Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958

Vol. 50 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - National Museum Improvements.

Professor Stanford

The matter the Chair has kindly allowed me to raise is this—the urgent need for improvement in the scientific sections of the National Museum. First, I should like to thank the Minister for coming here to give us his views and listening to mine. We have been looking to him with confidence as a young and energetic man, to face some of the urgent needs for reform in this country. What I am offering him this evening is a limited objective in education which I suggest he, by his efforts and the support of his Department, could put through in a few years. It has the advantage of no political strings tied to it, and I hope that when he speaks to us this evening, he will justify our confidence in him.

I referred to this urgent matter previously on the Appropriation Bill, 1957, and on the Central Fund Bill, 1958. Owing to pressure on his time, the Minister for Finance was unable to give any definite reply, so I very much welcome this opportunity of hearing the Minister's views directly.

Before I say anything about the regrettably insufficient state of the science museum, I should like to make it very clear that I am not offering any criticism of the present staff. They are doing a good job in very many ways; but I am going to say that in the present conditions of space and of personnel they cannot do what they ought to be able to do. I do not think it is necessary for me to say in detail what I said before, to give the history of the museum or details of what is wrong with it. I am quite sure that the Minister is already very well informed on this matter.

I should like to say, by way of proof, three things. First, there is the significant fact that the visitors of the scientific department of the museum ceased to function some years ago in sheer despair and for no other reason, because year after year they suggested necessary improvements and were simply ignored. The names of those visitors are to be found in Thom's Directory. They are eminent scientists representing universities and other scientific institutions in our country, and it is a very grievous fact that they felt bound to retire through sheer despondency at the state of affairs.

Secondly, I can quote the opinions of many eminent scientists, to the effect that at the moment, the scientific section of our museum is entirely inadequate. Thirdly, I have gone to see for myself, and possibly some other Senators have done so, and it is quite clear, even to a layman in science like myself, that it is quite inadequate. Valuable specimens, extremely valuable specimens, simply cannot be displayed. They are stacked higgledy-piggledy in a room which is not open to the public. Some of the specimens are deteriorating from lack of staff to look after them.

Again, there has been a very serious decline in the teaching and research work which our scientific museum should do. That is mainly due to lack of staff. I will quote one highly significant and most deplorable numerical fact. The number of visitors visiting the scientific section of our National Museum a year ago was 145,000 less than it was 30 years ago. The number of visitors has fallen off in 30 years by 145,000—almost half the number who attended about 1928 are not attending now, and that despite the fact that the population of Dublin has almost doubled in that time. That is a most serious fact that speaks for itself.

I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that at the moment the museum is not merely unsatisfactory by present standards of scientific education but is unsatisfactory by the standards of 50 years ago. That is a very shocking thing and I believe I could produce ten eminent scientists in this Chamber who, if allowed to speak, would support what I have said. We have gone back rather than forward in our scientific museum in the past 30 years. That is a most regrettable situation.

It is bad for three reasons. It is bad because scientific education in any developed country needs a good scientific museum to supply it with specimens, to help it with exhibits and with lectures. There are thousands of things that an energetic museum could do, even a museum like that in Glasgow which is not a metropolitan museum, but is doing ten times as much as our museum is doing at present in the way of scientific education.

Secondly, it is bad for the scientific development of the country. "Economic expansion" is the phrase we are using now which means development of our natural resources, and if we want expert knowledge of the minerals, the plants, the animals of the country, the best way to provide that knowledge is to have a good scientific museum.

Thirdly, it is bad for our prestige among visitors to this country. It was very regrettable that last year, when a very large scientific association, the British Association, was visiting Dublin, and went to our science museum, they were most dismayed. There is a contrast there with the archaeological section. When visitors come to our archaeological section, they are impressed and delighted. They then go to the other side and find quite the contrary. That is most regrettable from the tourist point of view and the point of view of the good name of the country as a whole.

The third aspect on which I want to concentrate, since the Minister is here, is the educational aspect. I would urge on him very seriously, that a well-equipped scientific museum is essential for good scientific education in the schools and the universities. It is not enough for a museum to be a mere repository of specimens. We know the old-fashioned kind of museum, rather dusty and rather dark, where the things are kept safely and if anyone is prepared to do a certain amount of burrowing, he can get them out. That idea of a museum has gone completely. The modern idea is that it should be a dynamo for scientific studies and knowledge throughout the country, and it could be that. I am sure the Minister recognises these considerations and I am pretty sure that he is concerned about the present situation.

