HC Deb 06 April 1841 vol 57 cc950-5
Mr. Hume

rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the present state of the national monuments and works of art in Westminster Abbey, in St. Paul's Cathedral, and in other public edifices; to consider the best means for their protection, and for affording facilities to the public for their inspection, as a means of moral and intellectual improvement for the people. The hon. Gentleman said, that he had the authority of the magistrates, the commissioners of police, and others, to state, that in their opinion the attainment of the object he proposed would be highly beneficial to the community at large. Hitherto a system of exclusion had existed, which, however, had been gradually withdrawn, and his object was to remove it altogether, and to give the masses of the community as much as possible the benefits to be derived from the inspection of those valuable works of art with which this country was enriched. No country in Europe possessed more valuable works of art than England; but hitherto they had been locked up from those who were not sufficiently wealthy to purchase access to them. The advantages that would thus accrue to the people were incalculable. Every work of art would become a source of feeling, reasoning, and thought to them. The desire to visit these exhibitions was daily increasing, in proof of which he would mention, that every day of the year thousands of the poorer classes in the metropolis found their way to Hampton Court, and there enjoyed the pleasure afforded by the highest works of art without fee. He would also mention, that since the Palace had been opened, the people spent the time they had formerly consumed in drinking in the gardens in the examination of the treasures of art which it contained. In one year the number that passed through the Tower at the fee of 6d. was 95,000. No damage had been done to any of those institutions which were open to the public. He had framed his motion so that it should extend to other institutions, as well as Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's. He would not name the committee until after Easter and would select it so as to meet the approbation of both sides of the House.

Mr. Mackinnon

It is not very often that I concur in sentiment with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, but when that does take place, I am certain there must be a strong conviction on my mind that he is in the right. The question before us, is, whether or not Westminster Abbey shall be open to the public, which question seems to involve the general principle of opening the cathedral churches in the empire, and therefore the present subject becomes of more importance than the abstract case of opening Westminster Abbey only. Now, Sir, if we entertain any doubt on the expediency of such a measure we may look abroad, and ascertain what is clone in foreign countries under similar circumstances; from the result of such an investigation, it will appear, that all the countries of Europe, I may say, of the civilised world, open their churches to the people; and can any reasonable argument be advanced why we should be behind all the other communities in adopting such a custom. When Henry the 3rd in the thirteenth century erected that beautiful structure opposite, did he anticipate that it would be closed to the English people? Did the various sovereigns, prelates, and subjects, who gave up part, if not all, they could spare, to erect those beautiful and magnificent structures which adorn our principal cities, ever imagine they would be kept from the public to secure 2d. ahead from visitors to the verger or other person in care of the door, and who is usually to be sought for to gain admittance? What must foreigners think of us when they find there is no getting admission in our churches but by giving money. A friend of mine, a foreigner, told me that some time since, he attended divine service at St. Paul's, and after the service, he was desirous of looking at the monuments, and of surveying that edifice, to his surprise he was told he must go away, that he could not be allowed to remain, but he might come the next day. What must strangers think of us, when prevented from seeing St. Paul's, from viewing the monument of Nelson and other heroes there placed, in order that a small sum should be extorted from them at another time? The very manner of admission is disgraceful, at present; you are admitted like a culprit, at a small door, and take your sight of the edifice from the least advantageous point of view. Every Gentleman who hears me is aware, that nearly all cathedrals built since the eleventh century, are formed in the shape of a cross, the upper part of the cross being to the east, and the great entrance being at the same part of the cross from the west. The building, therefore, as intended by the architect, appears in full magnificence when entered from the western door, whence you take a long view of the nave and choir, and part of the northern and southern transept; this view gives the beholder an idea of very great extent, and adds to the magnificence of the whole. The wretched taste, I may almost call it the barbarism of the middle ages, put up screens between the nave and the choir; but our ancestors acted from ignorance in putting up these screens, and might be pardonable, but we act from I know not what to call it, a sort of desire to keep out the public, and extort a few pence, two or four pence, as the case may be, from every individual. Many Gentlemen have, of late, talked eloquently in this House on schools of design for the people, can any thing be more absurd than to require schools of design to promote the arts, at the time you are keeping the people out of the finest works of art in the world? An educated person can scarcely enter into one of our cathedrals without experiencing a sentiment of awe, and a mixed sensation of admiration and wonder; what an effect must the sight of these edifices have on the taste and feelings of the uneducated? Their religious sentiments must be awakened by the sight of these magnificent and stupendous works of art, which, according to Burke's definition of the sublime, have a tendency, when seen by the people, to create that sentiment. Some eminent writer (Lord Kaimes, I believe,) gives his opinion that fine paintings on religious subjects, good sculpture, and striking architecture, influence and improve the religious sentiments of the lower classes, and yet you close the door to the lower classes from all works of art of this description. The more you raise the common people in their own estimation, the better do they behave themselves; of late years, more respect and consideration is shewn towards the lower classes, and a great improvement in their behaviour is perceptible; look at the masses of persons that visit the British Museum, do they do any harm? The only argument that can be brought against the opening of Westminster Abbey is, the risk incurred of the monuments being injured, or the church desecrated by the lower orders, but this does not take place. at the British Museum. Is any impropriety of conduct there remarked? Why not open your great western door to the public from ten to six o'clock in summer, one policeman at the door, and two others to walk about and keep order would suffice; what might be the estimate of the whole expense, say 100l. a year! and is this so heavy a sum that it cannot be supplied? No doubt the chapter could and would most willingly bear it—if it be observed we have no right to take that sum, why should not the Woods and Forests give 1,000l. per annum, and open all the cathedrals in England, the benefits conferred, and the satisfaction given to the population at large, would be worth fifty times that amount. I trust the House will excuse my dwelling so long on this subject. I think it, in my conscience, one of great importance; it will increase religious feeling amongst the lower orders, it will gratify the middle classes of the people, and prevent our being the derision of foreign nations, on a point in which they are far before us in civilization. It may be said, the fee or sum paid for admission is nothing: true, but it takes away from the freedom of enjoyment, I know from myself that if the great western door was open, I should often stroll in, and admire the works of art, now I never think of so doing. Why should not the population of the next century see the monuments without a fee, and with full liberty. Thus the lower, the middle, and the upper orders of society will be benefited by the result. On these grounds, therefore, I will vote for the address. Indeed, I cannot imagine any reasonable ground of opposition to such a measure. One more observation I will make before I sit down; admitting the public into a church only on payment, may tend to desecrate that building in the eyes of the common people, it may seem to them that the sacred edifice is placed on the same footing as a playhouse, or any other place, where an exhibition is given to the community for a certain remuneration.

