asked the Minister for Education (a) whether a piece of sculpture, known as "the Emly Shrine", was on loan to the National Museum, (b) whether the owners, on receiving it back, sought a licence for export, (c) whether a licence was refused and, if so, the reasons for the refusal, (d) whether an offer was made by the trustees of the National Museum, or some such body, to purchase the piece, and, if so, the amount offered, and whether the offer was accepted, (e) whether he is aware that this sculpture is now in Cleveland, Ohio, and, if so, on what authority it was exported and what action he proposes to take in the matter, and (f) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that national treasures are no longer disposed of in this way.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Export of Sculptural Work.
A wood and metal reliquary known as "The Monsell of Tervoe Shrine" and previously known as "Lord Emly's Shrine" was on loan to the National Museum. There is no record of a licence for its export having been sought. The price asked by the owner for the shrine was so unreasonably high that no firm offer to purchase it was made by the National Museum authorities.
My information is that the shrine was purchased by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. I am satisfied that there is no action that I could usefully take in regard to the export of this shrine as apart from other considerations it is not clear against whom any action would lie.
Steps in addition to those provided for in the National Monuments Act, 1930, were provided for in the National Monuments Act, 1954, so as to endeavour to secure that no archaeological object will be exported from this country without a licence.
In addition, for the purpose of enabling the National Museum to build up a fund towards the purchase of valuable objects of antiquity, the normal grant-in-aid of £500 has been increased to £1,500 in this year's Estimate and it is proposed to continue this increased provision in future years.
Would the Minister state how this valuable piece of sculpture was allowed out of the country? Was there an export licence issued?
No.
I know the analogy might be a bit strained, but I would like to point out that the Customs and Excise were quick to take note of a newspaper like the Observer, but they let pass a sculpture like the Emly Shrine, one of our national treasures, and let it go out of the country.
The Deputy is making a statement, not asking a question.
Would the Minister state was it necessary for a licence to be obtained before this valuable piece of sculpture could be exported?
It was illegal to export it. There was no licence asked for and no licence was issued.
Could the Minister say, if it were an illegal action, how did these people export this massive piece of sculpture?
I think the Deputy is misinformed. It is not a piece of sculpture and it is not massive. It is one of those small tomb shrines.
How did the shrine get out of the country?
I have no idea.