HC Deb 03 May 1872 vol 211 cc193-204
MR. GOLDSMID

, in rising to call attention to the prolonged delay in the completion of the Wellington Monument, and to move for Papers, said, he would preface his remarks by reminding the House that the late Duke of Wellington died in 1852, and that in 1856 it was resolved by Parliament to erect a monument to his memory. It was decided that the design for the monument should be obtained by an open competition. A number of artists were thereupon invited to submit models, one of the principal conditions being that the cost should not exceed £20,000, and 83 artists complied with the invitation and sent in designs. Several distinguished Gentlemen, including the present First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Lansdowne, the then Dean of St. Paul's, Sir Edward Cust, Lord Overstone, and Mr. Cockerell, were asked to act as judges, and they decided that Mr. Calder Marshall was deserving of the first premium, whereas only the sixth place was accorded to the design of Mr. Stevens. It was to be regretted, however, that these Gentlemen did not recommend the Government to adopt any one model, but advised them to ask the opinion of distinguished artists, and then decide who should be employed to make a model and erect the monument in honour of the Duke's memory. Nothing further was done till the year 1858, when the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) was First Commissioner of Works. The noble Lord asked Mr. Penrose his opinion as to which was the best model, and Mr. Penrose took a fancy for that of Mr. Stevens. He (Mr. Goldsmid) wished to say nothing to discredit Mr. Penrose, but he doubted whether his judgment was as good as that of the Gentlemen whose names he had just mentioned, and who had decided that Mr. Calder Marshall's design, and several others, were better than that of Mr. Stevens. Acting on the advice of Mr. Penrose the noble Lord, however, appointed Mr. Stevens to execute the monument, one condition being that he was to prepare a model to be erected in St. Paul's, at a cost of £1,600 for the first 12 months, and a proportionate sum for such further time, if any, as was found necessary for its completion. This condition obviously showed that, in the opinion of the noble Lord, the work would probably be executed within 12 months from the day on which the order was given, or in any case very shortly after that time. In point of fact, however, the work was scarcely begun by the end of 1859–18 months after the order was given—and Mr. Stevens was called to account on several occasions by the First Commissioner of Works. It was always difficult to elicit a reply from that gentleman, but in December, 1860, he stated his willingness to complete his model for £1,200 in addition to the £1,600 already paid to him. That sum was allowed him; but it did not appear to expedite matters, as in December, 1862, the correspondence was still going on between Mr. Stevens and the First Commissioner of Works, and, mirabile dictu, it was not till 1867 that the then First Commissioner was allowed to see the model which ought to have been completed eight years before. The cause of the delay was this—In the first place, Mr. Stevens, although that arbiter elegantiarum the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thought he was the most able sculptor in the country, was a man of such undetermined character that he could never make up his mind to go on with his work, and constantly fell ill when he had to apply himself to the sculptural portion of it. In the second place, when Mr. Stevens had work in hand he did all the common labourer's work himself, instead of employing labourers to do it, and the result was an enormous waste of time. In March, 1866, Lord Granville stated, in answer to a Question from the Earl of Cadogan, that the model was to be completed in August of that year. They had seen that it was not so completed. Next, in 1867, Lord John Manners, then First Commissioner, stated, in answer to himself (Mr. Goldsmid) that he had every reason to hope that the monument would be completed in about two years from that time. In 1868, he asked a further Question, and was informed by the noble Lord that he could hardly expect all the figures to be in their places before the end of 1869; but he hoped that by that time great progress would have been made. In 1870 Lord Lansdowne said it was expected "that the works would be completed within a year." And in 1871 he (Mr. Goldsmid) was informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had great hopes that in a very short time—say, in a year or two—the monument would be completed. Still the delay continued, until the present First Commissioner, finding it useless to leave the work any longer in the hands of Mr. Stevens, determined upon entrusting it to some other sculptor. This was a wise and sensible decision, but the Treasury overruled the judgment of the First Commissioner, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into a contract with Mr. Collmann, an upholsterer of Grosvenor Street, to complete the monument within two years, as though it were a piece of paper-hanging or the furnishing of a dining-room. Captain Douglas Galton and Mr. Hunt were employed to report upon the progress of the work, and their report was somewhat remarkable, in that it showed that practically nearly the whole of the work remained to be done. They reported that the merely architectural portion of the design was approaching completion, but that the purely sculptor's work was practically "not commenced." That being so, no one could surely be considered impatient who said that, after a lapse of 14 years, the result arrived at was far from satisfactory. What seemed to him (Mr. Goldsmid) to be particularly requisite was, that the work should have a more strict supervision, and how that was to be attained under the extraordinary contract into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered, any more than under successive Commissioners, he failed to see. His (Mr. Goldsmid's) fears on this point were borne out by Mr. Lowe's reply, given on the 25th of March this year—namely— If Mr. Stevens's health is good, I have every reason to believe that the monument will be completed within the contract time."