Tristram Hunt, the V&A’s director, is no culture warrior – at least not by the standard of his peers. This makes his recent call for museums to be untied from ‘outdated and infantilising’ rules stopping the restitution of artefacts particularly concerning. Nor is he alone in his restitution crusade. George Osborne appears determined that his legacy as chairman of the British Museum should be the return of the Elgin Marbles to Athens on ‘long term loan’.
These comments by Hunt and Osborne show the danger of leaving decisions on restitution to narrow and unaccountable boards of trustees. Thankfully the law continues to thwart their attempts to relinquish some of the most important historical and artistic works in our nation’s care.
The National Heritage Act 1983 prevents the V&A from selling or disposing of artifacts except in very limited circumstances. Museums covered by the Act may only do so if an artifact is a perfect replica of another in the collection, is irreparably damaged, or could be disposed of ‘without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public’.
Hunt’s intervention shows precisely why such laws are needed. They guarantee that the preservation and ownership of our national collections remains an issue of public policy, where politicians and the public have a voice.
At museums that are not bound by this legislation restitution has continued apace – and the results have been disastrous. Artifacts ranging from Burmese royal regalia to Yemeni alabaster texts have been returned in response to popular clamour that ties historical preservation to a social justice agenda. Those texts are now shut away in closed-off storerooms, at risk of destruction in Yemen’s civil war. 72 Benin Bronzes released by the Horniman Museum to Nigeria seem to have ended up in the private collection of the Oba of Benin – a descendant of the men who first traded those bronzes for slaves.
Many directors and trustees seem to have forgotten their stewardship obligations to the collections and institutions in their care. In his report ‘The Elgin Marbles’ for Policy Exchange, Noel Malcolm has noted that sending the Marbles to Athens would violate the British Museum’s own policy against loans that would harm it’s ‘standing and reputation’.
Why then is there still so much support for restitutions amongst senior figures at our top museums? Is it internal influence from progressive young curators, external pressure from activists, or genuine personal zeal?
These impulses raise questions about the calibre of those appointed to these positions. Are Culture Secretaries scrutinising these appointments sufficiently? Are civil servants providing them with sufficient evidence as to which candidates are committed to protecting our heritage – and which are not?
Thankfully clear legal constraints have spared Britain’s most esteemed museums from this trustee lottery. The 13 ‘National Museums’ identified by the Mendoza review all face statutory restrictions on restitution. These have stayed the hands of the likes of Hunt and Osborne in their quest to dispose of their museums’ greatest treasures.
The views expressed by Hunt and Osborne expose the folly of giving senior figures unchecked control over the collections they are supposed to safeguard. Laws like the National Heritage Act play a vital role in restraining the impulses of these small, elite and unaccountable groups of trustees. Keir Starmer recently repudiated his comments that Britain risked becoming an island of strangers. Without legal safeguards such as these to defend our priceless collections, Britons risk becoming strangers in their own museum galleries.
Zachary Marsh is a Research Fellow at Policy Exchange