HL Deb 08 May 1884 vol 287 cc1659-64
LORD STEATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is intended to remove the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington from London before the proposed fund for another statue is collected?

LORD THURLOW

, in reply, said, that the precise date for the removal of the statue was not yet fixed, but that it would be fixed as soon as the minor details connected with the matter had been settled. As to the subscription for raising the necessary funds for the new statue, it had been already set on foot, and several promises of large sums had been given, as well as several subscriptions actually received. In fact there was every reason to believe that an ample fund would be forthcoming before it was possible to remove the equestrian statue from its present position. No time, however, would be lost in carrying out the plans which had been decided upon.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

said, that as he had not an opportunity of addressing their Lordships when this subject was before the House on a former evening, he would like to make a few observations now, because his Father—the late Duke of Rutland—took an extreme interest in placing the statue upon the Arch, and for 10 years of his life it was his principal object. He (the Duke of Rutland) had sent some facts in a letter to The Morning Post, which might or might not have been read by their Lordships. One fact was, that the Duke of Wellington refused to sit for his likeness to Wyatt until he received the sanction of the Queen that the statue should be placed upon the arch. The second was, that the Duke did sit to Wyatt, and several times; and that he expressed to Wyatt that ha (the Duke) would like him (Wyatt) to see him upon horseback, as he was naturally proud of his seat on horseback. The third fact was, that the Duke was annoyed at the idea of the statue being taken down; and the fourth was, that the Committee in their final Report—when the statue was placed upon the Arch—said that it was a likeness of the Duke of Wellington as he appeared at the Battle of Waterloo. He did not know whether he ought to trouble their Lordships by reading extracts upon which he based this statement. With their Lordships' permission, however, he would read them. The first extract was a Minute of the Sub-Committee, dated December 2, 1846, and it was as follows:— When Her Majesty the Queen was graciously pleased to approve of the Arch as the position of the intended statue, she was so good as to express a most ready acquiescence in the wish of the Committee, and even went so far as to say that she should consider that the statue on the summit of the Triumphal Arch would be an object of great ornament to that part of the Metropolis, and she should rejoice to see upon it the memorial of so great a man as the Duke of Wellington. The next extract was from a letter from the Duke of Rutland to Mr. Croker, dated June 1, 1847, detailing an account of an interview with Lord John Russell, and it ran thus— I said that I was not aware that his Lordship knew the Duke, who had hitherto avoided the expression of any opinion on the subject, had lately evinced the strongest desire that the statue should remain where it was, and that I and my Colleagues felt that if we did not follow up his wishes, by directing the artist to remove more of the scaffolding, we should actually offend His Grace. The third was an extract from a Minute of the Sub-Committee, under date of June 28, 1847, and was signed by the Duke of Rutland, the Chairman of the Committee. It was to this effect— And all these objections are fortified by knowing its removal to be distasteful to the illustrious individual whose achievements it was their object to commemorate, and whose consent to sit to the artist they obtained on the express statement that the Arch had been granted by the Queen in the terms before quoted for the site of the Statue. The following was an extract from the final Report of the Sub-Committee, dated June 3, 1848:— They rejoiced at having completed their anxious labours by the erection of a memorial surpassing in magnitude every other equestrian statue in the world, and conveying to posterity a faithful similitude of His Grace as he appeared on the great day of Waterloo. In the second volume of The Life of Bishop Wilberforce, at page 412, dated October 17, 1858, this passage occurs— I asked Lord Aberdeen—'Do you believe a story Brougham told me, that the Duke meant, if the equestrian statue were taken down, to resign his commission?' And that he said—'I fear I cannot the Peerage.' 'I do not believe that; but it might be true.' He felt wonderfully strongly about its being an indignity. A lady had informed him that, at the time the statue was put up, she was very anxious to know whether it was a correct likeness of the Duke, and she asked an old Peninsular veteran what he thought of it, and his reply was—"Well, mum, it is the likeliest thing I have ever see'd (sic). I have over and over again see'd the Duke in that attitude giving the word of command." He (the Duke of Rutland) was aware that a Vote for the removal of the statue had been agreed to in the House of Commons; but he implored Her Majesty's Government, and the country as well, before the final step was taken, to consider what it was they were really going to do. If they were to remove this statue, because they thought it was not of an artistic character, he wanted to know what statue in London would remain where it was? What statue was there that some critic or artist would not find fault with, and say that some blunder had been made in executing it? This statue embodied all the memories of the great man who had passed away, and was it to be removed merely because the artist had happened to have made a blunder? He did not doubt that Mr. Boehm would make a very fine statue, but it could not be the commemorative figure, showing the Duke on horseback, as he appeared at the Battle of Waterloo, that pleased the Duke, who did not wish it to be removed from its present position. Therefore, it should not be so removed; for even if it were, and even if Mr. Boehm did make what might be called a fine statue now, and which should be put in the place of the old one, what security had they that some 20 years hence the Royal Academicians and the Art critics of the day might not arrive at the conclusion that it was not an artistic piece of sculpture, and that they could do much better. This was really a very serious matter, and it was one that should not be decided by a number of gentlemen upon a Committee; it ought to be decided by the feeling of the country. As yet, however, the public had had very little opportunity of expressing their opinion on the matter. He hoped, therefore, that even at that eleventh hour, the subject might be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had taken great interest in this subject, and with that patriotism and loyalty for which he was distinguished, when he heard that this statue was to be melted down and done away with, he had come forward, and had proposed the plan which, at all events, saved the statue from destruction. The whole of the Correspondence had been presented by the Committee to his Father, and both His Royal Highness and the Government were ignorant of the facts he had then stated. In conclusion, he would appeal to the Government and the nation, whether, knowing the sentiments of the noble Duke, as he the (Duke of Rutland) had now explained them, they would still insist on removing the, statue to Aldershot, because such removal would be an outrage on the memory of the illustrious dead?

