Lords Sitting of 12 November 1959

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

THE LANE COLLECTION
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the reported agreement which has been reached over the Lane pictures.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, I should like to make a statement on this subject, which the Prime Minister is also making in another place, some time soon after half past three.

FUTURE BUSINESS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to ask a question of the noble Earl the Leader of the House on Business. We are rather concerned as to what may be the ultimate effects on the defence organisation of this country of No. 1 and No. 2 of the Service Departments' Supply Orders. According to the Paper issued today, No. 2 is to be considered next Tuesday. That is rather too short notice for some of us who have been busy on other things to go into the matter in detail; and it is a question of whether or not it is possible to postpone that debate. If not, what other arrangements satisfactory to the House can be made for having a real debate upon the future of defence production, and civil aviation production
578
as well, in relation to the new functions of Departments after the abolition of the Ministry of Supply?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I rather think that we shall have to take this business on Tuesday at some time. I understand that noble Lords opposite do not wish—and I do not think anybody does—to interfere with the agricultural debate, which is very important and on which a number of people would wish to speak. Therefore, it might be possible to put this business second on Tuesday. If that were not possible, I think that, with the co-operation of noble Lords opposite, I should like to discuss the matter through the usual channels. It might be possible to have a very short, probing debate on Tuesday, and then to arrange later whatever may be necessary. Perhaps we could discuss this matter through the usual channels and come to an arrangement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I shall be very happy to fall in with that suggestion, if we can have the usual conversations.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material, and to make provision as to the disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not rise to discuss this Bill, but merely to ask whether the noble Viscount can tell us yet what ideas the Government have about when this Bill will be discussed. This is quite an important subject, and it would be helpful to know what time we shall have in order to study the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I wonder whether we could discuss that through the usual channels also? I gather that a firm date has not yet emerged, or crystallised.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIPS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
3.12 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be now approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bacup, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Southwold, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Elland, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1959
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, this Order is a pure formality. The functions of the Ministry of National Service have already been transferred to the Minister of Labour, who was appointed by Her Majesty the Queen as Minister of Labour only. He has the former functions of the Ministry of National Service which were formally transferred by an Order made last month which did not require an Affirmative Resolution. But under the Ministers of
580
the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, in order that a Government Department may be dissolved the Affirmative Resolution procedure is necessary, and a draft Order has to be approved by both Houses. This is the Order the approval of which I now beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Ministry of National Service (Dissolution) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 27th of October last.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I ask a question upon business before the noble Viscount begins, if I am in order? May I make the suggestion that when, as to-day and frequently on other days, we have a very short list of speakers—I am not quarrelling with the rule; I think that it is an exemplary one—the debate could be thrown open to what they call in another place cut and thrust"? I think that it would add to the variety and interest of our debates. I put this forward only as a suggestion. Perhaps it is possible to do this even as the Rules stand now.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I thought that the noble Viscount the leader of the Opposition was rising in reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is "cutting" rather than thrusting!
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that any noble Lord can talk about anything. There is no restriction that I know upon any noble Lord saying what he wishes on any subject. But whether he has an audience is another matter.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I am quite satisfied.

POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Population (Statistics) Bill. The main purposes of this Bill are two: to render permanent the application of the Population Statistics Act of 1938, as amended, and to provide for obtaining information on causes of still-births for the whole of Britain and not simply for Scotland as at present, by means of a certificate from a doctor or, failing a doctor, a midwife stating the cause of death and the estimated duration of pregnancy. The Bill also provides small alterations in detail in the particulars which may be required on the registration of birth or of death. I think that I can say that the purposes of the Bill are supported by the Medical Research Council, for which I am responsible in Parliament.
To deal with these purposes in order, the Population (Statistics) Act of 1938 introduced a new source of information upon which the authorities are able to draw for population statistics. Amongst the more important other sources are the censuses of population taken every ten years, the routine statistics derived from information recorded in the registers of births, still-births, marriages and deaths and information on population movement derived from emigration and immigration returns. The information under the original Act is obtained at registration of a birth, still-birth or death. But in order to preserve the confidential character of the information it is not recorded in the registers, and this will still apply to the information to be obtained under the schedule to the present Bill.
