The next business is Deputy Figgis's motion: —"That the Dáil ask the Executive Council to press upon the British Government the return to Dublin of the pictures mentioned in the unwitnessed codicil to Sir Hugh Lane's will."
[DAIL IN COMMITTEE.] - THE LANE PICTURES.
Agreed.
I hail Deputy Gorey as a prophet. It is not my intention to give any lengthy attention to this motion that I put now before the Dáil, because, it having been stated by Deputy Gorey that the matter is agreed, it is, of course, unquestionably agreed. The circumstances and the facts are generally fairly well known, and may only very briefly be resumed here. They have been raised before in this Dáil and they were raised in the Second Dáil, and they were the matter of attention of the Provisional Government both in the Treaty negotiations and the negotiations that followed them. It was well known that the late General Michael Collins was for some time actively concerned with the attempt to get these pictures back, according to the intention of Sir Hugh Lane as expressed in the codicil to his will. I need not go into the facts prior to that copiously, but simply to read the opening sentence of it, in which he expressed his firm wish that Dublin should have these pictures that are of very considerable value, and the value of which will increase with time. They would, in fact, make a very useful addition to what is now in an incomplete state in the Harcourt Street Gallery, and which, with the addition of these pictures that now lie in the next Gallery, make a very fine collection of modern art, which it was his intention that the citizens of Dublin should have. This codicil reads: "This is the codicil to my last will, to the effect that the group of pictures now at the National Gallery, London, which I have bequeathed to that Institution, I now bequeath to the City of Dublin, provided that a suitable building is provided for them within five years of my death." That codicil he signed. It bears his signature in two places, but it was not witnessed. It was signed in 1915. Sir Hugh Lane perished in the sinking of the "Lusitania." Then certain circumstances arose that brought this question—and I desire to give special emphasis to it—unfortunately, into the political arena. I remember, at a time when I was in England the following year, mentioning this matter to art critics in London, and while they admitted quite clearly, what has never been in question—that is, that Sir Hugh Lane did intend that this city should have this collection of pictures— the intention being clear, they, nevertheless, added: "But what have you in Ireland done during this past twelve months to deserve them?"
It is unfortunate that attitude should have been taken at the time. I believe it did contribute considerably to the result. In any case, the position is now tangled by a legal consideration. I am sorry that Deputy Fitzgibbon cannot be here to-day owing to a family bereavement. He had promised to deal with the legal aspect of the case. It was his opinion, I think I might say it is very largely the opinion of competent lawyers, that the will was in fact, having been drawn in war years, with the codicil, an effective and legal instrument. But though it was such, it does happen that the earlier will to which it was a codicil has been administered and now, before Dublin can get the pictures back, a special Act of Parliament becomes necessary in England. It is with a view to getting that Act adopted that I have been asked to move, and I have the greatest pleasure in moving, the motion which I now put before the Dáil. It may be asked how it is that this motion should be moved precisely at this moment. It is well known that the Provisional Government was actively concerned in the matter, and I know that the present Executive Council, from the President down, have also been actively concerned in the matter. But I am also advised that circumstances are such at the present moment that if there could be, as no doubt there should be, an expression of opinion from the united Oireachtas, and that expression of opinion coming from both Houses could be presented to the British Government at the moment, due to events and circumstances into which I will not go, the British Government would be more prepared now than it was at an earlier stage to give the legal facilities required before Dublin could get possession of the pictures according to the intention of Sir Hugh Lane. For that reason I briefly put this motion before the Dáil. A motion in the same terms has to-day been moved and adopted by the Seanad, and if this motion can be moved and adopted without any great waste of time, seeing that we are actually resolved and determined about the matter, and both such resolutions coming into the hands of the Executive Council, it would give assistance to the Executive Council at this particular moment owing to the circumstances I have mentioned. For that reason I move the motion standing in my name.
I beg to second the motion.
I support this motion. I do so because I understand that there are certain objections raised in England against giving effect to the desire of Sir Hugh Lane on the ground that it is only a small coterie of people in Dublin who have any anxiety about these pictures. I want to say just one word in favour of the motion for the purpose of showing that it is not merely a small coterie of people, but a very general desire from the people of the country that these pictures should be placed on exhibtion in Ireland permanently with a view to creating an art centre, and to set a taste, or, shall I say, to improve a taste, and generally to establish a higher level of culture in respect to pictures. I want to say that it is not because of the very considerable value in monetary terms we should consider this question of the return of those pictures. Undoubtedly pictures do acquire a very great monetary value when they are good, and universally regarded as good, but it is from the art point of view that the country is demanding the pictures as desired and designed by Sir Hugh Lane, who had collected them. I therefore wish to add to the speech of Deputy Figgis, seconded by Deputy Magennis, the view of this side of the Dáil that it is the desire that the Executive Council should press for the return to Ireland of these pictures.
At this stage An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.
Is doigh líom go gceapan gach éinne gur ceart go dtabharfaé na pictuirí thar n-ais. Cé na bhfuil aon difriacht ins an Dáil mar gheall air sin ní dóigh liom gur ceart go nglacfaí leis an rún ins an bhfuirm seo. Is fearr go dtairneófaé an rún siar.
