§ Resolution reported,
§ 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,518,233, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
§ [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1674.]
1844§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Captain MURRAYI beg to move a reduction in the salary of the First Commissioner of Works of £100, in order to draw attention to the policy which has lately been pursued in respect of the erection of statues in the Royal parks. I do not propose to detain the House at any very great length, because there are other Members who wish to speak, and I desire to give the hon. Gentleman who represents, the office time for a comprehensive reply. 1845 I need not enter into details of the history of the Royal parks, and the many changes which have been made within their boundaries during recent years. I wish to refer to the proposal recently made by the Advisory Committee of the King Edward Memorial Fund to place a memorial statue to the late King Edward in St. James's Park, opposite Marlborough House. It is well known that that proposal met with great opposition, not only on the part of Members of this House, but on the part of the public outside. Finally the Advisory Committee saw fit to withdraw that particular scheme and to seek for a site elsewhere. The site which they have apparently now chosen for a memorial statue of King Edward is in the Green Park, at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk. I should like to hear from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Dudley Ward), as representing the First Commissioner of Works, exactly how the position stands. We were told the other day, in answer to questions in this House, that the Memorial Committee had recommended this particular site at the end of the Broad Walk, and either the hon. Member or the Prime Minister, I forget which for the moment, said the Government were prepared to give their assent to that particular site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to inform us when he replies whether the Government has agreed to give its consent to this site. However that may be, there is a very strong body of opinion not only in this House but outside of it strongly opposed to the policy at present being pursued in respect of the erection of statues within the boundaries of the Royal parks. We are told by various people that the particular site selected will be a very good one. That is an opinion with which I for one cannot agree. I have not seen the plans, which possibly have not been prepared yet; certainly they have not been placed in the Tea Room. But I fail to understand how a statue, of whatever size, can be placed at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk without completely, or nearly so, shutting out the view of the Queen Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace.
That is one objection against the proposed statue in the Green Park. There is another. It would necessitate the cutting down of the tree which now stands at the end of the Broad Walk, next the railing. It may seem to be a very trivial matter to cut down one tree, but I submit that it is far from being a trivial matter, because if the Office 1846 of Works may cut down one tree they can cut down many others. There have been in recent years many trees cut down in the Royal parks. I must admit that others have been planted, but they have been planted, generally speaking, in long rows, and they have been planted in the place of trees which gave the parks that rustic and rural appearance which we all desire to see. It is part and parcel of the whole policy of the Office of Works, if I may say so, to meddle with the Royal parks. I urge upon the First Commissioner of Works very strongly, and upon his representative in this House to-day, that they should adopt some definite policy in respect of the erection of statues within the boundaries of our Royal parks. I feel perfectly certain that it is the desire of the majority of the people resident in London to preserve those parks as national parks, together with such rural amenities as they at present possess. I do hope that the First Commissioner of Works will take into consideration the facts which I have submitted before he gives his consent—if it has not been already given—to this proposal to place a statue of the late King Edward at the Piccadilly end of the Broad Walk.
It may be said that this evening I am destroying without building up, that I am placing before the House no alternative scheme, and that I have suggested no other site for the statue which is to be erected to the memory of the late King Edward. It would not be in order on this particular Vote to refer in any detail to suggested plans for the statue which have been placed in the Tea Room, and which are open to Members of the House of Commons to see. The advantages of the particular site suggested in those plans, to my mind, lie not only in the fact that the position will be one very much more prominent, commanding, and appropriate than many of the present ones, but, instead of cutting off a. small portion of the park, as the present site would inevitably do, it would, on the contrary, add to the size of the Green Park. The hon. Member for Southampton said that the statue, if erected on the proposed site at the end of the Broad Walk, would not cut off any portion of the Park. I fail to see how it could be erected in that particular position without, at any rate, encroaching upon the grass on each side of the Broad Walk, and it might have the possible effect of levelling certainly one tree. I am not going to enlarge upon this matter, but I do enter a very 1847 vigorous protest against the policy of erecting statues within the boundaries of national parks. There are many continental parks with which, doubtless, hon. Members are familiar, where in much the same way as is now proposed a beginning was made with the erecting of statues within their boundaries, until at length those centres of rural life have been devoted to the wholesale erection of statues. It is against any policy of that kind being adopted in this country that I to-night raise my voice in this House.
