. I would ask my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill to answer this question: Who is to decide what is the intention in the Massey Report on the policy of the Gallery? Who should carry out the intention of the donator? Is it the Director who decides this point, is it the Trustees or is it the Treasury?
My noble friend offered me a Treasury minute in place of some clause dealing with the functions of the Gallery. That made me wonder whether it was the Treasury who were responsible. I should be glad if he would tell me who is responsible for carrying out the policy of the Gallery. There is no description of the functions in the Bill and I know that the Trustees would welcome a definition of their duties. We were told by the noble Earl that the Treasury are rather unwilling to define the functions of Galleries, but I think that a Gallery that is given by private benefactors for specific purposes is rather different from a Gallery such as the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, or the Victoria and Albert, of which we know the object. But when we come to a Gallery given for a specific purpose, if the Trustees have no guidance I do not see what guarantee there is that that purpose will be carried out. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said on Second Reading (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 448):
"The purpose of this Bill is very largely to implement the intentions which the Massey Committee had in mind."
That seems to me to be a somewhat vague observation. As to what they had in mind, we can only be guided by the Bill. They had many things in mind which I do not feel can be carried out if the wishes and intentions of the benefactors who gave us the Galleries are to be given effect to.
I should like to deal for a moment with the Tate Gallery. As your Lordships know, it was built in 1897, and there is no doubt whatever that Tate built the Gallery to house British art of all periods. There are eight galleries on one side and eight on the other side of a central building. In 1910 five galleries were added by Sir Joseph Duveen, also for British art, to house the Turner Collection. It was not until 1926 that Lord Duveen added four galleries for modern foreign art; and one of those four galleries was

783
to house permanently Sargent's pictures. There are three galleries left, out of twenty-five, which, roughly speaking, are available for modern foreign art. Sir John Rothenstein told me (I have the plan here which he gave me, if your Lordships are interested) that at the outside 12 to 15 per cent. of the Gallery was available. When the Massey Report is implemented, I do not think that proportion will remain. It is for the future that I am anxious, not the present. I am not referring to the rooms below. There are a number of rooms below which are not fit for big pictures, because they are below the flood level. Then there are two sculpture galleries. I am referring to the main picture galleries.
I should now like to refer to the Curzon Committee. The Curzon Committee laid down clearly that this was to be the national gallery of British art of all periods. They emphasised at length that this was not a collection of pictures that ended with the life of Tate; it was to be of all periods, the future, as well as the present and the past. The Curzon Report emphasised the fact that there was no room in the Gallery for other than British art, and that British art would more than fill the whole Gallery. The solution suggested by the Curzon Committee was that a new wing for modern foreign pictures should be provided on the vacant site of the Tate. That seems to me to be the solution to-day. In my view, it is important that we should face that point, and I cannot think why that should not provide the solution to this problem.
There is no more room to-day for British pictures than there was when the Curzon Committee reported. What is the space required for? It is required for gifts: for bequests; for transfers from the National Gallery, as recommended by the Massey Report; for purchases by the various trust funds that the Galleries have, and for the Chantry Bequestߞby Treasury minute the purchases under the Chantry Bequest must go to the Tate Gallery. Now they have a grant from the Government of, I believe, £6,250, to purchase new pictures. It is also required for loans. The loans are most important. We have most valuable loans now, as your Lordships know, and other funds and space must be available for them. The Curzon Committee said that
784
there was no room; and I do not see how we are to make room for the suggestions and intentions of the Massey Committee if we regard the wishes of the testator.
Now I should like to refer to the Massey Report. The Report says on page 7:
"… we are endorsing the recommendation of the Curzon Committee, that … the Tate should be the 'National Gallery of British Art of all periods."
At the end of the Report there is the Memorandum of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. They say, also, that it is to be the national gallery of British art of all periods, and add the words,
" and we consider that that should be its primary purpose."
Before saying more about the Massey Report, I should like to make three comments. The Report has not been discussed in either House of Parliament. It is a Report largely of art expertsߞthere were four great art experts on the Committee, who, quite properly, make their recommendations, I think, from the art point of view. The third point is that this Bill, as my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, has said, is mainly to implement the intentions of the Massey Report. We have to consider to-day not only, and not mainly, the intentions of the Massey Report, but mainly whether, in giving legal effect to this Bill, we are going to carry out the intentions of the people to whom we owe these Galleries. If we carry out the recommendations of the Massey Report, I do not think we can carry out, also, the wishes of the benefactors who gave us this Gallery.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, may ask me whether I have any evidence that these intentions will not be carried out. I do not want to make too much of it, but there is one thing. I have here a plan of Tate's original Gallery, with eight galleries on the right and eight on the left. It has now been altered. The original foreign galleries, as your Lordships know, were the last built, and are right in the tail, furthest from the entrance. Now, owing to bombing, the foreign pictures have quite properly been removed, and occupy perhaps the best galleries on the right hand side of the entrance. That is four out of the eight galleries. The other four are used mainly

785
for contemporary exhibitions. So it is not used for the purpose for which it was built. I am not suggesting that we should alter all that I am sure that the Trustees have wisely made a temporary arrangement; but I suggest that we put it on record in this Bill what the facts are, so that when we get our new Gallery, the pictures may then be moved back and the Tate carry out the purpose for which it was built.
I do not want to go into the question which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, raised about the funds and purchases, but evidence that there is a tendency towards going more foreign "is the fact that one fund which was left to the Tate stipulated that British pictures should be bought. The Trustees of the Tate have made a report to the Treasury, which your Lordships will have seen, in which they tell us that, of the pictures which should have been British, eleven out of seventeen were foreign It shows a tendencyߞI will not say more than thatߞof not supporting British artists but to "go foreign." I have not said anything about the subject of the artist, but I think that is involved in our Bill to-day. It is obvious that you have so much money to buy pictures, and the more "foreign" you go, and the more you spend on your foreign pictures, the less you will have for your British pictures. That is a point which I think needs to be borne in mind. I am afraid my remarks are rather wandering, but I hope I have made it clear what I want the Government to do. My Amendment is not very well worded. I made it rather indefinite because I thought the Government did not wish to have a definition. If I can persuade the House that the Trustees want it and the public want it, I think it would be to great advantage if the Government would agree to pat in some definition of the functions of the Gallery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.ߞ(Lord Kinnaird.)
LORD METHUEN: I should like to say how grateful we feel to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, for moving this Amendment. I speak having had the experience of being a Trustee during most of the last war, and I took part in the discussions on the Massey Report, which
786
in my view went too far. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, wished to point out this fact. The Report envisaged a collection of Continental painters as much as of those of this country, but I would point out that until we have the necessary space and benefactions, or money in some form or other, it is idle to suppose that this is possible without complete disregard of the testators' wishes. In the meantime, with our present limitations, I think we should pay due regard to the wishes of our benefactors. Bear in mind that the Tate Gallery was built to house and display British painters of all periods. As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has told the Committee, three galleries were bought by the late Lord Duveen to house works by foreign paintersߞthey are the three main galleries on the ground floor. The fourth, as the noble Lord has said, was intended for his great friend Sargent, to whom he was very much attached. Perhaps it is irrelevant, but may I complete the information which Lord Kinnaird gave? Lord Duveen built a group of four to five rooms in the basement which, unfortunately, are subject to flooding and, therefore, are being used for miscellaneous purposes. I hope the noble Lord's statement and the little that I have been able to add will clarify the situation as it is in the Tate.
May I add that neither the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, nor myself is activated by any partisanship as regards modern as opposed to traditional painting. When the Trustees discussed this matter during the war, we all agreed that a national collection would require greatly strengthening by the addition of works of Continental painters, particularly the French, of which at that timeߞI am talking about 1941, 1942, and 1943ߞwe were deficient. This, no doubt, is the difficulty with which the Director and Trustees have been faced in recent years. The way to solve it is not, if I may say so, the way which has been chosen by the Tate Gallery, which has led to a considerable amount of muddle. The Answer which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave to my non-oral Question which I put down on March 18, seems to mean simply that the Galleries have been living "on tick." That may be justified or it may not, but there is no other reasonable explanation. It is rather the answer I expected, but one which I

787
hoped I should not receive; I hoped for more frankness.
I hope that by gradually getting the Galleries enlarged, and by encouraging benefactors, we shall in time get the space to hang the numerous pictures of Continental painters which we all wish to have to complete our national collection. I believe that some years ago movable screens were installed in two of the large storage rooms in the basement of the Tate Gallery. In the last debate on December 8, I recommended to your Lordships' notice, and particularly to the Trustees of the National Gallery, that they might well imitate what has been done at the National Portrait Gallery and get their rooms on the ground floor vastly improved. The same applies equally to the Tate Gallery. I urge the Trustees and Director to get busy and, as soon as the money is available, to convert those rooms to the full use, so that all the surplus pictures which they cannot hang in the galleries can be put on movable screens and so become accessible to students who wish to study them. After all, both Galleries have been in the past, and should be, the centres of scholarship for which this country is justly proud. Until this innovation is made there is absolutely no hope of any scholarship, certainly not from the Tate Gallery in present circumstances. I wish to associate myself with the Amendment, which I hope the Government will see their way to accept.
3.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it is quite clear what my noble friend Lord Kinnaird has in mind. He wishes, in the first place, to define the purposes of the Tate Gallery, and from that definition to give statutory effect to the gifts of Sir Henry Tate. I think the noble Lord rather slurred over some of the gifts of the late Lord Duveen, but that is as it may be. Quite apart from the merits of that intention, one thing is perfectly clear: this Amendment does not achieve the object which the noble Lord has in mind. In the first place, the meaning of the Amendment is very obscure indeed. I do not think it is clear whether the word "primarily" qualifies "British," or whether it qualifies modern art as well. I think anyone can take the interpretation as he likes.
LORD KINNAIRD: There is a comma after "primarily."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know, but it is rather difficult to get the right emphasis on a comma in an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord makes a contrast as between British art, on the one hand, and modern art on the other. Would the noble Lord not agree that there is British modern art? Why should one make a contrast of that character? The Amendment, moreover, does not reproduce the terms of the original gift. For these reasons, I suggest, with respect, that the Amendment does not achieve the object which he has in view, even if the merits of that object are accepted. I should like to add this. The noble Lord has called in aid the Massey Report. This Bill does not implement the whole of the Massey Report, but a large part of this Bill is intended to implement a small portion of the Massey Report. That portion was the division of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery.
So far as the Curzon Report is concerned, of course the noble Lord must remember that Lord Duveen at that time had not made his first bequest. When the Bill was first considered, close examination was given to the question whether a full definition should be included either in the terms of the Bill or, possibly, in its Preamble. But long Preambles nowadays are out of fashion, and it was decided not to do this. I do not know whether it is still true to-day, but I believe that one of our classical authors once said that the greater the subject the more difficult it is of definition. We have found that it is difficult to provide a definition which could be usefully applied to this Gallery. I have tried again, since I have spoken to the noble Lord, but none of our national galleries or museums has a purpose laid down by Statute. The National Gallery, for instance, was started 130 years ago by a Treasury Minute. Its purposes were never laid down by Statute, and are not to this day. On the whole, the development of both the Tate and National Galleries has been, and is, pretty successful. They are very popular, and I would say that, judging by the attendances, they have met the public requirements.
The noble Lord suggested in the course of his remarks that these Galleries are, in fact, becoming substantially foreign.

789
Perhaps I may therefore give the actual position of the Tate Gallery at the present timeߞI think it is not unimportant. There are nearly 5,700 linear feet (I apologise for giving these statistics during a discussion on art; it seems ridiculous, but I am afraid this is what we have come down to) at the Tate Gallery, of which 63 per cent., or about 3,500 feet, were built for British pictures; and 8 per cent., or 456 feet, for foreign pictures, while nearly 1,700 feet were for unspecified purposes. I asked the Gallery to give me a report at a convenient date as to what actually was hung. The report is of March 6. On that date, 69 per cent., or nearly 4,000 feet, were occupied by British pictures. and 14 per cent., or 820 feet, by foreign pictures. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that in the original design there was no accommodation for storage or administration, and an equivalent of 350 feet of hanging space is now used for that purpose. This leaves about 500 feet which at that time was not in use.
Nor is it true to say that the tendency of the Gallery, in its purchases of pictures, has become predominantly foreign. I asked for a return of the pictures bought over the last twenty years, and this is the answer I received The Gallery have bought in that time 254 British works of art and 64 foreign works of art. This shows that there is no tendency for the Gallery to become predominantly foreign. Nor is there under this Bill, and in Clause 2, any sign in that direction. So far as I can judge, the tendency will be for foreign pictures to move from the Tate Gallery to the National Gallery and for a few British pictures to move from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery. That, broadly, seems to be what will happen, so that the ratio is more likely to move in favour of British picture; than in favour of foreign pictures.
What is the position in the Tate? The noble Lord has described it. We have the original foundations of Sir Henry Tate and Joseph and Louis Duveen, which were for British pictures. We then had in 1916, and again in 1931, galleries founded by Lord Duveen for foreign art. What has happened? We have in fact a dual-purpose Gallery and there is nothing we can do about it today. There it is. I think the majority of people regard that as highly desirable. On the whole, not only is this extremely popular, but we gain a great deal from
790
having in our midst exhibits of modern art from abroad. The noble Lord asked who is to prescribe the functions of the Tate Gallery. The task of running the Tate will fall in due course to the Trustees: that will be their responsibility. But when this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, instructions will be sent to the Tate Gallery dealing broadly with the administrative purposes and matters of organisation affecting the Gallery. Of course, there will be necessarily some reference to this matter. I really do not think that there is any very great problem here. It is true that we have his dual-purpose Gallery and I am not sure that we can help it a great deal by close definition. What I am certain is that the noble Lord's Amendment, as drafted, will not do. For that reason, hope he will withdraw it.
LORD KINNAIRD: I understand that the noble Earl who has just spoken has withdrawn his earlier remark, which I quoted, that the main object of the Bill was to carry out the intentions of the Massey Report. He said to-day that it was to implement a small part of the Massey Report, subject to the Treasury Minute. At present, the Trustees have no idea what they are to do under the Bill. Who are they to say which part of the Massey Report is intended to be carried out? There is no definition whatsoever. I still feel that the Government would be wise to put in some definition. The noble Earl has offered, I think, what is called a Treasury Minute. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, saying on the Second. Reading or the Committee stage of the Bill, when we were having a good deal of discussion about "trusting the Trustees," that he would rather trust the Bill than trust the trustees. I am not fully aware what a Treasury Minute is, but I would rather that the Government put their definition in the Bill than in a Treasury Minute. It seems to me that it would be something which the people would know. This is a National Gallery, which belongs to the nation. The people will not know what is in the Treasury Minute, or if it is being carried out, whereas if we have some definition in the Bill the public will know where they are.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Surely the public can go to the Tate Gallery and see the notice board outside it? They can

791
see there a perfectly fair description of what the Tate Gallery is for. I should have thought that the information would be much more readily available to the public there than in a Statute. Very few members of the public study Statutes. If they want to know what the Gallery is for, the easiest thing to do is to go to the Tate Gallery to find out.
LORD KINNAIRD: I am glad that the noble Earl has referred to that because the notice board describes it as
" A collection of British art and a collection of modern foreign art."
The noble Earl asked the question whether the modern art was to be British or foreign. That is the definition on all the boards.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is not the Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: But it is the definition made, and it can be seen at the Gallery. Page 24 of the Massey Report (I am sorry that I did not mention this earlier) says that this is the only National Gallery at present qualified to provide a general survey of contemporary painting and sculpture, both British and foreign; that it should be divided into two departments, the National Gallery of all periods—which covers the future, and modern painting as well as the past—and the National Gallery of Modern Art. The effect of that is that, while both collections are housed at the Tate, they should be distinct from each other. Massey said, "Take some of the Tate Gallery." Curzon made it absolutely clear that there was no room. So, as I say, you cannot carry out both the testators' wishes. The Report goes on to suggest that there should be two directors or sub-directors, one for modern foreign art, and one for British art. That is a sort of "half and half," and if that is one of the intentions in the future—I emphasise not in the present, because I know that the present Trustees are carrying out their percentage quite correctly—and if the intentions of the Massey Report are carried into law, it will tend to a much greater percentage of foreign art. That is my view.
3.32 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I do not know whether I might usefully say a word. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. At the same time, I venture to think that Lord
792
Selkirk's objection to it is rather fundamental. I think it is exceedingly difficult to define what the Trustees should have in mind. I am no longer a Trustee, but certainly when I was a Trustee one of the many things that one would have borne in mind, and did bear in mind, was what the noble Lord has said—namely, the history and origin of this Gallery. I think one had to be quite certain, in trying to conduct the Gallery and the purchase policy, to bear in mind that it was certainly a fundamental part of the duty of the Trustees of the Gallery to see that there was a good and more or less complete representation of British art. I am sure that has been done in the past, and I am sure that it will be done in the future. Though I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, I venture to suggest that he will not do very much good by trying to get a definition included in the Bill in this way. I am afraid that it is one of those matters which must be left to the good sense of the Trustees. But I feel that the speech which the noble Lord has made, and the discussion that we have had, will in itself be useful.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may add a word on this matter. I, too, have considerable sympathy with Lord Kinnaird's Amendment. After all, we all want the purposes of these trusts to be carried out as nearly as possible. But the real truth, I am afraid, is that it is now impossible entirely to carry out Sir Henry Tate's original intentions and to confine the Tate Gallery to British pictures—which is certainly what he intended in the terms of his Trust—since the Government of the day, in 1916, decided to accept the gift from Lord Duveen to add to the Gallery extra rooms which were to be devoted to a completely different purpose, that of putting in modern foreign pictures. In fact, therefore, the Trustees are bound by the terms of those two gifts, so far as I can see, to devote the Gallery to two completely different and, in some ways, conflicting purposes. That is the fact.
No doubt, looking back, having accepted Lord Duveen's gift the Government of 1916 would have done very much better not to put it in the same building as that which was already devoted to Sir Henry Tate's gift. They would have been more reasonable if they had found a separate building for these modern foreign pictures. Had they done that,