Some discussion of the principles involved took place in Parliament at the time of the passing of the 1938 Act and resulted in a considerable modification of its terms and also in its temporary character. As some of your Lordships may remember, it was the occasion in another place of a speech in verse by Sir Alan Herbert, which caused considerable amusement. I remember that after
582
a number of stanzas every stanza ended with words something like these:
"And the Minister still wondered why the population fell."
I am hopeful that the Muse will not descend on any of your Lordships this afternoon in a similar way. At any rate, it was partly the effect of this historic speech which at that time caused the Act to be limited in its duration to ten years.
That brought it up to 1948. In those ten years no complaints had been made about the working of the Act; and since it has been prolonged year by year for a further period of ten years by the operation of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I think it is relevant to say that in each of the last two years, when use has been made of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act there has been criticism in another place. It was said that this was not a proper use of that Act and that after twenty years' experience of the working of the Population (Statistics) Act it was time for Parliament to make up its mind to put it permanently on the Statute Book. I am bound to say that there was a good deal of substance in that criticism. And that is what it is proposed to do by the first subsection of the first clause of the Bill before your Lordships to-day The second subsection of the first clause substitutes a new Schedule for the old Schedule which gives effect to some detailed changes in the information which may be required under the earlier Act. There are one or two additional items now thought, in the light of experience, or in changes of emphasis and genetical studies, to be required, and there are some smaller modifications.
I do not know that in a Second Reading speech it is necessary for me to deal in detail with any of the items so as to require separate analysis. There are changes in both directions, and perhaps I should not be wrong to say that, on balance, the new Schedule is perhaps a littler simpler and less onerous than the old one. It is really no more than a reproduction of the 1938 Schedule brought up to date in the light of our experience and in the light of modern requirements and modern studies. The most important novelties, if that is what they can be called, are the requirement that the age of the father should be stated, in addition to the age of the

583
mother, in the case of a registration of birth, and that a separate category of divorced is added to the three existing categories on the registration of death.
As regards Clauses 2 and 3, the general effect of these is to apply to England and Wales a practice which has been the law of Scotland since 1939 under the Registration of Still Births (Scotland) Act, and which I understand has again given rise to very little complaint. A large number of medical organisations have been consulted, and I am told that they are in general agreement with these proposals. They include the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Royal College of Midwives and the Central Midwives' Board. At present, both in Scotland and in England doctors and midwives provide certificates of still-birth, but in England and Wales these certificates certify only that the child has not been born live, whereas in Scotland, under the Act which I have mentioned, they give what is considered to be by the certifying doctor or midwife the cause of the birth not having been a live birth. The additional burden on the professions in England and Wales will therefore be relatively small. Information from this register upon which the registers of stillbirths are made is not open to the public and is available only at the discretion of the Registrar-General. The information is required because it is considered desirable to obtain more statistical data which could shed more light on the causes of still-births.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, do I understand that the additional information which is being sought under the Bill is already provided in Scotland, and that the only change will be that in future it will also be provided in England?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is thy: general position which I was explaining. I should, for complete accuracy, say that under the Bill both in Scotland and England the certificate is now to contain the estimated duration of pregnancy, and that is new to Scotland as well as to England. But, in substance, apart from that, the position is that we are applying to England and Wales something which since 1939 has been the law of Scotland.
584
It is, I think, generally known that infant mortality has been declining steadily in this country in recent years, but the decline is largely accounted for by a reduction in the mortality of children aged between one week and one year. Mortality of children in the first week of life has not declined as rapidly, nor has the still-birth rate shown much variation. Moreover, the statistics establish what at first sight is a close and significant connection between the causes of early infant deaths in the first week of life and the causes of still-births, which would be made available as a result of this Bill, if it should become law. That I think deals with all the substantial clauses in the Bill, and in those circumstances I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill for two reasons: first, that it reduces the number of measures which have to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and makes permanent an Act of Parliament which has become established and is recognised as a permanent measure; and secondly, because we agree that such alterations as are being made in this Bill are an improvement and will add to our knowledge on this subject.