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 592.] Though, at the same time, he stated that some delay had taken place in consequence of Mr. Stevens being unwell. So the old condition of things was beginning again. So much for the history of the memorial; now, on another question. The very form of the monument did not seem to have been definitely settled at present, for originally it had been proposed to surmount the edifice with an equestrian statue of the Duke; but the then Dean of St. Paul's, not unnaturally, objected to a design which would "represent his Grace riding into the Cathedral on the top of his own monument." Last year, in company with his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison), he visited the studio of Mr. Stevens, who, being informed that the question was to be brought before Parliament, told him, in a most friendly manner, that he had nearly completed the marble work for the architectural portion of the monument, but he had not completed even the preliminary models of the groups which were to adorn the work. He then agreed with his hon. Friend that if these groups were to be completed as a good sculptor would complete them, there yet remained at least two or three years of work to be done; and, consequently, that the monument could not be finished for a long period, because the castings would have to be done subsequently. Now, this view was probably correct, as that morning he went to the Cathedral, and saw that, while the architectural portion of the design had been nearly completed, the only sign of the castings was a bit of one of the plaques which was to form part of the side of the sarcophagus. On the whole, therefore, if Mr. Stevens made no greater progress than heretofore, he thought the monument might, perhaps, be finished some time at the end of this or the beginning of the next century, when the people would practically have forgotten, in the memory of subsequent great deeds, the accomplishments of the Duke of Wellington. Again, as far as he could judge from the design, the base of the monument would be alone visible near at hand, the summit from the opposite side of the Cathedral, and the whole structure from no single point of view. This was a decided objection to the size of the monument, and would greatly mar any effect it might possibly have produced. Under all the circumstances, he thought himself fairly entitled to ask at the hands of the Government an explanation of what was intended to be done, for he considered it a farce to decide upon the erection of a monument to a great man when the whole arrangement could be muddled in this manner. He believed that Mr. Collmann, the upholsterer, would have no chance of inducing Mr. Stevens to complete his contract, any more than the various Commissioners of Works had been able to do so. He begged, as a formal way of bringing this subject forward, to move for any correspondence that might exist upon this matter, and, in so doing, he might add that, in his belief, the country would be gratified at learning that there was any prospect of the work being terminated, as there was considerable national discredit attaching to us throughout.

MR. MORRISON

, in rising to second the Motion, said, he could not but express his regret that the Executive should have betrayed so much weakness in this matter. He also regretted that the matter could not be brought forward last year, when they might have been able to consider the expediency of completing the contract with Mr. Collman, for he believed with his hon. Friend that Mr. Collman would no more succeed in inducing Mr. Stevens to fulfil his contract than others had been able to do so; and, instead of entering into this arrangement, it would, in his opinion, have been better if application had been made in the ordinary way to the Law Courts. The Duke of Wellington died in 1852, and in 1856 there was a competition, in which the judges selected the design of Mr. Marshall. The noble Lord opposite, however, the then First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners), assigned the work to Mr. Stevens, who undertook to complete the monument for £14,000, of which £1,600 was to be advanced for the preparations of models. Mr. Penrose was appointed superintendent, and no money was to be advanced to Mr. Stevens beyond the stipulated £1,600, except upon the certificate of Mr. Penrose that the work was progressing satisfactorily. The Board of Works appeared not to have taken any further step till the end of 1860, when they received a communication from Mr. Stevens offering to complete the model for £1,200 beyond the £1,600 he had already received. That offer was acceded to, and nothing further occurred till 1861, when two letters sent by the Board of Works to Mr. Stevens remained unanswered. In February, 1862, the Board of Works again wrote, pressing for a reply, and on the 1st of November they again wrote, insisting upon a reply. That note Mr. Stevens answered on the 2nd of December, stating that he was willing to complete the model for £4,666 within 15 months from the date of the payment of that sum of money. His right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who was then First Commissioner of Works, agreed to this arrangement, and the money was paid on the 18th of February, 1862. The matter slept till 1864, when the Board of Works, being anxious to learn something about the progress of the model, sent three letters to Mr. Stevens without obtaining any answer. In reply to a very pressing letter sent in 1865, Mr. Stevens expressed his regret at the delay which had occurred, and said he was making all the haste he could. To a similar letter, sent in 1866, Mr. Stevens said that the model would be ready in five months; but it was not till 1867 that Mr. Penrose reported that the model was partially completed and invited inspection. On visiting Mr. Stevens's studio he expected to find a carefully-finished model, such as would