793
these difficulties would not have arisen. Unfortunately, they did not do that, and I do not think it is any good our looking back and trying to interpret that provision, because, after all, the rooms which were given by Sir Henry Tate and by Lord Duveen are both built as part of the same building. That is a fact which I know Lord Kinnaird recognises as well as any of us.
May I, with great diffidence, appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider whether the first Amendment, the purpose of which I think we all approve, would achieve the purpose that he has in mind. My noble friend Lord Selkirk has already pointed out a certain difficulty about the actual wording of the Amendment, which might be susceptible of two meanings. I must say that when I first read the Amendment on the Order Paper I was rather doubtful which meaning ought properly to be attached to it. Moreover, if I may put this additional point, which I do not think has been made yet, if we do accept the meaning intended by Lord Kinnaird (having heard his speech I see now exactly what he has in mind) we are still up against the word "primarily." Though that word finds its way into the Massey Report—no doubt the noble Lord took it from the Report for that specific reason—I am still not clear exactly how it would be interpreted by the Trustees. Presumably, it means that some emphasis should be thrown upon British pictures. But how much emphasis it does not say. If the Trustees are not clear now what their position is, I do not think they would be any clearer if we in this House accepted the noble Lord's Amendment. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, and to say that this is a matter which ultimately must be interpreted by the Trustees, but that the position of the Trustees will be made very much easier by the fact that the noble Lord has put down his Amendment and has extracted from the Government the statement which has been made by my noble friend. In those circumstances, I suggest that perhaps it would be wiser for him net to press his Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for what he has said, and all those who have given me some
794
support. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Powers of transfer between the National Gallery and Tate Gallery collections
2.—(1) Either of the said two bodies of Trustees may lend or transfer any picture or other work of art to the other.
(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 of all countries and all periods,

(b) of maintaining in the Tate Gallery a collection of British pictures and a collection of modern pictures, and

3.37 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "of established merit or significance of all countries and all periods" and to insert "to illustrate the history of European painting." The noble Lord said: In. rising to beg leave to propose this Amendment, I must ask for your Lordships' indulgence as this is the first time that I have addressed your Lordships' House. Furthermore, I am really not accustomed to public speaking. I am not happy about this particular subsection in its present form, even if the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk (if I may anticipate for a moment), which is to follow mine, is accepted. I am not clear what is meant by the words "established merit." Established by whom, when and for how long? Fashions change, and what may be considered established by one generation is not necessarily so regarded by the next. Furthermore, what do we mean by "merit"? A picture may not be considered by everybody to have merit, and yet it can be, an important milestone in the history of painting.
I do not know whether the Femme Nue Assise of 1909 by Picasso at the Tate will always be considered to be of established merit. Personally, I hope it always will be. Nevertheless, it is an important example of the early cubist style. Incidentally, it was painted nearly fifty years ago, in 1909, and although it is still often attacked by many people

795
who do not appreciate that particular style of painting, it is actually only a few years later than the recent late Cezanne portrait which has just been acquired by the National Gallery—the very lovely portrait of the old woman. It would appear, therefore, that this picture by Picasso, which is one example, will in a few years' time become eligible for transfer to the National Gallery under Clause 2 (1) of this Bill, not because it has established merit, but because it is an important example of a particular stage in the history of painting.
In general, I feel that this subsection is the pivot of the whole Bill, and parts of Clauses 4, 5, and 6, particularly, which met with a certain amount of opposition by your Lordships in previous debates last year, were, I think, in some ways the result of what, if I may say so with great respect, is the result of a misconception of the purpose of the National Gallery—a misconception which, in my view, is obvious from the words of this subsection.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he first introduced this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on November 24 last year, said as follows (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 448):
"… broadly, the National Gallery is to be recognised as a collection of masterpieces of all kinds…"
If the noble Earl will allow me to say so with great respect, I do not agree that this is the proper function of the National Gallery. In my view the function of the National Gallery—apart, of course, from research and conservation—is to illustrate the history of European painting. For this it is essential to have available both masterpieces and pictures of secondary importance. In the study of art history, it often happens that a picture of small artistic worth, one definitely not a masterpiece or even of established merit, is nevertheless of great value to the student from the point of view of its iconography or hagiography, or even as an illustration of a particular costume style. For this reason it is absolutely essential, in my view, to have a reference picture library at the National Gallery for the student—and by "student" I mean someone of any age, be he painter or undergraduate or art historian or anyone who is interested in this subject.
There has been a considerable interest shown in the pictorial arts since the war, but this interest on the part of the public has been fostered to a certain extent by our art historians and critics, whose work is the fruit of much study and research. Thus, the student is entitled, in my view, to every consideration, not only because of the value of research, pure research for its own sake as an academic study, but also because of its effect upon others. I submit, too, that it is also important to hang secondary pictures and not always just to keep them down in the vaults—and to hang them near the masterpieces of their period so that we may all have some criterion by which to judge. Watteau seems lovelier than ever if Lancret is shown beside him; but if you banish all your Lancrets to the basement, or worse still, to the Ministry of Works pool, as is suggested in this Bill, one is not so likely to learn to appreciate the importance of Watteau. One begins, passing through a succession of masterpieces, to suffer from what we call an embarras des richesses.
But if we are to hang more pictures, then more space is required. I suggest that this further space can be created in two ways: first, by making the best use of the space available. At this point may I say that I think the National Gallery as a gallery of masterpieces has never been better hung before. However, there is a price to pay for hanging each picture in comparative isolation, and that price, of course, is fewer pictures. I think the modern style of museum display sometimes tends to be over-precious. Indeed, often the effect is to isolate the work of art, so that a kind of invisible barrier is erected between it and the spectator. That is particularly so if it is shown in circumstances and surroundings in which it was not meant originally to be seen. That is a tendency which is very evident in museums to-day, and not only in the National Gallery. I hope, therefore, that the fashion will swing back to showing pictures hung closely together. There is a most interesting letter about this question from Dr. Gombrich, a very great authority, in the Burlington Magazine of February last, which many of your Lordships will have seen. Dr. Gombrich, in this letter, gives the apt simile of a page of crowded newsprint on which it is

797
quite easy for the eye to isolate the paragraph it wants to read without any feeling of distraction from the rest of the page. And if the human eye can do that on a crowded page of newspaper, why cannot it do it on the wall of a Gallery?
But, of course, this can be only a partial solution, even when all rooms at Trafalgar Square are fully opened—and I understand that certain further ones are to be opened shortly, and that they will be air-conditioned. The only satisfactory solution is to build more space at the National Gallery—as, of course, a matter of long-term policy. And here I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether it is possible for him to say what plans there are for the future. In his opening speech the noble Earl said, on November 24, 1953 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 447):
"…there is fortunately still room for extension on the present site."
But the noble Earl did not say any more. May I ask him when we are going to build? I realise that this matter must be one of long-term policy, with so many more pressing needs for building materials and labour. But I must confess that I am a little depressed that since 1910, when certain rooms were built, so little effort has been made by any Government to extend the National Gallery. Only one room has been built. That was in 1938. It is the room leading out of the Duveen Room that is now housing the Spanish school. If it had not been for the generosity of private benefactors like the late Dr. Mond, who presented a room in 1925, and the late Lord Duveen in 1929, the problem of space would be even more acute. Now that we are in the second half of the twentieth century I hope that something will be done, at least before we reach the end of this millenium. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence in listening to me, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("pictures") to end of line 15, and insert (" to illustrate the history of European painting"). (Lord Strabolgi.)
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is always a real privilege to welcome here and congratulate, the son of a well-known Member of your Lordships' House who was deeply respected. That is my privilege to-day, and it is an additionally happy
798
one, if I may venture humbly to say so, because the noble Lord has spoken with such ability, with such deep feeling for his subject and with, obviously, such deep interest in it. I can only express the hope that he will come here and speak to us again on many future occasions. But, if I may say so, he has to-day led me into a position of great embarrassment, because he was speaking far above my head. Fortunately I can refer the great majority of his questions to the Trustees of the National Gallery, who will no doubt be able to answer with great facility the special points which he has been making.
All I need do to-day is, I think, to ask the noble Lord to refer exactly to the purposes of Clause 2. The suggestion has come up over and over again in this discussion that we are endeavouring, in some measure, restrictively or narrowly to define in Clause 2 the purposes of the two Galleries. We are not trying to do that. Those are not the purposes of the clause. I agree that, in many ways, this clause is the pivot of the Bill. It is intended to draw a line of definition as between the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery and to place the emphasis on certain types of pictures. The noble Lord has regretted that the National Gallery should be—I think this is what he called it—a collection of masterpieces. We do not actually say that in the Bill, and I am not sure whether it is a matter to be regretted or not. Now, and indeed in the ordinary course of events, foreign pictures which become too old for the Tate Gallery will be transferred to the National Gallery, and I think I am right in saying that a number of those will not directly fall within the category of masterpieces.
Indeed, I go further and say that, strictly, none of them will, because if they had been masterpieces in the majority of cases they would, presumably, have been taken over by the National Gallery at a much earlier date. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will be assured that it is certainly not the intention of the Bill to change the character of the National Gallery. It will contain many pictures which probably would not fall within the definition of masterpieces. He asked what is to be the standard by which "established merit or significance" is to be determined. I am afraid that is a matter for the Trustees. The Government

799
would certainly not attempt to give any assistance in resolving that problem.
The noble Lord has dealt with the history of art. I should not like to say anything without knowing the views of the Trustees in this matter. The terms of this clause, as they will be after the operation of the Amendment which I shall be moving in a minute or two, will, I believe, be in agreement with what they wish. I should not like to alter that without making careful reference to them. The noble Lord asked about extensions. It is perhaps a sombre thought that our first two major Amendments have relation to major extension of the National Gallery, on the one hand, and major extension of the Tate Gallery, on the other. No doubt those are two very desirable objectives, but I am afraid that I can give no hope of there being any prospect of their being achieved. That is so far as the present stage is concerned; what may happen when we get to the millennium is another matter. I can hold out no hope of any such thing happening in the near future. I would end by saying that I shall be most grateful to the noble Lord if, in view of what I have said, he can see his way to withdraw his Amendment. I repeat that we are grateful to him for the speech which he has made, and we hope that we shall hear him frequently in the future.
3.53 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, withdraws his Amendment I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will go a little further and will undertake—as he has himself suggested would be possible—to consult with the Trustees of the National Gallery who, I have no doubt, are thirsting to give him the necessary information as to what constitutes "established merit and significance." I do not pretend to be able to do so. But I think there is this to be said in favour of the Amendment. It is true that you cannot define this matter, and you have not attempted to define what the duties of the Trustees are, but you have given a pretty strong pointer, and you have told them that they have to maintain in the National Gallery
" a collection of pictures of established merit or significance."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his really remarkable speech—and I should like to congratulate him
800
on making one of the best maiden speeches I have ever heard—has a really good point here. I think that if he discusses it with the Trustees of the National Gallery, the noble Earl may perhaps be able to devise some words to meet that point. It is not quite enough, as the noble Lord pointed out, to have pictures of established merit and significance; you want to have them in their setting, as it were. I think he has a good point there and we shall all agree with it. Whether an acceptable form of words can be devised to meet this point I do not know, but I would ask the noble Earl not to shut his mind absolutely to the possibility of doing so. I would ask that he should consult with those who know a great deal about this matter and see whether, in the light of the cogent observations which have been made, there is not a case for some modification of the phrases which were previously accepted. I hope that the noble Earl, if he gets advice in that sense, may at a later stage bring forward some modified form of words.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly do as the noble and learned Earl suggests.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and also the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for their kind references to myself and also for their courtesy in dealing so fully with my suggested Amendment. I am especially grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in this respect, because the Amendment was put in at only very short notice yesterday. The noble Earl has not had long to consider it. On the assumption, however, that further consideration may perhaps be given to the question of changing the wording slightly at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment relating to the considerations which have to be borne in mind in transferring pictures from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery, or vice versa. The Amendment has been drawn, I understand, with the agreement of the National Gallery Trustees. That is to say that, as at present, regard will be had
" to the desirability of maintaining in the National Gallery a collection of pictures of established merit or significance,"

801
and the following words,
" of all countries and all periods"
will be taken out, as they are not fully appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from (" significance") to' end of line 15.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD METHUEN: May I ask the object of leaving out the word "significance?"
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The word "significance" is not being left out. The words following it are being omitted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I would say only this about this Amendment. If your Lordships look at line 24 you will see it is stated that in deciding any dispute the Trustees
"shall have regard to the principles laid down in subsection (2)"—
that is, of maintaining in the Tate Gallery a collection of British pictures and a collection of modern pictures. If we have no definition in the Bill, I think there is a danger that these words may be pointed to by a Director, in addressing the Trustees. He may say, for example, "The principle is laid down in the Bill. It is clear. That is all the Bill says about it. It is laid down that you are to have regard to the desirability of maintaining these collections." I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says, that this provision deals with the transfer and not with the principle that is to be maintained in the collection, but he may agree with me that there is a danger that it will be regarded as the only principle laid down in the Bill. I mentioned this to a noble and learned Earl, who said there certainly was a danger of this. I also mentioned it to three or four Gallery Directors, and they also took the provision as laying down a principle. But I do not press the noble Earl, if he thinks there is no danger of this.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph. (b).—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord's Amendment would remove from
802
the Clause any indication of what the Tate Gallery was supposed to be, and would leave the Committee which is to carry out the transfer in some difficulty. I do not see the advantage of this Amendment. I had in mind that if the noble Lord's first Amendment were carried, he would regard this as consequential, but now he raises it as a distinct substantive Amendment. It seems to make nonsense of Clause 2, which would read:
"…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 …"—
and then—
(c) of securing that each picture or other work of art is in that collection. …"
and so on, without any reference to the Tate at all. I have some doubt whether the noble Lord would like that situation to arise, and therefore I should be grateful if he withdrew the Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment proposes to take out the words "or other work of art" to make it clear that the only transference under subsection (2) of the clause has to do with pictures. In the first place, the words were inserted by the draftsman to cover a very limited contingency. The noble Lords, Lord Huntingdon and Lord Amulree, prefer to leave them out and I agree that it would be better to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("or other work of art ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (a) "after consultation with both bodies of Trustees ". The noble Earl said: This Amendment meets a point raised on Second Reading. It makes clear that when a chairman is appointed to decide a matter of disagreement between two bodies of Trustees, that chairman will be appointed by the Treasury only after consultation with the Trustees on both sides. I hope this will meet all the points raised on this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert (" after consultation with both bodies of Trustees").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Allocation of gifts and bequests].
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will note that in Clause 7 the property of the National Gallery is no longer vested in the Trustees and director but only in the Trustees. This alters a provision in the 1856 Act to bring it in line with the practice elsewhere. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
(" (2) In the proviso to the said section three the references to the director of the National Gallery shall be omitted.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There has been a certain amount of speculation on whether the word "institution" would bring in a Borstal or other institution. However naïve this suggestion is, we are always happy to meet any difficulty, and the Amendment makes the addition of any new institution to the Schedule subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3) A draft of any order under this section shall be laid before Parliament and the Treasury shall not make the order unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Powers of lending exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees
4.—(1) The National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees shall respectively have power to lend pictures or other works of art vested in them—

