Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1963

Vol. 56 No. 4

National Gallery of Ireland Bill, 1963 —Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill relates to one matter only, the lending of works of art from the National Gallery collection.

In the Act of 1854, under which the National Gallery of Ireland was established, no power was given to the Board of Governors and Guardians to make any loans from the collection. Limited powers were conferred on the Board by the National Gallery of Ireland Act, 1928. These powers related only to lending works of art for inclusion in public exhibitions held in Ireland or abroad under the management and control of public or local authorities, or of educational institutions, or of institutions or associations founded and maintained for the promotion of art, science or literature.

The question of extending the scope of the Board's powers in the matter of lending has been under consideration for some years. In 1961 the Governors and Guardians recommended that they should be authorised to make loans of works of art to the official residence of the President, to the Houses of the Oireachtas, to Irish diplomatic or consular missions and to approved Irish institutions in Ireland. The present Bill covers all these matters. In addition it empowers the Governors and Guardians to lend works of art for display in any other premises or property in Ireland or abroad belonging to the State or held in trust by the Commissioners of Public Works. Without this additional provision the Governors and Guardians would not be in a position to lend works of art, for example, to the Irish pavilion at New York World's Fair if it should be thought well to display there some pictures by Irish artists or of Irish interest, nor would they be in a position to consider any display in places such as St. Stephen's Green.

The Bill extends also to exhibitions which were not covered by the 1928 Act, namely exhibitions in Ireland or abroad sponsored by An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the Advisory Committee on Cultural Relations or other bodies approved of for that purpose by the Governors and Guardians.

I should like to say, finally, that the additional powers for which this Bill provides in the matter of lending works of art will be exercisable by the Board of Governors and Guardians at their discretion. In every case the final decision to make a loan will rest solely with the Governors and Guardians and it will be a matter for them to attach to each loan such conditions as they may consider necessary in the interest of security.

This Bill appears to me to be an excellent measure, particularly in the light of what the Minister has said in conclusion. It is entirely permissive; it preserves the authority, discretion and the judgment of the Governors and Guardians, presumably in consultation with the Director, as to whether they will issue on loan either pictures or other works of art. The Bill, indeed, is very brief. It might, I think, have been made more brief by giving general powers to the Governors to lend works of art. I gather from the Minister that there was never power to do that before, but I can give two instances—I should not like to mention the first—where pictures were lent. The pictures that are now in the restaurant in Leinster House were taken from the Gallery and put up there, in conditions where files were not so regularly kept as they are now.

When the Inter-Parliamentary Union met here, in 1949, I think—I happened to be Chairman of a joint committee which was dealing with the Conference —a suggestion was made that, for the purpose of entertaining these parliamentarians from various places, we might put portraits of Irish parliamentarians in this building. The Director was consulted and he was most helpful in sending and hanging pictures from the Gallery which were exhibited in this building. It is so near the Gallery and is so completely a public building that I suppose there were plenty of genuine reasons for that. However, the position is now regularised in that the Governors have power to lend pictures or other works of art.

That would only be done, of course, when proper conditions exist with regard to housing, light and staff. Indeed, pictures in themselves do not gain by being scattered about. They are best seen in a gallery where one school can be contrasted with another and where there can be juxtaposition. Diffusion may be democratic but the best impact of a library or a gallery is made by its being together. One picture does not suffice, though indeed, in the case of local people who have set up a museum or picture gallery, it is entirely desirable that they should be encouraged by being given examples and, if possible, more than one example.

There was some talk in the other House of a basement. There is a basement in the National Gallery but it is only right to say that the word "basement" is misleading. The pictures in the National Gallery that are not on display are on racks. There is a register showing when they were bought, what price was paid and to whom they are attributed. The place is well lighted and well ventilated. Much of what is in that could easily and profitably be lent in the country. When I say that, I do not mean that nothing else should be lent except pictures of that kind.

There is one other point I should put to the Minister. I think he said the number of attendances in 1962 was 80,000; is that correct?