§ Mr. HOAREI beg to second the Amendment. I do so for several reasons. In the first place, I do so for the general reason that I am disinclined to support any proposal that may lead to encroachment on either the Royal parks or other parks in the county of London. During the last few years we have had several examples of encroachments upon Royal parks. It seems to me at the present moment that it is of the utmost importance to protest against encroachments taking place. In the second place, I am anxious to reinforce the question that has been put by the hon. Member with reference to the proposed memorial to his late Majesty King Edward VII. I start with the general principle that I am opposed to any memorials in the Royal parks at ail. I am rather inclined to agree with Mr. Ruskin in an answer that I believe he gave to certain gentlemen at Oxford who asked him to subscribe to the erection of a statue. His answer was written on the back of a postcard, and it took this form:—
I hate memorials, but I hate statues worse.I am not prepared to say that all the statues in the public parks in London are necessarily liable to that condemnation, but I do say that there are examples in the county of London to-day which give us pause when proposals of this kind are made. Further, at the present moment it is my opinion that if a large part of the Green Park is devoted to a statue of his late Majesty a considerable sum will be diverted from other objects, which, I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, would be far more suitable as a memorial to his late Majesty than would be the erection of a statue in the Green Park. It would be out of order to allude to one object in particular in the present Debate, but it is my firm conviction that every penny that is spent on the erection of an expensive memorial in the Green Park will be diverted from what I believe would have pleased his late 1848 Majesty far better. I refer to the proposed park at Shadwell, in the East of London. I will not say more this evening, but I do hope that the representative of the Commissioner of Works will be able to satisfy us that the memorial which is proposed in the Green Park is a memorial of a limited description, and that the funds of the national scheme will not be diverted from an object which I believe would have been in absolute keeping with His late Majesty's wishes, and which I further believe would be acceptable to the great body of citizens of London and of the inhabitants in the country generally.
§ Mr. NOEL BUXTONI am somewhat torn asunder in regard to the Amendment, because in some points I am bound to cordially express my thanks to the Works Office and its representative here for notable improvements that they have made in regard to the London parks during the last year, and in particular in regard to the facilities during this present summer for bathing in the Serpentine. I appreciate the extreme delicacy of feeling that the hon. Member for Southampton manifested on more than one occasion on this subject, but I do not think that in overcoming his prejudice and in supporting the extension of facilities which has taken place in regard to that matter, that the action of my hon. Friend and his colleague, the First Commissioner, has had the warmest approval of the people, and has been a really great addition to the amenities for health and for pleasure which the London parks afford. But I desire to support the Amendment, because I think that the matter brought forward to-night is one of still greater importance, of overbearing importance, in comparison with other questions which might be raised on the Vote for the parks. I think that this matter of the memorial in the park, or of future memorials in the parks, must be approached by this House in view of three sentiments which exist in regard to it. In the first place, there is one which none of us will wish to disregard, and that is the wishes of the King and the Royal family. We are not informed of what are the wishes of the King and Queen, but we may assume that there is a natural desire for a very worthy and great memorial. We also join in desiring a worthy memorial, of an architectural kind it may be, in the shape of a statue, as well as a memorial of another kind. We have every desire that the 1849 wishes of the Royal family should be considered, and that should lead us to search for a site which is really worthy.