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

(b) for display—

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

804

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

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

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

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

(5) In this section the expression "colony" includes a protectorate or protected State within the meaning of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and a United Kingdom trust territory as defined in that Act, and the expression "Governor" has the same meaning as in that Act.
(6) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for the provisions of the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883, and the National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Act, 1935: but nothing in this subsection shall affect the terms of any loan made before the coming into operation of this Act.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), at the beginning to insert: "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Earl said: We now come to a clause which, I am afraid, is still contentious in parts. This Amendment is only a drafting Amendment. Perhaps I may make this suggestion to your Lordships? If it is agreeable to your Lordships, when the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, moves his first Amendment, we may discuss the clause as a whole. I do not know whether that meets with the convenience of the House, but it seems to be the easiest way of doing it. Afterwards, the Amendments can be put singly and voted on if necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "or" and insert:
" provided that no picture painted before the year seventeen hundred shall be sent outside the United Kingdom."
The noble Earl said: I understand that we are discussing all the Amendments on this clause together, if that is agreeable to the Committee. We had some discussion on this Amendment on the previous stage of the Bill. Several noble Lords, as well as myself, were worried over the danger of old and valuable paintings lent for exhibition abroad being damaged.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I wonder whether the noble Earl would forgive me? My noble friend the Leader of the House has a statement to make, and perhaps it would be convenient if he made it now. I beg to move that the House do resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE HYDROGEN BOMB
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the course of this important debate, but a statement has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on a matter of great public interest, and I feel sure the House would wish me to repeat it here. These are the exact words which have been used by the Prime Minister:
" The development of the hydrogen bomb raises strategic and political issues which are so momentous and far-reaching that they cannot be adequately discussed within the limits of a statement at the end of Questions. I do not propose to make any general statement on these issues. I will, however, deal 'briefly with some of the specific suggestions made in the particular Questions which have been placed on the Paper."—
that is, on the Paper in another place.
" In the first place, I must make it clear that our knowledge of these American experiments is necessarily limited. The United States Govern-
806
ment are prevented by their own legislation from divulging secret information, about them. I can say, however, from our own scientific knowledge, that there, is no foundation for the suggestion that these explosions are 'incalculable,' in the sense that those making the tests are unable to set limits to the explosive power of the bomb or to calculate in advance what the main effects will be. I greatly regret, as do our American friends, that any injury or damage should have been suffered by third parties as a result of the recent experiment; but. I understand that the injuries suffered by arsons outside the area which had been cleared for the purposes of the test are neither serious nor lasting.
" It is being suggested that further tests should be the subject of international consultation or control. The restrictions imposed by the United States law, to which I have already referred, would make this impracticable. But, even if this were not so, I should not myself be ready to propose it, for reasons which I will now explain.
" International rules have of course been prescribed to regulate the testing of conventional weapons: and these, appropriately amended to meet the greatly increased risks of experiment with atomic or hydrogen weapons, have we believe been carefully applied in all the experiments carried out by the United States authorities. I am sure that those responsible for conducting these tests will continue to take the most rigorous precautions to minimise the risks involved. The House will have noticed that, since the explosion of the 1st of March, they have taken the additional precaution of enlarging considerably the area which shipping and aircraft are warned to avoid on the occasion of further experiments of this nature.
"It has now been announced in Washington by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission that another experiment was carried out in the Pacific on the 26th of March since that of which we had already heard on the 1st of March. Both the experiment and the extra precautions taken to warn shipping in the vicinity are stated to have been successful. The experiment

807
is described as being one of a 'test series' and I understand from statements made by various American authorities that these two experiments that have taken place in March are part of a 'test series ' which will continue during April. I hope it may be found possible within the limits of existing United States legislation to give us information about what occurs. Our instruments, which are highly developed, of course recorded the explosion of Friday last as soon as sound-waves reached us.
" As is well-known, the President is appealing to Congress for a greater latitude of communication on certain nuclear matters with us. In view of what we have learned by our own scientific researches, and also in view of the progress of the Soviets in this sphere, I am sure that consultation is to the advantage both of Great Britain and the United States. I trust nothing will be said here which will set back the many favourable tendencies in this direction which are now evident in the United States.
" It is being suggested that I should endeavour to persuade the United States Government to abandon their series of experimental explosions of hydrogen bombs. We have no power to stop this. But I am sure that it would not be right or wise for us to ask that it should be stopped. When similar experiments were conducted by the Russians, I cannot remember that anyone suggested that such representations should be made to the Soviet Government. The experiments which the Americans are now conducting in the Pacific are an essential part of the defence policy of a friendly Power without whose massive strength and generous help Europe would be in mortal peril. We should indeed be doing a great disservice to the free world if we sought in any way to impede the progress of our American Allies in building up their overwhelming strength in the weapon which provides the greatest possible deterrent against the outbreak of a third world war.
" Together with our friends in the Commonwealth and our Allies we have laboured long to secure international
808
agreement on disarmament and to limit the competition in armaments which is denying to the peoples of the world so many of the benefits which modern science could provide. But no satisfactory arrangements could be made to limit the use of atomic weapons except as part of an international agreement on disarmament as a whole. There could be no security in such an agreement unless it included provision for effective inspection and enforcement. We ourselves have repeatedly offered to accept such provision. But it would be idle to suppose that such an agreement could be concluded with any reasonable expectation of its observance until conditions of confidence between the nations have first been established. We shall lose no opportunity of securing an easement of world tension, but at the same time we must persevere, with the other nations of the free world, in our policy of upholding at the necessary level our united military strength."
4.15 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, for making this statement here. This is an illustration of "the stupendous problems and perils"—I think those were the Prime Minister's words—which arise, and which, by reason of their magnitude, create most difficult problems. I should like to say something apropos of what was the last but one sentence of the statement. It says:
" But it would be idle to suppose that such an agreement could be concluded with any reasonable expectation of its observance until conditions of confidence between the nations have first been established."
Are we not in danger of getting into a vicious circle here? Does not the noble Marquess think that one of the reasons why it is so difficult to establish confidence is the very fact that there are such appalling weapons as these? Surely, that is one of the great difficulties in establishing confidence.
At the recent Berlin Conference, I think I am right in saying—I was not here at the time—the various Powers agreed to interchange ideas on the possibility of approaching this difficult disarmament problem. Can the noble Marquess give us any information as to whether they have at the present time interchanged any ideas at all? I am entirely satisfied that the

809
United States, in conducting these experiments, have taken every possible step open to them Ito avoid any possible danger. But the fact that the area which may be affected is so enormous at once brings this problem: that ships on their lawful occasions may be going through these waters, and you have no right under international law, I presume, to warn people off. That, of course, does raise exceedingly difficult problems which themselves might be the subject of international discussions. I should be grateful if the noble Marquess could give me some assurance on those points.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships' House and public opinion in general will welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have made friendly approaches to the American Government, with a view to their being provided with much fuller information about the present and the future developments of these horrible weapons. At the same time, we should be grateful to the American Government and people that we are not left to the main burden of prosecuting these further experiments and developments, or as an alternative, that they are left only to the Soviet Government. In this matter, it seems to me that criticisms of the American action are misconceived. The statement ended by making some reference to the necessity for easing political tension in the world. I wish I could say the same, in the same spirit, about recent American pronouncements in the diplomatic sphere, on the very eve of the Geneva Conference. That, however, is not the principal matter now before us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite happy to answer the three particular questions I have been asked, so far as I can. I was asked by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, about methods of relieving international tension, to which, as he rightly said, the end of the statement referred. Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate on Foreign Affairs last week I had a passage at the end of my speech which dealt with this specific matter. I agreed strongly on that occasion with all that has been said by the noble and learned Earl to-day. I
810
suggested that two methods which might be used for breaking through the Iron Curtain and producing a greater exchange of views and a greater identity of view on the many difficult problems between the two sides were the improvement of East-West trade and the Geneva Conference, which we might hope would bring a greater degree of peace in the Far East. Those are only two examples, but I do not think that confidence will be finally restored except by enabling the two sides to understand and trust each other better. For anyone merely to say, "I will not have a test in the Pacific," would not really increase confidence. It is not enough in itself to do what the noble and learned Earl and I both desire.
With regard to the Four-Power discussions which were envisaged at Berlin, I would make it clear that there is no weakening in the desire of Her Majesty's Government that discussions should take place at the earliest possible moment. I understand from my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that we are doing our utmost to see that such discussions should take place. I would remind the House, as I have so often before, that in a party of four one single member cannot expect to have his policy immediately adopted. But we shall continue to try to bring about those consultations as soon as possible. Then the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, raised the question of the Pacific, and the danger to British shipping there. He said that surely it was not within the power of a single nation to warn off shipping. I think it is perfectly true to say that they could not exercise, as it were, a sovereignty in waters that were not national waters. But they can warn shipping of something that is impending, and they can take the utmost precautions to see that nobody is hurt. That they are doing. As your Lordships will have seen, the American Government have been at pains to extend the safety area. Of course, if other shipping goes within the area about which warning has been given, there may be danger to it; but I do not think that is likely to happen. In the case of the Japanese fishing ship, which we all regret, it is true to say that it was nearly outside the area, and the injury which was caused was, fortunately, contrary to what had been originally supposed, of a comparatively mild character.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I understand that we are going to discuss Clause 4 as a whole, and that afterwards we shall move our various Amendments separately, one after another. If that procedure satisfies the Committee, I will continue. Clause 4 of this Bill sets out how the two Galleries are allowed to lend pictures for various purposes. I should like to divide my remarks to deal with the different purposes for which these pictures can be lent. The first is for public exhibition. We had a long discussion in the previous debate—and I do not wish to cover the ground again—as to whether it was desirable or not to lend some of our best paintings from the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to foreign exhibitions, where they might suffer serious damage. Various proposals were made at that time to prevent our best and, incidentally, our most fragile works of art from suffering this damage.
This Amendment would provide protection for the most valuable paintings. The ones about which we are supremely anxious are the old pictures painted on panels, very often on gesso or wood, which would be subject to transport, bumping about in railway trains and ships and the handling by the staffs of other museums and institutions abroad. They have suffered from those conditions in the past. Personally, I should like to stop our best paintings from going out in that way, but I think one ought to be ready to compromise on the subject, and that is why I have put down this Amendment to-day, which would allow paintings to go abroad, with the exception of those that were painted on gesso, wood or metal before the year 1700. I should like to hear the much more expert opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, or the noble Duke opposite, who can tell exactly whether this date would cover the pictures I have in mind. I believe that would safeguard our paintings, and would also have another effect. It would protect the Trustees of the Galleries from being subjected to pressure to send these paintings abroad. They might well consider," Well, we do not think we ought to send these paintings abroad. But the Govern-
812
ment of the day might say, "It would be a very advantageous move to send to this country "—whatever country it was—" a nice exhibition of some of our best paintings. We are in the process of having negotiations over a contract of some kind, and this might be very helpful." Of course, if the Trustees are strong-minded enough they will resist any such blandishments or suggestions; but if they are not strong-minded enough it is difficult to resist a strong representation by the Foreign Secretary, or whoever it may be. In any case, I do not think they ought to be subject to that sort of pressure and that sort of difficulty. Therefore, subject to the general discussion, I should like the Committee to consider putting in this Amendment which I think would safeguard those pictures.
Now Clause 4 covers two other points. The first is the question of the lending of pictures by the two Galleries to the Minister of Works, so that he can hang them in public buildings in this country for which he is responsible. I personally do not like that idea very much, but at the same time I do not want to press my view too strongly. There are pictures which might be shown here if there could be a proviso that the public could see them. If at certain times those pictures could be seen by the public, I do not think we should complain too much. There is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, Amendment No. 15, which allows students and people engaged in research to see these paintings, or at least to apply to see them. If they can satisfy the authorities that they are students, or that they are engaged in research and that it is necessary to see these paintings in order to pursue their studies, then they must be allowed access to them. If I may say so, that goes only a certain part of the way. I suggest that the noble Earl should consider rewording his clause from the last line, where it says, "he is a student" by putting in the words "studying art or engaged in research." I do not think this can be limited to students. There are many distinguished people who might want to see these paintings—for instance, the curators of galleries, who may not be engaged in research, distinguished painters or distinguished collectors of pictures. We want all people, as well as students, to be able to see these paintings, and I suggest that if we had a wider

813
definition—I do not say that mine is; I am sure that it could be bettered by your Lordships, but "study in art" or "engaged in research" is such a wide definition—it would then allow a reasonable person who had an interest in it to see these paintings. I should not object to their doing so or to the pictures being lent to our public buildings on those terms.
I take strong opposition, however, to the idea in this clause that these pictures can be lent abroad to Embassies, Legations, Governors' houses in the Colonies, and wherever the Ministry of Works think decoration is needed. I think that is bad, from several points of view. Fundamentally, these.paintings belong to the public. Some of them have been bequeathed; some of them have been given; some of them have been bought with public money. How would your Lordships like it if you had individual paintings and you thought, "I will leave these to the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery, to be seen by the British public," and then it came to your knowledge that those paintings were to be sent off to Tokyo or Bogota? It certainly is not the intention of the testator and I do not think it is fair to the public.
Another thing is that it is very bad for the paintings. The travelling shakes them about and is apt to destroy parts of them. They would not necessarily be properly looked after when they got to the other end, and it would be difficult to get them back again. It would mitigate the condition if there were a clause saying that they had to come back after five years or something like that. But we should lose sight of these paintings; they would be stuck, as we know, in some Legation, and we should never see them again. In some climates, the temperature, damp and dryness, varying greatly, would ruin certain pictures altogether. The real trouble is that, if paintings are sent out of the country, they must be good ones. One would not put in British Embassies, as advertisement, the worst or most insignificant paintings. I do not think that good ones should be lent out of the country.
Many of us, too, are apt to think of the Gallery just from the point of view of enjoyment and tourists going to see
814
the pictures, whereas for painters and people interested, as has been said earlier to-day, they are centres of research where scholars come from all over the world to study different paintings in the National Gallery. I do not think it is right to send those pictures which may be necessary to writers, critics and students, out of the country to places where they cannot be seen or got hold of in any way. It is very much as though you said: "It would be a good idea to have a library in the Embassy in Paris; it would add to our prestige, the Embassy would enjoy very much and other diplomats would be impressed if we used the volumes from the British Museum; we have masses of archives and books there with which we could furnish our Embassy Library with some of them." I do not think any one would seriously agree to that. A little of that point of view applies to our paintings in these two really great national collections, the Tate and particularly the National Gallery. So I would urge the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, to consider trying not to have these pictures sent abroad, even if they are put in public buildings in this country.
I do not want to keep your Lordships much longer, but I think there is one question that might fairly be asked. What is the alternative? We have all these Embassies, we have all these Legations, Governors' houses and so forth. What are we going to do to decorate them and make them look cheerful? I think it is possible to get paintings. In the first place, there are many people who would be quite willing to lend their own large pictures, family pictures which they cannot house in the smaller houses nowadays. Secondly, there are many decorative paintings which could be bought by the Ministry of Works pool and which might, over the years, be rather a good investment. Thirdly, some modern paintings might be bought, and modern artists might be commissioned to decorate some of these Embassies and Legations, which would be good advertisement and would help the artist. I will not keep your Lordships any longer, but I understand that before moving our respective Amendments we are having a general discussion on the clause, and that we can move the Amendment afterwards if necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I will put the first Amendment, and then there can be a general discussion.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out (" or") and insert (" provided that no picture painted on gesso, wood or metal or painted before the year seventeen hundred shall be sent outside the United Kingdom.")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD WINSTER: Will Amendment No. 12 be moved separately?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It will be moved separately afterwards.
4.35 p.m.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: Speaking for the Board of the National Gallery, I should say that, broadly, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I venture to think that he has rather forgotten that this Bill is permissive; it is not obligatory. We are to have inserted in it an Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, which makes it easy for the Trustees to refuse to lend. There is also, later, the Amendment which gives the student, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, the right to see any picture. With those two Amendments, I think that Trustees who have any character will be able to stand up to any pressure which may be put on them. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the Leader of the House for the conciliatory way in which they have met a great many of the objections of the National Gallery to the Bill as originally drafted. The Board of Trustees, since the Bill was first drafted, has changed in its composition and its Chairman. I am bound to admit that its views have not been entirely consistent. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has shown most admirable conciliatoriness and patience in dealing with these vagaries. I hope that we shall not press for anything which is outside the Amendments which he now proposes to move.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the noble Duke in the suggestion he has made to your Lordships, that this Amendment first of all should not be pressed, and that, if it is pressed, it should be refused by your Lordships. I do so on a rather different ground from that of the noble Duke, that is to say, on the
816
ground that, in my view, any help that we can give in the way proposed to Government houses in the Colonies would be most welcome. As one who has visited a large number of Government houses, I know only too well that in many of them the Governor and his wife are frequently up against great difficulties. They move at irregular intervals. It is difficult to decorate adequately these vast barracks, as so many of them are, and if pictures of suitable types were available to them under the safeguards proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am sure that they would readily welcome this amenity. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon—I am sorry to have to disagree with him on this matter—has based his argument, first, on the fact that the testator might object. It is true that he might; but, on the other hand, he might approve. We cannot say; he is not here to inform us. Secondly, the noble Earl has based his argument on the fact that it would deprive the British public of the opportunity of seeing these few pictures—and it would be only a few. On the other hand, it would make available to the Colonial public many pictures which they have no opportunity of seeing to-day, and as we are all now members or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, I should have thought that, under proper safeguards, the testators might welcome the extension to our fellow citizens of the Colonies of the opportunity of seeing their pictures. The third point made by the noble Earl was that the pictures may be damaged.
Then he sought to make what, coming from an artist, seemed to me an extraordinary suggestion—that it would not matter whether the pictures were in private hands, or whether they were bought by the Ministry of Works. Of course, from the point of view of the pictures it does not matter who owns them; the important thing is that they should be preserved. Therefore I should not have thought that was an argument either in favour of the new suggestion or against the proposal that is being made under the Bill. I am not at all sure that there would be this danger of damage to the pictures. I remember some years ago being in Government House in Sierra Leone. As your Lordships know, that is an old Colony and the original Government House was built, I suppose, by Zachariah Macaulay, or in about his

817
time, at the end of the eighteenth or the beginning of the nineteenth century—probably the beginning of the nineteenth century. On the walls there were contemporary pictures of King George III and Queen Charlotte, of King William IV and Queen Adelaide; and so far as I could see, they were in an excellent state of preservation, having been in that very hot climate ever since they were painted, which must have been well over 100 years ago.
Finally, I would point to the example of Government House at Hong Kong, where owing to peculiar circumstances, the fact that the Governor has been there for a long time and that Lady Grantham is a lady of great artistic character, Government House is really a delight to go into and to stay in. Lady Grantham has brought many of her own or the Governor's family portraits to Government House, and when one enters one realises what delightful houses and mansions these Colonial Governors' residences could be if the Colonial Governors had an opportunity of furnishing them in the way in which they should be furnished, and, no doubt, were intended to he furnished. Therefore, I support the noble Duke and reluctantly, as I say, dissociate myself from my noble friend Lord Huntingdon on that ground.
LORD WINSTER: I am most interested in what has been said in this Amendment about the loan of pictures to Government houses. I spent some time in a Government house. It was from an architectural point of view a singularly attractive and beautiful house, and the only picture in it worth mentioning was one which had been loaned or given by Duveen. The rest of the pictures consisted of the cheapest possible coloured reproductions, framed in light oak frames—completely unworthy both of the architecture of the house and of its purpose. I most certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, in what he said about the objection to the loan abroad of old and delicate pictures. I thought he made a completely conclusive case on that point, and one which I should most certainly support. But in supporting the proposal to loan pictures to Government houses, one is not proposing to lend masterpieces. What are wanted are really good furn-
818
ishing pictures, which need not even be English pictures, although that would be desirable. I think they should be English pictures when possible.
Some suggestion has been made that the Ministry of Works should buy pictures for the purpose of lending them to Government houses. But why buy when we have already what is needed? If it is suggested that it is unfair to a testator to lend in this way a picture which he or she has bequeathed, is it any more unfair than selling a picture which has been bequeathed in that way? Surely, if one is taking powers to enable the national Galleries to sell pictures which they feel it appropriate to dispose of, to lend a picture which has been bequeathed could not fairly give rise to any more objection. In making this proposal one is not proposing to turn Government houses into art galleries, but merely to make them worthy of the purposes for which they exist. One is not asking for what in a previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, called "cheap furnishings" for Government houses. That is not the idea at all. One could lend pictures of the nature I have described to Government houses without depriving the Galleries of what they might want for loan abroad, and also without depriving them of what is wanted for making what has been called in these debates picture libraries—a most desirable object indeed.
Something has been said about climatic conditions. I entirely agree that there are Government houses which are situated in not at all good climates, but again I reply that one is not suggesting the loan of masterpieces, and that if, owing to climate, there is some slight damage to pictures of the sort I have suggested, that will not be an irreparable loss because one need not deplore the harm too greatly. Then something has been said about students. Again I would emphasise that nobody could have more sympathy than myself towards the provision for students of proper facilities in our national Galleries and in connection with those Galleries; but, again, pictures of the type which I envisage for loan to Government houses are not of the type in which students would take any particular interest. I should be surprised if students came along demanding for the purposes of their studies to see pictures of the type which I envisage.

