HC Deb 19 July 1905 vol 149 cc1193-6
SIR ELLIOTT LEES (Birkenhead)

asked for leave to introduce, under the ten minutes rule, a "Bill to prevent the removal without Parliamentary sanction of monuments which have been erected in cathedrals or churches out of public moneys in pursuance of a vote by Parliament." He said the Bill provided that any such proposal should lie on the Table of the House for forty days in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing disapproval if it so desired, and his object in introducing the Bill at that moment was to call the attention of the House before it was too late to a proposal of the Dean of Westminster, who had under his complete control the Abbey and all it contained, subject only to the Crown, to remove a monument erected by Parliament out of public funds, in the middle of the 18th century, to the memory of a gallant sailor, Captain Cornewall, who was killed at the battle of Toulon. Only some parts of the monument, the inscription and the medallions, were to be preserved, and they were to be placed high up in a very dark corner of the Abbey. In the place of the Cornewall monument a screen was to be erected, and behind it was to be placed a recumbent effigy of the late Lord Salisbury. A very delicate question was raised by this proposal of the Dean of Westminster. He yielded to no one in his veneration of the character and career of the late Lord Salisbury, whom he regarded as the greatest Englishman of his own time. He hoped it was possible to honour the memory of that great statesman without in any way slighting the memory of a bygone hero, and he thought the memory of a patriotic statesman could be more fittingly perpetuated than by the destruction of the monument to a patriotic sailor who died a splendid death for his country. He did not, however, desire to force upon the House the invidious task of voting for or against the proposal of the Dean of Westminster. His object was to ensure that monuments erected by Parliament to the memory of men who had deserved well of their country should not in future be removed; and therefore he would so frame his Bill that it should not come into operation until January 1st, 1906.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the removal, without Parliamentary sanction, of Monuments which have been erected in Cathedrals or Churches out of Public Moneys in pursuance of a Vote by Parliament."—(Sir Elliott Lees.)

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, (MR. A. J. BALFOUE, Manchester, E.)

I am sorry I did not know that my hon. friend was going to bring in this Bill, and I desire to say but a few words which occur to me on the spur of the moment. I gather that the terms of the Bill are so framed that they do not touch the case which has occupied the whole of my hon. friend's speech—namely, the proposal of the Dean of Westminster with regard to the statue voted by the House to the late Lord Salisbury. The Dean of Westminster has come to the conclusion—a conclusion which I, at all events, share—that the north transept of the Abbey is now so crowded, if not overcrowded, with the statues of eminent statesmen which have been voted by this House, that to add the proposed statue to the late Lord Salisbury to the effigies already assembled there, Gladstone, Disraeli, and Peel, is impossible from an architectural point of view. Indeed, such is the condition of things in the Abbey that a much more drastic Bill than the Bill of my hon. friend will have to be introduced—a Bill declaring that no money voted by the country shall go to the making of a full-sized statue of any statesman, soldier, or sailor, however distinguished his services or however great his career.

That being the state of things, the question arises, where is room to be found for the memorial which the House has voted to Lord Salisbury. My hon. friend objects to the site which has been chosen for it by the Dean and Chapter. I can only say, with regard to that, that I do not think any one can deny that it would greatly conduce to the beauty of the Abbey were that site chosen for the memorial and the plans of the Dean with regard to it carried into effect. The monument erected by Parliament to the memory of Captain Cornewall has already been altered by Dean Stanley. Pains were therefore taken to find out the opinions of the present representatives of Captain Cornewall's family, and of course there is no idea of excluding from the Abbey the monument to the memory of that gallant sailor. So far as I am able to offer an opinion on the subject, the suggestion of the Dean of Westminster appears to me to be a wise one in the interest of the architecture and beauty of the Abbey; but if it be objected to by public opinion, I venture to say, in the double capacity of Leader of the House and a near relative of the deceased statesman whom the House desires to honour, that, so far as the family at all events are concerned, there is no desire to see the statue to Lord Salisbury placed where the public do not desire to have it placed. But I am confident that if anyone will examine the facts for himself he will come to the conclusion that in this matter the Dean is right. The Bill of my hon. friend, however, does not apply to this particular case, and I therefore regret that he should have made his speech a hostile commentary and criticism upon the conduct of the Dean.

SIR ELLIOTT LEES

said that, as a matter of personal explanation, he desired to say that nothing could be further from his mind than to show discourtesy to his right hon. friend and leader. He had asked the Speaker whether he could put a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject, and it was in consequence of the ruling of the Speaker that he was precluded from asking a Question, and at the Speaker's suggestion as to the procedure of the House that he had raised the matter by means of bringing in a Bill.

*MR. SPEAKER

I think in this case I should exercise the discretion vested in me by Standing Order No. 11. The hon. Gentleman says he does not propose that the Bill should take effect until January 1st, 1907. Therefore there is no pressing necessity for going on with it. I propose, therefore, to put the Question that the debate be now adjourned.

Question, "That the debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.