There is another point of view which has been manifested in this House not very long ago, in the month of March, and that is the aesthetic point of view, the general regard for some sense of beauty in the laying out of London. We had manifested in this House a most remarkable expression of opinion upon the proposal which was made or about to be made by the Memorial Committee. The other day the Leader of the Opposition expressed the view that this House is not an aesthetic assembly. It may perhaps not be an assembly of experts, but in these matters there is in the public mind some fundamental sense, some common sense, of what is fitting and what is good taste, which is not to be disregarded and which is very often found to be a profoundly just sense of what is artistic. I think nobody denies that the opinion expressed in this House on the occasion of that proposal last March was a sound one from the aesthetic point of view, and it was very opportune that this House had the opportunity of expressing it. It was that of the public, which had no other opportunity of expressing it except through the Members of this House who represent the public.
But there is one other point of view which we must bear in mind, and that is the general fittingness of whatever memorial there may be not merely from the aesthetic point of view but from that of the general advantage of London. The erection of a great memorial is an opportunity for doing something somewhere for the good of the poor, for the increase of the amenities of London, and for the decrease of its immense economic and social disadvantages to those who are not able to live in its pleasanter parts. It would be out of order to speak of the Shad-well scheme, but it is legitimate to say that it would be as worthy as any memorial could be of the memory of the late King, if we were able in connection with that memorial to do something to decrease the immense distance which lies between thousands, or it may be millions, of the people and any possible chance of allowing their children to play about on the grass. Nothing could be more worthy of the memory of a King who was notable for his great interest in the poor and the attention which he gave to the smaller housing property on the Royal estate, than such a scheme as the Shadwell scheme.
1850 The Office of Works is to some extent our Ministry of Art, and I like to think that a man of such great taste represents that office in this House. I am sure he agrees that this House has a part to play in the settling of these aesthetic questions. We know, whether it be a board of directors or a meeting of shareholders, the choice between one plan and another must be made by a very small body, but in any case the decision must be submitted to the larger body for final veto or approval. I am glad that it has been admitted finally and exactly during this year that this House is to be consulted on questions of this kind, and is to have an opportunity of negativing a proposal if it does not approve or think it in accordance with the wishes of the public. As to how plans should be selected there may be differences of opinion. Some of us think that free competition has in many cases led to very admirable results, but it is not always easy to arrange. Many gentlemen who have represented the Office of Works are of opinion that free competition is not, on the whole, the most profitable line to follow. Whether it be by invitation of plans from a panel of artists, or by the selection of a single artist, or by free competition—and personally I think there are great merits in the last— the final approval must and ought to lie in the hands of this House. Even if this House is not an aesthetic assembly, it certainly represents in these days a great revival of interest in aesthetic questions. It was a very notable expression of that revival when this House in all quarters and with fervour expressed its opinion upon the proposal to encroach a very little upon St. James's Park. A very great gain was made when, in connection with that proposal, an assurance was offered that for all time the House should be consulted on alterations in the parks.
With regard to this particular proposal for a site, which I think is not yet fixed, for the King's memorial, the situation appears to me to be this. The House has been consulted on one proposal and has emphatically vetoed it. What proposal is there now before the House? There are before the House no plans or drawings except those to which my hon. Friend refers. Mention has been made of another site, to which it was said the Government could offer no opposition, namely, a site at the north end of the Broad Walk in Green Park. I think it is on that ground that we are justified in complaining of the 1851 action of the Office of Works, and in supporting a proposal for a reduction of the Vote, because it is not carrying out the manifest and strong opinion indicated by the House last March. But I am not greatly concerned about it, because it is quite clear that nothing will be fixed until the view of the House has been definitely ascertained. Time may very well be taken to survey the opening for a worthy memorial in London. What I think we may ask is that, in this case and in the case of the erection of public buildings, pains should be taken to get the advice of the greatest experts in the quite modern science and art of town-planning. There are experts who have made a speciality of civic designs. There is in particular the professor of civic design at Liverpool University, not to speak of others who are well-known students and great authorities in this field of art. I am glad to think that my hon. Friend has put before the House a proposal emanating from Professor Adshead, of Liverpool University, which has been so well commended already. It is only fair that we should ask that the beat advice should be taken and the utmost efforts made to arrive at the best selection among the innumerable opportunities of London, before the final approval of the House is asked for.