819
We have been told that the Ministry of Works has a pool of pictures which can be lent. I wonder how many pictures there are in that pool. I wonder how many pictures in that pool have been lent or are on loan at present to Government houses. Any suggestion for an increase of the funds available to the Ministry of Works to buy pictures for that pool would be an excellent suggestion and one well worthy of support; but if it is the case that the Galleries are entitled to sell pictures for which they have no particular purpose, perhaps the Galleries could make a selection of suitable pictures and sell them to the Ministry of Works for the purposes of the pool. I strongly support the idea that there should be means of lending pictures to Government houses, because some of the walls in those houses are most unworthy of the houses and of the purposes for which the houses were built.
LORD METHUEN: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in Amendment No. 15, has gone far to meet the objections that some of us made to this particular clause, and it would seem ungracious not to accept his Amendment. But I feel bound to ask certain pertinent questions that have a direct bearing on this issue. I allude to subsection (4) (b). I beg to ask the noble Earl whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery have made representations to the Government on the subject of loans not for public exhibition. There are no Trustees of the Tate Gallery here at the present moment. That is one reason why I ask him. It may be that the Trustees do not want the powers. If the Government is to proceed with the matter it should take the responsibility on its own shoulders and not let it be supposed that the views of the Trustees are being implemented if it has not actually consulted them. While the Trustees may be agreeable to Clause 4 (1) (a)—loans for public exhibition—they may be opposed to the rest of Clause 4 concerning loans for display—that is, for furnishings. If they are opposed to the rest of Clause 4 it should be frankly stated.
In this connection I should like to ask the Government certain questions relating to pictures out on loan without statutory sanction. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has just referred to the matter. How many pictures are out on loan from
820
the Tate to Government offices other than embassies? How many pictures presented or bequeathed to the Tate have been sent out on loan before the expiration of the fifteen years laid down under the Act of 1883? I apologise to the noble Earl for giving him no notice, and if he would rather I put these questions down later I should be prepared to do so. If the Government decide to confer these powers of loan to Government offices and official residences, should not some definite limit of time and numbers be incorporated in the Bill? As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon has already suggested, they should in the first place be returned to the Gallery after five years, during which time the pictures would have been inaccessible to the public, including scholars. Not more than twenty-five from the National Gallery and one hundred from the Tate should be on loan at any given time. A time limit is necessary, if only for the care of the painting, which is an expert matter. Five years is long enough for any painting to be away in inexpert hands without expert examination, and embassies have not these facilities
I do not like any part of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) (b). I conceive it no part of the duty of our national collections to contribute to the Ministry of Works. In this way we are not likely to get anything for second-rate pictures, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has pointed out. Would it raise the prestige of our country when such canvases are hung in our embassies? One noble Lord made a suggestion in one of our conferences that we should allow British paintings only to be used for these purposes. Perhaps the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will recollect who made the suggestion. It was received with acclamation by the two painters present. Has this brilliant suggestion come to anything or is it going to be allowed to flop? In the meantime, I have asked the noble Marquess and the noble Earl these questions, and if they like I will put them down in writing in due course.
LORD BLACKFORD: I feel that the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, were devoted almost entirely to what may be described as the major masters in the National Gallery, and one

821
sympathises very much with his wish to do everything possible to preserve them and to be a bit "cagey" about lending them. Of course, it is rather difficult to be a quite willing borrower from ether countries yet be unwilling to lend our own good things for them to see when they ask for them. But it was not with that object that I rise for a minute or two. It is to draw attention not to the major masters of these two galleries but to the large number of pictures mouldering in their cellars. I am told there are over 1,600 in the National Gallery cellars and several hundred in the cellars of the Tate. It seems to me deplorable that these minor masterpieces—some of them must be fairly good pictures—should he entirely denied to the public gaze. Rather than spend public money in allowing the Minister of Works to buy pictures, would it not be better to make use of those we already have in store?
I notice that in one of his Amendments the noble Earl is extremely reluctant to lend pictures anywhere—he proposes to leave out subsection (b). On the other hand the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in a subsequent Amendment wishes to widen the basis of possible lending. I am all in favour of Lord Haddington's Amendment. Let us make use of the pictures we already have but leave in the cellars, and make them available to the public gaze, wherever that may suitably be done. Care will be taken of them. I do not attach much importance to this fear of damage by climate, misuse, carelessness or so on. I appreciate the danger in the case of great masterpieces of long antiquity and so forth, but not in the case of pictures of a later date. It seems to me very sad that we should lose the use of these pictures when it is possible, through the means of this Bill, to make use of them: and therefore I hope the Government will agree with the noble Earl in his Amendment, at any rate as affecting subsection (2) (b) of this clause.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It was with considerable surprise that I heard the rather narrow, nationalist views expounded by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, particularly as he is himself an artist and has lived and worked for a considerable period abroad. May I remind him that during the last score of
822
years or so we have had several magnificent exhibitions lent to us by foreign countries. Surely it would be extremely ungracious of us not to do our best to reciprocate that generosity. It would also be extremely foolish, because we could not expect other countries to go on lending us their best works of art if we were not prepared to do something in return. Furthermore, there is the question of students. In common with a number of your Lordships, I have had the good fortune to see some of the best galleries of Europe and one or to in the United States of America—in the latter case it was before the war. Today it is very difficult, because of the expense, for people of limited means to go abroad to see these pictures. Because they are scattered throughout Europe and the United States, and it is for mast people practically out of the question. Unless, then, these international temporary exchanges are to go on, we shall certainly he depriving students of all countries of the opportunity of studying some of the greatest works by the greatest masters in painting. I therefore hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will turn a deaf ear to the proposal put forward.
I have only one other small point to raise, which may or may not be of substance. Subsection (2), paragraph (b) states that pictures may be lent for display in the official residence of the Governor of a Colony. Does Colony include Dominion?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No it does not.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am glad to have the noble Earl's opinion on that. May I suggest that it would be advantageous if, at a later stage of this Bill, this paragraph were amended to read:
" In the official residence of the Governor General of a Dominion or Governor of a Colony,"
because it would surely be both anomalous and undesirable that our Dominions should be deprived of the same advantage. I hope the Government will press their Amendment so that these people may all have the advantage of occasionally being able to see some of our own masterpieces.
5 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: I am afraid that I take the view that the time has come—science and care in the moving of pictures being so advanced—when we should no longer hold the views of the mover of this Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I remember, in the days when Lord Derby was our Ambassador in Paris, his fine family pictures being there. I remember going to Washington when the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, took his splendid pictures there, and ever since I have been connected with Government I have been in and out of the ante-rooms of 10, Downing Street, where there are National Gallery and Tate Gallery pictures—indeed, I think they are the only pictures there. Therefore, I take a more liberal view than is taken by those who say that lending is dangerous, and that if the power to lend is given we shall be forced to lend masterpieces. I do not believe it. To safeguard the interest of scholarship and the like we have to exercise a little common sense with regard to what the directors and trustees of galleries are likely to agree to, or not to agree to.
Let me disclose my full degree of guilt from the point of view of Lord Crawford as the champion of the ultra-orthodox. I have visited quite a number of the great one-man shows that have taken place at Venice, in the Doge's Palace, in recent years. This year I went to see the Lotto Exhibition there. I saw pictures contributed from almost every public gallery in Europe—Vienna, the Louvre, the Prado, and the rest—and also from the National Gallery of Washington. Above all, Her Majesty the Queen lent her magnificent Lotto portraits from Hampton Court. But because of the law as it stands today, our National Gallery Lottos could not be lent. And only two of them were on view in the National Gallery. Others were in the basement when this great Lotto Exhibition. gathered from public collections throughout the world, was opened. They were not even on view in the Venetian Room in our National Gallery. I think that that is a scandal against scholarship, against research and against the pursuit and advance of the study and history of art. I think it is wrong that we should be as dogmatic as we have been in the past in this matter, in view of the great advance that science has made and of the care that is now taken.
824
I have to admit to one feeling on the other side. I admit that I have been a little worried with regard to some of the pictures lent by the Belgian Government to Burlington House on the occasion of the recent Flemish Exhibition. I refer not to the pictures by Rubens and Van Dyck, to the great later oil paintings, but to some of the earlier panels. I should not like to think that the Trustees of our National Gallery could have loaned some of the delicate specimens which the Belgian Government lent from their galleries at Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp and elsewhere. It was taking a risk, having regard to the nature and to the early date of the panels. It is easy to say that in no circumstances should this, that or the other ever be lent. As I understand this Amendment, it would allow of lending pictures of the eighteenth century. I would say that there are a good many pictures of the eighteenth century which are far less lendable than pictures of the seventeenth century. But it is difficult to draw a line. What you have to do is to trust the agreed decisions of the responsible Directors and staffs of your own Galleries, and, above all, trust their decisions, supported by the Boards of Trustees. If you appoint the right people to be Trustees and the right people to be Directors of our Galleries, I am convinced that they can be given wide powers of lending. Everything depends on that. I believe that to-day appointments are made to those bodies, and promotions are made to senior positions in our Galleries in which we can take great pride. Therefore to tie them to the old rigid traditions of sailing-ship days and the like is no longer justified, and only brands us as the one country in the world which shows this exceptional measure of insularity.
5.7 p.m.
LORD FREYBERG: May I say how much I welcome the principle established in Clause 4 of the Bill of lending from these two great Galleries, pictures to the Colonies and to the Commonwealth countries. We have all listened with great interest to this debate, particularly to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, to those of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and also to the very able maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am sure we are all in general agreement with the object of safeguarding

825
the pictures and other works of art in these two great Galleries. But it is clearly a wrong policy to allow these two valuable collections to grow and grow. We are told to-day that large numbers of these art treasures are stored in the basements and never exhibited to the public.
Clause 4 of the Bill establishes two principles as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. One is the loan of pictures for exhibition which, I think, is far more important than subsection (1) (b), which talks about displays of pictures at Government houses. I do not agree with one noble Lord, Lord Winster, who spoke of "furniture pictures" going out to Government houses and being exhibited in the Colonies and possibly in the Commonwealth. During the six years I was in New Zealand I was tremendously impressed with the increasing preoccupation about modern art which was manifest. And, looking at exhibitions of retrospective art in New Zealand, you see the tremendous advance that has been made in the last forty years in that country. The First World War was an epoch in art in the Colonies.
Before the war, comparatively few people came home to the Old Country, and most of those who did were in the older age groups, set in their ways, and not receptive of new methods of presentation. But with the war we had 250,000 young New Zealand men who came home to the Old Country and travelled on the Continent. In the Second World War, even more young men came home, and what was even more important, a large number of young New Zealand women came here as well. These people travelled all over Europe. They looked at our great art exhibitions here in London and also in the provinces. In the Expeditionary Forces in Italy alone, we had between 30,000 and 40,000 young men and young women studying Italian primitives. Those people learned an enormous amount about it. They saw the Vatican Museum, the Sistine Chapel and exhibitions in Rome. They travelled up to Florence and some interested ones marked down Mr. Berenson and. sat at his feet, discussing Italian pictures with him. There is a very high appreciation of the cultural arts in the Colonies at the present time and I welcome any help that can be given to them.
826
I speak with experience, because I saw five exhibitions which came to New Zealand while I was out there for the last six years. They created a great sensation. The first one was of ultra-modern art that had been brought together by Sir Vincent Massey and which was shown at the Tate in 1946. There were two collections arranged by the British Council, and the Empire Art Loan Exhibition Society sent out two—one of drawing and paintings by British artists from 1750 to 1850, including excellent examples of Frederick Warne, Crome, Constable, David Cox, Turner and ethers, and the second, an exhibition of what were called Victorian and Edwardian drawings and paintings from 1850 to 1914. It is sad to think that the chance of having five exhibitions in New Zealand has very much diminished. Sir Vincent Massey's exhibition is now in Canada. The British Council have ceased to operate in New Zealand—I do not know why—and the Empire Art Loan Exhibition Society are finding it very difficult to finance these exhibitions.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, when he spoke about riot sending our best pictures abroad, but. I wonder if your Lordships realise the great service it would be if some of the stored pictures in our two national Galleries could be circulated. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Galleries should lend their great art treasures and valuable examples of foreign schools, the Dutch and the Italian, or ancient panels painted on wood, as suggested by someone else, but I put forward a strong plea for the right to lend some of our stored pictures, including examples of 18th and 19th century English school pictures, drawings and water colours, especially in cases where Galleries have a considerable number of works of well-known artists. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl who is handling this Bill will insist on keeping the first subsections of Clause 4 intact. In any case, I shall vote in favour of retaining the clause as it is.
EARL JOWITT: I find myself in complete agreement with the observations which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has made. It is impossible to-day to continue to maintain what he referred to as the dogmatic—though lie might well have called it the dog-in-the-mangerish—attitude which says, "We will not lend anything to you, but you lend it to us." Just

827
think of the exhibitions we have had in this country since the war. We have seen the finest examples of Italian paintings. We had a magnificent exhibition of Spanish paintings, including El Grecos; we had an exhibition of Holbein and recently an exhibition of Flemish paintings. We have had a great number of them. But so far as our public Galleries are concerned, we are bound to say, "We are sorry, but we cannot lend anything at all."
I have some knowledge of this matter, and my experience is that the fact that we are bound to take that attitude is beginning to cause considerable heart burning. I can give illustrations of that, from Holland, France and the United States. I do not believe it is a position we can maintain. I entirely agree with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, concerning the sort of things which the Trustees should consider. I agree that if they have doubt of the suitability of a picture for lending abroad, they should decline to lend it. I do not believe that we can do more in this matter than trust to the good sense of the Trustees, advised as they will be by the Director and art experts of the Gallery. Therefore I support the Amendment which the noble Earl has on the Paper, and I say, regretfully, that I do not support Lord Huntingdon's Amendment.
With regard to the other point, about lending pictures abroad, I think there is a certain lack of reality about this discussion. No one in his senses suggests that we are going to send out our great masterpieces. Roughly speaking, the position is this—the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, can correct me if I am wrong. The pictures belonging to the Tate and National Gallery number something like 6,000. The number of pictures being shown at the beginning of this year would be about one-third, or less than one-third, of the pictures they have. It is not right to refer to the remaining two-thirds as being in the cellars, in the sense that they cannot be got at, because students, on giving notice, can get permission to go down and turn up these pictures. But that is the position. Selecting the pictures with care, I think it is fully desirable that we should make effective use of them. After all, what is the good of wrapping them up in cotton wool and keeping them in the
828
dark? That may keep them for ever, but pictures are meant to be looked at and to give pleasure, and it seems to me that this is the right course to take. We ought to do what the French do and have done for years. If one goes to a French embassy in any country in Europe one finds that if an Ambassador has not got his own pictures he indents on the Louvre and gets pictures—not great masterpieces, but pictures which make the embassy look well. This has been done for years without any evil effect.
I agree that any picture which has to travel undergoes certain risks and perils. They do so if they are sent to Scotland. Whether they go by rail or by road, they incur certain dangers, maybe greater than those if they go to America. We must be prepared to incur reasonable dangers, while taking every possible step to minimise them. I hope that in this Year of Grace we shall take a more liberal attitude than we did in the past. So long as we can be satisfied that our pictures are reasonably safe, we should lend them to exhibitions, and so long as we are satisfied that we are not lending our masterpices, we should take out from what are called the cellars some of the pictures which have lain there all too long.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am a little disappointed with the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who I thought in his Second Reading speech, which was some time ago, strongly supported the Bill. He then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 9), col. 460)
"I strongly support the idea of lending pictures, both abroad and to other galleries."
I wonder if someone has "bitten him" since then, because he seems to have told quite a different story to-day.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl will remember that I said that, having listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, about the dangers of doing so, I felt that we should not lend our really fine masterpieces.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am the first to recognise the convictions of the noble Earl. I should like to thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for what he said I greatly appreciate his remarks. It is exceedingly difficult to express the views on the subject of art of anybody else in the world.

