I wish to raise the question of the Director of the National Gallery. I note here, in the footnote, that the Secretary to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests at present acts as Director, for which he receives a temporary and non-pensionable allowance of £200 per annum out of this Vote. The footnote says further that, in ordinary circumstances, the Director receives a salary of £500 inclusive per annum. This National Gallery is an asset of the most tremendous value to this State. We have there one of the finest collections of pictures in any of the capital cities of the world. It is an asset that should be developed and safeguarded, and, in the development and safeguarding of that asset, the best possible brains should be procured. This statement that appears on the Estimate, in reference to the Director of the National Gallery, is nothing short of a disgrace. The first part of the statement says that the Secretary to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests carries on the duties of Director of the National Gallery at a salary of £200 inclusive, and that, if he were not there, the salary would be £500. No person of competence or capacity, or no person proposed to be entrusted with the very onerous and responsible duties of Director of the National Gallery, ought to be given, or ought ever to have been given, or ought ever to have been offered, the figures mentioned in this Estimate.
For a number of years the person named in this sub-head, the Secretary to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests, Dr. Thomas Bodkin, carried on the duties of Director of the National Gallery in a manner that increased the prestige of the National Gallery both at home and abroad. He carried on those duties in a manner that increased the financial asset that exists in the National Gallery, the value of the pictures that were acquired by him in the course of his duties as Director, in a way that commanded universal admiration. The result of his administration was that, not merely did he enhance his own prestige, not merely did he gain for himself a position in the world of art equal to any in the sphere of international art, but he focussed attention on this country and on its National Gallery. If his services had been properly used, and if they had been retained, as they ought to have been retained, we could have looked forward in this country to something useful being done in connection with our National Gallery. He performed the duties of Director for a considerable number of years for a salary that it was almost a disgrace to offer him. He did it for purely patriotic reasons. He has been allowed to go, and this country has lost a man of international reputation merely because the Department of Finance refused, I presume, to increase the miserable pittance of £200 in order to retain the services of Doctor Bodkin in this country. It was not possible for him to carry on the two positions. It is well known that his health was breaking down.
I think this House is entitled to complain that the Minister passed over this sub-head without any reference, good, bad or indifferent, to the services which Doctor Bodkin rendered to this country and to the National Gallery in particular. Not a single word was said by the Minister in appreciation of his services. Not a single word was said by the Minister as to what is the intention of the Government in reference to the filling of this position of Director of the National Gallery. Is this £500, with the word "inclusive" in brackets in case anybody would think he was getting a bonus on it, to be offered to some person to fill the whole-time position of Director of a Gallery containing pictures the pecuniary value of which we cannot estimate? It would be interesting to know how many Deputies who frequent this House, which lies alongside the National Gallery, ever put their foot inside that Gallery. If they did, they might perhaps not contribute to the cloakroom referred to by Deputy Kelly. They might leave their hats and coats here and it would not cost them a few pence to leave them in the vestibule of the National Gallery.
The attractions of the Gallery to visitors from abroad have never been properly promulgated. Anybody who ever goes into the Gallery finds there a magnificent collection of priceless pictures which have been acquired by Doctor Bodkin in the course of his term as Director of the Gallery for which many of the biggest Galleries in Europe would have been proud to pay ten times the amount at which Doctor Bodkin acquired them. The services which Doctor Bodkin gave to this country would have been passed over if attention had not been directed to them from this side of the House. This country has lost something which it possibly can never get back again by losing the services of Doctor Bodkin. We have had for the first time, perhaps, a man of international reputation, an Irishman of training, capable of fulfilling this particular position with dignity to himself and with renown to his country. He has been allowed to go and I think we are entitled to be told what is the intention of the Ministry in reference to filling this post of Director. Is this responsible position of Director going to be given to a £500-a-year man? Is a man with a salary of £500 going to be entrusted with the safeguarding of the valuable pictures, with looking after the general interests of our National Gallery, and the acquisition of further treasures for that Gallery in the way that Doctor Bodkin looked after it? Or are we going to have to pay 20 times what was paid to Doctor Bodkin to somebody who will look after it?
Personally I believe that we will not get in this country a person sufficiently competent to fulfil the functions that should be fulfilled by a Director of the National Gallery for a salary equal to 20 times the amount paid to Doctor Bodkin. Doctor Bodkin, who was paid that salary, purchased very valuable and rare pictures for the benefit of this nation. The amount that he would have brought to this country in valuable pictures in 12 months would pay him a salary of £4,000 a year for the rest of his life. Doctor Bodkin was paid £200 a year for that. What are we going to have to pay to somebody who will carry on these functions properly? We are entitled to be told that and to protest that when this Estimate was introduced not a word of appreciation was said by the Minister of the services rendered to this nation by Doctor Bodkin.
