HC Deb 24 July 1846 vol 87 cc1407-17

On the Motion that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, be now read,

MR. CRAVEN BERKELEY

said, he had hoped that the subject of the Motion of which he had given notice for that evening would have been taken up by a more influential Member than himself, and by one whose opinions would have been more regarded; but he considered the question was of so much importance that he had no hesitation in bringing it under the notice of the House. The real facts of the case were these: a number of individuals subscribed a very large sum of money for the purpose of erecting a testimonial of the military services of the Duke of Wellington; and the committee, without consulting anybody, or the majority of the subscribers, at once decided that the arch at the top of Constitution-hill was the best place on which to erect an equestrian statue of the noble Duke. That had produced the greatest dissatisfaction on the part of a great number of the subscribers; and in order that the House might be in possession of their opinions, he would read a few extracts from the correspondence that had taken place upon the subject, containing the remonstrances that had been made to the committee at the work having been commenced. The hon. Member accordingly read a letter addressed to Lord Melbourne by the sub-committee on the 8th of August, 1838— Requesting that Her Majesty's Government will suspend their consent to any plan which may be submitted for their approval until the whole question shall have been considered at a full meeting of the committee, and, if necessary, at a general assembly of the subscribers. He knew that his noble Friend opposite would tell him that he was bringing on this Motion too late, and that he should not have allowed the works to have progressed so far as they had: but the Papers upon which he founded this Motion had only been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford on the 29th day of June last, and were not in the hands of hon. Members until the 11th of the present month. He had taken every opportunity since then of endeavouring to bring this matter before the House, but had not been able, for many reasons. Not that he was going to call in question the conduct of his hon. and galland Friend whom he then saw behind him; but the person whose conduct he did impugn was the First Lord Commissioner of that day, Viscount Duncannon, who had no right to give his consent to the erection of the statue in the blind manner he did. It was, in his opinion, impossible to imagine anything more inartistical or in worse taste than to place a statue of the kind in the situation proposed. The hon. Member read an extract from a statement made on June 8, 1845, by Mr. Decimus Burton, the architect of the arch, to the Earl of Lincoln, in which he said— The Wellington Testimonial is a single equestrian statue of colossal dimensions, viz., about 30 feet high; its weight, exclusive of the plinth, about 40 tons. It would not be a satisfactory surmount for the arch; colossal as it is, the horse, when placed on so huge a pedestal, would present an appearance far too meagre and tall for the situation. Proportion and unity of design are the first and most important elements in a work of art; both of these would be wanting in this instance if such a statue were placed upon the arch. The fact that the monument was not the design of one and the same artist, would strike the most casual observer. He would not trouble the House with any more opinions of architects; no one artist whose opinion had been taken but had condemned it in the strongest terms possible. There happened to be in this country last winter a most distinguished foreign architect, M. Canina, an Italian gentleman, the Pope's architect, and he was perfectly astonished at the idea of placing the statue on the arch, and said that if it were carried out it would be the "disgrazia d'Inghilterra." But he gave great credit to the noble Lord lately at the head of the Woods and Forests, and to his predecesor, for the endeavours they had made to prevent the intended plan being carried into effect. Lord Canning, in writing to the Duke of Rutland, said— I feel sure, therefore, that your Grace and the committee will not suppose that, in submitting for your consideration the proposal which I have now to make in the name of Her Majesty's Government, there is any wish to call in question the right of the committee to claim, as they have done, the performance of a promise made to them in 1838 by the Government of the day, or their undoubted liberty to act upon that promise, by applying the arch to the use for which it was then thought proper to concede it to them. At the same time it is my duty to state to your Grace, that the remonstranees which reach Her Majesty's Government against the proposed appropriation of the arch are so many and so strong; the representations of its architect, Mr. Burton, in the same sense, are so earnest; and the opinion of every other eminent architect, artist, or other competent authority who has been consulted on the subject, is so decided—that Her Majesty's Government feel called upon not only to make a final effort to induce the subscribers to reconsider the project of placing the statue on the site at present proposed, but to do all that lies in their power to facilitate a change in the design. It was quite plain that the committee refused to change their design. Then he said, that that House was called upon to interfere. They must remember that the arch upon which it was proposed to place this statue was the chief entrance to the palace of the Queen; it stood also at the entrance to this city; it was built at the public expense; and the House of Commons had a right to say they would not be made the laughing-stock of foreigners, as they certainly would if they allowed the statue to be erected as was proposed. He should therefore move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withdraw Her Consent to the placing of the Statue of the Duke of Wellington upon the archway at the top of Constitution Hill.