enable a person who was not a sculptor to form some idea of the general effect of the monument; but, to his astonishment, the rough work shown to him was of a very different character. He did not know how long this kind of thing would have gone on but for the fortunate advent to office of his right hon. Friend the present First Commissioner of Works, who, at all events, brought to this question an element of decision which had been sadly wanting in his predecessors. Having been informed that £13,000 had been advanced to Mr. Stevens, and that £15,000 would still be required to complete the work, his right hon. Friend administered a very proper rebuke to Mr. Penrose, at the same time telling him that he was no longer to consider himself as superintendent, and that he would be held liable for all money improperly advanced upon his certificates. And upon this point he should be glad to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further action had been taken with regard to Mr. Penrose, and whether the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted as to whether he could be made legally, as he certainly was morally, liable for the payment of such sums. Mr. Stevens was at the same time informed that his contract was cancelled. That was the history of the transaction up to last year, when this extraordinary arrangement was entered into with Mr. Collman. He was not then going to discuss the fruitless question as to the value of the monument as a work of art; but in the particular position into which it had been crowded in St. Paul's, it was an eyesore, the fact being that there was no proper situation for such a large monument in the Cathedral. It would have been far better in the interests of art, if what had been done had been destroyed, and the work entrusted to another sculptor. The House of Commons had never been severe with artists, provided the artists did their work. He wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the real position of the work, and would Mr. Stevens be able to complete it in the time he had undertaken?

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of further Correspondence relating to the completion of the Wellington Monument,"—(Mr. Goldsmid,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had no doubt his hon. Friends had entered into this matter at great length to serve some useful object; but he was quite unable to divine what that object could be, and thought they might have employed their talents for research to better purpose. He would explain how the matter stood upon the present Government coming into office. By the original contract Mr. Stevens undertook to finish the monument for £14,000, and had received £13,000 when the matter came tinder his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) notice, a great deal of money having been spent in making a model, and in enlarging his premises to hold it. Excellent judges had informed him that Mr. Stevens was a sculptor of very great ability. [Mr. GOLDSMID: No, no!] He begged the hon. Member's pardon. Did he mean that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not so informed? [Mr. GOLDSMID: I deny his ability as a sculptor.] He would remind the hon. Member that he had not said he was. He had quoted the expressed opinion of competent judges. ["Name!"] Mr. Fergusson was one of those who held a high opinion of Mr. Stevens's ability. However, Mr. Stevens, having received £13,000 by the time the work was only half completed, borrowed another £1,000 on his own credit, and undertook private work with a view to continue the monument by means of the proceeds. But it proved to be impossible to do the work for the money, and it was quite manifest Mr. Stevens was unfit to undertake a contract in consequence of his unbusiness-like habits. At the same time the Government was advised by Mr. Fergusson, that if the work were taken out of Mr. Stevens's hands, the result would be serious loss to the country and injury to the monument. The problem was complicated by the fact that, whereas the monument bad been designed for the body of the building, it was ultimately resolved to erect it in a chapel out of deference to the views of the late Dean Milman. The faulty character of the site was discovered too late to allow another to be chosen. Under these circumstances, as it was impossible for the Government to enter into any contract with Mr. Stevens, though at the same time it was deemed desirable to retain his services, the Government gave the advice which had been so much criticized. It was agreed that Mr. Collman—who possessed considerable property, was a thoroughly responsible man, and something besides an upholsterer—should accept the responsibility of the contract, and employ Mr. Stevens to do the work. The time fixed for the completion of the work was two years and a-half, and it was arranged that the work should be paid for in monthly payments of £250, upon the certificate of Mr. Fergusson and Captain Galton that it had been earned. The tenth of these payments had been made, and the work was reported to be in a forward condition. Some delay had recently occurred in respect of one portion of the work owing to the illness of Mr. Stevens; but there was every reason to believe the contract time would not be exceeded, and that the work would be done in a year and a-half. It was very easy to find fault with the arrangements, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would like to know what better plan could have been adopted? He was informed the work was in itself most excellent and admirable—in short, a beautiful specimen of the art, and it was on this account that they were advised not to take it out of the hands of Mr. Stevens; but whether the design was good, or the site chosen a proper one, he did not pretend to say. He was not a judge of such matters, but he took credit to the Go- vernment for having found a solution of a very difficult problem.