829
While we thought that this was an agreed Bill when we brought it to your Lordships' House—and I have endeavoured to keep both Boards of Trustees fully informed during the last month or two—I am not going to suggest that what I shall say expresses identically the views of either. However, I do believe they are views from which neither side would entirely dissent. The problem is one as put by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. There are to-day something like 6,200 pictures in these two Galleries. Nearly 4,000 of those pictures are not normally on view to the public at all. The question which I feel the Committee has to examine is what should be done with those pictures to the public advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who was formerly a Trustee of the Tate Gallery, said that the cellars were used for miscellaneous purposes and were subject to flooding. The noble Lord is aware that that is where 2,000 pictures are sitting, of which he was a Trustee for a time.
LORD METHUEN: Only the Tate Gallery, not the National.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: None the less, there are 2,000 pictures there for which the noble Lord was a Trustee.
LORD METHUEN: The noble Earl has not understood me at all. What I said was that they made a start at the Tate Gallery some years ago at transforming two of the major rooms for the purpose of storing pictures so that people could see them on moving screens. Could not that excellent idea be extended so that all these so-called surplus pictures—of course, they are not really surplus—could be seen by students and others in easily accessible places? That is my point. I made the point on the last debate that these pictures are not surplus. Why should every picture be seen on the walls? A great many pictures are bought for their historical value, and so on, and not necessarily to be hung on a wall.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate that. I was quoting the noble Lord's comment about "miscellaneous purposes"and cellars being"subject to flooding." I have asked how many students went to see these 2,000 pictures at the Tate Gallery, and I have been told that between two and five a week go to see them. Those pictures are reasonably
830
accessible, in the sense that you can go in and pull out a panel, and you can see the picture. But no one can pretend that they are really in a good setting, in these circumstances. I am not in any way underestimating the importance of their being seen by students.
There are two broad views here. There is the collector's view, which says that a national collection has to be collected, and remain collected, both in the interests of students and in the interests of the public. That is, if I may so describe it, the traditional vice of curators of museums. A salutary warning on this point was given in their note to the Massey Committee Report by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, of which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, was chairman. They said:
" We consider the temptation to hoard should be firmly resisted."
Then there is the other view of those who say that you should have every picture out hanging on a wall, and that they look much better in dignified surroundings, even at the risk of their safety. Her Majesty's Government have sought a middle course between those two lines. Nobody who has examined this—whether it be the Royal Commission, which reported in 1931, the Massey Committee or the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, the Arts Council, or indeed the author of the recent article in the Burlington Magazine severely criticising this Bill—has denied that there should be some limit to lending: no one has taken an extreme view on this. The only question to my mind is where we should set the line. We came to this House with this Bill intending to put the responsibility on the Trustees. We took as the basis the recommendation of the Royal Commission in 1930, which recommended that these Galleries should be empowered
"to make loans overseas under such precise and proper safeguards that may be determined by the authorities of each institution. We do not think that the Act itself should attempt to define the class of objects which should be excluded from the purview of the Act, e.g., fragile objects, panels, unique or type specimens, as we think that such definition can be accomplished better by regulations, promulgated, and if need be modified, from time to time by the governing authorities."
That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said in his remarks just now. And that is the way in which the Government approached this Bill.

831
But they did recognise a certain measure of criticism, and they have put in two points, one specifying the things to look at, with a view to strengthening the hands of the Trustees in this, I hope, entirely imaginary position of an overbearing Foreign Secretary confronting a number of knock-kneed Trustees and stealing their national treasures from under their very noses. None the less, if that is the case, there is an Amendment which meets that point, to a great extent. The second point is the assurance that genuine students will be able to see the pictures. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, suggested changing the word "student" to "studying art." I shall certainly look at that, and see whether it would be better. What we have to be careful about is this. We are here considering loans to public buildings, including No. 10, Downing Street. It is quite impossible to give people a statutory right to walk into No. 10, Downing Street. This has to be safeguarded within limits. We have tried to do it here, and it is possible that it can in some measure be extended. The power to lend overseas was recommended in 1930 by the Royal Commission. But they said this:
" The desirability of such loans under proper safeguards is especially apparent in the case of the British School of painting, but any necessary legislation should not be too narrowly drawn so as to confine loans to one category of objects."
In their Final Report they said:
"Meanwhile we recommend the widest possible extension of the policy of loan."
The Act of 1935, to some extent, met them; and the Massey Report, in its turn, recommended that we should take part in international exhibitions.
I should now like to quote the memorandum of the Arts Council made on this Bill to the Trustees of the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery. They put it fairly strongly—and this was in 1952.
They said:
" There is now ample evidence to show that the inability of our national collections, notably the Tate Gallery, to lend their foreign pictures abroad is having an adverse effect on the importation of important foreign exhibitions to this country, a state of affairs which directly affects the work of the Arts Council."
They went on to quote certain specified and definite occasions on which this has happened. I should also like to quote from the Burlington Magazine this year.
832
Even there, where they were criticising this Bill, they did not go the whole way. They said:
" We do not, however, wish it to be thought that we oppose loans of groups of pictures of specific periods or purposes to provincial museums in this country, or individual loans to special temporary exhibitions here or abroad, subject to some statutory safeguards being devised against the loan of pictures the condition of which is precarious."
That is the first thing, the loan of pictures. The second point is the loan of pictures through the Ministry of Works for display in Embassies and Legations, and in the residences of Governors of Colonies. I do not think anyone is in any doubt about the need here. I do not believe that anyone seriously questions the desirability of a certain dignity in our missions overseas, and the exhibition in Embassies, or foreign missions, of pictures from the national collections was recommended by the Massey Committee; and again, the Standing Commission commented on the point. Of course, it does apply to a major extent to British pictures, but I do not see why it should exclusively.
With regard to Governors' residences, I should have thought that the case there was much stronger even than with the Embassies. In every case, we have a Governor's residence in a part of the world where we have special duties of a trustee character, and I should have thought that we had a clear duty to show those who live there something of the quality of our way of life.
LORD METHUEN: I think we all agree with that last sentiment. What we feel is: Who is there to look after these pictures? It is the pictures we are thinking of.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point. You cannot have a director and a picture arriving simultaneously. The noble Lord is probably aware that in Southern Rhodesia an advertisement is now appearing for a director of art. That is the way in which the thing will develop, stage by stage. I readily admit that there is a certain gap at the present time which will require to be bridged. I suggest that in due course there will be people in these areas who can be called in to advise the Governor on the proper I maintenance of these pictures.
LORD METHUEN: I still think there should be a time limit.
LORD WINSTER: Surely, in many Colonies there is a Department of Works. In some Colonies there is a Keeper of Antiquities. I really cannot imagine that at any stage the Governor of a Colony would be without competent and technical advice in looking after such pictures.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite agree with the noble Lord, certainly so far as Cyprus is concerned. I think there will be some places where there may be difficulty in getting advice. I am trying to be as fair as I can in this, and nobody is suggesting that every Colony, where the climate is difficult, is necessarily suitable for this sort of thing. In regard to the students, I think it is fair to remember this fact. We in this country have a fairly extensive provision for art training for students. I am given to understand that there is somewhere of the order of 14,000 full-time students training in art in this country, and over 100,000 part-time students. So we are not entirely unmoved by the interests of this section of the community.
The third category is that of the Ministry of Works, for the decoration of public buildings in this country. There cannot be much question of damage there, and in many cases there would not be much difficulty of access by students. In any event, I do not know that that access would be more difficult than it is at the present time. What I suggest is that the pictures themselves would be seen in much more dignity and in proper circumstances in those buildings than they would when attached to an iron frame. I must make this Point clear. If we do not agree to lending to public buildings, there is only one course to take, and that is that the Trustees will have to withdraw all the pictures now on loan to Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. That would become inevitable unless this particular section of the clause were passed substantially as it is. The Government have said that they recognise the legitimate anxiety which is felt in some quarters in this matter, and we have been most anxious to meet if. I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to move at the Report stage an Amendment in these terms:
834
"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."
It is a clumsy procedure, but we recognise the real anxiety which is felt in some quarters for the safety of older pictures. I want to make it quite clear that this is not an act of appeasement on behalf of the Government. This is an endeavour to get the widest measure of agreement on a Bill which, even on this difficult subject, we should like to he as nearly as possible agreed. We are probably going rather further than some people think wise. None the less, we are prepared to do this if it is accepted as a final settlement of this clause.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: May I say one word on that last point? The, dangers to pictures are, of course, far more real than has been indicated by the debate. I gave your Lordships on the last occasion examples of damage that had happened in the five most recent cases of pictures lent abroad by Edinburgh. The Amendment on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk expresses the desire to safeguard the position to a further extent. It does not, in fact, have any practical effect, because the considerations put forward in that Amendment are precisely the considerations which would be in the mind of any Trustee before he allowed a picture to be lent. Nevertheless, it is an indication that the dangers are recognised, and, as such, is welcome. That, combined with the Amendment which my noble friend has just read out, goes a long way to meeting the fears which many of us have felt, and I should like to express gratitude to my noble friend for putting down this Amendment. It must be remembered that on the matter of loans the 1935 Act was a compromise, a concession; that my Amendment on the first Committee stage regarding the year 1700 was another compromise, another concession, and this is a third. Let us be quite clear

835
that each compromise, each concession, that is made, widens the possible area of danger to pictures which are to be lent. On the assumption that no further compromises are to take place, I welcome the Amendment which has been moved and the Amendment which is going to be moved.
So many points have been raised in the debate that I feel a good many of them have answered themselves. But may I deal with one matter—the question of loans, on which there are, apparently, a considerable number of misconceptions. To-day the Galleries have the right to lend to any municipal, provincial or national collection in this country, or to any society of which they approve, any picture in their possession. The Galleries have, therefore, wide powers, and they are anxious, in spite of what apparently is thought, to exercise those powers. For instance, the National Gallery has set aside a large number of pictures from its collection in what no one will ever be able to stop calling "the cellars," but which no one who has been there could possibly call cellars, as they are well above the ground floor, for loan to municipal collections. I only wish that the municipal galleries would accept these pictures. So far, the response has been disappointing. I hope that the idea which was expressed in the previous debate, that Lancaster House might be used as a subsidiary collection of pictures from the Tate Gallery and the National Gallery, open permanently to the public and creating for the public a subsidiary gallery at low additional public cost, has been or can be considered. I am sure that it would be permissible under the Bill as now drafted.
Another point (though I am not sure that it would be permissible) is the possibility of having a subsidiary collection at Osterley or Ham House, great houses near London. My doubt about that is that the Ministry of Works, in the words of the Bill, is not responsible for the furnishing of those particular houses; but to have a collection at Osterley would be admirable and would meet many of the objections raised in this debate. Will the noble Earl consider whether anything as complicated as Osterley, which belongs to the National Trust, which is leased on a peppercorn rent to the Ministry of Works
836
and which is administered by the Victoria and Albert Museum, could be brought into the ambit of the Bill as regards this question of loans? Otherwise, I support what my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said—how grateful we feel to the Government for having met so many points which have been raised.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: So far as Osterley is concerned, there would be no difficulty. I do not know if the noble Earl makes the suggestion officially, that Lancaster House should be made an extension or a subsidiary of, or an addition to, the National Gallery. If that is what he is proposing, whilst I do not know, I believe that my right honourable friend the Minister of Works would be interested.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: It is not for me to propose without authority, in the presence of my Chairman, and without the control of the Board of the National Gallery, anything of the sort, but I most certainly make the suggestion. There is the fine gallery at Lancaster House. There are the pictures in the National Gallery and the Tate which certainly would be seen better by the public in Lancaster House than where they are now. The main idea is to make the pictures accessible to the public. It seems to me that this would be a good way of doing so.
5.43 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say this. I had wondered during the course of this debate why the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who has strong views on this matter, had sat there so quietly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: The reason was that I said all I could possibly say when the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, was sunning himself in Africa.
EARL JOWITT: I am sorry that I have not made up my past reading, but what we have now heard changes the whole outlook of this matter. To say that an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses will be required is a farcical arrangement. You will never get it. There is not a chance of our lending a picture. I hope that, when this Amendment comes up, the noble Earl will regard I this as a matter on which the House

837
might have a free vote, because I should be entirely opposed to this compromise. A good many of those who think with me in all parts of the House would also, I imagine, dislike it. I am content with the Bill as it is, with the Amendment which is down on the Paper, which seems to me right and to go far enough. I hope your Lordships will realise that, by gibing way to this extent, though the noble Earl may have met his friends on that side of the House, he has antagonised his friends on this side. He has given much too much away. When the Amendment which he has indicated does come up, I should not like him to think it is going to be an agreed or accepted Amendment. It will be nothing of the sort. I shall do everything I can to resist it. I hope that I shall get a considerable body of support from all sections of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Earl has appealed to me, although I had not definitely decided to say anything, perhaps I might be allowed to offer a few observations to your Lordships. First of all, I do not share the apprehensions of the noble Earl with regard to the result of the Amendment which is contemplated. It seems to me that, if there were a great exhibition in any foreign country, it might be a perfectly normal arrangement. If the Trustees agreed to loans of certain; Pictures of a date before 1700, such a proposal, I should have thought, would be put before Parliament, and it would be unlikely that there would be violent disagreement. If, however, there were violent disagreement, it would then be apparent that Parliament thought it a wrong thing to do, which I think all of us would have seriously to take into account. Therefore, I hope that the House will consider that this proposal is at any rate worthy of serious consideration, if not universally acceptable. I can assure noble Lords that it is the result of much anxious labour and consultation with all sections of opinion to try to meet the legitimate anxieties which are expressed.
The real truth is, as we must all recognise, that there are on this question of loans, both long bans and short loans, two widely differing schools of thought. There are those, as I know and as we have heard this afternoon, who, recog-
838
nising the debt of gratitude which we owe to other countries for loans which they have made to us, think that it is only right and proper that we should reciprocate. That, to their mind, overrides all other considerations. Then there are those who regard the nation as a trustee for these great masterpieces and who feel passionately that we should be guilty of a gross breach of trust if we exposed them to avoidable risks. Those two views, on both sides, are held with equal sincerity and conviction. There is, of course, a great deal to be said, if we are quite frank, in favour of the views of both schools. They both have substance behind them, and each of them has, as we all know, the support of men and women who have devoted their whole lives to the study of art. There are sharp divisions even among such great experts as those.
We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who is a passionate advocate of more freedom to lend. There is the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who is an equally convinced believer, as he has said several times in this House, in the obligation that lies both upon the Trustees of the Galleries and upon Parliament not to endanger what he regards as a heritage of the nation. The question is, can a middle course be found which satisfies the main requirements of both schools? That is the problem which has been before the Government. It has not been found to be an easy one. Indeed, I do not believe that it is possible entirely to satisfy both schools of thought. After a great deal of discussion, there has emerged this proposal which has just been adumbrated or described by the Paymaster General, that no pictures of a date before 1700 should be lent except with the permission of the Trustees, backed by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. It may be asked, why l700? The reason was, of course, that that date excludes those pictures which are most liable to damage by being moved and by change of atmosphere, and in particular pictures on panels, which are the most vulnerable to perils of that kind. It would also exclude perhaps the greatest masterpieces, and all or same of the great pictures of the seventeenth century, which it would be felt by what I may call the pro-trust school, should be lent only when the

