§ LORD CAWLEYMy Lords, I desire to ask the. Leader of the House if he can give the House any information as to the state of progress of the project for the erection of a memorial within the precincts of the House of Lords to the Peers and the sons of Peers who fell in the great war.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, no one has a better right, for reasons which are well known, to ask the Question which the noble Lord has just put, than the noble Lord himself, and I welcome the opportunity of giving to the House information upon the subject which he has raised. The House will recollect that in the year 1919, after the war, there was a general feeling among your Lordships that, irrespective of a monument which was being erected at the end of Westminster Hall, the sacrifices which had been borne by your Lordships and your families were so great, and the loss of life which had been incurred was so heavy, that your Lordships would like to have some special ships would like to have within the precincts of this House some special memorial of so much sacrifice and so much glory.
Accordingly, I set myself to ascertain the views of noble Lords on the subject, a Committee was formed, and subscriptions were invited. At that time it was thought that the most suitable place for a memorial would be the recessed window or embrasure at the far end, on the left, of the Royal Gallery, and the suggestion found favour that a monument should be erected on that site, with tablets at the side, upon which should be inscribed the names of those Peers, or Peers' sons, or Peers' brothers, who had given their lives in the war. The rest of that year, 1919, was spent in the collection of subscriptions, and so large a sum of money was forthcoming that the total, with the interest that has since accrued, amounts at the present moment to well over £8,000.
When it was realised that this great sum was forthcoming it was felt that the memorial would be worthy of an even finer setting than that which I have mentioned, and which was at first proposed, and that we should endeavour to find for it, if we could, some more central and more imposing site. Accordingly, the suggestion was then made that it might be possible to shift to some other place the great marble monument which stands in the Princes, Chamber behind the Throne, and which, whatever views may be entertained about it, can hardly be described as admirable, whether as a likeness or a work of art, and to utilise the position thus vacated for the Peers War Memorial. Naturally, the first person to be consulted about the matter was 1382 His Majesty the King, and he readily gave his assent to the removal of that monument, and to its erection upon another and suitable site at the head of the great staircase in the Victoria Tower, up which His Majesty mounts every year when he comes with the Queen to the opening of Parliament.
When His Majesty's consent was given an announcement was made to noble Lords of the suggestion, and it was received with a unanimous approval, that expressed itself in the inflow of a much larger number of subscriptions; and, indeed, I recall on that occasion receiving a letter from the late Lord Harcourt, who was pre-eminently a man of taste, as well as of sentiment, in which he said that he thought that we had now secured the one and only dignified place for such a memorial. And I think you will realise, that, supposing a fine work of the sculptor's art could be procured, a more suitable and a more noble position could hardly be found than one in the Chamber where we assemble every day, where we conduct our correspondence, where we take part in our friendly conversations, and where in the future, should this idea be realised, there will be perpetually present before us a memorial of an incident, or a series of incidents that will remain imperishably fixed in the memory of every one of us, and, indeed, in the traditions for all time of your Lordships' House.
The next step was to proceed with the selection of a sculptor and the preparation of designs. The Committee met and authorised me to put myself in communication with the famous sculptor, Sir Thomas Brock, at that time the head of the profession, and a man whose skill and judgment inspired the warmest confidence in all his fellow artists. I saw Sir Thomas Brock, and he kindly consented to act as adviser or assessor to the Committee, who mistrusted their own artistic judgment in the matter. Upon his suggestion we invited four sculptors of eminence to compete for the selection and to send in sketch models of their designs. Ample time was given to them to perform this duty, and at length, after many months, the designs were sent in Almost immediately after they had reached us, I asked Sir Thomas Brock to come and look at them and give me his expert opinion. They were also seen by the 1383 Committee, and I regret to say that we were all of the opinion—and no one more strongly than Sir Thomas Brock himself—that not one of them was adequate, or fully expressed the object that we had in view. Sir Thomas Brock himself was greatly disappointed, and was somewhat at a loss to know what to say or to advise, but eventually he suggested that it might be considered desirable to invite one or more of the sculptors who had submitted those designs to reconsider their models and to submit something else. I left him to think over that suggestion of his own and to give us more definite advice. A little time after that he sickened and a few months later he died.
