17th November 2021
Yesterday the prime minister of the United Kingdom met the prime minister of Greece and, according to a Downing Street media statement, the following happened:
“Finally, Prime Minister Mitsotakis raised the issue of the Parthenon Sculptures.
“The Prime Minister said that he understood the strength of feeling of the Greek people on this issue, but reiterated the UK’s longstanding position that this matter is one for the trustees of the British Museum.
“The leaders agreed that this issue in no way affects the strength of the UK-Greece partnership.”
*
The second quoted sentence is striking for two reasons.
First, that is actually not “the UK’s longstanding position”.
According to the very same prime minister of the United Kingdom earlier this year, there was another “firm, longstanding position” – that the government itself had a view:
“The UK government has a firm, longstanding position on the sculptures, which is that they were legally acquired by Lord Elgin under the appropriate laws of the time and have been legally owned by the British Museum’s trustees since their acquisition.”
(Quoted here.)
Perhaps the real “firm, longstanding position” is that the prime minister and the Downing street press department make it up as they go along.
*
But the second thing about yesterday’s statement is even more striking.
That Downing Street thinks this is a matter for the British Museum.
Yet the British Museum has strict legal limits to what it can do to dispose of any of its collection.
(Yes, the legal term here is ‘to dispose’.)
In essence: as the law stands, the trustees cannot simply decide to send the marbles back to Greece.
It would need substantial parliamentary, and thereby governmental, intervention and approval.
*
A couple of days ago on this blog, I set out why there significant doubts that these artefacts entered the British Museum collection lawfully in the first place.
Here the stock line-to-take of the British Museum is that “Lord Elgin’s activities were thoroughly investigated by a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816 and found to be entirely legal” is not true.
This is not true.
There was no thorough investigation – and a parliamentary committee cannot determine or verify title anyway.
And no original legal instrument conveying the ownership of the marbles (or any other permission) to Elgin has ever been produced (and may never have existed); the only documents that were produced at the time of the acquisition were ‘translations’ that appear to scholars to be implausible and possibly fraudulent; and the parliamentary committee that approved the acquisition did not see any original documentation.
Put simply: there was – and is – no original legal instrument that said Elgin owned the marbles and/or that he took them away lawfully.
And if Elgin never owned them, then he had no right of ownership to pass on to anyone else, including the British Museum.
However: after two hundred or so years, it is far too late for anyone to legally challenge the acquisition in court – by reason of limitation legislation and otherwise.
Even if not lawfully acquired, the marbles are now part of the collection.
*
Now to what the trustees of the British Museum can and cannot decide.
The British Museum Act 1963 (and its predecessor legislation) provides that objects can be disposed of in certain defined situations:
The marbles are not duplicates; they are from (long) before 1850 and not made out of printed matter; and are not useless because of deterioration.
Even clause 5(1)(c) does not help – for there is no doubt as to the merit of the objects and are of interest to students.
Section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963 means that the museum cannot simply give them to the Greek government.
The only way round section 5 is by new primary legislation – and this has been done (at least) twice for other artefacts.
Section 47 of the Human Tissues Act 2004 provides that human remains can be repatriated.
And the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 provides a power for museums and art galleries to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era.
(The informative British Museum policy on disposing of objects is here.)
*
So unless there is new specific legislation such as the 2004 and 2009 Acts, the trustees of the British Museum have no legal power or right to dispose of the Elgin Marbles in any way, other than in accordance with section 5 of the 1963 Act.
The trustees may form views and make recommendations – and a statement saying that the marbles should go to be shown in Athens could certainly be made.
But they cannot do this themselves.
The return of the marbles is therefore not just a matter for the trustees of the British Museum.
Downing Street got the law wrong.
*
If there was a decision by the trustees of the British Museum to return the marbles to Greece, then it would be for the parliament to enact another new exception to section 5.
And parliament could not do that in the face of government opposition – it would need government support.
And so it is a matter for parliament and government.
Downing Street not only got the law wrong but also the overall position.
The government itself would need to decide.
The matter is not for the trustees, it is for the prime minister too.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
The Stuff the British Stole podcast had a really good episode on this recently.
Who has better title to the Parthenon marbles than the British Museum, and how did they get it?
Presumably the British Museum Act creates a similar legal impediment to return of their Benin bronzes, the moai from Rapa Nui, the Cyrus cylinder, articles from the Summer Palace, etc., even if the trustees wanted to deaccession them?
“Even if not lawfully acquired, the marbles are now part of the collection.”
This sentence surprised me. You seem to be suggesting therefore that the matter is closed. Not only Greek citizens would take umbrage at that.