I think that is really all one need say on the matter, but I should like to raise one point which has rather troubled me for some time in connection with Censuses, and possibly this one in particular. We have a population Census every ten years which gives us an immense amount of valuable information. I should say that the report of the Census is one of the most valuable statistical documents that we publish. Unfortunately, it is not available to the public until some five years after the Census is taken, with the result that the information is very much out of date. I have recently been trying to do some research into the population growth since the last Census, and it is very difficult to get this information. I think I can now get information about the 1951 Census, but it is a little late.
I wonder how soon after this information is obtained it is available to the public generally. I can well appreciate

585
that information about still-births can be of great value to the medical profession and to the general public, but if it is not going to be available to the general public for a number of years after the information is obtained it may well be out of date, and even possibly misleading. This is not a controversial subject, and I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would look into this question and see whether it is not possible to ensure that the benefits of these various Censuses are made available to the public at a much earlier date than appears to be the case at the present time.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his welcome of this Bill, which, if I may say so, seems to be based on common sense and is in no sense controversial. In a sense it is dry, in that it is statistical, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I feel that the results of it will be of considerable use, and I am sure that it will be welcomed on all sides of the House.
3.29 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Silkin I welcome this Bill. I think he will find that there is a thing called the one per cent. sample census which is made available much more quickly. The only way, in fact, that the great volume of data which the Census produces can be dealt with is by sampling, and the one per cent. sample comes out about a year after the Census and gives a fairly accurate guide. I do not think, from my experience of stillbirth certificates, there is usually much delay, and nothing like the delay that occurs over a major Census. One was fascinated, however, by one point in this Bill—namely, why the inquiry as to the age of the father? Is there any a priori evidence of declining fertility in the male, or what led the Registrar General to require this particular piece of information? I am sure there is some good reason, but it would be nice to know why he puts this in, or suggests that it should be put in, for the first time.
3.30 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, as the House is not very busy today, perhaps I may indulge in a certain amount of reminiscence with regard to this Bill. In a way, I was a midwife of the Bill which was introduced in 1938.
586
As it was brought into the House in its original form that Bill was so full of defects and so repugnant to the good sense of quite a large number of people that I was put up to make certain proposed alterations. The alterations were more considerable than I have ever known in a Bill, because only one-third of the original Bill remained and something like two-thirds was new matter in the place of that which had been taken out.
The House may be amused to know one of the things that gave rise to discontent. In the original Bill it had been proposed that a father, in putting the facts on the certificate for birth, must put in the numbers of his wife's brothers and sisters and, further than that, he must declare the precise previous childbirth of his wife. Both those proposals gave rise to considerable misgivings among the ordinary population. I took the opportunity of canvassing fellow Members of the House of Commons. I discussed it with quite a large number of them, and I think that only one or two, out of quite a large number of Members, could be perfectly certain how many brothers and sisters their wife had had at some time or other before or after their marriage. The result of these proposals made it perfectly plain to Sir Kingsley Wood, who was at that time Minister of Health, that he had to drop the Bill practically as it stood and substitute almost entirely a new Bill in its place. I thought your Lordships' House might be amused at the early history of the Bill which is now being discussed in its new form.
Apart from those rather amusing reminiscences I regard the principle as of very great importance, and I should have thought that it was of considerable importance for medical knowledge to know the average age of the father of a child, as well as the average age of the mother. I should have thought it would provide quite important statistical information, and would not involve the husband in any very serious consequences. As we all know, it is not the man who minds his age being disclosed; it is the woman who prefers to have her age hidden from the public eye. That is certainly a point which I am glad the Government are introducing into this new Bill.