That, of course, was a great and very sorrowful interruption to our labours and for the moment nothing could be done. But when we all came back this year we had another meeting of the Committee, who once again inspected the models to which I refer to see whether, in their opinion, it was desirable to invite a review by the artists in question. We came to the unanimous conclusion that it was not and that we could not hope to obtain from these designs, even if revised or altered, the kind of memorial which we should have felt any confidence in recommending to your Lordships. Accordingly, we felt that we must enter upon new ground and I was authorised by the Committee, avoiding the risks of another competition, to approach a very eminent sculptor, much of whose work is known in London but whoso name I had better not mention, perhaps, because his design has not been accepted and it would not be fair to him, and to ask him whether he could see his way to submit to us a new and independent design.
I took a great deal of trouble about the matter with him both then and since. He accepted the undertaking which, of course, involved no pledge on the part of the Committee or anybody in your Lordships' House—it was a purely tentative step, and only a little while ago I went to his studio and saw what I suppose I may call his trial sketch for the monument. It impressed me very favourably indeed, and he then asked leave, in the month or two that must elapse before we reassemble in the autumn, to put his ideas into the form of a more finished and substantial model 1384 which will be shown to the Committee when we reassemble in the course of the autumn.
I hope that the narrative which I have given will have shown your Lordships that, though the time is long and though the delays have been regrettable, but in the main inevitable for the reasons I have named, we are yet progressing towards the end that we all have in view. I personally will continue to devote to the matter the attention which I have hitherto done, which, I may say in passing, has consumed an enormous amount of my time, and I am hopeful that we may end by obtaining a memorial which will be worthy of the great events which it commemorates, of the spirit and sentiment which it symbolises, and of the unique and splendid site which the favour of His Majesty has placed at our disposal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDAre we to understand from the noble Marquess that the designs are to be prepared for the site in the Princes Chamber?
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, I ought perhaps to say before the noble Earl speaks, that when the sculptor to whom I refer and who, I think, is known to the noble Earl, came here, he was shown both sites—the site in the Princes Chamber to which I have referred and the site that had originally been suggested in the recessed window at the end of the Royal Gallery—and that he was given full liberty to make recommendations to us for either site and for any form of monument that might suggest itself to his skill and taste. It-was only after he had had the matter under consideration for a space of two or more months that I heard from him that, after giving that consideration, he had unhesitatingly decided in favour of the larger site in the Princes Chamber immediately behind the Throne.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords. I confess that I shed a tear at hearing of the necessity of removing what is a great historic monument recording the historic episode when the famous Queen Victoria opened these House of Parliament. I know that it is not considered a beautiful monument. The noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, indicated that I dare say that view is shared by most of your Lordships, perhaps by myself also. But it is a 1385 genuine authentic monument of the period, made by perhaps, with one exception, the greatest scuptor of the period and recording, as I say, one of the greatest Parliamentary episodes of the period and certainly the greatest Sovereign who has ever reigned over these Islands Here, behind the Throne, whence the Sovereign opens our proceedings at the beginning of the Session by a gracious Speech from the Throne, is the permanent record of the Queen who, in person, first read the Royal Speech within her great Palace of Westminster.
