Madam, - Barbara Dawson, Curator of the Dublin City Gallery the Hugh Lane, appeared to be somewhat optimistic, if not expectant, that there may be some significant movement from London on the matter of the long disputed Hugh Lane paintings bequest, now that all the paintings are on display marking the centenary of that gallery. She was speaking on William Cawley's programme on BBC Radio 3 on July 25th. The programme explored the Hugh Lane paintings bequest controversy between Britain and Ireland, which has continued for close on 100 years.
Cawley touched the nub of the matter briefly, from the Irish point of view, when he described the paintings as "icons of colonial theft". John A Costello, Attorney General to President W.T. Cosgrave of the new Irish Free State, advised in the 1920s that the Trustees of the National Gallery, London, had the legal right, under English law, to ownership. He further advised that the best way to approach the matter was at intergovernmental level, where a legal change by the British would solve the matter. A variety of British governments refused to act, though accepting that the Irish had a moral right to the paintings. They also refused to negotiate directly with Irish governments.
The issue went into abeyance in 1932 when Lane's aunt, Lady Gregory, died and W.T. Cosgrave lost office in Ireland. As Costello later put it: "Fianna Fáil was never interested in the Humanities". Costello himself became taoiseach in 1948 and again in 1954. He mounted a vibrant publicity campaign and raised the matter with Clement Atlee without success. Harold MacMillan later sought a report on the matter. His advice gave an inkling of the long-standing attitude that bedevilled any solution to the matter. It said, "It is questionable whether a compromise would ever satisfy the Irish, feeling as strongly as they do. Is it not better to leave the pictures where they belong and where they are valued, and to leave the Irish with their grievance, which they enjoy?"
Thankfully MacMillan did not accept this advice and encouraged negotiation. The Irish government though, was forced to negotiate through intermediaries - Lord Moyne, Lord Pakenham and Dr Thomas Bodkin - with the Trustees of the National Gallery of London. The latter were prepared to consider a form of temporary loan of some of the disputed paintings to Dublin. They wanted any agreement backed fully by the Irish government and to be accepted as a final solution.
At this point Costello was out of office and Eamon de Valera was again taoiseach. As negotiations reached final stages, de Valera ran all the documentation through Costello, who was the long-time acknowledged expert. Costello refused to accept any loan agreement as a final solution and this was dropped. When the penultimate draft was sent to him, Costello replied to de Valera: "I have read and considered all the documentation and have delayed, perhaps overmuch, in replying to your letter because of my desire to take as calm a view . . . the proposals and approach by the trustees do not appear to me to be either generous or gracious. However, in all the circumstances I fear nothing can be achieved by maintaining a recalcitrant attitude and the substance of the agreement may be regarded as some advance . . . "
On November 12th, 1959, the agreement was simultaneously announced in the House of Commons and Dáil Éireann. The then Irish attorney general, Aindreas O'Caoimh, was unhappy with the agreement and the way it was negotiated. Seán Keating, the artist, commented, "It is all a washout. I understood we were going to get all the paintings on a definite loan. This half-baked business is all baloney". - Yours, etc.,
ANTHONY JORDAN,
Gilford Road,
Dublin 4.