MR. BAILLIE

, in seconding the Motion, said that when this subject was last discussed in that House, it was stated that there was no authority for placing a statue in the position in which it was proposed to place this statue; and, in answer to that, the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Scarborough said, that as the Duke of Wellington was the greatest general in the world, so it was quite unnecessary to follow the ordinary rules of art in placing a monument in so extraordinary a situation. He could not understand the force of that argument; but it occurred to him that in all probability the gallant Officer had been studying the works of the ancient Egyptians, and had seen in the curious pictorial representations they had left us, that it was the practice of the ancient artists of Egypt to confine themselves within the strict rules of art in their representations of ordinary men, but to allow themselves the fullest scope of imagination in their representations of the great heroes and conquerors of antiquity. But he must do his gallant Friend the justice to say that he did look out for an authority; for, in a letter which his hon. Friend had published in the Illustrated London News, he informed the world, that upon a voyage of discovery which he had made in the agricultural districts, he had been fortunate enough to discover a great authority. Over a lodge gate, at the entrance of a gentleman's park in Hampshire, he had seen a statue of Marcus Aurelius placed in the same position, and that was a perfect and conclusive authority. His hon. and gallant Friend might have remembered that the lion on the top of Northumberland-house was placed in the same position also; but his hon. Friend must forgive him if he said that neither the one nor the other could be looked upon as a classical authority. A monument was about to be erected to one of our greatest men. It was constructed of imperishable materials—it was the greatest equestrian statue in the world, and was calculated to remain for ages yet to come, not only as a monument of the great man whom it was intended to represent, but also as a monument of the taste and knowledge of the fine arts existing amongst the people of this country in the age in which they lived; and that consideration ought to induce the Government to pause before they gave their sanction to the further progress of a work which, according to the best authorities that had been consulted in this country, did not possess, as every one must admit, that first and most essential requisite in a work of art—unity of proportion and design. Moreover, it was stated by those great authorities to be a most striking error to convert a triumphal arch into a pedestal for a statue. He, therefore, said that, considering the report which had been made to the Woods and Forests on this subject by artists and men of eminence; considering also what was the opinion of the late Government, and he believed of the present Government, it was somewhat indecent on the part of the committee that they should be determined still to exercise what they called their right to prosecute a work which they knew to be distasteful to the public.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said, with respect to his own private judgment, from which even official responsibility could not separate him, he partook to the full in the misgivings which had been expressed by the two hon. Gentleman, and by his two noble predecessors in the office which he had the honour to fill, and which, he believed, he might add, had been backed by very many and competent professional authorities; and, although they found that the consent and authority of the preceding Government had been signified to the persons who wished to erect this statue, to place it in the situation proposed, and that some progress had been made in the actual work, and some expense already incurred; yet he confessed that, even at that moment, he did wish very much that those who represented the subscribers could persuade themselves to accede to the offer made to them by the Government, to pro- cure another site, and, if they did, he would assure them that no pecuniary difficulty should stand in the way. At the same time, he did not feel that he should be warranted in interfering in the work. He had only further to mention, that the only piece of the correspondence which was deficient from that which had been presented to the House, was the last letter from Mr. Burton, the architect of the arch, in reply to the last letter in the collection submitted to the House from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, in which they requested Mr. Burton, after carefully examining the plans and sections of Mr. Wyatt for strengthening the arch, to inform them whether he were perfectly satisfied that thay were such as would insure the perfect safety of the arch. He had only received the answer of Mr. Burton that morning, and he would read it to the House:—

"6, Spring-gardens, July 24, 1846.