It is not customary for us to admire Victorian art; but I fancy that Victorian art possesses virtues which are not at all too common in the art of to-day. But whether it is a beautiful statue or an ugly statue is, from my point of view, immaterial. Had each generation scrapped from Westminster Abbey the monuments, the furniture, the glass and the fittings which in their day were considered ugly or obsolete or in eighteenth century parlance "Gothic," Westminster Abbey to-day would be the poorest church in Christendom instead of being the richest church in Christendom for a continuous sequence of monuments of our historic past. My instincts, therefore, impel me in a most respectful manner to record an expression of regret that this necessity should have arisen, especially because the process of removal is not going to be easy, and, in my opinion, the group will look far from well when it occupies the other site. It would cost a thousand pounds at least to move it from the Princes Chamber to the staircase at the end of the Royal Gallery. The central figure must weigh ten or twelve tons. The process of separation of the great blocks is in itself dangerous. Their replacement is likewise dangerous. To fix the monument in position at the top of the Royal stair involves cutting away permanent parts of the structure, and when you have it there it will merely be a side show. I think it is a great pity.
May I remind your Lordships of what has happened only in the last few weeks in a very similar case at Manchester? The square of the Town Hall there, a central position, was occupied by a very important statue, by a very eminent sculptor of his day, of the late Prince Consort. There are four other statues in the square, including Gladstone, Bright, and Bishop Frazer, two on 1386 each side of that of the Prince Consort. Manchester had the problem of finding a site for its war memorial, and it settled, perfectly naturally and on perfectly logical grounds, just as the Committee has come to the same decision here, to place the plastic record in the most central and most important position they could find. His Majesty was approached, and in the case of Manchester as in that of his Palace of Westminster, immediately gave his gracious assent to the removal of the Prince Consort's monument. But gradually Manchester came to wonder if it really was wise to tear up five statues designed for the very positions they occupy to-day on this central square of Manchester, to dump them in other parts of the city where best they could be fitted in, and to replace them by something they had never seen. Bit by bit public opinion came to see that a statue which displaces another one docs not itself possess much security of tenure, and the other day it was decided by an immense majority in the Manchester City Council, supported I believe by a still greater majority of public opinion in that great centre, that the Prince Consort's statue, and the two statutes on either side of it in the central square, should remain where they are and that a new site should be found for the war memorial.
In this case we are not dealing with a town square which has grown up on purely fortuitous lines and directions which may have been settled by chance two, or three, or even four hundred years ago, but we are dealing with the Palace of Westminster which, from the architectural point of view, is by far our greatest secular and artistic achievement of the last thousand years. There is no great building m the world where everything, from the great fundamental lines to the smallest item of decoration of door furniture, and so on, has been thought out with such loving and such meticulous care, and where so gigantic and so successful a unit has been accomplished as in the case of this Palace of Westminster. There is nothing like it, I believe, in the whole world. And as that memorial in the Princes Chamber is an integral part not merely of the decoration but of the structure and of the history of this Palace, I profoundly regret that it should have been necessary to remove it. For my part I 1387 should greatly prefer that the Memorial to deceased Peers, officers of this House, and I fancy also relatives of Peers, should occupy a position less in the bustle and gossip of our workaday life in this House, but rather in that solemn though more remote embrasure, which in itself has the aspect of a tiny chapel or of a small shrine, at the end of the famous Waterloo Chamber.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I think your Lordships are very much to be congratulated upon the fact that we have as Leader of your Lordships' House a Minister who is not only indefatigable and ready to undertake all the work which comes his way, but also one who is well known for his love of art. I speak on this subject with some diffidence, because it is one of those matters of taste upon which everybody forms a different opinion, and forms it upon very different lines, and with very different standards. But I should like to join the noble Earl who has just spoken in asking, before it is too late, that a little further consideration should be given to the suggestion that the statue in the Princes Chamber should be removed. It is of great historic interest, and it is a curious fact that in all this vast pile of buildings there are really only two rooms which are completed as they were intended to be finished by the architect who first planned this great Palace. Those are this room and the Princes Chamber next door.