Merely 53,000. The attendances at galleries in Britain and on the Continent have increased enormously in the past twenty years. That does not seem to be the case here. I have looked at figures and, as far as I can gather, in 1887, 75,000 people attended the gallery including over 22,000 on Sunday and if the figure for last year was 53,000——

I am sorry; I should have said 61,000.

Even that is not good. When one considers the immense population increase in Dublin between 1887 and 1962 and the transport facilities from the country to Dublin now, it would appear that the gallery is not as well attended by any means as it might be. There is an immense increase in Britain in the number attending galleries. That is true also on the Continent and I understand from booksellers and libraries that books on art are in greater demand than they used to be.

All the buildings that surround us here are, I think, the result of private enterprise: the Museum by the Royal Irish Academy, the Library by the Royal Dublin Society and the National Gallery was begun to be built as a memorial to the man whose statue stands outside it—Dargan. Up to 1899 it was under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and when the Government set up here in 1922 the then Minister for Agriculture —Patrick Hogan—a very direct-spoken person, came to me—I happened to be the Minister for Education—to say that he had just discovered the National Gallery, the National Library and the National Museum were under the Department of Agriculture; that he had enough to do without bothering about them and that they should be under the Department of Education. He proposed, in so far as it was legally possible, that decisions about them should be made by the Minister for Education and if his signature were necessary he was prepared to sign anything the Minister for Education put up to him. That was my first acquaintance with them from the formal point of view, but I think it is worth saying with regard to the National Gallery that when the Act of 1899—a British Act for Agriculture and Technical Instruction—was passed and when taken in conjunction with the Local Government of Ireland Act in the previous year, it marked the beginning of the exit of the British from administration in this country.

There is one other minor point, which does not concern the Minister, but he may use his good offices in regard to it. Up to 1922 there was a passage from the National Library and the School of Art right through to the National Gallery right into the whole of Leinster Lawn which was then open to the public. In the circumstances of the Civil War that particular passage was closed. It is not for me or for the Minister to say whether the military guard should be retained here, but I understand the reason for not opening the passage is that certain accommodation for the military has been found necessary. I would suggest that it would add considerably to the use of the National Gallery and would assist visitors to it if by any process, say a railing right along through Leinster Lawn, a passage from Kildare Street to Merrion Square, were made available. The passage from the National Library and the School of Art to the National Gallery should be restored.

Perhaps students, too, are now deprived of access to the Gallery. Students of the School of Art have to go right around via Kildare Street and Merrion Street instead of a few hundred yards. A number of people call to the School of Art in the belief that they are at the National Gallery which, of course, is not so.

Perhaps the Minister could use his influence to improve that situation. I have no doubt at all that restoration of the right-of-way would increase the number of visitors to the Gallery. The retention of the military is a matter of Government policy and I express no view on it. A new building is being erected and, perhaps, accommodation could be found for the military in that new building. In that case it would be of great advantage to the citizens of Dublin generally, the Gallery, the Library and students if access could be granted again as it used to exist more than 40 years ago.

I should like to end as I began by saying the Bill is an excellent one, and I am sure the Governors and Directors will use the power given to them in the best possible way.

This Bill extends the use of some very valuable and very lovely treasures. In fact, some of the most valuable things in this whole country are in the National Gallery, just a few hundred yards from here. It is a store house of treasures that attracts visitors from all over the world, and inquiries, too, from all over the world. Everyone in Ireland has, I think, good reason to be grateful to those who formed this magnificent collection. For a very brief moment here I venture to say perhaps an unpopular word for the body of people who did so much to bring treasures into our city. Most of those people are now beyond any censure or praise. I refer to those who were called, and are called, the Old Ascendancy. Whatever we may think of some of their thoughts and opinions, varying a good deal, we must admit that they did enrich and beautify our country in their own way. Most of our museums, most of our treasures of art and antiquity, were established or collected by them. Senator Hayes referred to this magnificent group of buildings at the centre of which is Leinster House. As he said, they were largely due to, again, people who at that time were the old Ascendancy—the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Dublin Society and others of the kind.