The other point which was raised by the noble Viscount, and which seems to

587
me of distinct importance, is the amalgamation of the law of England and of Scotland with regard to the question of still-births. There has always been a considerable obstacle to statistics in comparing the Scottish figures of stillbirths with the English figures. The Scottish principle is the better one, in introducing the idea of the particulars of still-births, and I think it is of great advantage that the Government have now decided to amalgamate the two laws of England and of Scotland, and to choose as the pattern the better of the two. I wish, therefore, for my part, both from a reminiscent point of view, and also from the little knowledge of statistics that I possess, to welcome the Bill which the Government are introducing at this time.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have contributed to our discussion. Of course, the recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, are of great interest to us. In an age when people pretend—quite wrongly, in my opinion, for various reasons—that the individual Member of Parliament wields but little power, it is as well to remind ourselves of exactly what the noble Lord has told us, namely, that when this Bill was introduced for the first time in 1938 it contained a number of features where the statistician, for quite legitimate reasons, had imposed more than common sense would think desirable upon the individual informant. Immediately there was a considerable outcry from Back Bench Members (I think from both Houses, but certainly from the House of Commons) culminating in Sir Alan Herbert's versification speech. The result was that a very different Bill emerged from the Parliamentary process from what had gone into it, and I think most of us would say a very much better Bill.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would say that the request for the consideration of the time within which the Census returns should become available will, of course,
588
be considered. I do not think that I am in a position to give him an answer now. As regards the material available on this Bill, the material on the 1938 Act, which is now rendered permanent and modified by the Schedule is, unless I am mistaken, collated and digested with the population statistics, when the Registrar-General puts them out next. The actual detailed information remains confidential.
The position with regard to the stillbirths is slightly different. There is actually a register in existence, which will remain permanently in existence. Once the details are on the register, and given a proper case for the exercise of his discretion by the Registrar-General, I think I am right in saying that there is no time limit before which a proper inquirer would be given a sight of the register. But, of course, they remain confidential as regards the general public. The statistics would come out as and when statistics of this sort were published.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the age of the father is required under this Bill because, of course, medical research is more interested now than previously in the question of human mutations. It is interesting to know whether, or to what extent, the age of the father may affect the rate of mutation in the human being, because it enables one to hazard some kind of opinion as to the effect of radioactivity upon human mutations. Although it is bound to take some time to build up any significant statistics about anything so small as the proportion of mutational births, it is a matter which is now considered sufficiently significant and sufficiently relevant to be included in the questions asked. In that respect, the original form of the 1938 Act has now been reverted to, because it is found to have some scientific value. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his welcome to the Bill, and to thank your Lordships for the friendly way in which it has been received.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE LANE COLLECTION
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making a speech on the subject of the Lane pictures in another place, and the statement which he is making is as follows:
"I have to inform the House that an Agreement has been concluded between the Commissioners of Public Works of the Irish Republic and the Trustees of the National Gallery, London, in regard to the Lane Pictures.
"A copy of the Agreement is being placed in the Library. It provides that the thirty-nine Lane pictures will be divided into two groups, which will be lent, in turn, for public exhibition in Dublin for successive periods of five years, over a total period of twenty years.
"Her Majesty's Government welcome these arrangements and consider that for the duration of the Agreement they offer a solution of a question which has been the subject of controversy for a long time. They will not themselves during the currency of the Agreement initiate or give support to any proposal for an alternative arrangement concern-the Lane Pictures.
"I trust that the conclusion of this Agreement will be welcomed by the House."
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, have had a part in bringing about this agreement which we hope will bring to an end a controversy which has been stubborn and undesirable and the cause of friction between our two countries, and I hope the Agreement will have the approval of your Lordships.
3.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I can assure the House that the Agreement certainly has the approval of this side. It is a tribute to common sense and it makes one wonder why such an arrangement could not have been arrived at years ago without all the subsequent friction that has arisen. I am bound to say that sometimes the most obvious things are the things that are most difficult to see until some bright
590
person comes along with the idea. To me this seems such an obvious solution, at any rate for the next twenty years—what will happen thereafter I should not like to say—that it is a surprise that it has not been thought of before.