"My Lord and Gentlemen—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the Board's letter (No. 3,380) of the 23rd ult., transmitting the plans and section prepared by Mr. M. Wyatt of the works in the superstructure necessary to bear the equestrian statue at the required elevation above the top of the arch at Constitution-hill, and desiring me to examine these, and to consider those mea sures proposed to be adopted in their execution; and to inform the Board whether I am satisfied that they are such as will insure the perfect safety of the arch; and to state that, on the 24th ult., I accompanied Mr. Wyatt to inspect the works, and I again inspected them yesterday, when I found Mr. Wyatt there. As I stated in my letter to Viscount Canning of the 16th of April last, transmitting to the Board these plans and sections, which I had procured for the purpose from Mr. Wyatt, the works proposed by them appear to me to be such as will insure the safety of the arch, and protect it against injury; presuming that proper precautions be used in the erection of the scaffolding, the execution of the masonry, and the raising of the statue itself. I find that no portion of the proposed stone pedestal is yet built. The scaffolding by which the statue will be raised is partly erected; but, although now about eighty feet high, it has yet to be heightened about twenty feet. It cannot be denied that some difficulty and risk will attend the raising an equestrian statue of thirty to forty tons weight above 100 feet above the street, and when there in running it along a railway, carried on timbers of that great height; but, so far as I have yet seen, Mr. Wyatt and his men are taking every precaution to prevent an accident.—I have the honour to be, my Lord and Gentlemen, your most obedient and humble servant, "DECIMUS BURTON.

"The Right Hon. and the Hon. the

Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, &c."

SIR F. TRENCH

said, his hon. Friend who had opened this case had made a most grievous mistake, for when those no- blemen and gentlemen who formed the committee made an application for permission to erect the statue, no objection was made either to the statue or to the site. The only objection that was made was as to the mode of selecting the artist. It was a mere contest who was to be the artist. The arch was decided upon as the site; Her Majesty had given Her consent, accompanied by the observation that it would give Her pleasure, whenever she came out of Her palace, to see the statue of so great a man in so beautiful a situation; and all the money that was subscribed by the public was subscribed for the specific purpose of erecting a statue of the Duke of Wellington on that arch. When the proposal was made last year for an alteration of the site, the committee took into their consideration what was their duty with regard to the public who had subscribed the money; and they were of opinion that they could not adopt another course than that which was at first resolved upon. In May, 1838, the committee received the first communication from Lord Melbourne, stating that he had applied to the Queen to obtain Her consent to the erection of the statue; and on the 1st of June Her Majesty received the chairman of the committee, and gave Her consent. On the 9th of June a meeting of the general committee was held, at which the consent of Her Majesty was notified. On the 16th of June the whole of the sub-committee waited upon the Duke of Wellington, announcing what was intended to be done, and expressing their "fervent prayer that he might live through many and many a long year to see from his own windows a proud testimonial of the gratitude of an admiring country." And on the 22nd of June and on the 3rd of July letters were sent from certain noblemen to the chairman, both expressing their disapprobation, not of the statue or the arch, but of the mode of selecting the artist. A meeting of the general committee was held, in conformity with the wishes of Lord Melbourne, the result of which was that the proceedings of the former committee were confirmed, only one individual raising any objections to the site or the statue. The committee also consulted the then Attorney General to know what their obligations were, and he gave it as his opinion that the committee had no power to do anything than carry into effect what they were pledged to do to the public. The House of Commons had nothing to do in the matter, and the committee were doing the best in their power to carry into effect the design of the subscribers. The Earl of Aberdeen, a nobleman competent to give an opinion on the matter, said, in 1839, respecting the effect of making an alteration in the nature of the memorial— The decision on the 28th of May was to have an equestrian statue on the arch at the Green Park, if Her Majesty gave permission so to do; and I think if proceedings of this kind are ever to have any validity, or to be binding at all, that if any-think is settled, that resolution that we should have an equestrian statue must be considered as finally settled. I apprehend that we might as well now decide that we would have no memorial at all for the Duke of Wellington, as to question the decision, confirmed as it was by a subsequent meeting of the general committee, that the memorial should be an equestrian statue upon that arch. Lord Palmerston was the only member of the committee who expressed an opinion against placing the statue upon the arch. It would be an act of great injustice if the House interfered in the manner now proposed. It would also be an act of great disrespect to the Crown, if Her Majesty, after having given Her solemn pledge in favour of a particular plan, should be called upon, after the committee had spent a considerable sum of money, to throw all their proceedings over, because certain Gentlemen of the House of Commons chose to condemn it.