I did not say that at all. Dargan, in whose memory the National Gallery was built was, I think the son of a small farmer from the County Kildare, and I think he could be described as everything else except a member of the Ascendancy. Dargan was certainly different, though perhaps the Ascendancy had their merits too.

I rejoice at eliciting such a statement from Professor Hayes.

It is not up to me, but Dargan was not a member of the Ascendancy and the National Gallery owes its existence to him.

May I say that many of those who subscribed to it and who gave pictures to the National Gallery belonged to that much maligned body?

As to the Royal Dublin Society, it was founded by two graduates of Trinity College, and I think it would be fair for us to say here that they took over the tradition of Grattan's Parliament. Grattan's Parliament did try to enrich the architectural and artistic treasures of Ireland. When it was abolished by the ill famed Act of Union I think in many ways the Royal Dublin Society stepped into its place, so far as they could, and we owe a great deal to them. This is not a line which I intend to follow any further, except to offer one more illustration. As I was reading through the debates in the Dáil on this Bill I came across a statement in a very able speech made by Deputy A. Barry. This is what he said at column 1097 of Volume 199: "It is understandable how they have come to be there"—he was referring to the art treasures—"Dublin was the capital city and was and is the seat of government and did inherit a Patrician tradition." Now, the word Patrician is spelt with a capital "P" in the Official Debate. We, in the classical schools of Trinity College and the National University and elsewhere are trained in what is called textual criticism. Here it seems to be perfectly clear from the context that what was intended was patrician with a small "p". I simply refer to that fact because it brings out the point I want to make. We have in Ireland of course the Patrician tradition with a capital "P", going back to Saint Patrick and the original civilisers of Ireland. But we also have, and I like to emphasise that, another tradition, a patrician tradition with a small "p" and we have it all round us in our city here, and it was the patricians of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries who gave us much of what we are talking about here this evening. I feel it is no harm occasionally to say that kind of thing in the Oireachtas of this country because generally references to the people to whom I have been referring tend to be derogatory. To turn to——

The native Irish made their contribution to the Ascendancy. They were compelled.

Of course: that is the very point I wish to make by referring to the Patrician tradition in both senses. I hope we may agree on that point. Now, to turn to the National Gallery. It is, of course, one of the great glories of our Nation, thanks to its magnificent treasures. What we are all conscious of here is that these treasures could be much more fully used. In recent years the Gallery has been lamentably understaffed. If we look at the estimates for the current year we will find just how many trained people are there to look after these splendid treasures. The answer is two. There is the director and an assistant—not another single person who is trained in the history and technique of art. I believe it is only within the last few years— two or three years even—that an assistant has been brought in. I believe it is only in the last couple of years that a typist has been brought in. Now, imagine one of the best galleries on a small scale in Europe being staffed by one director and one assistant. In contrast, the National Museum, which itself is sadly understaffed, has a director, three keepers, three assistant keepers and nine assistants. I suggest that this is a deplorable contrast.

We all value our museum very highly, but we should also value our art gallery more highly than at present. It is partly a matter of money, too. The amount of money spent on these magnificent treasures last year, in keeping them and so on, was £15,130. Now, I have looked at the British estimates for their care of their national galleries and I find that they spent £525,000 altogether. That was in looking after the National Gallery in London, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Gallery and the National Galleries of Scotland. Let us compare those two figures. The British spend £525,000 for a population of approximately 51,000,000. We spend £15,000 for a population of less than three million. It seems to me, then, by fairly simple arithmetic —but I am liable to go wrong in these things, I confess—that while the British are spending just £10,000 per million people on art, we are spending just a little over £5,000 per million people on art. In proportion to the population we are spending half the amount that the British Government are spending. The obvious answer, which I am sure is rushing through the Minister's head at this moment, is that Britain is a rich country in many ways and we are a poor country in many ways. But we are not a poor country in art. We are not a poor country in culture, whether Patrician with a capital P or patrician with a small p, and I think that since we are not poor in those special respects we ought to spend proportionately more on art than perhaps even Britain spends. Secondly, if you take into account the fact that we spend very little on defence compared with the colossal expenditure that Britain spends on defence I think we should be able to afford more than £5,000 per million of the population on art. I could urge this more strongly, but I do not think it is necessary. I hope everyone here is conscious that one of the great strengths of our country—it is part of our moral strength—is this tradition of high art. If you walk into the National Museum and look at the gold ornaments and the sculpture there, just as much as if you walk into the National Gallery, you can see it proved. I do not think that it is justifiable for us to neglect our artistic traditions to this extent.

