Is it really the case that the trustees of Alfred Beit Foundation had no choice about the auction of nine paintings – starting tomorrow – from the Russborough collection? That in their secretive decisionmaking they had explored every other option? That, as foundation chairwoman Judith Woodworth told The Irish Times, it sees " no alternative but to dispose of the paintings in order to preserve the long-term future of the house," the sale "an absolute necessity".
“The works are being sold, “ she explained, “to facilitate the establishment of an endowment fund, which is necessary to safeguard the long-term future” of Russborough House. The sale is expected to raise around €11 million.
The trust has spent some €5 million on the house since 2007 and visitor numbers have risen significantly, but revenues simply do not cover the annual operating deficit. Bridging the gap ,she argues, is the only alternative to. " to mothballing this great house, putting up the shutters and allowing the house and estate to fall into decay." There has been no funds from the Heritage Council in recent years , while approaches to Ministers have fallen on deaf ears. Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht, Heather Humphreys, has said she will meet the trust but has no money. "My department has no role in the matter [of the sales]". For most people such a blasé attitude will appear bizarre.
The trust’s predicament is undoubtedly acute. But funding Russborough by selling its contents off bit by bit is an end-of-the-road nuclear option that should not be embarked until all other options have been properly explored. By forbidding discussion outside its ranks, even in organisations represented by nominees there, and by concealing the planned sale for so long the trust ensured that when a public debate did eventually explode it would almost certainly be too late to influence state funding options. That secrecy has undoubtedly been responsible for the degree of public anger in recent days. And have the possibilities of public fundraising and tapping the generosity of private benefactors really been properly explored?
There has also been some public discussion about the issuing by the State of export licences – legislation was passed as far back as 1997 to provide criteria under which export licences for artworks could be refused. But, for whatever reasons – bureaucratic inertia, political concerns, who knows? – the ministerial orders required to bring this legislation into force have never been passed. In truth, however, the right to veto licences would not solve the trust’s cash problems although it might throw deserved, but unwelcome, attention back on ultimate State responsibility for safeguarding this glorious gift to the nation.
Not only does this sale threaten the integrity of this important collection, but in flying in the face of the clearly expressed intentions of Sir Alfred and Lady Beit it may jeopardise the possibility of future similar donations. It is not too late to put on hold this sale now.