I should like, also on behalf of my noble friends, to pay tribute to those noble Lords and others who have had a part in arriving at this amicable understanding. Having come to an arrangement on what was perhaps the most difficult of the problems confronting the two countries, it may be possible now to commence activities on some of the less difficult problems. I very much hope that this start having been made, many other problems that exist in the relationship between Great Britain and Eire may be similarly solved by common-sense means.
LORD REA: My Lords, the matter which is before your Lordships now has never been controversial in the Party political sense, and I am quite sure the Agreement which has been arrived at will be most warmly welcomed everywhere. I have had the opportunity of asking a few of my friends who have been concerned with this matter whether they do not consider that the Government's refusal to make any change in the Agreement during the twenty years is perhaps not as generous as it might be, and there is no mention of what will happen after twenty years. The impression I get from my friends is that their relief and gratitude that this matter has come to a satisfactory conclusion is so intense that I think we can all welcome it with real sincerity and be very grateful to those who have brought it about.
3.45 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome this Agreement. Your Lordships will remember how I once, in 1953, had the temerity to divide the House on a more far-reaching proposition, and how on that occasion the Government of the day said that they envisaged rather a solution by some special loan arrangement. Time went by and nothing seemed to be happening. My noble friend, the Duke of Wellington (I am sorry that he cannot be in his place, but he is abroad), finding me one afternoon in the Prince's Chamber in a state of dejection arising from this situation, suggested to me the formula which has proved, after some

591
years of discussion, acceptable to the authorities concerned. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Duke for devising this civilised and practical way of sharing the enjoyment of the Collection. I remember his pointing out in the Prince's Chamber so many years ago that by rotating the pictures in two halves, the hanging, problem, which would have been caused by sending all thirty-nine pictures to and fro at one time, would be avoided, since each half could in turn occupy the space vacated by the other.
Although nobody is committed to anything beyond twenty years, it is very much in my mind and heart that the arrangement is capable of renewal. Although no change of legal ownership is made by the arrangement, ownership is the least important thing about these works of art. They will never be sold and they cannot be eaten. The important thing is that they can now be enjoyed by the citizens of both London and Dublin. Any absolute division of the Collection would have led inevitably to a feeling that one half was better than the other, whereas under the arrangement arrived at it really does not matter which picture is in which half, as the other half will always be coming later.
I should like to conclude by paying tribute to the way in which the trustees of the National Gallery, notably Mr. John Witt, and my noble friends, Lord Robbins and Lord Chandos, have worked to find out how far they could go to meet Dublin's moral claims while keeping within their legal obligations as Trustees, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who has been tireless in exploring avenues and turning stones—not that I am comparing anyone to a stone. Last, but not least, I must express my admiration of the tireless way in which Professor Bodkin has worked throughout a great part of his life to give to Dublin the opportunity to enjoy the Collection which his old friend Sir Hugh Lane originally formed for that fair City.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether this is really purely a loan arrangement? Ownership of the pictures remains, I take it, with the National Gallery in London. Further, over the period of years—I think the
592
noble Earl said it was twenty years—will all the pictures have been exhibited in Dublin as well as in London?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the answer to both those questions is, Yes. This is purely a loan arrangement, and the pictures will all be seen in Dublin one or twice before the twenty years are up.
3.48 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, allusion has been made to the part that I played in bringing about this Agreement. Perhaps you will bear with me if I make two observations. The first relates to the responsibility for the Agreement. I have noticed, in certain organs of public opinion, the suggestion that this Agreement was reached as a result of the activities of Ministers. Without wishing to detract at all from the dignity and activity of Ministers, I should like to assure you—and I think it important that it should be said—that this is not due to the activities of Ministers. It is quite true that at the beginning the Prime Minister forwarded, so to speak, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to the Trustees of the National Gallery, with a friendly letter commending him to our attention. But at no time did the Prime Minister exercise any pressure on the Trustees in the execution of their trust. It is true, too, that we received courteous assistance from the Department over which the noble Earl who has made the statement has presided. But this decision, for better or worse, is a decision of the Trustees alone. I think it is very important, in order to clarify the constitutional position of the Board of the National Gallery, that that fact should be clearly stated.