Now, to turn to the present Bill. It goes a little way towards using our treasures of art more fully. But, let us consider for a moment how many other ways are open to us, or would be open to us if we spent a little more money. The National Gallery could, and should, if it had the staff, organise many special exhibitions. It has not done that at all in recent years. In contrast, the Municipal Gallery has done wonderful work in recent years along those lines. If the Municipal Gallery can do it then the National Gallery could do it with a little more State expenditure.

Secondly—this has been referred to already in the Dáil—there is a crying need for better catalogues from the National Gallery. I will not spend time over this. It was debated in the Dáil, but I do want to emphasise a point which was raised there. At the moment in this country we have some very fine printers, and some very good work is being done. It would be a great opportunity for our Irish printing firms to have the chance of producing a really good illustrated catalogue or even a selection of our paintings in the National Gallery.

The third point is this. Here are these treasures, these wonderful treasures, lying unseen except by some 60,000 of our population all the year round. Why do we not have wider publicity for them? Again, this was mentioned in the Dáil. Telefís Éireann and the other centres of national publicity should do much more for the National Gallery. The fourth point is that there is clear need for greater space, more room for storage and more room for display. A fifth point, and this is one perhaps which will be most readily accepted in this scientific age, is that we need far more scientific assistance in looking after our national treasures and in particular our paintings.

Just contrast for a moment the position in the British Museum or in the National Gallery of London. There they have highly trained experts, skilled in cleaning and examining. In the British Museum at the moment one of the heads of that team is a graduate from Dublin. He has described the work to me; it is most important and most valuable. In fact, if any member of the House would like to see a clear proof of the value of that kind of work, he can look at the Illustrated London News for last week. There he will find the Ardagh Chalice and the Tara Brooch, as they are now, after having been cleaned and repaired by the experts in the British Museum. It is a magnificent thing to see them there, even in photographs. When they come back to our Museum I hope we will all go and see them, restored almost to a new condition. It is a sad thing that we have to send treasures out of our country for that kind of treatment. It may be that we will always have to do it for very special cases, and the Ardagh Chalice and the Tara Brooch are cases of that kind. However, the fact is that at the moment we can do nothing in the National Gallery from the higher scientific point of view. There is no scientist attached to it; the work is being done elsewhere. Again I do think there is need for progress along those lines.

There is a good deal more that can be said on that, but I shall not delay the House. I do urge the Minister to do all he can to make more use of these magnificent treasures. The primary need is staffing. We have the goods; we cannot display them properly; we cannot even handle them properly. Here, I should like to ask him a question. We are all very grateful to the Shaw Bequest—and to the producers of My Fair Lady incidentally, too—for the amount of money that is put at the disposal of the trustees of the National Gallery. Is it not possible that some of that money could be spent on staffing?

The answer is "No" I take it. It cannot be spent on staffing. Then I think the Government are morally bound, since they are saving a great deal of money that they would normally spend on buying pictures—since they are saving that on the Shaw Bequest—to pay more for staffing. The total amount spent on the maintenance and acquisition of pictures last year was only £2,500, largely because of the Shaw Bequest, presumably. I do think there is a moral obligation to spend more money on the staffing problem.

Senator Hayes referred to the pictures in Leinster House. We all, I believe, hope that this House will be greatly enriched by loans from the National Gallery. The House was designed to have pictures on the walls. They are enormously valuable as historical lessons. I bring a good many people into the House to admire it, and the few pictures we have are very helpful merely as talking points. You can stop there and bring home to them episodes in our history that you cannot do unless there is some actual talking point.