839
country, through Parliament, had given its express permission.
It does not of course mean, that in no circumstances will these great masterpieces, or indeed panel pictures, be lent. That fact should, if they think it over, appease the feelings of those who are anxious for more freedom to lend more. But they cannot be lent without certain massive safeguards, and on balance, that is intended to satisfy the other people. If there were to be a great exhibition in Paris in which some of these pre-1700 pictures were concerned, a list would be prepared and put in an Order which would be on the Table and be subject to Affirmative Resolution; and which, as I see it, would, if necessary, be discussed. In a great many cases I should think it would not be necessary, but in many cases it could be discussed and Parliament would have the last say. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt may say that that is quite unnecessary, that in fact Parliament will never give leave—that is how I understood his view. But if Parliament does not give leave, how does he defend the fact that the pictures should still be lent? It does not seem to me, speaking in one of the Houses of Parliament, that that would be a reasonable attitude to take.
Lastly, the noble and learned Earl asked whether this matter will be the subject of a free vote. It certainly will. This is not the sort of question in regard to which the Government desire to dragoon anybody into expressing what is not his free opinion. Therefore, when the time comes, after this general discussion has taken place, we can have the fullest and freest discussion on any particular Amendment and come to a conclusion. But I do beg noble Lords not to come to a conclusion now. Think it over. It is a novel idea, but I can assure the Committee that it is the result of the most careful discussion and consideration, and I believe that, on balance, it goes as near as can be to meeting the needs and desires of these two equally sincere and convinced schools of thought.
EARL JOWITT: I had in mind the difficulties which might arise if Parliament were not in Session. I know something about the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure. It is sometimes difficult to find time to get an Affirmative Resolution passed. Instead of adopting
840
this procedure, could we not obtain the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, or any other Minister who is designated as in charge of the matter? In that way there would be somebody to go to who could act with some promptitude. I am really appalled at the idea of a request coming to the Trustees, say at the beginning of August, and their being unable to give any answer until Parliament reassembles because they do not know whether the request will receive the sanction of an Affirmative Resolution. I should have thought it much better, if the Trustees agree, to have the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I believe, is the Minister concerned with these things. May I ask the noble Marquess to bear that suggestion in mind, instead of our having to use what I think is exceedingly cumbrous and difficult machinery?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble and learned Earl that everything will be considered. This is not the time to enter into a detailed discussion on these points; that will come when the Amendment is before us. I think the noble and learned Earl's conception of a sudden demand for a picture is not well-founded. My experience of great international exhibitions is that they are arranged two or three years beforehand. He has more experience of this than I, and there may be occasions when the Trustees are asked to loan a picture in a month's time, but they must be very infrequent. The great exhibitions in this country are arranged a long time before the exhibition actually opens—I know that because I have often been asked for pictures. These are detailed questions with which I would not wish to trouble your Lordships now, but I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that I am certain that my right honourable friend and the Government will consider all possible aspects of this matter; we are desirous of meeting the legitimate anxieties of all those concerned.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to my Amendment, I should like to pay tribute both to the noble Marquess who has just sat down, for an extremely statesmanlike speech, and to the extremely wise handling of this matter by the Government, because I know something about the difficulties which this controversial subject has raised. I think

841
everybody aggress that on both sides opinions are very strongly held. We think that these pictures ought to be protected, and others are equally keen that they should be loaned. I should like to reinforce what the noble Marquess has said, in that these big exhibitions do take a lot of planning ahead, and are not suddenly brought into being. In view of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment, and I look forward to his Amendment on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1) (b) (i), after "residence" to insert:
"or private house open to the public under conditions approved by the Trustees."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is, I think, quite clear, and as the substance of it has already been touched on to a considerable extent in this debate I will not do more than amplify it a little and then make my point clear at the end. The Amendment concerns the large number of pictures which year after year languish in the comparative gloom of the basement of the National and Tate Galleries and are never on view to the public. I know that sometimes certain pictures are interchanged from the basement to the Gallery proper, and vice versa. I know that on application to the head attendant anybody can see a picture in the basement of the National Gallery, though whether he can see it to the best advantage is another matter. The Director has been good enough to give me certain figures.
May I, as an example, quote the Salting Bequest? I take that because I have family reasons for my interest in the Salting Bequest. Out of 192 pictures bequeathed to the nation and accepted—I would lay stress on the word "accepted"—by the National Gallery in the year 1910, only fifty are exhibited in the Gallery thirty-six have been transferred to the Tate, and thirty-one are on loan for exhibition to provincial galleries. Of the remaining seventy-five, one is loaned to the public room of the Prime Minister at No. 10, Downing Street, and another to the Foreign Secretary's room in Carlton Gardens. That leaves seventy-three paintings from this Bequest that are never seen at all, except perhaps by the
842
odd student who asks to see them, if he knows that they are there. For forty-four years, therefore, these pictures have never really seen the light of day. They are not all inferior pictures. Many of them are works by Old Masters. Why should pictures like Boltraffio's Narcissus remain in the gloom of the basement year after year? Once it was considered of sufficient merit to hang on the Gallery walls. For years it hung there; it was photographed and the photograph was on sale a: the bookstall. It was considered sufficiently important for that, but nobody sees it. I asked the head attendant, "Does nobody come to see this picture." The reply was, "Nobody comes to see Boltraffio now." Why? Does no student want to study Milanese art? I suggest the reason is that it has been so long in obscurity that nobody knows it is there. They have forgotten it is there.
I have no axe to grind in this matter, but this is only one bequest out of several. One noble Lord gave figures as to how many pictures are in the basements, and I think it ran into thousands. Certainly, the head attendant said to me, "There are enough picture; here to hang the National Gallery all over again." Is this right and proper? Try and put yourselves in the position of the donors of these bequests. The pictures were painted for the enjoyment and edification of mankind; they were collected with the eye of a connoisseur and they were bequeathed to the nation for the public benefit; and there they are. They are never seen at all.
My Amendment suggests what I think may reasonably and usefully be done with some of them. All over Britain, historic houses are open to the public, some just for the summer months, some for the whole year round. The importance of these historic houses has been acknowledged and recognised by the Government by their giving grants for their maintenance. I am sure many of these owners would be only too pleased to display on their walls some of these redundant pictures, some of these fine old paintings from the vast stock which lies in the basements of these two great national Galleries. In some cases these houses have been depleted of their art treasures: perhaps they have been sold by the hard pressed owners to keep the roof in repair. I am sure they would gladly welcome these pictures. So I suggest this would serve a double purpose: it would

843
not only let thousands of the public and visitors from abroad see a quantity of what, hitherto, were unknown works of art, but at the same time it would help these owners to maintain their houses by giving them this added attraction. I know this is rather an original suggestion but I still think there is some merit in it. There may be objections. I have never heard of any suggestion that had not some objection to it. But I cannot feel that these objections are insurmountable and cannot be easily overcome.
There is the question of insurance, of course. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply will touch upon that. Perhaps he will. I cannot believe that even difficulties of that kind could not be overcome, because the issue is so important. We have put in the Amendment the words "under conditions approved by the Trustees," and I feel that that and Amendment No. 15 which the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, is himself to move, are in themselves adequate safeguards against any damage which might be incurred by these pictures. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships may look with favour on these suggestions of mine, and that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to
move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after (" residence ") insert (" or private house open to the public under conditions approved by the Trustees ").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think anybody who listened to the case put 'by my noble friend, Lord Haddington, would fail to be impressed by the point he is making. However, I must point out that what he is seeking to do is to give powers to these two Galleries to lend to private houses open to the public, "for the furnishing of which the Ministry of Works is responsible"—
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is my reading.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: That is not what I am doing at all. The clause relates to any public building or official residence. My Amendment comes in
844
after the word "residence," and therefore the sub-paragraph would read like this:
" in a public building or official residence or private house open to the public under conditions approved by the Trustees."
The Amendment goes on:
"…or elsewhere for the furnishing of which the Ministry of Works is responsible."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I notice the noble Earl omitted the words "in the United Kingdom." In any case, I think he will agree that the sentence is governed by the words: "for the furnishing of which the Ministry of Works is responsible." I understand he does not really mean that. I was going to say that was not aware that the Minister of Works was responsible for the furnishing of private houses. What he has in mind, I think, is private houses owned by the National Trust and open to the public, or, alternatively, private houses not so owned but which are from time to time open to the public. In regard to both those categories, subject, of course, to the full discretion of the Trustees, I think it might be possible to lend, but always subject to the condition in subsection (1) (a), that the lending of these pictures will be for public exhibition. It appears to me that, if the public have access and the Trustees find it convenient, it will be possible to lend pictures of that character in those circumstances.
The noble Earl will ask, "What is public exhibition?" I am afraid that is a matter which the Trustees have to judge. They can get legal advice. So far as I am concerned, I am happy to leave it at that. I do not think it would be possible to define in this Bill what constitutes "public exhibition." But where that was held to exist, I see no reason why Trustees, if they felt inclined, should not lend. But I think it would be difficult to ask Parliament to agree to loans where there is only a limited measure of public access to private houses. I think it would be difficult to put a proposal of that character before Parliament and expect it to be accepted. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment, because I do not think that it expresses what he meant. I am bound to say I think it very unlikely that Parliament would accept the proposition as it stands. We have extended the possibility of lending pictures to public buildings under certain conditions, but I do not

845
think it could be extended to private houses.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am disappointed that the noble Earl cannot accept my Amendment. I was a little apprehensive when I saw it was Number 13 on the Marshalled List. However, I have no wish to press the matter. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that all these pictures are never seen, and all I want is that they shall be seen. If there is any suggestion that Lancaster House is to take the overspill of the National Gallery it might: be a good solution. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert:
"(3) Before lending a picture or other work of art under this section, the Trustees shall satisfy themselves—

(a) that, taking account of its age and material, and, in the case of a picture, of the atmospheric conditions under which it has been kept, it is proper to expose it to the atmospheric changes, vibration and other ordinary incidents attending its removal, and

(b) that it will not be exposed to any unnecessary or exceptional hazards,

and the Trustees shall have particular regard to those considerations in determining the time for which., and conditions subject to which, the loan is made.
(4) It shall be the duty of the authority responsible for any picture or other work of art while it is displayed under this section in any public building or official residence to afford reasonable opportunities of viewing the picture or other work of art to any applicant who satisfies them that he is a student or engaged in research and that the application is made for the purpose of his studies or researches."
The noble Earl said: The idea behind this Amendment, in spite of the disdainful reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford and Balcarres, is to strengthen the Trustees against the possibility of an overpowering Foreign Secretary. They could point to certain statutory matters which they had to look at before they authorised the lending of a picture. I think it would help to some extent. In any case, this matter has been discussed and I do not propose to do more now than formally move the Amendment for your Lordships' approval.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Powers to transfer works of art front National Gallery or Tate Gallery for display elsewhere]:
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "The National Gallery Trustees and." The noble Duke said: The Board of the National Gallery do not like the word "transfer." We prefer an indefinite loan which we have the right to make under this Bill. I think a transference means permanently parting with a picture, and we consider that that principle is dangerous. We prefer not to have those powers and therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("The National Gallery Trustees and ").—(The Duke of Wellington.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Board of the National Gallery have asked not to have the power of transfer. We do not attach very great importance to it. Though, apparently, they have no objection at all to transfer to the Tate Gallery they will not transfer to anywhere else. I hope very much that they will not regret not taking part in this. However, so far as the Amendment is concerned I am happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out (" respectively ")— (The Duke of Wellington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARI, OF SELKIRK: I beg to move this Amendment. The Trustees of both Galleries decided that they did not, after all, want the power to transfer to the Ministry of Works. The intention was that it should relieve them of responsibility for pictures, and that the Ministry of Works would be able to look after those pictures which the Galleries did not want and would take full responsibility for them. However, the Galleries have both preferred to take the line of indefinite loans. Accordingly, on, shall I

847
say, the altar of agreement, we have here sacrificed the Ministry of Works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 10 to 18.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out from (" of ") to the second (" the") in line 26.—(The Duke of Wellington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
" . The Minister of Works shall in any building for the construction of which he is responsible allocate to artists out of the monies provided for building not less than one and a half per cent. of the estimated cost of the building for the purpose of decoration whether by mural-painting, paintings, mosaics, sculpture or other suitable mediums."
The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment really to bring forward a view and to give your Lordships a chance to listen to it and discuss it. Perhaps at the outset I ought to declare an interest, as all artists may conceivably benefit under this Amendment if it is accepted. Roughly speaking, an artist to-day, whether a sculptor or a painter, or whatever medium he works in, is in an extremely difficult position. The private patron of the last century has virtually disappeared, and what with high taxation and limitation of income there are very few people who can buy works of art on any large scale. There are a few people who have some capital left, and who can do a little, but the number is getting smaller and smaller. As a result, not only unsuccessful artists but really able and well-known artists find themselves in such a position that they can live and practice their art only if they earn money on so many days of the week by teaching. So we get the extraordinary position (I think someone has already alluded to it to-day) that large numbers of art students are being taught by these artists who cannot get enough money to live on by the practice of their art, so that they have to teach; and these
848
students, in their turn, when they are trained, will be unable to earn a living and will have to teach more students, and so on. It is a most vicious circle. I want to try to bring to the attention of the Government the necessity of trying to help out these artists to-day.
I think a line which might be followed would be that artists should work not so much for the private patron but for the big corporation, the local authority, the national board, and the Government. I think the Government should take a lead in helping this movement to develop. I believe that, as the result of modern architectural trends, we have been having a wave of rather bare architecture which calls for decoration. Many architects do not realise what good decoration can do to improve a building. We have had a great deal of bad decoration, and I think that in the past the artist often has been to blame, in that when called on to do a massive piece of outdoor decoration, whether a monumental sculpture or mural painting, he is still thinking largely in terms of the easel pictures which he has painted in oils. He has not necessarily got a grip of the architectural field. That is something which can be developed, but, at the present time, very little opportunity for such development is being given. By this Amendment I am suggesting that the Government should give a lead to the other potential big patrons of art by allocating, when public buildings are built, a sum of money to the artist for decorations. This, I understand, is done very successfully in France without arousing any criticism and it has produced some extremely good results. The amount which I propose is not high—l½ per cent. When we consider the enormous sums that are inevitably spent, right, left and centre, this relatively small amount might I think produce results out of all proportion. On those grounds I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD METHUEN: As a fellow painter I should like to support Lord Huntingdon's Amendment. I think the suggestion which he makes is admirable. He has already told you that all surplus cash now passes to the Treasury or through the hands of local authorities; and if the

849
Government could only give a lead in this respect, I am sure it would be wise. Moreover, it would be a move from which the country as a whole would benefit. We painters do not put this forward in any selfish spirit of professional partisanship. We have got so used, generally speaking, to easel paintings that we quite forget that mural decoration is the oldest form of decoration in the world going back to the days of cro-magnon man. But it is only quite recently that we have got used to easel paintings as a form of decoration for our walls: whereas there is plenty of scope for murals, particularly in big public buildings, if only a little imagination is used by architects to make use of artists and sculptors for this purpose. And I trust that architects of the Ministry of Works will not be behind-hand in advocating this excellent principle.
LORD HAMPTON: I should like to intervene to support the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord opposite. I think your Lordships will agree with me that an ordinary canvas is hardly enough. These large buildings seem to cry out for decoration on a large scale. I went the other day especially to see a mural which had just been completed at the Science Museum, to the order, I imagine, of the Ministry of Works. The commission was given to one of the art masters of Twickenham Technical College and two of his pupils at the school, and they have carried it out in a most admirable manner. I mention that case because it is a way of encouraging art among the many thousands of students in our art schools. If the Government could occasionally see their way to follow up what has been done in the Science Museum I think that would give a lead to municipal authorities who, in the course of time, we hope, will be enlarging their present buildings or erecting new ones. I should also suggest this form of decoration for some of our foreign Embassies. Some of your Lordships may have seen the murals that are being sent out to the Embassy at New York, which I believe have been very successful. As the noble Lord has said, it gives great encouragement to artists to feel that they have a definite place in the improvement of life if occasionally they get Government encouragement for mural decoration.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Earl will almost certainly say this is quite outside the scope of the Bill, as I am certain I should say in the like circumstance. But although he says that, I hope he will realise that this is the sort of thing that ought to be done. Even if it cannot come into the Bill, I venture to say that there is something to be said for this as a good working rule.
LORD BLACKFORD: Exactly a week from now we shall all be grumbling at the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not making those reductions in taxation to which we all look forward. It is a remarkable thing how unpopular economy always is. Earlier in the debate the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, suggested that public money should be spent on purchasing the productions of modern artists. Now he suggests that we should add 1½ per cent. to the cost of our public buildings and similar projects. That is to say, he proposes that on both those objects we should spend extra public money. That is not at all remarkable, coming from those Benches. Socialists are always in favour of spending as much of the taxpayers' money as they can possibly squeeze out of them, but it is most surprising to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, supporting this proposal.
LORD HAMPTON: I cannot claim that noble name.
LORD BLACKFORD: Two handsome men look so much alike. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Anyhow, a prominent Back Bencher from the Conservative Benches also wishes to spend public money unnecessarily. Of course, we should all like to spend money on things we are inclined to, and disapprove of spending money or things we have no mind to. We should all like to embellish our buildings. It is the little 1½ per cents. that make up the total and it is the little 1½ per cents. which are so difficult for !the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refuse. It looks so mean to refuse, when the request is to spend only 1½per cent. on this very desirable object. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer turn it down? That is why those who advocate public economy are always at such a disadvantage. I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will have the