The second point relates to the decision itself. There is no doubt that this is a momentous decision from the point of view of the people of this country for whom the Trustees of the National Gallery act. It means that from now on, unless some friendly benefactor appears, or unless the Government provide some compensatory funds, an important part of the collection at Trafalgar Square will be impoverished of a number of pictures, some of which are among the greatest masterpieces of modern times. Speaking personally, I cannot recollect in the whole of my career a matter which has caused me

593
more anxiety and heart-searching. Was it the right thing to do? Were we, as Trustees, acting properly?
I do not believe that any good purpose is served in going into the back history of this matter. The detail of that history—what Hugh Lane intended; whether his codicil was a draft, or whether it was intended to be valid, and so on and so forth—are matters on which most of the people who could bear first-hand witness are dead, and matters on which sensitive and honourable men have taken two views. People can argue until they are blue in the face about the rights and wrongs of this early controversy without, I think, reaching an agreed conclusion. But, speaking for myself, there has been one guiding line—a simple guiding line—through all these anxious deliberations. This Agreement is the fulfilment of an undertaking.
At the time when the dispute first arose, the Trustees of the National Gallery intimated that they were willing to consider some settlement by way of loan. At a later stage, when the dispute had broadened out and was the subject in the mid-'twenties of a Parliamentary inquiry, the recommendation was made by the Parliamentary inquiry that the settlement should be made on a loan basis, and the Trustees of the National Gallery indicated their willingness to act in that way. For reasons which I fully understand, our friends on the other side of the Irish Channel at that time felt unable to accept that offer. But I have asked myself throughout these negotiations: would it have been the right thing for the Trustees of the National Gallery, when they were asked whether, in the event of a willingness to accept such an agreement being shown on the other side, they were willing to implement their promise, to say "No"? My answer has been unequivocally that we should have done wrong to refuse to negotiate.
My Lords, do not think it does not hurt. Do not think that it is not a great sacrifice. One of the great privileges of being a Trustee of the National Gallery is that you can walk around the Gallery when the people have gone away and can enjoy the priceless masterpieces committed to your care. I should not like to say how often in the course of
594
the last three years, wandering around the Gallery, I have found myself turning away from the Impressionist Gallery in misery at the thought of the impoverishment which the Agreement which I was negotiating would involve. But if you think a thing is right, the fact that it hurts ought not to stop you—and I think it was right. I hope very much that our friends on the other side of the Channel will take what has happened in the spirit in which it was intended from our side—as a token of respect and friendship to a people divided from us by tragic events and decisions, but united with us by a common culture to which they themselves have made such magnificent contributions.
3.55 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, what has been said on this matter is, so far as I am concerned, completely sufficient, and I rise only as I am in the House and lest my silence be misunderstood. I should certainly like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, who has done so much in this matter, in paying tribute to the Governments concerned, and, so far as I am concerned, to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. I do not want to withhold or to extend credit which would be embarrassing to any Party, but I should like to pay tribute to the Governments concerned and to their officials; to the Trustees of the National Gallery, most noticeably the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington; to certain public men, of various Parties in this country, and certain men outside politics, such as Sir Alec Martin, who has borne such eloquent testimony. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said, one name stands out in the history of this matter—the name of Professor Bodkin, who has kept alive for forty-four years the memory and intentions of his friend. This must be a happy day for Professor Bodkin, and for many others.
I must not start again the controversy with Lord Robbins, but I cannot quite accept the emphasis in his historical account that this Agreement must be taken as a concession mainly on the Irish side. If that were so I do not think it would be in any way discreditable to Ireland; but so far as I am concerned there has been a change of heart in this country in which many of those whom

595
I have mentioned have played a notable part. I salute both countries, and I echo in their entirety the final words of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
3.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if there were any rules in this House we should have strained and broken them all in discussing this Agreement; so I
596
will confine myself to saying that I am extremely grateful for the reception that this statement has received. I think this Agreement represents a happy solution. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has impressed upon your Lordships that the Ministers have been inactive, so I need say no more.
House adjourned at two minutes before four o'clock.