§ 4.23 p.m.
§ House again in Committee.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONI 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 COMMITTEESI 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 WINSTERWill Amendment No. 12 be moved separately?
§ 4.35 p.m.
§ THE DUKE OF WELLINGTONSpeaking 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 OGMOREI 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 WINSTERI 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 METHUENThe 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 BLACKFORDI 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 MANSFIELDIt 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 SELKIRKNo it does not.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDI 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 HARLECHI 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 FREYBERGMay 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 JOWITTI 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 SELKIRKI 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 HUNTINGDONThe 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 SELKIRKI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKNone the less, there are 2,000 pictures there for which the noble Lord was a Trustee.
LORD METHUENThe 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 SELKIRKI 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 empoweredto 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 METHUENI 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 SELKIRKI 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 WINSTERSurely, 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 SELKIRKI 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 BALCARRESMay 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 SELKIRKSo 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 BALCARRESIt 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 JOWITTI 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 BALCARRESThe reason was that I said all I could possibly say when the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, was sunning himself in Africa.
§ EARL JOWITTI 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 SALISBURYAs 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 JOWITTI 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 SALISBURYI 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 HUNTINGDONIn 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 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 saidThe 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 SELKIRKI 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 SELKIRKThat is my reading.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONThat 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 SELKIRKI 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 HADDINGTONI 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 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—
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 saidThe 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 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 SELKIRKThe 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 WELLINGTONThe 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 SELKIRKI 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 WELLINGTONThis 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 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 saidI 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 METHUENAs 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 HAMPTONI 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 JOWITTThe 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 BLACKFORDExactly 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 BLACKFORDTwo 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 METHUENMay 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 BLACKFORDI do not wish to take up the time of the House, but the noble Lord knows that that will not do.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe 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 HUNTINGDONObviously 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 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 saidWhen 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 MANSFIELDIt 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 RAGLANI 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 BLACKFORDI 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 BLACKFORDThat 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 JOWITTI 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 KINNAIRDMight 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 STRABOLGIMay 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 BALCARRESI 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 HUNTINGDONI 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.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKAfter 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 SELKIRKThis 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 SELKIRKThis 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 SELKIRKThis 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 WELLINGTONI 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.