HC Deb 21 May 1889 vol 336 cc692-700 Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College Div.)

As a matter of form, Sir, I have to renew the Motion for a reduction which I made last night. I propose that this Vote be reduced by £100, and I intend briefly to recapitulate the reasons which lead me to do this. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works, for whom I have the highest personal respect, has handed over the charge of Dunblane Cathedral to the Board of Manufactures. Now, this ruin is one of great historical interest and antiquity, and I contend the right hon. Gentleman in handing it over to that Board has acted without the smallest constitutional right, and, further than that, the Board is utterly unfitted to be custodians of national property like this. I intend mainly to base my case upon the impropriety of this alienation of national property, and I therefore invite the House to reduce the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman stated that when he wished to hand over Dunblane Cathedral to a public body he cast his eyes upon the Board of Manufactures, and it was recommended to him by a deputation which included the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire and the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, and as those hon. Gentlemen concurred in the choice of this body, he thought he could not be far wrong in following their advice. But I venture to say that neither of these hon. Gentlemen can be taken by the widest stretch of imagination to represent the concensus of Scotch opinion. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland, who agreed in the selection of the Board of Manufactures. Now I have always contended that if the right hon. Gentleman wished to transfer this national property in Scotland, he should have handed it over to the Secretary for Scotland, not because I have any particular confidence in the present holder of that office, but because the office is always held by a Minister who is at all events theoretically responsible to this House. The right hon. Gentleman said he chose the Board of Manufactures because it was a non-political body, and such property, in his opinion, should be vested in non-political bodies. But the right hon. Gentleman himself is a Minister holding office, and he is a member of a political body, as also will be his successors, and yet there has never been the smallest objection to vesting national property in Ministers who are political personages. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Board of Manufactures is a well-known body which has a very ancient charter, and that formerly it was known as the Board of Manufactures and Fisheries, and he said this as if Fisheries made it a more proper body for taking charge of the ruins of Dunblane Cathedral. As a matter of fact, when the question of fisheries came to be discussed, this Board was considered to be so incompetent that it was taken out of their hands and intrusted to a Board of less aristocratic pretensions, and probably not possessing in an extraordinary degree the confidence of the Scotch people, yet it was still a great improvement on the Board of Manufactures and Fisheries. Sir, in order to bring home to the House what the right hon. Gentleman has done, I may say that it is precisely as if he had taken Furness Abbey and handed it over to the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, which is certainly a more ancient body than the Board of Manufactures, and which numbers among its members names even more illustrious than those on the other Board. But I doubt if any Member would make such an absurd proposition, and if he did certainly the House would meet it with reprobation. I may take another illustration. It is as if the right hon. Gentleman were to take that sacred ground of Rotten Row, which is one of the most precious charges of the right hon. Gentleman, and handed it over to the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers for the purpose of making a high road of it. Yet what he has done with regard to Dunblane Cathedral is not less defensible than if he had pursued either of the courses which I have suggested. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has always shown himself to be a reasonable man, and I ask him to see how the Scotch Members vote on this subject, and to be guided by their opinion to alter the course he intends to take, and to withdraw from the proposed act of vandalism.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the First Commissioner."—(Dr. Cameron.)

MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)

I wish in a very few words to give the reasons why I think it is my duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Sir, I had the pleasure of hearing a portion of the speech made by my right hon. Friend last night in defence of his policy. The right hon. Gentleman cited facts to show that the restoration is being carried on in a proper way. I do not intend to deal with that branch of the subject at all. I have never had the pleasure of seeing Dunblane Cathedral, and am therefore not competent to give an opinion on the point. The restoration project may be good and it may be bad; in my view in all probability it will be bad. But the point I wish to bring before the House is this—In my opinion the Government ought not to part with their control over a public monument. We know the inconvenience that results from St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey not being under the control of Parliament. It has been suggested more than once that the control of national monuments should be handed over to a public body like the trustees of the British Museum, but although I am a trustee of the British Museum, I do not think that is a body what ought to be intrusted with the care of public monuments. Nor do I recognize the special fitness of the lawyers and men of science who form the so-called Board of Manufactures. I do not know whether they are specially fitted to manufacture cathedrals; probably they think they are. I wish particularly to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works if he has parted with all control over this building, or whether he has reserved to himself any power to retrace the steps taken and once more place the cathedral under the control of the Government.

* MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)

As my name has been introduced into this discussion, I wish to say a word or two upon the subject. I think the question is one of considerably greater difficulty than is supposed by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, because if the walls of this cathedral are not attended to by some authority which will preserve them more effectually than is likely under the present system they will fall. But, speaking from local knowledge, and as the result of recent inquiries, I must say I do not think it is desirable in the public interest, that these walls should be used as the walls of what is practically a new church. I have no special objection to the Board of Manufactures; it may be it is a very good body for the purpose of preserving cathedrals, but the question is, what is going to be done with this ruin? Now, having formed one of a deputation to the First Commissioner in support of something very like what is proposed to be done, it may be necessary that I should do penance in a white sheet, seeing that I find it incumbent on me now to object to the scheme. While approving of steps being taken to preserve the cathedral and maintain its walls intact, I do not think that restoration should be carried to the extent of constructing what is practically a new church. It is proposed, I understand, to frame and glaze, and. otherwise change the character of an oriel window, which is a special object of interest, and has been written about by Ruskin. It is also proposed to bore holes in the west wall for the purpose of inserting new windows. The effect of these changes would be to completely alter the structure of the building. In the absence of any assurance that such things will not be done, I cannot oppose the reduction of the Vote.

SIR JOHN KINLOCH (Perth, E.)

I wish to protest against any interference whatever with Dunblane Cathedral. I object, in the first place, to its being handed over to a particular church. In the second place, I wish to say that restoration is all very well in its place, but what would be said if it were proposed to restore Melrose Abbey or Fountains Abbey? You are proposing to restore one of our most magnificent ruins, and I say the projected restoration of Dunblane Cathedral would be a work of vandalism.

* MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH (Invernessshire)

I shall—support the Amendment because I think it was not right to transfer Dunblane Cathedral to the Board of Manufactures; but at the same time I must say it is not a ruin in the sense that the abbeys just named are ruins. It would be very wrong to interfere with the character and main features of a building which is undoubtedly of great historical interest, though I do not gather that the proposed repairs will in any way interfere with its characteristics.

* THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)

The objec- tion raised by hon. Members this evening seems to be solely confined to the transfer of this ancient ruin to the Board of Manufactures. I referred last night to the fact that although the Board was originally called a Board of Trustees for the Manufactures of Scotland, it really is now more an artistic body than anything else, and I assert again it would be impossible to find in Scotland or anywhere else a Board better suited for the purpose for which it is now being taken advantage of. The Board consists of the leading men of both political parties who have been asked to join it as I understand not only as useful members of the Board, but also to some extent as an honour to themselves. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven objects to the transfer of any ruins or architectural objects of interest that are under the control of the Government to any other body whatever. There is, no doubt, a great deal to be said for that as a general principle. Though I do not go so far as my right hon. Friend in that direction, and I certainly do not agree with him in one part of his argument. I understand him to say that if you transfer an architectural structure of this kind to a body like the Board of Manufactures or even, as he said, to the British Museum you will have differences of opinion, and then those persons who are really authorities on the subject of art will very likely be outvoted, and he thinks, therefore, that the custodians should be responsible to Parliament and that the vote should be taken in the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend considers himself, and no doubt he is, a very excellent authority on questions of art, but I should like to ask him to search his memory and to tell me how many times he has been outvoted in this House on artistic questions. He never fails to express his views fully and positively, and no doubt they are very sound, but so far as I know they have never on any one occasion been very successfully put forward by him—never! What has happened in the present case is this:—There came to me an influential deputation representing the heritors of the district and other persons interested in the locality, and they urged very strongly upon me that this beautiful old ruin was going to decay, and that the best way to restore and maintain it for all time and to preserve its beauty would be to roof in the nave and otherwise render it fit to be used as a parish church. I must say the action of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane) to-day was the most melancholy exhibition of the backing of a friend that I have ever listened to in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend made to me a very eloquent speech as a member of that deputation, in which he urged the general propriety of the scheme, and the particular advantage of putting a roof on the walls of the cathedral with a view of preserving the ruin. I have in my hand a memorial which was presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is as follows:— Your memorialists consider the fittest and wisest means of providing the extra accommodation required— that is to say, for the congregation— Is to utilize the ancient and beautiful nave of the cathedral. To do so involves the entire restoration of that part of the building, including the re-roofing of the nave. This cannot be accomplished without the consent of the Crown. And then the memorialists go on to refer to the report of a very eminent Scotch architect whose Report was annexed to the memorial. In that report the architect said I am of opinion that the walls are strong enough to carry a new roof and that the decay, although considerable, is only superficial. My hon. and learned Friend presented the memorial to me, supported as it was by the architect's view I have read. I can only say of the hon. and learned Gentleman Never more be officer of mine.