The object of the resolution that has been brought before us is very clearly expressed, and that object has been concurred in with unanimity as a matter of justice and a matter of advantage to this country and to this capital city. At the same time I do not think that the resolution in this form ought to be accepted. It may create a precedent for future resolutions. A resolution giving a direction to the Executive Council on behalf of the Dáil would, I think, create altogether a new precedent in our proceedings, more especially when the direction given by that resolution is one that requires the Executive Council to take certain action with regard to another Government. I press that point on the mover of the resolution and on the members of the Dáil. They should not cast a resolution in that form. The effect will be that if that becomes a precedent it will become possible to take away from the Executive Council and from the Ministry the full responsibility that ought to rest upon them for any action of importance they might take, especially in regard to another Government. I am not suggesting a change of words. I take it for granted that the object obtains unanimity from the Dáil. I have not heard of the proceedings which took place at the Seanad, but I am sure that the same unanimity would be given to it there; but the Government certainly could not accept as acceptable a resolution put in this form. It is a form that would be quite in place in a resolution of censure were the Dáil differing from the action of the Government; but where no censure is implied, where the mover of the resolution has stated that the Provisional Government and the present Government, so far as he is aware, have not been inconsiderate or neglectful in any degree in this matter, I think a resolution worded such as this should not be passed.
There is no intention whatsoever to dictate to the Executive Council. Nothing is further from our purpose. Neither is it intended to ask the Dáil to give a direction. Possibly the resolution might have been more effective if we had used an ancient formula and said, "We humbly petition the Executive." Instead we used ordinary simple words. We ask the Executive. Now, to ask is one thing; to instruct the Ministry to do the same thing is quite another. Inasmuch as the Minister for Education regards this as something about which the Oireachtas should be unanimous, one sees attention is drawn to the harmless character of the words used by Deputy Figgis. I think he should allow us to have the resolution passed unanimously. I am as strongly opposed as he is to the procedure he thought was taken. Undoubtedly it would be incompatible with control over public policy, and with control over the outlook of a foreign Government, for a private member to seek by resolution to control that policy and to bring pressure to bear on it by voting. It would be unless the Ministry had been glaringly pursuing a course of action which was at variance with the expression of opinion of the representatives in the Dáil, but the Deputy who introduced this humble petition of advice was careful to give credit to the Provisional Government, of which the Minister for Education was a distinguished member. He pointed out, in the short history he gave of the proceedings up to this, that the Provisional Government had not been supine in the matter—quite the reverse—and the present Dáil simply seeks to add strength to whatever may be done in this behalf by the Executive Ministry. Personally I do not like that our Government should petition the British Government to do something which requires the introduction of a new Act of Parliament. Personally the thing is repugnant to me. I make that confession. On the other hand, the gain to the Irish Nation is so great that it seems to me to make a matter which is only sentiment stand in the way of securing such valuable aid to the higher education of our people would be insisting too much on form and ritual. When I balance the measure of gain and loss it seems to me, while I do not like going to ask an Act of Parliament to be introduced, on the other hand the advantage gained in the matter is too great. The validity of the codicil in question has been seriously debated by lawyers, as you know. The late Sir Hugh Lane was not a combatant, and to make a will disposing of his property merely by a signed instrument not witnessed has been held by certain lawyers as not a privilege given to the ordinary civilian. The equity of the matter is clear, and there was a period when it was obvious to everyone that the better mind of England was in favour of allowing this country to have the advantages which the testator intended by his codicil. I do hope the Minister will withdraw his objection, inasmuch as it is merely to a form of words which is not implied.
It is not to a form of words I object, but to creating a precedent in a matter of this kind.
The question of wording should not impose between this Dáil and the unanimity which it has actually in fact with regard to the return of pictures and general approval of the action hitherto taken in this matter by the Executive Council, and with regard to endeavouring to strengthen the hand of the Executive Council in circumstances which prevail at the moment. The renewal of negotiations might now cause the return of pictures where action a month ago might have failed. The suggestion has been made by Deputy Johnson that this form of words might be suitable: "That the Dáil approves of action being taken by the Executive Council to secure the return to Dublin of the pictures mentioned in the unwitnessed codicil to Sir Hugh Lane's will." If that would meet the case of the Minister it would meet my case fully, and I am perfectly sure that of my seconder.
I am afraid that would have very much the same aspect. It would be a very curious thing for the Dáil to approve of future action of the Executive. I do not think that would cover the ground. You would find it would create a very inconvenient precedent. Other people might in the future bring forward very mischievous motions indeed.
I am not quite clear that I understand the objection to the last proposal, but the intention here is to strengthen the hands of the Government in any action they may see fit to take. We have had the assurance that the Government is taking action in this matter. It is not unusual for the Ministry to accept the support of the Dáil in any action they are taking, and that is the intention, and I think it is the meaning, of this proposal. Whether it is action that has been taken, that is being taken, or that may be taken—provided the action that is to be taken in future follows on the precedent of the action which has already been taken—is to support the action of the Ministry in endeavouring to secure the return of the pictures to Dublin. It does not even mention the British Government. In that form, or some such form, I think it ought to be accepted.
