Sir, Lord Smith of Finbsury’s valiant attempt to defend the purchase by the Tate board of a work by one of its members (letter, Dec 7) suffers one defect. It ignores the law.

As any competent adviser will confirm, trust and charity law lays down an absolute rule that a trust cannot enter into a transaction with one of its trustees unless special authority is to be found.

As a former trustee of the British Museum, I have felt a particular concern that the trustees of flagship public institutions should not claim the right to disregard rules which are in normal circumstances regarded as crucial to the protection of the public interest.

I eventually resigned (and was, I believe, the only British Museum trustee in its 250-year history to take this drastic step) when I could no longer feel confidence that modern attitudes of executive expediency were reconcilable with my understanding of the basic tenets of charity law.

If Lord Smith is right, expediency is to be preferred to the acceptance of the principles of the law. I do not accept that the public interest is well served by such an attitude even if I recognise that it is one which has an appeal to an overbearing executive.

CHRISTOPHER McCALL, QC
Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2

Sir, One may share up to a point Lord Smith’s admiration for The Upper Room, but is it really a bargain? How often over the next 50 years will it be on view in its entirety at the Tate? Are the odds not on it sharing the fate of the gallery of pictures given (not sold) to the Tate by the Victorian artist G. F. Watts?

A conflict of interest is a predictable outcome of the Tate’s recent policy of appointing trustees who are young and have a reputation to make and whose work it wants to acquire. Museums are cautious about borrowing works the value of which may thereby be enhanced to the benefit of a private owner. Yet the Tate is apparently unconcerned about this possibility of inflated profit in the Ofili case.

DR SELBY WHITTINGHAM
London SW5

Sir, The chairman and chief executive of Arts Council England (letter, Dec 8) state that “the board of any arts organisation is responsible for its own affairs”. Doubtless this is technically correct, but if the organisation is in receipt of public funding, it should surely be accountable for its activities.

Thirty years ago, at the time of its historic complete Ring cycle and for some years after, the English National Opera was considered by many as the finest of all our opera companies.

What has happened since, and why and how?

PROFESSOR STANLEY HENIG
Lancaster

Explore Letters

• Feedback