* MR. HALDANE

I am sure my right hon. Friend will remember that there wore modest members of the deputation who remained perfectly silent. I was one of them. What we waited upon him for was to get something done to put Dunblane Cathe- dral in a condition which would maintain its walls, and not to carry out any particular plan. I admit the force of the charge so far as possibly criminal negligence on my part is concerned, and I certainly shall not vote against the right hon. Gentleman's salary, for I do not intend to vote at all.

* MR. PLUNKET

The accents of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he supported the memorial are still lingering in my ear. But I will pass that by. There was then a seeming unanimity in favour of the prayer of the memorialists, and there is still, as I showed last night, when we debated this question, an overwhelming preponderance of architectural authority in favour of what I have done. No opposition whatever was raised to the course which is now being taken until at the beginning of this year the hon. Member for the College Division asked me a question on the subject.

SIR G. TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

We are certainly in an unfortunate position in being obliged to raise this question in the odious form of reducing the salary of a Minister, and of such a Minister as the right hon. Gentleman. The good faith and good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman are conspicuous in every word he speaks, but we are face to face with a very serious principle indeed, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), that is to say, whether an ancient and beautiful ruin ought to be left as an ancient and beautiful ruin, or converted into a modern church. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) truly says, he has very large architectural authority in favour of this change. Of course the architects of this day are bound to think that they build better than the architects of old, but we do not think so, and we prefer the relics of old to the best new edifices which can be made out of them. I see two or three Members who are connected with Yorkshire, and I ask them what they would think if Bolton Abbey and Fountains Abbey and Riveaulx Abbey were converted into modern churches, even if the work could be done by the late Mr. Steel or Mr. Pugin, or any other architect you like to name. I think it would be considered an absolute disaster to the whole county. But however important great ruins may be to Yorkshire, they are far more important to Scotland, because whereas in Yorkshire and other counties we have our glorious cathedrals—cathedrals which were, perhaps, improved by the Reformation, it may be said that the only opportunity the Scotch people have of experiencing that peculiar form of artistic and poetic enjoyment which is obtained by seeing a perfectly beautiful ecclesiastical building, is that afforded by these ruins. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend. No speech could be so eloquent as photographs of Dunblane Cathedral, which my hon. Friend has been showing on these Benches. It is quite clear from these photographs that Dunblane Cathedral has something of the beauty of Melrose, of Tintern, and of Glastonbury. Is it conceivable we should allow Melrose, Tintern, and Glastonbury to be altered into parish churches? Recollect that once this is done it cannot be undone. I will not enter into the constitutional question. I am sure the Board of Manufactures deserves the confidence the right hon. Gentleman reposes in it, but on the broad principle of preserving Dunblane Cathedral as it is, I think we should do well, although with great reluctance, to vote against the salary of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 108, Noes 179.—(Division List, No. 123).

Original Question again proposed.

It being after ten minutes to seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,—

House adjourned at five minutes after nine o'clock