I can envisage some possible objections he will put up to making a change and I will try to meet them. The first is, obviously, finance. This will cost a good deal of money—it will be a matter of, I should think, some tens of thousands of pounds. Well, we have had a programme put before us within the past few weeks of £220,000,000 to be spent on economic expansion. Excellent—but I do want to say this: it is not enough to provide materials and machines for the future prosperity of Ireland. We do need, and will need urgently, well-qualified men and women to manage and direct our materials and machines. We will need people who understand the fundamental principles of science and who can apply them.

There is a quotation which I think we older members of the House once learned for the intermediate examination, and I hope the Minister insists that citizens of this country learn it for the intermediate examination still. It is from a poem written 200 years ago, the Deserted Village by Oliver Goldsmith, but it still applies to what I am saying now:

"Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

Goldsmith goes on to say that princes and lords may flourish but if a bold peasantry go, the country is doomed. I suggest, if industrialists and manufacturers flourish and we have not an educated citizenry, it will be just as bad for the country. The modern equivalent of the princes and lords are the manufacturers and industrialists; the modern equivalent of the bold peasantry is the well-educated citizen of the country as a whole.

There is a grave danger in this £220,000,000 economic expansion programme that unless the Minister fights his corner—and I am speaking on the wider issue now—for education, he will be failing us, I think, as a nation. Material expansion without education will do us no good. I simply say that to meet the possible financial objection. If we can find £220,000,000 for material things, can we not find one-half or possibly one-tenth of a million pounds for our scientific museum?

There is another objection the Minister may have in mind. I listened with great interest to his speech in Trinity College some weeks ago on the risk— I would even say the undesirability— of training scientists for export. I agree with him to a large extent. That is what our natural history museum— that is its technical, old fashioned name —will not be doing because it displays and promotes understanding of the natural wealth of our own country primarily. It fosters a deeper knowledge of Ireland, and I would say a deeper love of Ireland. Many a schoolboy has got to know the country better, its birds and its plants, from what he has seen in the natural history museum.

It is quite different from the nuclear physics kind of science. On the whole, we cannot afford that in this country and if we educate for it, there is a risk that they will go abroad. I suggest that by fostering the kind of science our scientific museum should foster, we will not be encouraging export or emigration. We will encourage the people to stay at home and understand their own country better.

There is one other risk that the Minister may say: "Well, that is all right, but there are a great many other things to be done in the Department of Education and this must wait its turn." It is for him to decide ultimately, of course, but I do suggest that here is a limited objective with no political complications, as some of the other possible projects would have, which would be achieved in the lifetime of one Minister. If he would put this high in priority, at the top priority, of his Department, he could do a very fine job for the country. There is this urgent need in our scientific education. I will leave it at that.

I would, as a practical step, urge the Minister to do this. I urge him either to recall the Board of Visitors with an assurance that something special will be done or else to set up a larger committee, perhaps incorporating the visitors, to examine the whole position. However, it is no use doing that unless he gives them some kind of an assurance that drastic improvements will be made. As a long-term policy, perhaps the Minister or the Department might consider moving the whole museum right away from here out to Glasnevin beside the Botanic Gardens—building, with part of the £220,000,000, a fine big scientific museum in Glasnevin. In Stockholm, I understand that the scientific museum is near the Botanic Gardens. It works in very well. There is plenty of room there. If he would do that, the Minister would solve the whole problem because our archaeological museum would then have sufficient space and the Botanic Gardens would have a helpful neighbour.

I urge the Minister to appoint a committee with a definite assurance that something will be done. I hope he will undertake this task. I hope he will show that he is determined to make the scientific museum worthy of Dublin and a fit adjunct to Irish scientific education. In any efforts he is prepared to make, I assure him he will have the eager and active support of scientists and educationists throughout the whole country.

Mr. McGuire

As we have very little time in which to debate this subject, I shall be very brief. I agree fully with every word Senator Stanford uttered and I would add my voice to his.