Mr. Labouchere

did not rise to oppose the motion, the importance of which he did not deny. It was important, so far as it could be done, to facilitate to all classes of the people the means of seeing works of art throughout the country. The appointment of a committee was, he thought, a judicious mode of proceeding, and he was glad that his hon. Friend had altered the original form of his motion. As the motion was agreed to, he trusted that there would be no further discussion, in order that they might get through the remaining business before the House.

Sir R. Inglis

had really never heard such an address as that just made in reference to the motion. The speech really was a mode of evasion of the question. As compared to the former one the motion certainly was improved, but when the committee reported on it the difficulties would be as great as they would be upon an address to the Crown, for neither the Crown nor the House had power over the cathedrals and other public buildings of the country. If the former were, however, to be opened, he must confess he should be afraid to expose the national character to the sarcasm of pilgrims, who would find much to remark upon if Westminster Abbey were thrown open as a school of art. He certainly would object to the works of art in that or other buildings of the same character being regarded in the same view as those in the British Museum. If there were a proposal made to remove the works of art now in Westminster Abbey to the British Museum, though as a separate measure, he should decidedly object to it, yet, however repugnant it might be, he would sooner agree to it rather than that the abbey should be regarded as a mere repository of models for artists. In the remarks the hon. Gentleman made about the reduction of the fees for visiting certain buildings, he did not do justice to the facts of the case, so far as Westminster Abbey was concerned. The fees for the admission of visitors to the abbey had been considerably reduced; but it was at the expense of the prebendaries and dean: each of the former had sacrificed 100l. a-year, and the latter 200l., amounting in the whole to 1,400l. The House should remember that the same power that would open Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's would also open every parish church in the kingdom, and there would be therefore required a very extenstaff of police to exhibit the show, if those officers were to be the keepers. Before he sat down he would direct the attention of her Majesty's Government to the imminent danger in which the cartoons at Hampton court were last week. He understood that probably those paintings might have been destroyed if Mr. Carpue, the eminent surgeon, had not observed the danger they were in. He had no wish to remove the cartoons from their present position to Westminster Abbey or any other place; but he hoped some one of the Ministers present would satisfy the House that sufficient precautions had been adopted to save those, he might say, immortal works, from the risk of being exposed to a danger such as that from which they had escaped. He objected to the motion, yet, seeing the feeling of the House, he did not mean to divide against it.

Lord Morpeth

said, with respect to the Cartoons his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of woods and forests had gone to Hampton Court the day before, and he hoped the direction given by him would ensure them againt a recurrence of risk to these great works, of which the loss would be irreparable.

Motion agreed to. Committee to be nominated after the recess.