851
Courage, even against his own inclination, to turn down the proposal and thus make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's road that little bit less hard.
LORD METHUEN: May I point out to the noble Lord that the 1½ per cent. is not an addition. It is included in the total. Therefore the 1½per cent. is not an extra; it is simply taken off the total.
LORD BLACKFORD: I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but the noble Lord knows that that will not do.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Amendment intends to make a ratio of 1½ per cent. between the cost of building and decoration. I suppose it is fair to say that no legislative Chamber in the world would permit this Amendment to be discussed on a Bill dealing with the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. However, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is very interested in this subject and I am glad to tell the noble Earl how he views it. The noble Earl's suggestion is not entirely new, as a similar suggestion has already been made by the Royal Institute of British Architects, although they were more modest and wanted only one-quarter of one per cent. on blocks of offices. My right honourable friend is fully aware of the need that public buildings should be attractive in appearance and that in a large measure artists are dependent on the scope of the artistic work which his Department provides.
I think it is proper to remind your Lordships that on a number of new buildings erected since the war—for example, the Ministry of Agriculture headquarters in Whitehall Place, and the Whitehall Gardens building—work of this character has been carried out, and my impression is that it is quite good. The new Colonial Office on the old Westminster Hospital site, just opposite this House, will also be adorned with sculpture and will have fine panelling, fashioned from woods given by certain Colonies. I must point out, however, that there are some real difficulties. Basically, this involves a Money Resolution, which makes it difficult for us. Moreover, the Ministry of Works is engaged in many other works besides Government offices and post offices. They are responsible for atomic energy establishments, grain driers and ships' tanks, which do not readily lend
852
themselves to this kind of treatment. The noble Lord does not seem to recognise that the architect is also an artist. He did not mention that the architect should be left free either to decorate or not to decorate. This applies not only to the architect but also to the civil engineer—I am thinking particularly of Waterloo Bridge, which has extremely little decoration and shows a very high standard of engineering art. It is also difficult to distinguish sharply between craftsman and artist.
I can say that over the last three years my right honourable friend's Department has allocated £50,000 on the adornment of new buildings. In regard to paintings, they are regarded as part of the furnishing of the building, and their use is necessarily influenced by the taste of the occupiers. The Ministry, however, do purchase a number of pictures for Government buildings at home and abroad. During the last three years they have spent £8,000 on pictures by living artists, which I think is some recognition of what is being done. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to the panels going abroad. They are going to Rio, not to New York. They are painted by John Piper—who is a former Trustee of the Tate Gallery—and cost £1,000. That is the only painting which can be said to belong definitely to a building. I would say that my right honourable friend recognises that, with the decline in private patronage, whatever the reason may be, a certain responsibility in this sphere adheres to his Department. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, so properly said, expenditure in this sphere must be watched carefully. Proper adornment in fulfilment of design is recognised as an essential part of the provision of public buildings. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. I can assure him that the point is appreciated by my right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Obviously I do not wish to press this Amendment, which I realise is not really appropriate to this Bill. I moved the Amendment to call the attention of the Government to what I think is a necessary business. I am glad to hear that the Minister of Works realises this, and that something may be done, and in fact is, in a small way, being done. I hope,

853
too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate this necessity. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Powers of sale exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees.
6.—(1) If the National Gallery Trustees or the Tate Gallery Trustees, as the case may be, have resolved that a picture or other work of art vested in them is unfit for, or is not required as part of, the collection for which they are responsible, they may, with the consent of the Treasury, sell that picture or other work of art:
Provided that a picture or other work of art which has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been exhibited in the National Gallery or in the Tate Gallery as part of either collection shall not be sold under this section unless and until a statement containing details of the proposed sale has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days.
In reckoning for the purposes of this proviso any period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(2) The consent of the Treasury under this section may be given subject to any conditions, including in particular conditions as to the method of sale.
(3) The Treasury shall lay before Parliament a statement as to any sale effected under this section, setting out the manner in which the sale was effected and the amount realised.
(4) The net proceeds of a sale under this section shall be retained by the Trustees by whom the sale was effected to be applied by them in the purchase of other works of art.
(5) The power of sale conferred by this section shall not be exercisable as respects a picture or other work of art which has been given or bequeathed unless the donor or testator has authorised a sale.
(6) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for sections one and two of the National Gallery Act. 1856.
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON moved to leave out Clause 6 and to insert in its place the following new clause:
Abrogation of power to sell works of art in National Gallery
" 6. The power conferred on the National Gallery Trustees by section one of the National Gallery Act, 1856, to sell pictures and other works of art shall cease to have effect."
The noble Duke said: When this Bill was first published there was a great deal of public anxiety, due to the fact that it gave the Trustees of the National Gallery powers to sell. There was a good deal of misconception about that, because in
854
fact the Trustees have had the power to sell since 1856; in that respect there is nothing new in the Bill. But the Trustees are as conscious as anybody else of the dangers of those powers, and of the fact that there have been extremely disastrous sales to foreign buyers. Therefore, they are anxious to allay public anxiety, and to clear up all possibility of misunderstanding, by having this clause removed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Wellington.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It seems to me that the acceptance of this Amendment may not be altogether wise. We have heard this evening—and it has not been contradicted—that there are in the vaults of the National Gallery sufficient pictures to start another Gallery. No one, I 'believe, in his senses imagines that in any foreseeable period of time any Government are likely to have the money at their disposal to build such a second National Gallery; and indeed, it is probably not des Sable, as a good many, though by no means all, of the pictures thus permanently lost to view cannot be of very great interest. But, surely, the position in regard to these pictures is likely to get worse year by year. The National Gallery, presumably, will acquire, by purchase or legacy, still more pictures, which will mean that still more pictures will have to leave the Gallery and go down to the vaults. When, in the past, pictures have been either purchased by the Board of Trustees or bequeathed to the National Gallery it cannot have been the intention either of the Trustees at the time, or of those who left the pictures, that they should thus be buried, apparently for all time to come. Surely, there is a great deal to be said for the principle that the National Gallery should, on occasion, dispose of pictures which may not be of great public interest or great artistic importance. If disposed of, either to some local authority or public institution, on the one hand, or even to private persons, on the other, these pictures would at least have a chance of being seen by somebody in the future, instead or, as at present, remaining in those vaults, seen only, presumably, by an odd attendant, when they receive, as we hope, an annual dust and brush up. For this reason, I suggest

855
that the acceptance of this Amendment might not be in the public interest.
LORD RAGLAN: I have long been connected with an institution to which people from time to time give and bequeath works of art. So far as I know, no such gift or bequest has ever been accompanied by a proviso that these works of art may be sold. In the case of a testator, it would be difficult, I should have thought, to obtain his consent to the sale, and as regards a donor, I should find it difficult to write to a donor and say: "What do you want done with your picture? We thought that we should like to have it, but we now find that we do not want it. Do you mind if we sell it?" I should have thought that such a donor would be tempted to say, "If you do not want it, give it back to me, and I will sell it." In any case, I believe that these provisions about sale are calculated to discourage people from giving or bequeathing works of art to public galleries.
LORD BLACKFORD: I hope that the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment. One appreciates the spirit in which the noble Duke has moved it—namely, to allay possible public anxiety. But surely it is not wise for the Trustees to tie themselves up for all time not to dispose of any of their pictures. When we were discussing, under Clause 4, the question of lending, my noble friend Lord Harlech made a pithy remark when he said that the Trustees were men of high reputation and experience, fully capable of looking after their own pictures. I agree with that. They are men of the highest reputation and experience, and they are Trustees of the National Gallery. If they, in all their wisdom, think that it would be wise to sell a picture, or perhaps more than one, let them do so. Clause 6 ties them up with all kinds of restrictions: they have to get Treasury consent; the consent of both Houses of Parliament: the necessary Order has to lie on the Table for forty days in each House, and all the rest of it, before they can sell any picture. Surely, that is sufficient safeguard, if any safeguard is required know that the fashions in pictures change, and that what one person may think artistic to-day another person may think horrific in fifty years'
856
time, and vice versa. But for all that there are, I take it, sundry and superfluous pictures among the 4,000 now in the vaults. There are not 2,000 as I thought, but, according to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, there are about 4,000 of them hanging about. The noble Duke says, "I am not fit, nor are my successors ad infinitum fit, to sell any one of these pictures to get funds to help the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his desire to embellish public buildings with the works of modern artists." There is a fund to hand. But the noble Duke says: "No. I am not fit to avail myself of that fund." My noble friend Lord Raglan says that nobody will leave a picture to the National Gallery in future for fear that at some future date some succeeding Trustee may sell it.
LORD RAGLAN: I did not go so far as that.
LORD BLACKFORD: That is what my noble friend said. I do not agree with that. Supposing I had a little collection of pictures, and I left it to the National Gallery. I can well imagine that perhaps only two or three of them might be thought fit to hang on the actual walls; the others might be relegated to the vaults. I should not like that. I should not like to think that my little pictures, which had given me such pleasure to collect, were, as it were, buried with me down in the vaults of the National Gallery. I would rather they were sold at the discretion of such an expert as my noble friend Lord Crawford, and used to buy something which he, in his wisdom, and having much greater artistic merit than mine, might buy in their stead. It will not deter me, when the time comes, from leaving my collection to the National Gallery; and I am sure that it will not deter my noble friend Lord Raglan, when he thinks it over. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not accept this Amendment, but will leave the Bill as it stands.
6.38 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: I do not think this matter is really of any considerable importance. I would not die in the last ditch about this right of sale—it has seldom been exercised, in any case. However, there have been cases where we thought of it. I can give your Lordships an illustration. We had bought a

857
picture out of our own funds—I am talking about the Tate Gallery—and there was no question of a trust or anything of that sort. About a year later we had the chance of buying what we all thought was a much better work by the same artist. The only way we could have got the second work was by disposing of the first work which we had bought out of our own money, paying an additional sum of money, and getting the better picture. If that should happen, are we doing anything particularly wrong if we get the consent of all the pundits here mentioned? I should have thought that it was a useful power to have. But it happens so rarely, and the prospect of sale—clearing out all the cellars and having an auction sale—has so frightened people that I can well understand Why the noble Duke thinks it better to get rid of the power of sale altogether. For my own part. I should have liked to have power of sale, but I should have thought it right to use it in only the most exceptional circumstances. As I say, I do not mind what line the noble Earl takes about this Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: Might I say one word in support of the noble Duke and the noble Earl who moved the Amendment? To start with, they are in a better position than any of us in this House to know what is the wise thing to do. Here we have the two Trustees of the Gallery themselves. It is rather strange that they should say, "We think it wiser for you not to give us this power." The art historians of this country hold the same view. There have been innumerable cases overseas where the greatest mistakes have been made in the past with this power of sale. I have spoken to many of the greatest experts in this country about selling—for instance, Sir Alec Martin. He said, "The Directors and Trustees cannot 'play' the markets in pictures." He is a man of great experience and he added, "Whatever you do, do not let that power of sale go into the Bill." I think that the majority of those who know are in favour of the noble Duke's Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I crave your Lordships' indulgence once more to-day, and rise to support the noble Duke's Amendment? I think this clause is one of the most dangerous in the whole Bill. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, mentioned the case of sell-
858
ing one picture in order to buy another. I think he was referring to the Tate Gallery. The two cases are quite different. A number of noble Lords have talked about pictures being in the vaults and in the cellars. At the beginning of this Committee stage I attempted to point out in a small way to your Lordships that the pictures of secondary importance in the cellars are often of great importance to the student. I think it is the duty of the Trustees to conserve them and keep them together. A case has been made out this afternoon for lending these pictures. There is a good deal to be said for that, but I think there is absolutely no case to be made out for selling them. Fashions change, as the noble Duke pointed out. Certain Continental galleries adopted this policy before the war and have regretted it. It was done, I believe, in the National Gallery during the last century, when a great number of German primitives were sold, and it has always been considered a great loss May I also remind your Lordships that Inc greatest historical precedent for this question of disposing of pictures was taken in the case of the Commonwealth Government, who sold the wonderful collection assembled by Charles I, many of which pictures are now hanging in the Louvre. I therefore beg to support the Amendment of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES: I had not realised that this would raise controversy, but one never knows. The position under the Bill alters the position as it was in 1856, in that under the Bill the proceeds of sales will go to the Trustees instead of, as hitherto, to the Consolidated Fund. On an earlier stage of this Bill, my noble friend agreed to remove from the Trustees that temptation to sell, that temptation to do exactly what has been urged upon them to do—to sell something they do not like in order to buy something they do like: a most dangerous procedure. If that temptation is removed, I hope also that the old danger of sales which has existed since 1856 will also be removed—in other words, that the Amendment moved by my noble friend will be accepted.
The power to sell was given to the Trustees in 1856, and it was given for one specific purpose. The Gallery was

859
a young Gallery; it was in formation and it had to buy extensively. In order to buy some important German primitives in the Kruger sale at Minden, it was compelled by the terms of that sale to buy with them a number of extremely bad pictures also. Parliament gave the Trustees the power to sell in order to get rid of these unwanted pictures which it had bought in those circumstances. The power was used only at that time and never since. In 1856, or it may be the following year, the Trustees sold for £28 12s. sixteen panels from a Westphalian altar-piece. Of those panels, some have completely disappeared, others have turned up recently in the market and were offered to the National Gallery for over £1,000 each. It seems, therefore, that even wise Trustees can make mistakes, and I think it is much safer not to give them this power which would enable them to do so.
The gravest mistakes were made recently, before the war, in Vienna, in Munich, and through Germany. You have only to go to Washington and your Lordships will see in the National Gallery there many of the masterpieces sold from Leningrad, Berlin, Munich and others of the great Galleries of the world, all of whom had power to sell. Vienna sold a famous Gothic tapestry in order to decorate the Gallery. Vienna got a clean wall, which no doubt is dirty again now, but lost a famous work of art. Munich sold a Rubens because it had too many Rubens. Vienna sold a Manet because it had only one Manet, and Manet looked odd in the rest of the Gallery. For completely contradictory reasons these disastrous sales took place throughout the world just before the war—for contradictory reasons, but all for the reasons which are stated in this Bill: that they were considered unfit or inappropriate—I forget the word—for the purposes of the Gallery.
I suggest that we should be cautious over this matter. The present generation of Trustees is not necessarily wiser than its predecessors, and it would not necessarily be right in selling as worthless what an earlier generation had bought as of value to the national collection. We may be a wise generation of Trustees, but we have no guarantee that we are wiser than those who bought these things for us.
860
Fortunately, while we are looking at the vagaries of taste, we at any rate can be grateful that when Trustees in the past considered as worthless what we now consider as masterpieces, they at any rate did not take advantage of the 1856 Act. I hope your Lordships will be so good as to allow the Amendment of my noble friend to pass.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to support the noble Duke in his Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who said that this was one of the most dangerous clauses in the whole Bill, because fashions change. Whatever we may think to-day may well be looked upon as useless or out of taste and fashion to-morrow. It would be disastrous if we gave our Trustees the power to sell, and particularly to get the money back to buy what they wanted with it, because the temptation would be so strong to get a few paintings of some artists who happened to be fashionable for the moment and future generations might not approve. It would be disastrous to allow these paintings to be sold. It would dry up any sources of the giving or bequeathing of pictures to the Galleries if people got the idea that, arbitrarily, the Trustees might sell them after, say, two years and buy other things with the money. I beg the Government to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke and safeguard our pictures in both Galleries.
LORD SALTOUN: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD METHUEN: I also hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: After listening to this debate, I think your Lordships will appreciate why the Government has seen fit to tread delicately in matters of art. Some of your Lordships may have forgotten that this clause aroused the most fearful antagonism and there were innuendoes as to what the intentions of the Government were. What we really did in this clause as drafted was to allow the Trustees to retain the proceeds if they sold a picture. In point of fact, they have been able to sell pictures for nearly a century, and in practically no case have they done so. We do not attach much importance to this clause. It is very unlikely that this power will be used. We

861
admit there is the question of fashion. Fashions rise and, for that matter, fall. We recognise that there is a certain sanctity about bequests which has to be observed. Both Galleries have now said they would like to have Clause 6 deleted and the power of 1856 repealed. The Government's attitude was that we would not take away powers that they had had for a hundred years, but, if they liked to put it to the House, the Government would not stand in their way. If I say that the two Galleries have been pedal-is over-sensitive to public opinion, I am sure it is certainly a fault on the right side. I shall not stand in the way of this Amendment if the House agrees to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.53 p.m.
Clause 7 [Change of status of director of National Gallery]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential on the removal of the Knapping Bequest from the first clause. The word "property" now becomes "pictures or other works of art." I beg to move".
Amendment moved—
Page 5. line 21, leave out ("property ") and insert (" pictures or other works of art ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is again consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out (" was") and' insert (" were ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is also consequential on the removal from Clause 1 of the Knapping Trust. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out from (" alone ") to the end of line 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 and First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Repeals]:
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON: I am assured by the Parliamentary draftsman that this Amendment is consequential on
862
the Amendments already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("each ") and insert ("the last ").—(The Duke of Wellington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
6.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3.(Viscount Woolton.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not propose to say much on this Motion. I feel that the Bill as it is to-day is a much better one than as it was first introduced. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion for the, generally speaking, accommodating way in which he has met Amendments from all parts of the House. I should like to refer to only one particular point on which I do not think he has met us as he might have done—that is, on the question of labelling. I think that the Bill, even as it stands and as amended, does not go far enough in the direction of giving the public information about food which they ought to have, particularly where chemicals and other unnatural commodities are added. I should have thought it would be possible, even recognising the difficulties which the noble Viscount, quite properly put to us on this point, to provide for information to be given to the public in the majority of cases that the noble Viscount put. I readily admit that extreme cases it may not be practicable to provide this information, but, generally speaking, I think it could have been done. It is rather late in the day, as regards both the