LORD DE ROS

said, he had not, during the discussion, heard a single word as to the opinion of the officers of the Army on the subject. He was certain that if the sentiment and feelings of the British Army had been consulted, it would have been in favour of preserving the statue, if not in the present locality, at any rate, in the vicinity of Apsley House, whether it was replaced on the Arch or not. He did not see where it could be placed at Aldershot, and he hoped the appeal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) would have weight with Her Majesty's Government.

VISCOUNT HARDINGE

said, that the matter had been discussed ad nauseam. This was the sixth or seventh time it had been brought before the House, and he wished to know how often these discussions were to take place? The noble Duke complained that public opinion had not been fully tested; but it had been so far tested that in both Houses the scheme had been approved by a majority in its favour. His noble and gallant Friend asked whether the Army had been consulted. The Army was well represented on the Committee, and it was understood that the officers at Aldorshot had asked for its removal there. As to the expense of a pedestal for it, when it arrived there, the funds of the Prince of Wales's Committee would be ample to meet any expenditure. He must now protest against further discussion in the matter.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

said, it was very true, as the noble Viscount had said, that the subject had been discussed from time to time; but it had now come forward in quite a different phase, and information had been brought forward which had not come before their Lordships in previous discussions. The House having now been put authentically, and for the first time, in possession of the facts of the case, an Address to the Throne ought to be moved for at once in reference to it, the other House having passed a Motion on the subject without anything like a full knowledge concerning it. He denied that the House of Commons had decided in favour of the removal of the statue. They had been told that the statue was to go, and were asked whether they would vote the money for the construction of another equestrian statue to take its place, to which they assented.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he would not by one word prolong the argument. He rather agreed with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Hardinge), that the subject was one which had already been pretty well ventilated both in and out of Parliament. It had been suggested by the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord De Ros) that an appeal should be made to the Army; while, as far as he (Earl Granville) could understand him, the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) had suggested a plebiscite of the nation; but, in view of the fact that the question had already been settled in both Houses, he was at a loss to understand what machinery could be necessary for making the test. Her Majesty's Government were not yet so Radical that, after the discussions which had taken place in both Houses of Parliament, they would submit the matter to a plebiscite of the people.