I happen to have been, or perhaps I still am, if it is not altogether disbanded for good, a member of the Board of Visitors. It was composed of members of the Royal Dublin Society, the Royal Irish Academy, the National University, Dublin University and the Minister's own representatives. Just as Senator Stanford said, the committee was a very conscientious one and was composed of the very best people in the country who could be found for that particular object. If the names are examined, I think it will be seen that they are highly representative of all the scientific and cultural bodies which they represented. That body tried very hard to get something done, but, in complete despair—it is the only word to describe it—eventually gave up their activites. However, they always made it clear that if they were required to do any useful job in the matter, they would be willing to come together again.

I think I can say, without revealing any inside private information, that the Board of Visitors looked with great hope to the establishment of the Arts Council. I happened to be a member of the original Arts Council. I asked the Board of Visitors not to disband until the Arts Council got going, so to speak. It was brought up as one of the very first inquiries of the Arts Council when it was established in, I think, 1952. A recommendation was made to the Department of the Taoiseach but nothing was ever heard since about it—and there the matter stands at present.

I have visited the museum regularly since I was in the National University in 1919. It was a place I went to form the very beginning, when I came to Dublin first. In those days, we were under the British Government. The museum, as I think Senator Stanford will agree with me if he remembers that far back, was really quite a presentable museum at that time. It was very well staffed. It was comparatively up to date by world standards at that time in its presentation of exhibits and even in its purchases. It was able to compete at auctions with dealers and with private collectors both here and in England. Altogether, for our position in the world, it was really quite an adequate museum.

As Senator Stanford has said, steadily since we got self-government, the museum has deteriorated more and more in every way. We have had most distinguished members of the staff there who had to give up because they were not being properly remunerated but I think that was a very secondary consideration with them. It was mainly because they felt they were in a decaying organisation, that, in a scientific world in which everything was going ahead, they found themselves stagnating. In the end, having stuck it out for a long time, many of these distinguished men were forced by circumstances not only to leave the museum but to leave the country and to go to other places where their services were fully availed of. Scientifically, their services were availed of and they were financially rewarded.

Even here to-night, Senators may have noticed that when Senator Stanford got up to speak, the gallery was full. When he sat down, the gallery was practically empty. The obvious lesson is that it is rather a boring subject. I found that out myself in my own life as I have been interested in these things. I found it was always a boring subject. Whenever I brought it up before several Governments, I was told, in effect: "We cannot do it today: maybe to-morrow." The whole sum that is spent, perhaps, on An Bord Fáilte might be better spent if it were all put into the museum rather than into An Bord Fáilte, if it is as good as it is. Even financially, as a tourist winner, apart altogether from its scientific implications, it would probably be good value for the money spent.

I should like to see something being done at last, even if it is only in this limited sphere of the scientific museum. My only objection to Senator Stanford's proposal is that he has not included the Art Museum because everything he said applies also to the other museum. It is really all one, although it should not be. However, that is another day's work. If we could only get down on the lowest level, preserve and build up what we have on the present site, it would be something, but not enough. What should be done is that there should be a division. All these parts of the museum should be subdivided. There is even room for a folklore museum which should be in a park as is the case in the Scandinavian countries. There is a big and important job to be done there. I heartily support Senator Stanford's motion in its restricted sphere. I should like to see that sphere widened.

Minister for Education (Mr. J. Lynch)

In the rather limited time at my disposal to reply to the arguments made by Senators Stanford and McGuire, I think it would be better if I confined myself as much as possible to the factual position as it is and as we hope to see it. The financial provision for the Science Museum which, as Senator Stanford says, is more correctly known as the National History Division of the National Museum, comes under the Science and Art Vote in the Department of Education group of Votes. There is also in the same Vote provision for the National Library, the National College of Art and the Irish Manuscripts Commission—the National Gallery happens to be in a separate Vote.

There is one thing which I will readily agree is common to all these institutions. They are severely restricted in their work and in the efficacy of their work by considerations of space. Sooner or later—and the sooner the better—the country will have to face up to reasonably adequate expenditure to make these institutions worthy of their name and of the country. As Senator McGuire pointed out, they may be matters which do not demand great public outcry on their behalf in respect of financial provision, but there is no doubt that the country will have to face up to greater expenditure on these institutions, if it desires to have and to keep them.