863
position in which this Bill is in the House and the time of the evening, to do anything about it. There is, however, another place, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give serious thought to the possibility of still further improving this Bill, as it proceeds on its way in another place, by seeing that the public are as fully protected as is possible by being given the required information about the foods which they are buying. Subject to that, I should once more like to say that this is a very good Bill, which represents a great advance on existing legislation, and I shall do nothing to prevent its further progress.
7.1 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Silkin, has said. Undoubtedly this Bill confers wide powers upon the Government. The question is whether those powers will be used freely in order to safeguard the health of the public. One is left with an uneasy feeling, as a result of the earlier discussions upon the Bill, that there is a certain amount of bias in the mind of the Government in favour of chemical adulteration of food. At any rate, they have shown themselves extremely reluctant to accept Amendments which would have prohibited that or would have required disclosure to the public of what has been introduced into food. I think that in this respect they are very much behind public opinion. All over the country there is growing uneasiness about the quality of food, about the way in which it is manipulated and about the chemicals which are introduced into it, and I think that that uneasiness is justified, because there is a prima facie case against the addition to foodstuffs of unnatural ingredients which have never before been used as foodstuffs. I do not say that it necessarily follows that every one of these things is injurious, but additions certainly ought not to be permitted until it has been definitely proved that they are not injurious: that is certainly extremely necessary.
The multiplicity of articles which are now subject to this kind of adulteration is quite alarming. Let me give just one illustration of what may happen. Phosphoric acid and phosphates are not generally recommended articles of diet,
864
but quite an accumulation of these substances may be taken by the ordinary consumer. Soft drinks often contain phosphoric acid. Phosphates are used as leavening agents in baking; they are used as emulsifying agents in processed cheeses. Tricalcium phosphate is added to salt in order to confer what are called free-running properties upon table salts. All these things are quite commonly consumed by people, and an assertion that any particular foodstuff contains not enough phosphate to be injurious to anybody is not a sufficient safeguard, because that same person may take in an accumulation of phosphates or phosphoric acid from a great many sources. I want therefore to support as strongly as I possibly can the plea which my noble friend has made, that there should be disclosure to the public. It ought to be obligatory upon manufacturers and purveyors of foodstuffs to reveal to the public what is put into the foodstuffs. If, after that, the public like to buy them, that is another story: but they ought to be provided with the means of protecting themselves. Until there is full disclosure as is required by many other civilised countries, there cannot be adequate protection.
On Question, Bill read 3.
Clause 2:
Defences available in proceedings under s. 3 of principal Act
>(4) Paragraphs (1) to (3) and paragraph (5) of section four of the principal Act, and section five of that Act, shall cease to have effect; and any reference in that Act to the said section four shall be construed as including a reference to this section.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved in subsection (3) to leave out "and paragraph (5)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Waleran. I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. May I say, at the outset, that when the original Amendment was moved by Lord Amulree the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whom we are glad to see back again with us this afternoon (and may I say here on behalf of everyone present that we hope that he is, if not fully recovered, at least well on the road to complete recovery, in which we wish him Godspeed) informed the House that the associations concerned had agreed to the terms of the Amendment. May I

865
say to Lord Carrington that I at once accept that that statement was made unwittingly, and that the last thing which would be in the mind of the noble Lord on any occasion would be to mislead the House on any Bill. But the House, on information which I think was not strictly in accordance with the facts, accepted the Amendment. The matter has since been considered by the associations concerned, and they ask that for the time being this paragraph should be deleted.
May I say just one or two words in support of that request? Everyone knows that under the National Health Service all sorts of what one might describe as official medicines are being developed and sold. These medicines are built up on proprietary medicines. A doctor may prescribe one of these official medicines and inadvertently the chemist may sell one of the proprietary medicines, which may be better but is not the official medicine. At some stage the person concerned discovers that he has not got the official medicine, but has the proprietary medicine, and he may then decide, to use the words of the Yorkshire comedian, to "have a go"; and then all sorts of symptoms will, consciously or unconsciously, develop. Then he will go to the people concerned with free legal aid, and he will tell of the terrible symptoms with which he has been afflicted as a result of getting the wrong medicine. The matter comes before the court and another terror is added to the life of the person concerned. Everyone knows that under the National Health Service many doctors are at present in a state of great perturbation, particularly those who have to work in casualty wards. No doubt that is a subject which is receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Government. To come back to the Amendment, I suggest that the right thing to do is to delete this paragraph now, and then, between now and the time when the Bill is presented in its final shape in another place, endeavour to obtain a measure of agreement acceptable to all concerned. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("and paragraph (5)").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, with regard to what the noble Lord opposite said concerning the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I remember that on the last occasion Lord Carrington was extremely
866
careful in what he said: his words were, "I am informed." He was informed and it could not have been fully, and I was not at all convinced by his statement in that form.
LORD BURDEN: I want to make it clear to the noble Lord that I relieve him entirely from any responsibility.
LORD SILKIN: May I join in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He is looking very much better for his enforced absence. I hope that he is feeling as well as he looks. I think it was in response to my question that the noble Lord gave the assurance that the relevant parties had been consulted, and agreed. It really does not matter because the noble Lord justified the Amendment on its merits and the question of consultation was not very relevant. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Burden and I should like to express the hope that the Government will stand firm and not accept this Amendment. May I tell the House what the Amendment is? Clause 2 provides that if a person sells, to the prejudice of a purchaser, any food or drug not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, then he has committed an offence. That is the same as Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act of 1938. Then Section 4 gives a number of possible defences, one of which is that the article supplied was a proprietary medicine and was supplied in response to a demand for that medicine. Why that should exempt anybody from misleading a purchaser I do not know and I have never been able to understand. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right in providing that it should no longer be a defence, and I hope he will stick to his guns. It ought not to be a defence that, merely because a man is selling a proprietary article, he can therefore sell anything he likes, whether or not it is of the substance or nature demanded.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I said when I introduced this Bill—it now seems a very long time ago—that it was not a matter that need divide the Parties. It is tragic to see that in the last stages it should have divided noble Lords opposite. I am, I think, considerably responsible for the putting down of this Amendment, because when we were last

867
discussing the matter the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, wanted to speak. I was acting Leader of the House at the time, and I was advised that he was out of order, and told him so. He did not gel the chance of saying what he very much wanted to say. I have made my peace with him but in the meantime I suggested that if he liked to put down an Amendment I should be glad to see that he had an opportunity of discussing it. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for having taken that upon himself.
As to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did, what happened was the simplest thing in the world: the communications got a little mixed up in passage between the Box and here. As the noble Lords opposite are aware, when a Minister is not quite certain of the facts, that is a thing that can easily occur. And that is all that happened. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not feel that anybody in the House has the slightest doubt that anything else happened but that. The result of the matter was this. We were asked whether the trade had been consulted—and they had been—but whereas we thought they had agreed, in fact they had not. Why should they? In some circumstances they had interests which they perhaps thought were damaged by this. What is the purpose of this Amendment? What are we trying to do? The situation has been put quite clearly before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his legal knowledge. I do not think I can advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. Suppose someone goes to a chemist's shop and asks for a certain patent medicine, all fully labelled as to what is inside. But it may not only be inside—it may have been inside for a long time. It may have lost some of its properties. The person is buying it because he thinks it will do certain things, which it would have done in its earlier stages and in its purity. I do not think anyone is entitled to stand behind a proprietary label. The purchaser asked for "blank" and he got it. If an article does not do what the proprietary name professes it does I think the public have a right to protection. On this ground I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and say that I am sorry that I cannot accept
868
the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burden.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, who am I to stand up against two Front Benches? I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Disposal of samples taken for analysis]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I apologise to the House for introducing an Amendment at this stage, but this arose again from some remark that the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, made in Committee stage. The purpose of this Amendment, which deals with notification—the clause in itself is a wide clause and includes all sorts of things, including provisions regarding milk—is to ensure that the notification required by subsection (4) of the clause is confined to samples procured for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst. It is primarily these samples which might involve a producer in legal proceedings. It is both unnecessary and undesirable to oblige the sampling officer to notify in the case of other samples procured for bacteriological and other tests. For the most part these are tests of milk samples. They are taken very frequently indeed, and I think it would be unnecessary and an intolerable and wasteful burden to have to notify in every case. I move to insert" for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst."
Amendment moved—
Page 17. line 42, after ("sample") insert ("for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that analyses performed by means of micro-organisms (which are in common use by public analysts) are not to be excluded by the definition of the word "analysis." The effect of the definition with this Amendment is that if the testing of a sample involves micro-biological assay the sample will go to the public analyst; if it involves any other form of biological assay the sample will be sent to a person with the necessary qualifications and equipment. Sampling officers will be given advice on these matters by

869
circular. I hope that I have made this matter abundantly clear to your Lordships.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 23, leave out (" does not include") and insert (" includes microbiological assay, but no other form of ").—(Viscount Woolton.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Viscount would add to my knowledge by explaining in some detail just what is meant by "microbiological assay." At this hour, however, I am going to take it on trust and hope that the noble Viscount really understands what he has been reading. I certainly do not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment and I do not think I need enter into any details regarding the other point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 37, after ("proviso") insert ("sub-paragraph (iii) shall be omitted and").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 47, at end insert—
("In subsection (2), for the words ' any food or drug' there shall be substituted the words ' any food, drug or substance capable of being used in the preparation of food '") —,(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Third Schedule [Repeals]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this, again, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 34, column 3, at end insert (." and sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of the proviso ").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (Privilege) made.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving, I should, with your Lordships' permission, like to thank the
870
Members of this House for the very great consideration they have given to the Bill throughout. I am most grateful to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Regulations as to labelling and description of food
7.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing section, the Ministers may make regulations for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking or advertising of food intended for sale for human consumption, and the descriptions which may be applied to such food.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall"for"may," where that word first occurs. The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the following one go together, and, therefore, if I may, I will deal with them both at the same time. They arise out of the discussion which took place at an earlier stage of the Bill in which my noble friend Lord Sempill was very active, and if he had been here to-day he would himself have moved these Amendments. Unfortunately, he is, for the moment, in hospital, recovering from a slight operation, and therefore is quite unable to be present. Noble Lords know what a deep interest he has taken in this particular subject and how assiduous he has been in his attendance at the House.
Clause 7, as it stands, gives powers to the Ministers to make regulations. The purpose of the Amendment is to require Ministers to make regulations; but as it was pointed out that in certain cases it might be difficult to enforce regulations requiring labelling or marking upon the foodstuff or upon its container of the ingredients, the second Amendment provides that the Ministers may exempt certain classes of food or certain particular ingredients from these requirements. The difference, in fact, between what is proposed in the Amendments and what is contained in the Bill is to a certain extent of course, a matter of emphasis. The object of the Amendment is to put the emphasis upon a full disclosure to the public of the ingredients which are being put into any particular article which is sold as a foodstuff. This matter was the subject of some correspondence between my noble friend, Lord Sempill, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, and I hope that the noble Earl will not mind my referring to the letter which he wrote to my noble friend, in which he said that he had difficulty in accepting this Amendment, but that the Government had every intention of continuing, their policy of making regulations as to the labelling of food as far as possible. And the noble Earl stated:
" It is already law that all pre-packed foods must bear a statement of their composition."
I am a little puzzled about this, and I wish that the noble Earl would enlighten me about it. Maybe, of course, the law is more stringent in Scotland than it is in England, and I have not had the opportunity recently to be in Scotland, but I have noticed that articles of food which emanate from that country and reach this one do not appear to be labelled in the way in which the noble Earl suggests. I do not know whether there is some very limited meaning attached to "pre-packed foods," but jams, biscuits and many other things are sold in containers or packages of various kinds, and I have not observed that those foods are labelled with a precise statement of their contents. Indeed, I have the feeling that in many cases manufacturers are doing their best to conceal what the contents are. This is particularly the case with regard, for example to jam, which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, dealt with very cogently
872
upon a previous occasion. The ordinary jams which are sold do not bear any labels—or at least I have never seen any —stating that they are made out of fruit pulp which has been preserved by means of sulphur dioxide. Therefore I do not follow the argument that this is already being done in the case of pre-packed foods.
The noble Earl also said that there were difficulties in effectively labelling things like fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. Well, I agree there are probably difficulties about labelling meat and fish which are sold fresh, and, happily, for the most part, these things do not appear to have been adulterated to any great extent. Vegetables may also present difficulties, but I venture to say that there is considerable need for the public to know whether their vegetables have been treated with various things. It is becoming extremely common to use various poisonous sprays in agriculture, such as the chlorinated hydrocarbons, D.D.T., and some two dozen others which belong to the same species, and it is well known that they are absorbed by the leaves of green vegetables. I should say it is highly undesirable that any article should be sold in that condition. I know it is suggested that D.D.T. and similar classes of insecticides are relatively harmless, but there is an accumulating amount of evidence that that it not true. An experiment was made in the United States on test animals, in which it was found that they survived a dosage of food which had 1 per cent. of carbolic acid added to it but did not survive the ingestion of food to which one thousandth of 1 per cent. of D.D.T. was added. Therefore, although it may he difficult, some steps ought to be taken to protect the public from the use of things of that kind.
Let me give one more illustration on this point. There are now being sold in considerable quantities various kinds of soft drinks, in particular, the so-called cola drinks, which contain phosphoric acid detrimental to the teeth; caffein, a dangerous substance when taken in considerable quantities—and it is in considerable quantities in these drinks—and especially undesirable for consumption by children, who are large consumers: sugar, which is not a desirable addition to the diet in too large quantities: flavouring matters and colour-

873
ing matters. That is an illustration of the necessity for compulsory labelling. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
7.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who would have moved it had he been here. There is common ground between the noble Lords and the Government in that the public must be protected. As the noble Lard said, it is largely a matter of emphasis on how it is done. Let me say how the public is protected. So far as pre-packed food is concerned, it is possible to make rules, and a great many rules have been made and can he found in the Labelling of Food Order, 1953. If the noble Lard receives jam from Scotland which is not labelled, that is one of the exemptions which have had to be made, even under the Labelling of Food Order. That Order is available. As to the unpacked, and perhaps largely unpackable, foods, how is the public protected by this Bill? Under Clause 2, it is an offence to sell to a customer anything other than that for which the customer asks. Under Clause 6, it is an offence to display any false or misleading label. So there are substantial safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Ear-loch, talks about introducing colouring materials, which we all agree may be injurious to health. Under Clause 4, these materials can be examined, and if they are found to be harmful to health their use can be banned. I think there is almost complete protection for the public here. This is really a matter of administration. Under the noble Lord's Amendment, it would be obligatory upon the Secretary of State to say that all foods should be labelled; then he would start to make exemptions. We do not feel we have enough knowledge yet to do that, and we prefer to use Clause 7 to extend the list of those foods which can be labelled. There is a difference between what we and the noble Lord think is practicable. We think it is practicable to proceed in the way we are doing and to use Clause 7, and we have every intention of using it fully. We think the other method would be bad administratively,
874
because we have not sufficient knowledge at present. While I have every sympathy with the noble Lord's objective, I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Earl has put forward a very persuasive argument. Nothing is worse than to pass laws which are administratively impossible to enforce—I see the full weight of that. On the other hand, many other countries have found it possible to pass such laws and I believe they have found it administratively possible to enforce them, so I do not know that what the noble Earl said is entirely a testimonial to the efficiency of public administration in this country and I do not feel very happy about the net effect of his argument. It may be that there is something in it, and it may be that an opportunity may be taken in another place to strengthen this Bill somewhat. On those grounds, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Slaughter of animals intended for food]:
THE EARL OF HOME: I think it would be convenient to your Lordships to put together the Amendment to Clause 12 and all the Amendments from Clause 12 to Clause 58. All these Amendments are consequential on the separate Slaughter-houses Bill which was introduced in yon Lordships' House last week. It may be convenient to take them en bloc,, as they raise no question of principle and are merely administrative. I beg to move the Amendments Nos. 3 to 21 on the Marshalled List.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 38, at end insert—
(b) the expression ' slaughter-house 'means any 'premises lawfully used for slaughtering animals the flesh of which is intended for sale for human consumption.")
Clause 13, page 10, line 14, at end insert—
("(5) For the purposes of this section the expression knacker's yard ' has the same meaning as in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.")
Clause 14, page 10, line 15, leave out subsection (1)
Clause 15, page 11, line 40, leave out from ("regulations") to ("of") in line 41 and insert ("in force under section thirteen")
Page 12, line 30, leave out (" Secretary of State ") and insert (" Ministers ");
Leave out Clause 23; Leave out Clause 24; Leave out Clause 25;
Clause 27, page 19, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 23 and insert (" the council of a county or of a large burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947; and any small burgh within the meaning of that Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be included in the county in which it is situated.");
Clause 37, page 25, line 13, leave out ("or byelaws")
Page 25, line 21, leave out ("or byelaws")
Clause 40, page 27, line 17, leave out ("byelaw")
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("byelaw")
Clause 42, page 29. line 23. leave out ("order or byelaw") and insert ("or order")
Page 29, line 40, leave out subsection (8).
Clause 44, page 31, line 1, leave out ("or byelaws")
Clause 46, page 31, line 45, leave out ("order or byelaw") and insert ("or order")
Page 32. line 8, after ("regulation") insert ("or order")
Clause 58, page 37, line 24. leave out from ("Act") to end of line 27.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF HOME: I thought I might have had to make an explanation of this Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Woolton has given such a convincing definition of micro-biological assays that I do not think I need add to it. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 37. line 35, leave out ("does not include") and insert (" includes micro-biological assay, but no other form of ").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: The same comment that I made on the earlier Amendments applies to the remaining Amendments to the Bill: they are all consequential on the introduction of the Slaughterhouses Bill. It might be convenient to your Lordships to take them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 39, leave out lines 4to7;
Page 39, leave out lines 40to43;
Clause 60, page 40, line 20, leave out ("drugs, slaughter-houses or knackers' yards") and insert ("or drugs");
Clause 61, page 41, line 6, leave out ("order, regulation or byelaw") and insert ("regulation or order")—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments moved—
First Schedule, page 42, line 8, at end insert ("concerned ");
Third Schedule, page 44, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 31.
Third Schedule, page 44, line 31. column 3, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Third Schedule, page 45, line 8, leave out lines 8 and 9.
Third Schedule, page 45, line 27, leave out lines 27 and 28.
In the Title, leave out ("drugs, slaughterhouses and knackers' yards") and insert ("and drugs")—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedules and Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.