I think such a form would not in the least strengthen the hands of the Executive in the present circumstances. It would, of course, strengthen the hands of the Executive if its attitude in regard to the matter was challenged outside or by a section of the Dáil. When it is not challenged, this form would have no effect at all, as far as I can see, in strengthening the hands of the Executive, and certainly, as the Minister for Education has said, there is cause to take care that we do not set up a precedent of having motions brought in instructing the Executive to take action, either by direct instruction or by implication, without having regard, perhaps to every feature of the case. I am not thinking now of the pictures, but there might be things which it would be thoroughly desirable for the Executive to do and, yet, the Executive might have reasons for knowing that the time is not opportune, or that there were certain difficulties in the way. It might not be in the public interest to state these objections, and it would be undesirable for us to have the precedent of Deputies coming along proposing motions giving instructions to the Executive to do things at a time when the Executive might know it was inopportune to be asked to do them, and when it might not without, perhaps, injuring the interest that was concerned be able to argue in the fullest detail the reasons for delaying or against. I think, also, that any form of asking the Executive by a majority is definitely an instruction to the Executive, and even if the thing is put in a little more oblique way we could hardly get rid of the instruction. Instructions ought not to be given except, as somebody said, when the Executive is pursuing a line that dissatisfies the Dáil, and when something in the form of a censure is implied and is intended.
No censure is implied or is intended. I made that perfectly clear. What I did make clear was that it was felt that if a resolution came both from the Seanad and the Dáil, so that the Executive Council in approaching the British Government in this matter could show that it had the unanimous consent of both Houses of the Oireachtas, it would be strengthened in the negotiations it had been conducting and was conducting. In point of fact, if there be any error in the form of words adopted that error in fact has actually occurred, because the Seanad has adopted this resolution, I understand.
The Government is not responsible to the Seanad.
The Seanad has adopted this form of words, I understand, and it was felt that the Dáil might adopt the same form of words— for which I am not personally responsible—in order that both Houses of the Oireachtas might come to some agreement and present this extra strength to fortify and strengthen the hands of the Executive Council in what we desire to have done and what we know it has led the way in from the very beginning. However, if the form of words that has been suggested is not altogether such as the Executive Council feel is appropriate—I do not wish to use the words offensively, and I hope I will not be misunderstood—to the dignity of the Executive Council, as has been suggested by the Minister for Education, or is setting up an unfortunate precedent for the future, then I think one might fairly request the Minister himself to suggest the form of words that would be suitable. If such a form of words was suggested that carried the same sense, the essential matter of the resolution, and carried the agreement of the Dáil, it would come exactly to the same ending.
If I may speak again I would say that the time at which I might have been asked to suggest the form of words would naturally have been when the resolution was being drafted. The Deputy has dwelt on every point except the point which I wish to enforce. I said nothing about the dignity of the Executive Council at all, nor do I think that any member here could imagine that I was thinking of such a matter as the dignity of the Executive Council, although possibly the dignity of the Executive Council is of some importance to the Dáil. It is not a matter of dignity; it is really a matter of the form of resolutions of this kind. As my colleague has stated, no matter in what way you change the words, if it be a request, even if you put in the antiquated word "humbly" that another Deputy suggested, and pass it by a majority, it still becomes an instruction, once it is passed by a majority, to the Executive Council, because it cannot be ignored and must be followed. That is the point that I wish to make. It is to the interest of every member of the Dáil not to create that precedent of governing by instruction. If you do you will find it will lead to great difficulties in future and great inconvenience for the Dáil itself. The Deputy who moved this rather avoided the point I pressed from the beginning, not to create a bad precedent which other people might act on in future. It is not for me to suggest what amendment would make this resolution a proper one, an acceptable one, and I cannot at the moment undertake that responsibility.
We have had a certain amount of irregularity in the proceedings on this motion. We have already come to the conclusion that a motion may be withdrawn and another form of words put forward for consideration if there is general agreement to that course. It now seems clear that we cannot get another form of words which would be accepted unanimously for consideration, so that the matter before the Dáil is the original motion. Does Deputy Johnson think he has a remedy?
I think from what the Minister has stated something in these terms might suit: "That the Dáil supports the claim that the pictures mentioned should be returned to Dublin." That does not bring the Executive Council into it at all, as the claim might be from outside or by any person.
I would suggest that that would be hardly worthy of the dignity of the Dáil.
I do not like to make a suggestion, but I wonder, if the motion was withdrawn now, would it be possible for the Deputy and the Minister for Education to arrive at an agreed form of words before, say, Friday, and put them forward. Otherwise we must go on with this motion as it stands, as we cannot go on discussing different forms of words all the evening.
If the Minister for Education is agreeable, I am entirely agreeable.
May I say, as seconder of the resolution, that, in view of what has been said, it ought to be withdrawn, as we are interested in getting back the pictures, and nothing else.
If Deputy Figgis would withdraw the resolution, he will find no difficulty at all in arriving at an entirely acceptable motion.
I am quite agreeable, and withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.