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the question of Mr. Stevens's appointment had been discussed some years ago, and he had hoped that it would be unnecessary for the House to be troubled with these rather remote circumstances on the present occasion, but after what had been said by the hon. Gentlemen who introduced the question, he (Lord John Manners) thought it necessary to advert to one or two points, upon which he thought they had adopted views which the real facts of the case upon examination, would not bear out. They had stated that the First Commissioner of Works for the time being, who happened to be himself, had selected a comparatively untried man, instead of the more distinguished sculptors of the day. The fact was, the work was thrown open to unlimited competition—a course which was designed to bring out latent talent, but which naturally resulted in the absence of the most eminent sculptors from the lists, because they thought it beneath them to compete with obscure artists. The competition, however, brought out a great number of men of comparatively small repute—young men, ardent, and anxious to bring themselves into notice, and Mr. Stephens, if not the first, was at any rate very prominent among them. That was the explanation of how that gentleman came upon the scene. He had no capital, no establishment, and no great position; and that was one of the difficulties with which the Government had had to contend. The judges having recommended that the First Commissioner of Works should consult the surveyor of the Cathedral before either the sculptor or the form of the monument was selected, in compliance with that recommendation, he (Lord John Manners) immediately put himself in communication with Mr. Penrose, and he found, much to his satisfaction, that Mr. Penrose had independently arrived at a similar conclusion. It was not till then that Mr. Stevens was proposed as the sculptor for the work. He wished distinctly to say that Mr. Penrose was a gentleman of the highest character and respectability, whose opinion he would rather take on a subject of that kind than that of any person with whom he was acquainted; and he should regret if anything was said or done in all those transactions which should bear in the slightest degree against Mr. Penrose's position as a very eminent architect and a most honourable gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very clearly stated the course which he had taken since he had assumed the management of the business. He himself quite approved that course. It was, he thought, impossible, under the circumstances of the case, to arrive at a more satisfactory solution of the difficulty. He begged leave to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to their having in Mr. Stevens secured the services of a man of very great genius and ability; and, in his belief, the work, when completed, would be worthy alike of its subject and of the country.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, it rather looked as if the two hon. Gentlemen who had condemned that work had prepared certain speeches on the subject last year, but being unable then to let them off, had delivered them on the present occasion. The great fault which had been found with Mr. Stevens was, that he had attended to the details of his work; but the great fault of modern works of art was that details were altogether neglected. Mr. Stevens, on the contrary, would not allow any portion of his work to come out of the hands of the workmen without giving special attention to it himself; and, therefore, when the hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be cursing that mode of proceeding, he was really blessing it altogether. As to the assertion that Mr. Stevens was not a sculptor, the most competent judges and those who had seen his works would admit that, as a sculptor, he was second to none in this country, or perhaps in any other. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) said it was a fruitless thing to discuss questions of taste in that House; but he immediately forgot his own precept, and passed a series of adverse criticisms upon that monument. He protested against it being supposed that Mr. Collman was a mere upholsterer; he was described as an architectural decorator, and his excellent designs and admirable work might be seen at the Royal Academy in Burlington House. Mr. Collman had received an artistic education, and as he (Mr. C. Bentinck) employed him, and knew others who did so, he was enabled to bear testimony to the high qualifications of that gentleman. He had made inquiries on the subject that very day, and had asked Mr. Collman how the work was proceeding, and it might be satisfactory to the Government and to the House to know that one-third of the time having now elapsed there remained only some of the marble facings to be made, so that there was great hope that the work would be completed in due time, and no doubt more would have been done, were it not for Mr. Stevens's unfortunate illness, which had been referred to. A sculptor's work, however, could not be done by rule of thumb; for at Berlin a monument of Frederick the Great occupied 10 years in its execution, the sculptor being bound by contract to de no other work whatever. The hon. Member for Plymouth said they ought to have dismissed Mr. Stevens and employed a sculptor. But the consequence of that would have been that the money expended on that admirable work would have been entirely thrown away, and they would have called in a man who knew nothing about architecture to make an architectural monument in the greatest building ever erected in this country. In conclusion, he must express his approval of the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he trusted would be persevered in, and he earnestly hoped the result would be satisfactory both to the House and the country.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he must explain that at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, conveyed to him through the Secretary to the Treasury, he had not brought the question forward last year before the contract was signed. He only hoped that the work would be completed within the time named.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.