Scrutinising the National Trust’s Version of History
This week I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the future of the National Trust, in this its 125th anniversary. We all love the Trust but many of us worry about recent events. I live a mile from one of the National Trust’s big attractions, Stourhead, and BVM’s catchment has several Trust properties. It is an important institution for us and the local economy.
Readers may be aware of the furore surrounding some of the organisation’s recent actions and statements. Of particular concern are leaked plans to sack curators, close smaller houses and the report into slavery and colonialism.
The report is a badly contextualised gazetteer, conflating colonialism and slavery and painting a partial picture of people and properties covered – including Churchill and his house, Chartwell.
Publishing such a document gave the appearance that the Trust was intentionally pushing an agenda, an impression supported by a series of leaked – but subsequently disowned - documents which point towards a re-purposing of the organisation contrary to its statutory functions. The Charity Commissioner too appears to have been sufficiently concerned to write to the Trust for an explanation.
Contrast to the English Heritage 2013 report ‘Slavery and the British Country House’, which does not imply that slavery and colonialism are the same evil and does not curl its upper lip at figures like Churchill, who, let’s remember, led Europe against tyranny, racism, slavery and anti-Semitism.
The Trust has almost 6m members, lots of money and receives a lot of public funding – albeit indirectly. For the same reason the state doesn’t promote an ‘official history’, the Trust shouldn’t push its own worldview. The Trust must return to its role as a mediating institution, a de-politicised space and a bastion of civil society.
I am glad the minister shared some of my concerns and welcomed the scrutiny. We will be keeping a close eye on the Trust moving forward.