READERS OF THIS MAGAZINE will be aware that it has long condemned the disposal of works from public museums and galleries. This position has hardened since the 1980s with the emergence of a growing culture of de-accessioning, although not always from within the institutions themselves. The public perception of overstocked museums, their stores bursting with masterpieces, and the recognition that museum underfunding means shortage of display space and staff reductions have inexorably led to a call for disposal. But when this has occurred – as in the notorious sale of a painting by L.S. Lowry from Bury Museum and Art Gallery – or was seriously on the cards – as in the proposal by Southampton City Council to sell works by Rodin and Munnings from the City Art Gallery – public outcry was swift.1 In both these cases, however, the money to be raised was not for the benefit of the museums. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council wished to plug a hole in its public services deficit; and the works in Southampton, if sold, would have funded Sea City, a grandiose plan to attract visitors to the city (but which admittedly included some attention to the Gallery itself). Both these cases were reprehensible: Bury lost its Accredited Museum status and Southampton City Council failed to pursue its proposal in the face of strong national and local opposition – and not least because council members are in fact trustees of the works earmarked for sale.

What of the proceeds of disposal used to acquire further works for a collection, something that might appear more reasonable? Is the pruning of collections of inappropriate or duplicate objects justified? There is usually a fair case for a museum ridding itself of a work that, acquired in good faith, is later discovered to be a fake or that can no longer sustain its once desirable attribution (although such works have their educational value, as is evident from the National Gallery’s current exhibition Close Examination). The sale or transfer of works deemed irrelevant to the core collection is the acceptable face of disposal in which financial gain, for whatever purpose, is scarcely or not at all a consideration.

But such has been the growing concern over the possible disposal of important and more valuable objects that in 2008 both the Museums Association (MA) and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) issued further guidelines in separate reports.2 It is in the wake of these documents that an article by Edward Manisty and Julian Smith has recently been published: ‘The Deaccessioning of Objects from Public Institutions: Legal and Related Considerations’.3 Both writers are attached to Farrer & Co., the celebrated law firm, and both have special experience related to art and the law. It is not an easy read for anyone who shies away from recondite legal language nor for those who will find its many precedents of disposal uncomfortable. It has divisions and subdivisions representative of the hair-splitting nuances of the law, ethical conduct, the role of trustees, the responsibilities of charities and the wishes of benefactors. It is, however, of very considerable interest and never loses sight of concrete examples to substantiate its arguments. Such examples are mostly drawn from actions undertaken by British regional collections. The National Museums, as statutory bodies, have very limited powers of disposal. Collections with charitable status are subject to the Charity Commission and the objectives of the individual charity. An interesting case here is the sale in 1962 from the Royal Academy of Arts of the Leonardo Cartoon, made possible because the contemplation of old-master pictures was not one of the charitable objectives of the Academy.

The article is especially illuminating in its guidelines for arrangements made by donors and benefactors. Gifts and bequests come with conditions which can be highly restrictive, even eccentric; or they come with virtually none, which can be equally troublesome. The authors are very clear here on the necessity for taking legal advice before such arrangements are made and on why donors should stipulate the reasons for their imposed conditions and why they should continue to be honoured.
A section on ‘Ethical Considerations’, as embodied in the recent reports of the MA and MLA, is especially pertinent. Here the writers find several blurred or contentious guidelines, particularly with regard to what may be permissible use of the funds raised from disposal. In the case of Southampton, the MA appeared to condone the proposed sales before the full facts were available. The writers strongly suggest that the legal and ethical position be established from the start and not half way through the procedure. The section ends with an account of last year’s crisis concerning the Witt and Conway Libraries at the Courtauld Institute. It is suggested that the libraries, staying within the objectives laid down by Robert Witt, might be transferred to a new charity, independent of the Institute but still closely tied to it. An endowment fund would be established to ensure maintenance, staff and provisions for public access. Eminently sensible as this solution may seem, we await an announcement on the findings of Nicholas Goodison’s report, commissioned by the Courtauld’s Governing Body, for a full assessment of the situation and a clear outcome.

The writers conclude with a discussion of the current ‘inad­equate ethical and legal framework’ within which de-accessioning is made and the strong possibility that more such proposals will be put forward in the present straitened times and with the ‘softening’ of ethical guidelines by the MA and MLA. They revive earlier suggestions of the introduction of a system of grading, listing works that run from objects of paramount importance and never to be disposed of, through to ungraded works which might be painlessly sold or transferred. But this would be an arduous undertaking, for the most part too much open to subjective and transitory opinion. More practical is the associated idea of a newly constituted committee to monitor disposals, along the lines of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, within a new statutory framework. One point, however, becomes absolutely clear. Proposed sales by museums or their political masters should be widely publicised from the start and full account be taken of expert and public opinion. This might be deterrent enough to prevent any such course of action.