Big deals
EXPORT ANTHONY LIVESEY
Works of art to the value of more than £27 million were exported from this country during the twelve months from July 1966 to June 1967. Since this represents a considerable lciss, it should be worth our while to investigate the matter further.
The law on the export of such items may be briefly summarised. They may leave the country freely, but, provided they are 'worth' more than £2,000 and were 'manufactured or produced more than one hundred years before the date of exportation,' 'an expert adviser may lodge an objection with the reviewing committee. In such cases, if the committee feels justified in withholding a licence, it will then stipulate a period of time in which an attempt may be made by an English museum or gallery to raise the necessary money; a reasonable arrangement, one might suppose. But there are three serious loopholes, as the following cases illustrate.
The first occurs when the painting has been wrongly attributed. The most notorious in- stance of this occurred in 1963, when Mr Julius Weitzner purchased Rubens's Daniel in the Lions' Den from Bonhams for £500. Because of the modest price paid, Mr Weitzner was not obliged to 'Seek an export licence, and with a dispatch that reflected credit on his sense of business matters if nothing else, had it halfway across the Atlantic before the reviewing com- mittee, or indeed anyone else, knew anything -abotit it:.
Secondly. there may be difficulty in raising mode in the time allowed, as witness the dis- graceffil case of the William Caxton manuscript in 1966; This contains Books Ito IX of Caxton's translation Of a French version of the Meta- tnoiPhoses of Ovid, the remainder of the manu- script' being in the Pepysian Library at Magda- lene College, Cambridge. It had been bought at Sotheby's by the House of El Dieff, New York, for £90,000, and the application for an export licence was strongly opposed by the expert advisers, who pointed out that it was 'a unique relic of the first English printer.' The reviewing committee agreed that the manu- script was 'of an exceptional degree of national importance' and allowed a period of four months for the Pepysian Library or any other public institution in the United Kingdom to raise the money. Because of its exceptional value, the committee further recommended that the Government should make a special grant towards the purchase price. The Treasury, however, absolutely declined to assist. The
manuscript would then have left the country, • but for the welcome—although, under the cumstances, somewhat mortifying—assistance of 'a benefactor in the United States of America,' who enabled Magdalene College to raise the necessary money.
■ 1-- A further loophole was provided by the .'re-
viewing committee itself in 1967. An applica- tion was made for a licence to export a gift roll on vellum, which listed gifts exchanged between Fli7abeth I and her court on New Year's Day, 1597. The expert advisers objected. The com- mittee ruled that a licence should be granted provided that a Photostat copy of the roll were deposited at the British Museum. This some- what eccentric view, whereby a copy is con- sidered the equivalent of the original, prompts one to inquire why the former rather than the latter was not sold to America. And what ob- jection could there be to flogging Magna Carta too, provided a snapshot were taken first?
Most damaging of all, however, is the feel- ing, as the director of a great London gallery put it to me, 'of sheer and utter despaiel—a despair that often inhibits expert advisers from objecting to the export of a certain article, be- cause they know that the appropriate national collection has insufficient funds or is perhaps seeking a special grant for some other urgent Purpose.
Thus, this alarming flux of excellence con- tinues unabated. Recently there was the case of the Louvain lectern; and -then we stood a good chance of losing a Royal Tudor clock-salt as well. The reviewing committee with- htld an export licence for this ceremonial Tudor table ornament, provided that the British Museum or any other public body -could raise £28,000 by 15 August. The clock-salt is 'iden- tifiable with one recorded among the.plate. of Henry VIII in 1-550 . . . and is, so far as is known, the unique survivor of a type that was in great favour in the sixteenth century! It was -sold at Christie's in July 1967, and although, as a spokesman told me, the museum `has been actively interested in -acquiring it since it came up for sale,' it was inhibited in the first instance (when it went for 7,000 ,guineas) because the sale occurred between meetings of the trustees, and reference must be made to theih in such matters. This somewhat archaic method •of conducting business .pre- vented their bidding on- that occasion, and they were then obliged to find four times that sum within the next few weeks. This they failed -to do, and the clock-salt—although, unlike .the lectern, happily not exported—wasacquiredrby the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths..-There it will no doubt be adequately cared for, but its proper home is the British Museum where it would be displayed with similar items and be readily available to the public.
There are two possible solutions to this appalling state of affairs. The first is to change. the law so as to bring it into line with the more stringent practice of continental countries. The second would be to have a permanent fund to meet just such eventualities. If it is claimed that economic conditions.do not permit this, might it not be argued that the sum could involve, not an increase on -that already available, but merely a re-allocation? After all, over f15 million is annually disbursed on the arts in this country. The Conservative party, so its 'shadow' Minister for -the Arts -told me, would like to see this; Miss Lee, who remains apparently unable to comprehend the serious- ness of the situation, refuses to countenance any such thing.
Previous page