If I might confine myself to the Natural History, Division of the Museum, Senator Stanford has referred to the fact that it does play an important part in scientific education. I cannot deny that. I would not attempt to belittle in any way the part it could and should play. But it must be agreed that the research function of the professional staff of the National Museum is rather a limited one. In the broader sense of the word "research", it is more a university rather than a museum function. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the existing professional staff there have not been and are not engaged in research. There is evidence in the recent publications by some of the members of the staff and publications by other persons with the assistance of the staff and the facilities provided.

I may mention Irish Fishes by Doctor Went, published in 1957; and Penal Crucifixes by Mr. A.T. Lucas, the present director, published in 1958. I am told that there are in the course of preparation Guide to Irish Antiquities, in galley proofs, and Irish Swords, in page proofs. There are two other works: a supplement to Father Colgan's Flora of County Dublin and Irish Birds, which are in varying degrees of readiness for the printers. In addition, the existing staff have publications to their credit in many archæological publications, not only in this country but in other countries as well.

I should like to say en passant that, as far as I am aware, there have not been any retirements of outstanding men in the museum, in recent years at any rate. There is no record of such a man having retired from the museum, either because he was dissatisfied with the work or by reason of the level of the remuneration. Of course, we did have the retirement of one of the assistant keepers, who was appointed to a Chair in University College, Galway.

In regard to the question of staffing and rates of remuneration, it might be recalled that in recent years there have been considerable improvements in that respect. In 1954, the present post of director was created. Up to then, the senior post there was an administrative one, but now the director is a well-known scholar and for that reason the work of the entire museum is kept in greater conformity with required standards. Three assistant keeper posts were sanctioned in October of last year. A little before that, five technical assistant posts were created instead of the three that had existed. There were improved salary scales for all the staff and, even as late as January of this year, there was a revised scale for keepers. A smaller point, indicating perhaps the degree of attention being given to the staffing position generally, is that half of the attendant posts have been made established posts. It is true that at the moment two vacancies for professional assistants exist in the Natural History Division, but the posts have been advertised on a number of occasions and some difficulty has been experienced in finding suitable persons to fill them.

With regard to the non-functioning of the Board of Visitors, I might mention that the present period of non-functioning is not the only one in the history of the museum. I believe it has happened two or three times in the past 50 years, so that any frustration the board might feel as to their recommendations not being implemented is not peculiar to the present time. Nevertheless, many of the improvements that have taken place in the recent past were suggested by the board themselves.

With regard to the reconstitution of the board, I would not be at all unsympathetic to their coming together again, but as Senator McGuire probably knows better than I, some of the present members have retired from the various posts by which they were particularly qualified and some have died in the meantime. It must be remembered, too, that under the statute, the Dublin Scientific and Art Museum Act, 1877, two other bodies have the right to nominate visitors: the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society.

I might mention that there has been some difficulty within the committee itself in regard to the interpretation of the board's duties and functions. These had not been resolved at the time they disbanded and I am given to understand that some members of the board came to my predecessor and informed him they were taking certain steps as a result of which they felt the board could function again, but my predecessor never heard anything more about it. He went out of office a year and a half afterwards and I have not been approached directly on behalf of the board ever since. Nevertheless, as I said, I am not unsympathetic to the reconstitution of the board on its present lines or on expanded lines, as suggested by Senator Stanford.

I might add, as an example of recent activities which are indicative of greater interest in the museum generally, that an Irish glass collection was purchased for £9,500 and an Irish silver collection for £1,400 approximately. These were two valuable additions and, without the necessary financial provision, could not have been purchased for the museum. In the coming financial year, I hope to be successful in persuading the Dáil to raise the Grants-in-Aid for the purchase of specimens, fittings and materials. The present grants are comparatively small, but I hope to make a reasonably substantial addition to them in the coming financial year.

Perhaps I might conclude with the thought which I expressed at the outset, that we are entirely below par with regard to accommodation in the three main institutions to which I have referred? I want to say to the Senators who spoke and the Seanad in general that the question of accommodation for the museum, and particularly for the Natural History Division, is under active consideration. That is no mere platitude. I can assure Senators that, in so far as it lies within my power to do so, the question of the provision of adequate accommodation will be pursued actively until such time as we can overcome the present unsatisfactory position.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th December, 1958.