Personally, it is a great source of gratification to me and perhaps to one other person present here this evening that out of six portraits in the House two, I think, are of graduates of the National Unitversity, two were members of Trinity College, Dublin, that is Emmet and Tone in the vestibule here, and two belong to what is often very rightly called "the university of the world." I think Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, if I am not mistaken, were of "the university of the world."

Similarly, in the Dáil Chamber at this moment, the rather heated discussion that may be going on is being calmly surveyed by two bronze heads, one a graduate of the Catholic University, Pádraig Pearse; the other, I am glad to say, a graduate of Dublin University, Thomas Davis. Here, I should like to thank the anonymous person who had the magnanimity to set in the Chamber of our National Parliament a TCD man beside a UCD man. It is a symbol, I hope, of something that we want to do—this cooperation, this working together of the best we can produce in the country.

Whenever I show people round the Dáil Chamber, when there is not a debate on, I stop in front of Pádraig Pearse and Thomas Davis. I tell these visitors from England, or Greece, or wherever they come from, that I, personally, as a TCD man, am very grateful that we, as well as University College, have a permanent representative, so to speak, in the Dáil, even though our electoral representation has been abolished.

I must not go on further, but I do want to emphasise that these treasures need to be used more fully and freely. I appeal very strongly to the Minister, as Minister for Education, to do all he can to go on further from this Bill so that all the treasures we have may be more fully at the disposal of our own citizens and of the citizens of the world who do want to see them.

I was going to say something which I thought the Chair might not like. I was going to say that it was just as well that the Cathaoirleach was not in the Chair because he might not have allowed the discussion to range so widely on a Bill so limited in its terms.

(Interruptions.)

Senator Stanford covered all the real points that can be made about the National Gallery. I am slightly tongue-tied here. I happen to be Vice-Chairman of the Board of this Gallery. I think I am permitted to say certain things such as how much this Bill is welcomed and how much it is necessary. Pictures were made to be seen and not to be hidden away, and not only not to be hidden away in cellars but to be even confined to one place where they are all cluttered up, not properly shown and not properly available. Therefore, this legislation is absolutely necessary in order to give the Board of Governors power to hold these treasures—and they are all treasures; even the ones in the cellars—because we must remember that no picture gets into the National Gallery unless under the scrutiny of the Director and with the approval of the Board. Every picture there, even the most insignificant one, has at least come under the scrutiny of people who are qualified to judge pictures.

Of course, pictures at any time, except some picture that has stood the test of time, can be the subject of fashion and taste changes at different times so that pictures which were at one time regarded with great esteem are later on rather despised. It has often been shown that the pictures despised at one particular period in the course of fashion later on came to be recognised. That has happened many times. For instance in connection with the pictures in the cellars of the National Gallery, before this legislation came in giving the Governors the power to lend them at a very wide discretion people often asked why the gallery was not allowed to sell these pictures and buy other ones: that they are no good and were cluttered up. I even heard it said by such esteemed people as directors because at a particular time some pictures were out of fashion, such as those by Landseer, who was a great 19th century painter. Until quite recently his pictures were completely discredited. This has now been changed and he is coming into favour again. For that reason it was very wise that power was never given to the Gallery to sell any of its pictures. The correct way to deal with the matter, if we have a lot of pictures in our cellars in the Gallery, is to enable the Gallery to lend those pictures out to all the places enumerated in the Bill which really means the Governors can lend the pictures anywhere at their discretion.

In the past it did not seem sensible that we could not even lend pictures to the President's Residence—Arus an Uachtaráin—or to this House. I have many times tried to get some pictures on loan for this Chamber. Over the mantelpiece is an obvious place for either portraits or landscapes by George Barrett, our 18th century landscape painter. All that has been changed now and under this legislation power is given to distribute pictures to places where more people will see them, not only in this country but even in our Embassies abroad where they can do credit to Ireland and show people the kind of things we have and with which we live.

Senator Stanford referred to this question of special exhibitions. That is a subject which I think should really receive attention. If pictures are enabled to be distributed now it will leave more space in the Gallery itself for the pictures which are chosen to remain there. In that way we may arrive at a situation where there will be space for special exhibitions especially having regard to the new buildings which are contemplated at the moment.

