The Hugh Lane Gallery is currently closed for refurbishment. It is an excellent gallery, and I thought it would be a good time to look at the issues surrounding Sir Hugh Lane’s will. The consequences of Lane neglecting (whether mistakenly or not) to have a codicil to his will witnessed, turned out to be huge. Legally, the whole matter is quite straightforward. However, a moral case was forcefully put forward in relation to the relevant works in his collection. The issues involved raised their head regularly over a period of decades, but ultimately a compromise was reached which to my eyes, seems fair. We will see from the following, the importance of wills, and their proper execution. It is also interesting to consider what happens when a moral claim comes up against strict legal rules, as often occurs in cases involving looted art or limitation periods.
Sir Hugh Lane (1875-1915) was an art dealer and collector, as well as being briefly Director of the National Gallery in Dublin. He was born in Cork, raised in Cornwall, but returned to Ireland as a young adult where, due to the connections of his aunt, Lady Gregory, he became acquainted with the various players involved with the Celtic Revival, including W. B. Yeats, and George Moore. He dealt in and collected Old Masters, but towards the end of his life, his collection consisted of a variety of works, and included many impressionist paintings. He was ahead of his time (in Ireland at least) in his appreciation for works of this sort, although popular opinion was catching up.
He battled the city of Dublin, advocating for money for a modern art gallery, and for the purchase of modern paintings. He opened a gallery on Harcourt Street in 1908, and hoped that Dublin Corporation would agree to run it. He arranged for plans to be drawn up for a gallery in St. Stephen’s Green, and an ambitious modern gallery to be situated on each side of the River Liffey, connected by a bridge. These proposals were also rejected by the corporation (although the latter one, narrowly), fearing public outcry over money being spent on such enterprises in poverty-stricken Dublin.
It was these struggles and frustrations that caused Lane to draw up a new will, bequeathing many of his modern impressionist works to London. This bequest included works by Monet, Morisot, Manet and Renoir. Lane died aboard the RMS Lusitania when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat in 1915. He was only 39 years old. Shortly after his death, a codicil to his will was discovered in a sealed envelope in his drawer, addressed to his executor. In it, Lane amended his will to bequeath his collection of modern impressionist paintings to Dublin, as long as they built a gallery to house them within 5 years. This codicil was dated and signed, but never witnessed.
The Succession Act 1965 today sets out what the requirements are for a will (and codicil) to be valid. These requirements are no different to what was in force during the time Lane wrote his will. The Wills Act 1837 was, as far as I can see, the relevant piece of legislation at the time. Section IX states:
Every Will shall be in Writing, and signed by the Testator in the Presence of Two Witnesses at one Time.
And be it further enacted, That no Will shall be valid unless it shall be in Writing and … it shall be signed at the Foot or End thereof by the Testator, or by some other Person in his Presence and by his Direction ; and such Signature shall be made or acknowledged by the Testator in the Presence of Two or more Witnesses present at the same Time…
Elsewhere it states that the requirements for a codicil to be valid are the same as those for a will. Lane’s codicil was not witnessed and therefore not valid. To make matters worse, the paintings in question were at that time already on loan in London. And there they were to stay for many years, but not forever.
It seems from some articles in the Irish Times I looked up from the period, that there was a general presumption that the moral case was so strong (in that ‘clearly Lane meant for the paintings to be bequeathed to Dublin, and but for a simple technicality they would be so bequeathed’), that the paintings would return to Ireland. There were discussions in the House of Lords and House of Commons about the matter.The appreciation of the paintings, and their value, were rising quickly.
I might just say here that it is not necessarily obvious to me that Lane made a mistake with regard to his codicil. I gather that lane was a man who regularly updated his will. If so, would it not be the case that he would have been aware that signatures needed to be witnessed? It could be argued, and was at the time, that this codicil was a draft, or a thought, not yet finalised. Others however who knew Lane well, declared his wish of having the paintings returned to Ireland. having said that, A Special Committee was established in 1924 to look into the matter and report to the UK House of Commons, which it did in 1926. The Committee found as a fact that Lane understood the codicil to be legally binding, although it did not recommend the return of the pictures. I don’t know either way, but regardless, the law was clear.
Various diplomatic attempts were made to have the paintings returned to Ireland over the years after Lane’s death. It was debated in the House of Commons a number of times, such as in 1926 when Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle asked “Is there not a moral obligation on the part of the Government to have these pictures transferred to Ireland?” Due to rules surrounding the inability of British Museums to deaccession works, legislation would be necessary. In a Seanad debate in 1926, it was pointed out that the report of the Special Committee was not released until after a new wing in the Tate had been built, ostensibly to house the works. Senator W. B. Yeats, among others, in this 1926 debate, pointed to the report as hypocritical and one that did not follow its own remit. He declared:
“No Compromise. We ask and we must continue to ask our right – to hold the 39 pictures, and for ever….Let them build that gallery [in Dublin as requested by Lane] and let them see there is ample space for those 39 pictures. Let them write the names of the pictures on the wall, in spaces reserved for them, and let the codicil be displayed in some conspicuous place and watch the public opinion of these countries.”
Emotions were clearly high and it of course must be remembered that all of this was taking place just a few years after independence, during a time when the Irish Free State was still subject to the Crown. In 1939, Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood stated that the Gallery in Dublin was complete and that it included a room specially intended for the 39 paintings. This room, and Yeats’ idea about writing the names of the paintings on the wall in spaces reserved for them, is a little reminiscent of the Acropolis Museum in Athens with space created specifically for the return of the Parthenon Marbles.
Then, in April 1956, two Irish Students, Paul Hogan and Billy Fogarty, in an act of political protest, stole Berthe Morisot’s “Jour d’Eté” from the Tate Gallery. Hogan, an art student in Dublin, had been in the gallery for a few days, sketching the works, building up a reputation as a normal, regular art student. The two of them then quickly placed the painting into a portfolio and left the building. They had arranged for a press photographer to be outside, and they expected to be grabbed swiftly thereafter. However, they ended up keeping the painting for four days in the flat of a friend, before handing it over to the Irish Embassy. This act actually had the intended effect, and negotiations between Ireland and the UK resulted in an agreement in 1959 whereby half of the works would be leant to Ireland every 5 years. In 1993, this was updated so that 31 of the works (those considered of lesser significance) would remain in Ireland with the other 8 to be split and rotate every 6 years. In 2021 a new 10 year agreement was reached, with 10 paintings rotating in two groups of 5.
Ultimately this seems like a very fair compromise and is a good example of what negotiated agreements can do in circumstances where the law is not on your side. Also, what galleries can agree when governments fail. The dispute also serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of properly executing a will. The rules governing validity are relatively straightforward, but their consequences can be absolute.
The Hugh Lane Gallery itself stands as a fitting tribute to Lane’s vision. First opened by him on Harcourt Street before moving to its present home on Parnell Square, it was the first known public gallery of modern art in the world. I suspect Lane would have been delighted by that legacy.
Here is a copy of the codicil.
https://sourcenationalgallery.ie/collection/calm-r21644
Some further links.
https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/articles/hugh-lanes-gift-to-ireland
https://ial.uk.com/the-hugh-lane-collection-a-hundred-years-on/
Art Law in Ireland 