HL Deb 12 November 1959 vol 219 cc589-96

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.