§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEbegged the indulgence of the House while he made a personal explanation as to what he had said the other evening on the subject of the frescoes in the new Houses of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had, in his absence, stated that he was wrong in saying that the face of Cordelia, in the fresco of "King Lear," was in a state of decay. He had since taken an opportunity of examining the frescoes, and he found that he had committed a mistake in saying that the face of Cordelia was decaying. It was the next picture that was injured—Mr. Watts's fresco of "The Red Cross Knight," where the head of the Dragon was completely gone, the leg of the knight was peeling off, and the arm of the lady he was defending was on the point of altogether vanishing from public view. It was true that the face of Cordelia was uninjured, but the nose of Regan was in a very dilapidated state, and would probably fall off before the recess was over. The right hon. Gentleman said that any man who could use his eyes would see on going through the gallery in what condition the frescoes were. He (Mr. Osborne) had used his eyes and had carefully looked at the frescoes, and he could state that in that ridiculous fresco, representing the English rivers, "Old Father Thames" was in a state of considerable decomposition, and that all the frescoes were in a state that was not creditable to the country. He thanked the House for having allowed him to make this explanation; he withdrew his observations about Cordelia, but he maintained what he had stated with respect to all the other frescoes, and that even the fresco of Lear was in anything but a sound state.
MR. COWPERsaid, he wished also to make a personal explanation. His hon. Friend appeared in the first instance to have mistaken the face of Cordelia for the face of the dragon. But now that he had made a more minute inspection of the faces of the ladies he found blemishes on that of Regan.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question before the House.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and he would make a single observation or two to bring the vexed ques- 1709 tion of the frescoes to a definitive issue. There could be no doubt that Mr. Watts's fresco was in a state of considerable decay. So was Mr. Herbert's. The faces of Regan and Goneril were disfigured. As for the picture in the other angle, the figure of Adam was almost obliterated. As for the frescoes of Mr. Cope—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must again remind hon. Members that there was no question before the House.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he made these observations with a view to the question he was about to put. There could be no doubt that the frescoes were in a decaying state, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would institute an inquiry during the recess into the causes of the decay, as otherwise injustice would be done to the artist as well as to the country?
MR. COWPERsaid, it seemed as if an inquiry must be instituted into the facts as well as into their causes, as the accounts were so conflicting. His own impression was that Mr. Herbert's fresco was not suffering from decay. Undoubtedly "Father Thames" was in a bad state as well as Mr. Watts's fresco, but he thought the damages to the others were exceedingly slight. He would be very glad, however, to examine into the matter.
§ House adjourned at Two o'clock.