Three suggestions are now in the air. One refers to the Green Park. I think if that site should be decided on there would be left in the public mind a certain sense of soreness with regard to another encroachment on the park. What finality is there to these encroachments? There will, perhaps, be a further demand for a memorial; but it may be hoped that with the case of the Queen Victoria Memorial there has been an end to encroachments upon the park. In that case no less than two acres of grass was taken. I have found among working people, whose views I have heard by chance when walking through the park, great indignation expressed at the proposal to take away anything which remains of the open spaces of London. After all, for the size of London, the amount of growing grass is very small. The Office of Works, having the control of the Royal parks, is to some extent the guardian not only of the aesthetic amenities, but of the health of London, and should be very jealous indeed of the smallest encroachments upon the open spaces. With regard to the Hyde Park Comer proposal, which is relevant to this 1852 discussion, because it involves not a diminution of but a slight addition to Green Park, it is generally agreed that Hyde Park Corner is not at all worthy of the greatest city in the world. If forms the centre court in the most remarkable chain of parks in the world, and nothing could be less worthy of its position. It is modelled upon the system of a landscape garden, but it is worked in the material of a desert. It is a vast expanse of wood and asphalt. We all know that if you want an architectural garden it must be symmetrical.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott)This does not come within the province of the Office of Works.
§ Mr. NOEL BUXTONI will not pursue the point. I suggest that it comes within the province of the Office of Works in that it is part of a scheme involving an alteration of Green Park, and that the Office of Works will be asked to give its consent if the scheme is adopted by the Memorial Committee. In submitting that of the schemes put forward, it is the one most worthy of attention, there is this to be urged in addition to the points put by my hon. Friends. This Hyde Park Corner is somewhat of an eyesore and a scandal in these days, and some opportunity should be taken to improve it, not only to provide what I think is far the best site for the statue of the late King Edward which has been suggested, but also to remove that eyesore and scandal, and in that way to kill two birds with one stone. From all three points of view, from the point of view of a memorial worthy of the wishes of the King, from the point of view of public taste, and again from the point of view of the needs of the poor, because it would leave more money for the Shadwell scheme, I think the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend is one which we may all hope will be adopted by the Memorial Committee, which would undoubtedly receive warm sanction from this House, and would in every way be worthy of the illustrious King whom it would commemorate as well as in the interest and the general good of London.
The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward)I am afraid my reply will hardly be as comprehensive as the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) would desire. In the first place we have very little to go upon. The proposals for the King Edward Memorial are so little advanced that really a 1853 discussion upon them at this moment is hardly profitable, except in this sense that it will give some idea to the Memorial Committee of what this House does or does not desire. What I think hon. Members would seem to forget is that the Government is not concerned with the memorial at all; it is a memorial to be erected by funds raised among the people of London. There was a Government contribution towards the Queen Victoria Memorial, but there is no contribution from the Government towards this Memorial. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not think that anybody does believe, that it is possible to please everybody. In fact, when it is a question of art, it is very difficult to please the majority. The difficulty the Memorial Committee, as I understand it, had to face, was to find a suitable site for that Memorial. I believe every available site in London has been examined by them, and the position now is that they have been reduced to four, which are the only sites that are possible—two in Trafalgar Square, one in Waterloo Place, and one in Broad Walk. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Shadwell?"] It is the sites I am talking about. They were all objected to. I think the Broad Walk site in Green Park is the one least open to objection. The proposal to erect a statue on that site is, of course, subject to certain considerations. The hon. Member for Kincardine-shire asked me if the Government had given their consent to that site. The answer of the Prime Minister, I fancy, was that the Government would raise no objection subject to the approval of the plans. I think the statue, if it is ever placed there, should, in the first place, be not too large, it should not be a large statue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), that the more money you pay for the statue, the less money there will be for that worthy object in the East End of London. But that does not concern the Government. That would not give them reason for refusing the site. The only reason the Government could give for refusing that site for a large statue would be that it would hide or would compete with the Queen Victoria memorial at the other end of the walk. Again, I quite agree, the statue should not be an encroachment upon the park.
