Recent policies of the National Trust
Christopher Martin
At a local discussion group recently, I put forward as a topic: ‘Should Custodians be neutral?’ By ‘Custodians’ I meant guardians of whatever people think it is valuable to preserve. It could include museums, art galleries, libraries or charities like the National Trust, which was set up to protect special buildings and landscapes for the long-term benefit of the public. The job of the Trust has traditionally been to keep properties in good repair, to restore them sensitively, and to make them accessible – for the purpose of both recreation and education. My presentation included the following points:-
In any public display, there are certain things a custodian will be concerned with. In an art gallery for instance the focus has generally been on the pictures themselves. You are told the title, the artist, medium, the date, the style and the source. There are many other things a visitor may wish to know, but these will be available from the exhibition guide, the bookshop, the media or the internet. The information will not normally be displayed in the gallery itself because of possible distraction or overload. Such background could include: the characters and lives of the artist, the patrons or the owners; the provenance (Can we be sure the work is not stolen, looted or a fake?); the historical and political context (Was this work intended to promote a message, such as social commentary or propaganda?); the finance (Who paid for it? How did they get their money?) ;the motives of the patrons (Was it really love of art – or instead to gain status for a prominent individual, a family, or the Church?).
Such extra material will be available, but it is optional – not in your face. Many people come just to enjoy the pictures, without necessarily wanting to dig further on that occasion. So custodians have not traditionally considered it part of their role to push people into looking at works in a particular way – perhaps from a present-day perspective or through a fashionable ‘lens’. But this seems to be changing.
The National Trust now has a strong focus on ‘Links to Colonialism’. They have told us for instance that the Trust intends to ‘dial down its role of custodian of the ‘English country home’, and of their duty to get us to face up to ‘the sometimes uncomfortable role that Britain, and Britons, have both played in global history’. Why this special emphasis? And why now?
Old houses tend to have colourful and sometimes scandalous histories. There may have been connections with subversive plotters, harsh factory owners, bankrupts, serial womanisers, gamblers, fraudsters, pirates, highwaymen or complacent buffoons in high places. In any National Trust house, the room guides will be more than happy to tell you about all this – if you ask. They will also make no secret of who was involved in such things as the Slave Trade, plantations or the East India Company.
There is a growing confusion that racism, slavery and Colonialism are all the same thing, which is not true. There is also a myth that most leading families were involved, and are therefore in some way tainted. This is also not true. Research still in progress in Lancaster is suggesting that in fact the typical slaver was a chancer. A country boy, say, with few local prospects, would go to sea, work his way up to captaining a ship, and then take it on the triangular run from Britain to West Africa to the West Indies and back – involving three different cargoes, with slaves on the middle leg. He might in due course come home rich, build himself a big house and settle into the respectable life of a country gentleman. In fact fewer than a thousand men fit this profile. Many famous families were not in the business at all. And most people who dabbled with investments in this sector lost their money.
The National Trust has produced a list of 93 properties, with so-called ‘links to Colonialism’. I do not think it was well-researched – although they say it was – because some of the connections are tenuous, alleging guilt by association rather than active involvement. They also say it includes ‘positive links’- for instance where there were abolitionists. But this was not properly brought out. In effect, the Trust has generated a blacklist of properties which they are not at ease about – and which they don’t want the public to be at ease about either. I feel the Trust has developed a new sense of mission about Colonialism. They say they are not being judgmental, but I do not agree. Some other custodians seem to be going down the same road as well.
I have been involved in an exchange of letters with the Trust, which contains obfuscation on their part. They say they have been misunderstood, through leaks and distortion in the press. They also say that they still uphold their founding principles, and are committed to keeping their properties well-maintained and open. And they do want people to continue to enjoy elegant houses and beautiful gardens. This is not however compatible with lack of consultation with staff or membership over changes; with releasing a large number of well-qualified advisors; making condescending remarks about the ‘outdated mansion experience’; or with an apparent move towards becoming a quasi-political platform. So they imply it is their duty to tell us what they claim we would prefer not to hear – that when we walk towards a grand house we may well be, quite literally, on dodgy ground.
But this is generally wrong. One is indeed entering a world of a different class, in a different time, with different costumes, furnishings, ways and outlook. The people one encounters may have been decent or they may have been rogues, but the majority were not directly slavers.
The overwhelming sense of our meeting was that the traditional non-committal stance of custodians should continue. It ought to be left to others to take a more one-sided approach if they wish. It was also felt that of course the Trust can change its priorities if it wishes, but the management has to carry the membership, and indeed the public, with them, if they are to have a credible mandate. It is worth noting that on Trustpilot recently, out of 487 reviews of the National Trust, 79% were Bad, and 7% were Poor. This speaks for itself. In founding the National Trust in 1895, Octavia Hill wanted to preserve historic places and treasures ‘for ever, for everyone’. These treasures are our treasures. They are not the property of a partisan group with a controversial agenda of their own.