And no-one should be surprised that Downing Street got it wrong.
“You seem to be suggesting…”
Alas: you appear to have the wrong blogger.
If I had wanted to say that I would have done so expressly, but I did not because I do not mean that.
I do try to write precisely, so as to avoid such ‘you seem to’ projections.
So know need for anyone to take umbrage, either at this prompting or otherwise.
If the marbles are part of the collections (which in fact they are, as you can go and see them), then it will take a new statute for them to be removed to Greece.
And because of the lapse of time, it is in effect too late for anyone to dispute that they are at law also part of the British Museum’s collection.
If, as you have explained, the Museum has no title to these artifacts then it isn’t required to ‘dispose’ of them – and all that involves – it just has to give back/return stolen goods. And, as ever with him, the prime minister is ignorant/obfuscating/being untruthful – delete as required (or not).
Is not the real impediment to any decision on the Parthenon Marbles the precedent it would create and therefore the threat to many more objects in the collection?
For my own part I think they should be returned after casts / replicas have been made. I believe research has indicated that Museum and Gallery visitors spend more time reading the object’s label than actually looking at the object.
As Heraclitus might say, with this government, you never step into the same ‘firm, longstanding position’ twice.
Or as Annette Dittert said, “It is truly dizzying to live in the UK these days, if you have a good memory. Life under Boris Johnson’s government means that whatever they tell you today, it will all have changed by tomorrow. Whatever you remember, it never happened like that.”
If you like radical-right populism, you clap and cheer and nod along, as this blog would say. If you notice disapprovingly the discrepancy between the two ‘firm, longstanding positions’, you are being trolled and gaslighted.
The Greek government and public, like the German foreign correspondent and other international observers, will not be fooled, however. Britain’s international reputation sinks another notch. Some of these people are supposed to be our allies, and one day we might need their goodwill…
There isn’t substantial conflict in the two positions stated by the Prime Minister on this. His more recent statement doesn’t reiterate the claim of ownership, but in both statements the conclusion he draws (incorrectly as you point out) is that it is a matter for the museum trustees and not the Government.
Parliament would need to pass the necessary legislation to enable the museum to return the marbles but the trustees would need to decide to return the marbles in the first place. They have to make the first move. The government can’t require them to do that. At least, not while the fiction of them being legally owned by the museum is maintained.
Accepting that the trustees can’t “dispose” of them, presumably there would be no legal impediment to the British Museum loaning them to Greece on an indefinite basis thereby circumventing the current legal impasse?
Is there anything to Johnson’s recent statement other than he is preparing to shirk responsibility for a potentially unpopular decision?
If legislation is required to give the exception to s.5 , I am curious as to the wording and extent of that proviso. Would it be general or specific? Anachronistic and non-geographical? Another mechanism would be for government to start negotiations by admitting ownership of the physical lies with Greece but asking for a long license / lease to exhibit (isn’t that what the Paris museums have negotiated with the Benin sculptures? Or circumventing it by providing digital representations of the sculptures (ie digital surrogates)?
There is something similar in relation to the collection of paintings owned by Sir Hugh Lane, who died on the Lusitania in 1915.
He made a will in 1913 (signed and witnessed, and valid) leaving the paintings to the National Gallery in London, but a later codicil (signed but not witnessed, so invalid) changed the recipient of his bequest to the National Gallery of Ireland. So, legally the paintings belong in London, but morally … ?
The destination of the paintings got caught up in the events of the 1920s, but more recently there has been a series of more or less amicable agreements for various groups of Lane’s paintings to be shown in London or Dublin, and exchanged back and forth. See https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/history/collectors-and-benefactors/sir-hugh-lane and http://www.hughlane.ie/news/3140-history
I’m not convinced on your interpretation of 5.1.c. Could the Marbles, and other objects where restitution has been requested or would be ethically appropriate, not be deaccessioned on the basis that objects where the source communities want them back are unfit to be retained in the collection? And assuming that the interests of global students are taken into account, who may be pleased to have the objects on display or available for research in museums in the source countries? I would suggest the scope and limits of this clause have not been fully explored and I believe are untested in court.
If 5(c) were to be interpreted that broadly, I think it would cease to have any real meaning.
Might is right, possession is nine tenths etc.
Anyway, these artefacts are tucked up nice and safe in the BM in a more or less stable environment – politically and physically stable. Who is to say what could have happened to them over the past 200 years during revolutions, world wars and (more) kleptocratic governments. So we can wring hands all we like, I can’t see those marbles or bronzes going anywhere until it becomes expedient.
Possibly around the year 2400 CE with water lapping at the BM steps or when we need a financial bailout would be expedient times.