Vol. 112 / No. 804
Vol. 112 / No. 804
The growth of the National Trust has inevitably added to its responsibilities and its problems, and its reorganization became inevitable. Wisely it appointed an advisory Committee in 1967 to review its management. This Committee of four, under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Benson, published its Report in January 1969 2• The recommendations of the Report were than studied in detail by the Council, Committees, members and staff of the Trust, and the conclusions of the Council were published in the National Trust Report for 1968- 693• There is a useful Annexe to this Report (pp. 45ff.) listing briefly the Benson recommendations and the Council conclusions. It will be seen in most cases that the recommendations have been accepted, as they had been at the Annual General Meeting held in November last year. It is not our intention to discuss these recommendations in detail, but we shall pick out two that seem to us of particular significance. The first is the conclusion of the Benson Report that the Trust must enormously increase its member ship. The annual subscription of the Trust's members is a valuable source of income, and with continuously rising costs, the total of 177,000 subscriptions is still far too small to meet them. A drive is being mounted to bring the member ship up to 200,000 by the end of 1970 . There is every reason to hope that it be doubled by the end of this decade.
A second, more controversial recommendation in the Benson Report might well have been missed by an inattentive reader. This was para. 167, where it was proposed that there was 'little justification' for the retention of the Historic Buildings Committee, on the grounds that it was difficult to define the division of responsibility between it and the Estates Committee. It should be explained that the Historic Buildings Committee's responsibility was to advise the Executive Committee on matters of architectural, archaeo logical or artistic importance, whereas the Estates Commit tee's duties were primarily administrative. There was the danger that, had this recommendation been accepted uncritically by the Trust, power would have passed into the hands of competent administrators, and there would have been no one left in authority to prevent errors of aesthetic judgement. It seems to us, as it seems to the Trust, essential that those with proper understanding of ancient buildings should continue to exercise effective control over the administrators. This seems self-evident, but the Benson Report did not put the emphasis here. The Trust recognized the danger. It accepted the recommendation of the Benson Report, while on general grounds stressing the importance of aesthetic considerations. It has agreed (regretfully, one presumes) to disband the Historic Buildings Committee and to combine it with the Estates Committee into a new Properties Commit tee, but the latter is to have a strong aesthetic bias, and a Sub-Committee which will study all architectural proposals for restoration or new buildings. In the carefully worded para. 23 of its Report of 1968-69 it announces that its governing principle, in appointing members to the Proper ties Sub-Committee or to other committees, is 'to ensure that these committees should have a balanced and informed knowledge of all sides of the Trust's work'; and goes on to emphasize that 'at all times it will continue to be the policy of the Council to ensure that aesthetic considerations are given the fullest weight'. This should provide the necessary insurance against Philistinism.
1. Information from the National Trust, No. 36 [January 1970].
2. The Benson Report on the National Trust, London (dated December 1968]. The members consisted of L. J. Clark, R. P. T. Gibson and Sir William Hayter besides the Chairman.
3. The National Trust Report, available from 42 Queen Anne's Gate, S.W.1.