One of the reasons for the great numbers who go to museums and galleries in England, in Italy and other countries is because attention has been drawn to their collections through special exhibitions. They are a well-known feature now in museum life in England and all over the Continent and America. You will remember the Picasso Exhibition in the Tate Gallery some years ago which drew thousands if not millions. We hope that in the future we will be able to have these special exhibitions, especially in view of the fact that we very often in Ireland lend some of our greatest masterpieces to these exhibitions in other countries. Last year we lent our Matenga to Mantua. This is a picture of world importance. We lend pictures to Burlington House over and over again for all the current exhibitions that go on year after year, 18th century English paintings or whatever it may be, but we have never been in a position to ask them back. One of the conditions under which we are working now—and which this new Bill replaces—is that we could only lend to public exhibitions and to people who were in a position to lend us back. I cannot recollect over a great many years any occasion on which we had pictures back in exchange merely because we did not run exhibitions here for one reason or another. Space was supposed to be one reason. Another was lack of staff. It was said that we had not sufficient staff to handle exhibitions of that kind. As well as that it was said that we had not sufficient money. We have not solved this question of staff and sufficient money yet. But perhaps that will come in time. I must say there has recently been a very great improvement in the staffing situation in the National Gallery. Steps have been taken to improve both the number and the quality of the staff coming in there. We trust this will be a feature that will continue in the direction of giving us full staff.

One of the reasons the Gallery is not open on Saturday afternoons is because of the necessity for giving the existing staff their half-day. It may seem at first sight that Saturday was a funny day to choose to close the Gallery because it is a day on which many people have their half-holiday, but, rather surprisingly, on examining the attendance figures, when the Gallery was open every day in the week, it was found that the lowest attendance was on Saturday afternoons. I hope that in the future it will not be necessary to close on Saturday afternoons if there is sufficient staff to carry on right through every day in the week.

I do not want to give a long dissertation on the National Gallery except to make these general remarks. I think we seldom get an opportunity of talking about this Gallery of ours or of saying that it contains some of the finest pictures in the world. At a time when pictures and old masters were plentiful and cheap and only few people understood fine things we were fortunate in having directors in our Gallery of the calibre of Sir Hugh Lane, Professor Bodkin and others. These were people who picked up pictures at a time when they saw the quality in those works of art and were able to buy them at low prices, which today would be out of the question. For instance, the portrait of Mr. King by Gainsborough was bought by Sir Hugh Lane for £400. Today it would we worth £25,000 or £30,000 if it came on the market. We have one from the Italian school and a very great Dutch painting, all of which were bought for comparatively small sums of money. Therefore, we, as a comparatively poor country today, have inherited something which cannot even be bought by countries which can be called millionaire countries. These things just do not exist.

It is a happy thing that we are now in a position of not only having these pictures and works of art generally stored away in one place in Dublin but, as Senator Hayes says, they have become less accessible than they were 40 years ago. I remember walking through this passage from Kildare Street into Merrion Square. It was used by many Dubliners, not only going from one place to the other but going to the National Library itself. I think it was a pity it was closed because often day after day at the gate of Leinster House here I have met people looking for the National Gallery and the man there has to tell them how to go down Kildare Street and up Merrion Street and a lot of them just give up. It would be very important to have that passage reopened.

I must say how wise and necessary this Bill is and I know from my experience with my colleagues on the Board that it will be well and usefully used. Now that we have got this freedom to act, I hope it will be freely used and with discretion and due care for the preservation of the pictures.

I also should like to add my voice to the voices of those who have welcomed this Bill. I do think it is a very important provision, for two reasons. First, it will make outstanding works of art available for viewing to more people in our own country by allowing them to be displayed in various buildings and also it will make these paintings available to people abroad. These reasons are most important. I think the second reason is the more important aspect because we are at a stage in our history where we have to build up the prestige of the country in the eyes of the world. If one goes abroad to conferences one often observes that people have a very strange picture of the citizens of this country. Many people think we are still in a cave drawing stage and it is important to bring to the notice of the people of other nations that we have these very important treasures here in Ireland, works by Irishmen and works created by Irishmen.