Although the details, as the noble Earl has just said, have been carried out in a great many other rooms, it is just these two rooms, and these two rooms only, that have been actually finished in accordance with the original intentions of the architect and designer. Surely, that is rather a precious heritage. Let us turn our minds back to the time of Queen Elizabeth, and think how pleased we should be if we could point to two rooms designed and decorated by the people of that day and left wholly untouched from that day to this. I think that it would be very difficult for any architect or any sculptor to devise a monument in the next room which was in harmony with the present age, and yet at the same time was in harmony with the decorations of that Chamber. And indeed that has already proved to be the case, because, as I understand from the noble Marquess, the designs 1388 which have already been submitted have not in his opinion been wholly satisfactory. Therefore, I also would enter a plea for leaving that great monument as it is at the present time.
Surely there are sites available other than the one in the Princes Chamber. Surely there are other sites available than these—the one in the Princes Chamber and the other in the Royal Gallery. Certainly more than one is suggested to my mind at once, and therefore I hope that the noble Marquess will perhaps refer to this distinguished architect whom he has in his mind not only the possibility of the second site in the Princes Gallery, but also the question whether there is not somewhere else within the precincts of the Palace a site in which he might put up a suitable memorial to the Peers and sons of Peers killed during the war.
But I rose also to ask the noble Marquess with regard to another memorial, whether he can give your Lordships' House any information upon the subject. It is a matter which has been mentioned to me by more than one noble Lord. It will be within the knowledge of most of your Lordships that a memorial has been placed at the end of Westminster Hall, and upon it are the names of Peers and Members of the House of Commons and officers of both Houses who were killed during the war. There are also added the names of relatives of Members of the House of Commons. That is admirable. We are all glad to think that every possible honour should be done to these people. But to my mind it is something of an omission that there is no mention of any relative of any member of your Lordships' House. Westminster Hall, St. Stephen's Hall and the Central Lobby, are all parts of the Palace of Westminster, which is held in equal possession by both Houses of Parliament, and it is a pity that there should have been so striking an omission.
One day, when looking at this memorial, some friends of mine heard a number of people who were passing comment on the absence of any mention at all of any relatives of members of your Lordships' House, and they did not understand how it was they were not placed there. May I make a suggestion to the noble Marquess? It is this: that he should communicate with those who are responsible for the memorial in Westminster 1389 Hall and ask whether it would not be possible to insert a line—there are several vacant spaces—saying that the memorial to the relatives and members of the House of Lords is to be found in another place. Without crowding this memorial with a number of additional names, if it could be placed on record in this place where it is seen by hundreds of people a day—my business has brought me to your Lordships' House in the mornings and I have been astonished at the number of people who come to visit your Lordships' House—that the memorial to relatives and members of the House of Lords is in another place, it would, I think, remove a possible misconception, a very unfortunate misconception, and one which, if it is allowed to remain may indeed give rise to serious misconception in the future.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TONMy Lords, I have no responsibility whatever for the monument at the end of Westminster Hall, but I was brought into contact with the arrangements that were made for its erection on more than one occasion, and I think, therefore, I am in a position to answer the Question of the noble Earl. That monument was in its inception in the main a House of Commons affair. A Committee was constituted without any reference cither to the Leader or the principal members of your Lordships' House, and subscriptions were invited by those who were responsible for the organisation from Peers as well as from commoners. Quite a limited number of noble Lords subscribed, and it was at that stage that the idea took form that your Lordships would not be content with having the names of your dead inscribed only in Westminster Hall and in a memorial which you would share with the Members of another House, but that you would want one of your own.
Then we come to the question of names for which again I had no responsibility, except in so far as I did my best to make the names that were put on the monument accurate. The difficulty was this. The noble Earl has complained that on that monument are recorded only, in so far as this House is concerned, the names of those Peers who lost their lives in the war. I believe that is true. But the number of those whose names he would have liked to have seen there, and whose 1390 names will be inscribed upon the memorial we hope to erect, is no fewer than two hundred. That is to say, if the additions were made to that monument 190 further names would be required. You have only to go to the monument in question, already crowded to my mind beyond the limits of taste with the names of members, to see that it would be quite impossible to add that number. We, therefore, made it quite clear from the start that the record of the sons of Peers, or the brothers of Peers who were themselves sons of Peers, would be the record that would be preserved and inscribed here and that we had no responsibility for that monument except that it recorded the names of Peers alone.
