The History of the Turner Bequest
It is claimed that Turner, who had bought back some important pictures from patrons, bequeathed these to the British nation on condition that the country built a gallery to house these. Is that true? What has happened since his death in 1851? What were the actual terms of Turner's Will? The Oxford Companion to JMW Turner provides a summary:
Turner appreciated the value of his artistic legacy, He told Ruskin to "Keep His Works Together". He expressed that idea also in his first Codicil (1832).
When his father died he put his ideas in the form of a Will, and executed one himself that year. The following year he had ideas of a “Turner’s Gallery” of his finished oil paintings to be added to the National Gallery, which his solicitor submitted to counsel at Lincoln’s Inn. Meanwhile government was in turmoil over Reform and the prospect of a worthy National Gallery being built receded.
In his second Will drawn up by his solicitor in 1831 he simply repeated the provision for two of his paintings to hang between two by Claude (the First Bequest – today carried out to the letter, if not the spirit).
In his first Codicil to his Second Will (1832) he added provision for a gallery attached to the Almshouse on the model of Dulwich Picture Gallery and Almshouse.
In 1848 there was the prospect of an enlarged National Gallery to plans by Sir Charles Barry. Turner’s solicitor drew up a provision that Turner’s Gallery should be in a room or rooms to be added there to be called Turner’s Gallery in which the finished pictures in his ownership (bar two) should be kept constantly, i.e. not lent out. If this was not carried out within 10 years after his death, the gift would be cancelled; in effect it was subject to a gift-over provision (Lord Scarman). (Turner’s Will in Oxford Companion to J.M.W.Turner).
Turner’s paternal first cousins, his next-of-kin, challenged the Will in the courts and in 1856 the Vice-Chancellor delivered a compromise decree whereby the gift for the Almshouse was declared invalid, the money for it going to the Next-of-Kin and the Royal Academy and the land for it going to the Heir-at-Law and Customary Heir, and all the works by Turner’s hand to the nation. This has no bearing on the fate of Turner’s Gallery. However the Royal Academy has latterly failed to fulfil the purposes for which it was assigned £10,000 (£1 million in the RA’s books a decade ago).
Meanwhile no enlargement of the National Gallery occurred and Turner’s executors George Jones and John Ruskin approached Lord St Leonards (Lord Chancellor in 1852), an “oracle of law” (DNB) and an art collector. He raised the matter in the House of Lords in 1857 and again in 1861. This set up a large and distinguished Committee which endorsed the view of Lord St Leonards that Turner’s conditions for the Turner’s Gallery remained legally binding, incorporated in the 1856 decree. As a result the Finished oils, put in newly built rooms at South Kensington in 1859, were crammed into what space there was at the National Gallery – not an addition to the NG as Turner had provided. This was because the politicians could not decide where to put the National Gallery – in Trafalgar Square, Burlington House or South Kensington.
When a large new room was added a few years later, it was for the old masters. Ever since the priority for it has been the Old Masters. Today the Romantic Turner falls between two stools - the Old Masters and the Modern. As Utilitarian views became popular in the Liberal party, reformers attacked the sanctity of Wills. J.S. Mill said that a time limit of 50 years should be set for how long their provisions should be valid. In 1883 a new National Gallery Act was passed setting the period at 25 years, clearly chosen so as to catch the Turner’s Gallery in the net (the terms has since been extended to 50 years!), the radicals complaining that there were far too many Turners at the National Gallery. This allowed a batch of the finished paintings to be sent on loan to the provinces, where they remained for decades, beginning the overthrow of Turner’s wish that they be kept constantly together.
Every generation since there have been protests which have been met by sops which have never fully answered the question. A gradual move of part and then most of the works to the Tate Gallery (at first a part of the National Gallery, the move termed “a loan” but intended to be a transfer!) has resulted in the same problem there – lack of space to show adequately all the oils let alone all else which might be shown.In 1907 it was accepted that the bulk of the rest could go there too on the pretence that this was a temporary loan, though intended as a transfer. In 1910 the Duveen Turner Wing opened. A more or less representative Turner Room of oils remained at the NG and even some watercolours. This diminished in 1930s, but in Martin Davies’ 1st catalogue of the NG British School in 1946 a large number were still at the NG, though most moved to the Tate soon after. Soon after 1953-4 and more definitely from mid 1960s the present division of the finished pictures was established with virtually no alteration since. Any agreement about exchanges between the two galleries broke down soon after according to Gowing (Keeper at the Tate 1965-7).
About 1980 the Tate received generous funding to create the Clore Wing to display Turners and to come close to meeting the terms of Turner's Bequest. The Clore was opened in 1987, initially to general acclaim, which has diminished in recent years as the Tate has reduced the number of Turners shown there.
The Tate / Culture Department Justification as of September 2023
“People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”— Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing: And Other Essays (1968), Essay I: The Art of Rational Conjecture (1942), p. 7
The characteristics of the replies by these bodies (the two are one and the same) are that
-
Their concern is simply to present a façade.
-
They ignore our points and so miss the real points.
-
They are untrue at least in part.
-
They are self-deceiving.
THE FAÇADE
They are like those who demolish an historic building, but keep the façade. The façade is what matters to them, as most people are just passers-by, not concerned with what lies behind their words, whether they represent truth, deception or irrelevancies.
MISSING THE POINT
Consequently it does not matter if they miss the point. The first point is that since Turner died 170 years ago his wishes and those of his admirers have never been met, that people have complained about this every generation since and that, as things stand, they will continue to do so (as The Oxford Companion to Turner has stated). The second point is that there is a practical way to meet those wishes. The third point is that they introduced irrelevancies as a distraction from the first two points.
UNTRUE
Tate curators have misrepresented the facts about Turner’s will and codicils, their legal validity and import, in attempts to justify the status quo. They have been aided by the numerous works of reference which have summarised the conditions by leaving out vital words (The Oxford Companion is an exception). Tate claims a scholarly status, involving the pursuit of truth, but it is characteristic of “most people” as described by Bertrand Russell when it comes to accurate statement of what donors demanded and what has been done with regard to that.
SELF-DECEPTION
Curators are capable of self-deception. In particular they may imagine that the objects which their museums hold; the objects may be owned outright, ones which they have proposed purchasing, ones which are on long-term loan or, as in the case of the Turner Bequest) works which the museum holds on trust for the nation. If challenged they will deny that. But their behaviour and off-the-cuff remarks give the lie to the denial.
I have given chapter and verse for these assertions elsewhere. They are based on 60 years of observation of museums and their trustees and curators, both from the inside and from the outside. They apply particularly to those at the top. Others recognise the falsehoods, but deem it prudent to keep silent – as has been shown in other professions of people generally regarded as more moral than most such as those devoted to health and religion.
SW. September 2023.
.