It is very important to create a good image of our country throughout the world. On one occasion at a World Confederation of Teachers' Organisations, in Amsterdam all the delegates were brought to the Town Hall to the reception by the Burgomaster and saw on the walls of that building, some of the finest paintings in the world. Really, it was an eye-opener to every delegate. It really put the Netherlands right before people from practically every country throughout the world, people who could pass on the information to their fellow citizens, and the pupils, especially. It had been of value to everybody who visited that Town Hall. It is very important that when receptions might be arranged here in this country at the Department of External Affairs, Iveagh House, Dublin Castle, that the finest works of art would be made available for such receptions so that these paintings would be seen by people from overseas.

It is important that we should create the best possible image of our people in the eyes of the world at the present time so that we might to some extent destroy the ideas which people have of us abroad. Speaking to delegates from Canada and even from Britain, they are amazed very often to learn that the finest writers of English were Irishmen—Shaw, Brinsley Sheridan, Yeats, Wilde, Goldsmith and many others. Similarly, many people have peculiar ideas of our capacity to create in the realm of art. It is important that these wonderful paintings should be made available to the world in general and to our own people here so that greater interest might be taken in art generally.

Is dóigh liomsa gur tábhachtach an ní an saoirse seo nó an ceadúnas seo atá sa Bhille seo chun na pictiúirí a chur amach ón tig in a bhfuil siad anso agus iad a thaispeáint. Tá dhá thairbhe ann. Teagasc agus oideachas dár muintir féin an príomh-rud déarfainnse, agus teagasc agus eolas do dhaoine nach linne ar cad tá againn agus cad a bhí inár gcumas a bheith againn agus a chruthú i gcúrsaí cultúra. Ach sé an rud is mó go bhfuil spéis agamsa ann ná an cead atá ann na pictiúirí a chur amach ar fuaid na hÉireann féin go dtuigfeadh muintir na hÉireann na seoda sin, na neithe áilne dfhás as cultúr dúchais na tíre seo agus go mbeidis sin agus an tuiscint sin mar gríosadh iontu chun mórtas cine agus mórtas as obair na sinsear a bheith acu. Níl aon chúis, is dóigh liomsa nach bhféadfadh taispeánadh de na pictiúirí sin a bheith, cuir i gcás i gCill Áirne tamall, i Luimneach, i nGaillimh, i Sligeach, i nDún Dealgan agus go speisialta do chuirfinn ceann maith slachtmhar i mBéal Feirsde agus do thaispeánfainn do mhuintir na hÉireann ar fad gur tír í seo go bhfuil cultúr ar leith aici nó a cuid féin de cultúr coiteann agus a cómhartha féin air sin. Sé an ní a thaithníonn liomsa sa Bhille seo gur féidir anois an teagasc sin a thabhairt dár muintir féin, mar gan aon amhras in aon chor tá sé ag teastáil. Do ceileadh neithe mar sin ar an gnáthmhuintir againne. Níor fágadh ina gcumas spéis fiú amháin a bheith aca i neithe den tsórt seo ach is mithid dúinn, anois go bhfuil Éire faoinar láimh féin, an t-oideachas sin, an t-eolas sin agus an mórtas sin a chuthú inár ndaoine féin le taispeáint na neithe uaisle atá againne de bhárr saothar na ndaoine a tháinig rómhainn. Níl a thuille le rá agam mar tá sé sean-ráite ag na daoine eile.

There are just a few points I should like to get clear. I note from the Minister's statement that he said the final decision rests with the governors and guardians in regard to lending the works of art to any place. Throughout the country there are a number of vocational committees which may have galleries. If they require to get works of art a question of finance is involved. For instance, Cork has a School of Art and also has an Art Gallery but the committees in charge would have no funds for dealing with a matter of this kind. I understand that there are certain finances. For instance, there is a substantial sum of money in the Shaw bequest. In the event of places such as I have mentioned being loaned the pictures, the works of art—it is bound to cost a considerable sum of money— would the governors and guardians who are in charge of this be prepared to use some of the funds to get the works of art to such places where they have art galleries? If that was done it would be of immense benefit, otherwise I do not know how we could get the pictures to various important centres where accommodation and art galleries are available. I would like to see something done in that direction from the point of view of finance because, locally, there is no finance to deal with a matter of that kind.