MR. EWART

said, the committee had taken a legal opinion, but it would have been much better if they had taken an artistic opinion on the subject. The committee had consulted the subscribers and their architect; but they ought also to have consulted the public taste, which was decidedly against them. He had never heard any person speak well of the site selected by the committee.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, his single difficulty was that the Queen had given Her consent to a particular point, and that the House of Commons, if they adopted the Motion, would ask Her Majesty to withdraw that consent. But the House had the right to say—Rex male advisatus est; and a Queen might be badly advised as well as a King. It was, therefore, competent for the House to call on Her Majesty to withdraw Her consent, as if it had never been granted. He had fought gallantly under the banner of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir F. Trench) in defence of wax candles, but he could not agree with him on this question. He believed that, if the opinion of the House were taken seriatim, it would be found to be almost unanimously against placing the statue upon the arch. It would be one of the greatest monstrosities in the metropolis.

SIR F. TRENCH

being the only member of the sub-committee present could not take upon himself to say what they would do. But he had a strong impression that a majority of the House entertained different impressions from them. All the subscriptions were received for a particular purpose, and he did not think the committee would be justified in appropriating them to any other. But he had no objection, if that would be satisfactory to the House, to lay before the sub-committee what he understood to be the opinion of the majority of the House.

SIR G. GREY

hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be suffered to proceed. The judgment of the House had been unequivocally expressed, not only by hon. Members who had spoken, but also, and still more strongly, by the absence of any advocacy of the proposed site except that of the hon. and gallant Member. He would admit that after reading the correspondence he had a strong opinion on the subject, and though he might be disposed to go with the hon. and gallant Member to a certain extent, he inferred from the few observations he had just made, that he would be prepared to state to the sub-committee the opinion of the House. It would be unreasonable, under such circumstances, not to listen to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member.

SIR F. TRENCH

said, the right hon. Gentleman had truly interpreted his feelings. He adhered to his opinions respecting the site, but he would not place his opinion against that of the House. He would state his own opinion freely, that the pedestal and statue on it would have a most magnificent effect. It would be impossible for him without communicating with the committee to make any change or any concession. But if the House would wave the question for the present, so as to give him the opportunity of consulting his colleagues, he would state to them either that it would be desirable to acquiesce in the wishes of the Government, or to put it to the House whether they ought not to have nothing to do with the matter.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said, the hon. and gallant Member had met the feeling of the House in a proper spirit, and he hoped an opportunity would be given him of consulting with his colleagues, the Government putting a stop to the works until further proceedings were determined on.

MR. C. BERKELEY

had no objection to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that no part of the works were to be proceeded with.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said, the works would be entirely stopped until the committee had signified their assent to the suggestions of the Government, or, failing that, until the opinion of the House had been taken upon it.

Amendment withdrawn.

House in Committee of Ways and Means, when a formal Resolution was adopted.

The House resumed. Resolution to be reported.