The noble Earl has made the suggestion that perhaps some notice may be inscribed or inserted to the effect that the real Peers memorial stands elsewhere. I do not know whether it rests with me to make that suggestion because I have had nothing to do with the execution of the monument, but when the noble Earl's speech appears in the newspapers it may well be that attention will be drawn to the suggestion he has made and it may be that there is something in the suggestion itself.
Without fatiguing the House and disobeying its rules, may I say one word in reply to what the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has said? I think that his remarks would perhaps have been better placed had they been delivered two years ago. This decision, which he has commented upon almost as if it were a new one, has been perfectly familiar to your Lordships' House for more than three years. I myself circularised Peers and informed them, and so far as I know it has been a matter of common knowledge. It was certainly known to the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TONI do not know what the noble Earl means by published. We have never published anything about the memorial, but I myself wrote a circular and had it printed and sent to noble Lords, and in consequence of that circular many noble Lords wrote to me, stating that their objections to the secluded site had been removed and that they heartily appreciated 1391 the selection of this more dignified position; and, as I remarked in my former speech, the subscription list wont up by leaps and bounds. One word about the recess in the adjoining Chamber. I fully appreciate what the noble Earl has said and I remember remarking, in fact I think it was to the noble Earl, that that small embrasure had the advantage almost of suggesting a shrine. I even made the suggestion that perhaps gates should be put across the entrance in order to shut it off from the main gallery. The idea pleased me that the place should have something sequestered and sacred about it, removing it from the bustle and movement of our every day life.
But it was precisely that aspect of the case that met with the criticism of noble Lords. There were noble Lords who came to me and said: "That is not what we want. Our sacrifice has been public before the world. We want to be reminded of it. We do not want to go to a chapel to pray. We can go to the church where our boys are commemorated by a monument on the walls if we want to worship, if we want solitude and silence. Do let us in our every day life, when we come to the House of Lords, have some memory brought before us of this supreme incident in our lives and the nation's." It was that form of criticism, coming to me over and over again, that tempted me to move away from the suggestion that had originally found favour in my own mind and support the selection of another site.
It is difficult indeed to contemplate changes now. May I add this, that when one noble Lord—I think it was the noble Earl opposite—asked whether there are not other sites, I would reply at once that we went over every corridor and room of this House—I spent hours over it, looking at every conceivable place—and there is none. You have £8,000 contributed for this purpose. Where are you to spend it in a memorial worthy of the name and of the sum that has been collected? You cannot spend £8,000 on the recess in the Royal Gallery. Here is a site, noble, patent before the world, accepted by His Majesty the King as suitable for a memorial looking down in sorrow and in emotion upon our daily life. Why are we not to take it? We are not to take it because this is a sacred relic of the Victorian age, because it was designed at the same moment that this 1392 House was designed, because it is an integral part of one great conception.
I agree with all that the noble Earl said about the general beauty of the Palace of Westminster. Considering that it was built in a style of architecture wholly unsuited to the purpose for which it exists, it is a very remarkable triumph of the architectural art, and every day, although I see features in this room that I detest, I am at the same time lost in admiration of the general structural and decorative beauty of the building by which I am surrounded. But if you ask me to transfer my admiration to that statue—that is the limit. I do not pursue the matter, because de gustibus non est disputandum—every man has his own idea of taste—but I do hope that your Lordships will not too readily, in response to the great artistic authority of the noble Earl, throw over the work which has been pursued for the last two or three years and with which the bulk of your Lordships were quite familiar, but will allow us to carry on the design to which we have set our hand, and which, I am satisfied from what I have seen, will in the long run content the great majority of your Lordships.
§ LORD CAWLEYMy Lords, I rise only to thank the noble Marquess for his explanation of a delay which was perhaps somewhat longer than some of your Lordships liked to see, though I think we ought to be satisfied with the explanation which the noble Marquess has given us.