Ar dtúis báire, ba mhaith liom a rá go n-aontaíom leis An Seabhach gurab é an slí is fearr chun cúrsaí ealaíona a thabhairt do dhaoine óga ná leigint dóibh na seoda atá againn sa gailéirí a fheiscint ar fúd na tíre agus tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh sé sin as an Bhille seo atá againn. Táim ana-shásta a chloisint ón Seanadóir Magh Uidhir go mbeidh an Bord sásta gach úsáid a bhaint as an Bhille seo.

The discussion has got a little away from this Bill which is ad hoc to deal with the lending of pictures, but since it did go away from that I should like to say I agree that the best way of raising the cultural tastes of our young people and promoting a further interest in matters artistic, and, perhaps, developing the natural artistic talents which must lie in our young people, is to let them see works of art. While the Seabhac is quite right in saying that our national pride would be well served by showing the national treasures, I think works of art from any country of a high standard on exhibition throughout the country can do only good and must be of a high educational value. Many of the matters raised by Senator Stanford would be matters which should be initiated by the board of governors and guardians in the first instance. While I would not like to comment on what they should do, I would say that their recommendations are always received with full sympathy by the Ministers for Education and Finance. Senator McGuire mentioned that the staffing situation has been improved recently. I might say that the wider questions which arise, apart from what this Bill is intended to deal with, are being considered by an interdepartmental committee which will report to the Taoiseach in due time.

I do not know if there is any particular question that needs answering. There is a building programme in development at the moment which may cost £300,000. As for the popularity of the Gallery, I do not know whether they had turnstiles in the far off period of 1887. Perhaps they over-estimated the numbers coming in. We have turnstiles now so we will have to stick by exactly what we count. The reason for the drop may be that there are other attractions now for public entertainment and, indeed, what is helping the Gallery in one way may be taking away in another. The type of entertainment from which the last windfall came to the Gallery was Shaw's Pygmalion and the musical arising from it. I do not think there is any drop in the interest of people in the Gallery except that they are attracted, perhaps, to other places. There is quite an interest among people, such as teachers, who conduct educational tours in the Gallery and in the Museum.

I doubt if there would be enough work of a highly scientific nature in the Museum to warrant the appointment of a scientist for the type of work referred to—the work which has been done on the Ardagh Chalice and other treasures. It was not just a matter of cleaning it; it was a matter of repair and study.

I understand that a good deal of new information has been discovered about this. I doubt if it would be worthwhile for us to have a person capable of doing this but, at the same time, we must be very grateful to the people in London who have done the work for us.

Could the Minister give any assistance in making access easier from the National Library steps?

It is not a matter for me but I shall make inquiries. I doubt if I would have any function in the matter.

It is a matter of security?

It think it is.

The Minister may not have heard my query in regard to centres in the country such as Cork, which may have premises for a school of art and already have an art gallery and probably other centres. Could they get a loan from the Governors and Guardians, because, locally, they have no funds? The Shaw Bequest, I understand, amounts to a substantial sum. Could some arrangement be made for monies of that kind to be used so that those centres could get works of art?

I did not mean to overlook that. That is what I mean by a matter which would primarily rest with the Board of Governors. The bequest is made to the National Gallery and not to me. Any such use of the bequest would be a matter for the Board of Governors. Most of the matters raised here would be matters for the Board of Governors and I would not have any great say in it.

Is not the Shaw Bequest confined to the buying of pictures? I am not sure that it could be used for expenses.

As the law stands at the moment, it would be for the buying of pictures, but the law can be changed.

We are well aware of that. I wonder if the Minister could change the terms of the Bequest.

The Bequest is given to the National Gallery. They can do within reason what they would wish to do.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee; reported without amendment; received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 6 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share