asked the President what steps, if any, the Executive Council has taken to assert the right of the citizens of Dublin to have restored to them the thirty-nine French paintings left to the City of Dublin by Sir Hugh Lane in the holograph codicil which it is now admitted expressed the testator's intentions in their regard; and what steps it is proposed to take to counter the intentions of the British Government in carrying out the recommendation of the Committee which reported on the matter.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - THE LANE PICTURES.
The matter of the Lane Pictures was raised with the British Government by General Collins on the 22nd January, 1922, a little more than a week after the formation of the Provisional Government. From that date onward representations were repeatedly made to British Ministers that these pictures should be disposed of in accordance with Sir Hugh Lane's last wishes. Ultimately, as a result of these representations, the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, informed the President in July, 1924, that the British Cabinet had decided to appoint a Committee of three to consider the arguments advanced by the Irish Free State and the Trustees of the National Gallery in London and to report whether in their opinion:
1. Sir Hugh Lane, when he signed the codicil of the 3rd Feb., 1915, thought that he was making a legal disposition.
2. If so, whether it is proper that, in view of the international character of the matter at issue, the legal defect in the codicil should be remedied by legislation?
The report of that Committee was published on 30th June last, and the findings were as follows:—
1. That Sir Hugh Lane, in signing the codicil of the 3rd February, 1915, thought he was making a legal disposition.
2. That nevertheless it would not be proper to modify Sir Hugh Lane's will by public Act of Parliament. To do so would, in addition to constituting a legal precedent of the utmost gravity not justified by the facts, have the effect of bringing about a result contrary to the real spirit of Sir Hugh Lane's intentions. Our reply to the second question is, therefore, in the negative.
It is only right to say that the Executive Council, through the courtesy of the British Government, were afforded an opportunity of perusing the report of the Committee before it was published.
The Council felt that the Committee's reply to the first query addressed to them was satisfactory and, in fact, inevitable, but they were quite unable to follow the Committee's method of arriving at the conclusion set out in their reply to the second question.
Accordingly the President communicated to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the reasoned view of the Council, that the Committee had, in dealing with this aspect of the matter, failed to realise its international importance and had allowed their judgement to be based upon considerations which were not only outside their terms of reference, but were in themselves unsound and inapplicable. He urged, too, that it was only by doing violence to Sir Hugh Lane's last wishes as to the destination of the pictures that legislation to validate the codicil could be refused.
I regret that, notwithstanding these representations, which, I may say, were urged in the strongest possible manner, the British Government did not see their way to depart from the recommendations made by the Committee.
In reply to a question recently addressed to him, the British Prime Minister stated that an assurance had been received from the Trustees of the National Gallery in London that it was their present intention to lend to Dublin a substantial number of the pictures from time to time and for a substantial period, as soon as they were empowered under existing legislation to do so. For our part, the Executive Council could not accept the view that this proposal meets in any adequate manner the equities of the case, which demand that the collection should be disposed of in accordance with the donor's last-expressed desire.
I do not quite understand the second part of the Deputy's question. It must be borne in mind that so far as the strict letter of the law is concerned the codicil is invalid and consequently the return of the pictures depend upon the recognition in a generous spirit of the honourable obligation to respect, notwithstanding legal technicalities, the last wishes of the illustrious dead.
Will the Minister state whether it is the intention of the Government to bring this matter before the Imperial Conference next October?
It has not been entered on the Agenda.
Is the Minister aware that there is a precedent for the setting aside of a will having regard to the fact that the will of the late Mr. Cecil Rhodes was set aside and modified by law in a manner not in accordance with the testator's wishes, and will he bring that precedent to the notice of the British Government?
The difficulty is to get the British Government not merely to be aware of that example, but to conclude that it is an analogous one and fits in with the present circumstances.