I think hon. Members have made too much of the encroachment upon the park. The Broad Walk is 65 ft. broad. You can put even a very large statue within 65 ft. The mention of 65 ft. doe's not convey very 1854 much. I took the trouble to visit a statue well known to the majority of people, the statue of the Duke of Cambridge in Parliament Street. The pedestal upon which that statue is placed measures 8 ft. by 14½ ft. In the middle of the Broad Walk of 65 ft. a statue would not be much encroachment upon the park. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the width of Parliament Street?"] I do not know what the width of the roadway is in Parliament Street, but a statue of that size would not be an unworthy statue, and would not encroach upon the park. The Member for Kincardineshire is afraid it would involve the destruction of one tree. I am sorry he has got an affection for that particular tree. I am sorry to tell him that tree is dying. In fact, its fellow tree which has stood alongside of it, for many years is already dead. I am afraid he will have to lose his tree anyhow. I think the discussion of the scheme for the erection of the statue at Hyde Park Corner would hardly be in order. I would just like to remind hon. Members that in the year 1883, I think, a considerable part of the Green Park was taken away and thrown into the roadway in order to relieve the great congestion of traffic at the bottom of Hamilton Place. That was not found sufficient, so in 1902 a further encroachment was made upon the Green Park, and it is now found that that arrangement is as good as can possibly be devised for the relief of traffic going out of Hamilton Place. This proposal is to put back that part of the park into the same state as it was before the alterations. If the traffic was congested in the year 1882 I think hon. Members will agree that it would be far more congested at the present time. I think that any further discussion on this subject, in view of the fact that we have so very little before us, would hardly be profitable, and I hope the House will be content if I repeat the assurance already given that nothing will be done during the Recess and that nothing will be done without the plans being put before Parliament for approval.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICEMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could give some explanation of the defect in the Queen Victoria Memorial beside Buckingham Palace? The Scottish quartering is defective, it has the Scottish lion rampant, but it is not in proper form. I do not like to be looking a gift-horse in the mouth, but it is very important that it should be put in proper form, and I 1855 should like his assurance that this defect will be quickly obliterated. Before we pass from this Vote I should also like to say how glad I am to see the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Harcourt) here, and to take advantage of this opportunity of thanking him for the many services rendered by him during the time he occupied the office of Commissioner of Works. So far as that is concerned he left a great record behind him, and I refer particularly to what he did in the Botanical Gardens. I should also like to say that I was glad to see the hon. Member (Mr. Dudley Ward) present in Edinburgh. At Holyrood Palace there are one or two defects that might be put right at very little expense. From the Holyrood Palace the hon. Gentleman would notice that on one side of the King's park there is a long row of very objectionable tenements seen from the windows of the park. Something should be done to plant a belt of trees running alongside the wall in the King's park. I am quite sure it would do a good deal to make the place look very much more satisfactory than it is. A very small expenditure made in the park would make is vastly better than it is. It has many natural beauties. In fact, I should say from the point of view of natural beauties it perhaps excels any other park in the world. I think, therefore, if something could be done to plant trees there and in other ways to improve the appearance of the park it would be very acceptable, not only to the people of Edinburgh, but to Their Majesties, who will, I trust, occupy Holy-rood Palace on many occasions in the future.
§ Mr. ESSEXMay I inquire whether anything has been done with the improvements contemplated between the end of the Victoria Tower and Millbank? The
§ demolition of buildings is going forward very, very slowly. Can anything be done to accelerate the matter?
Mr. DUDLEY WARD(whose reply to Mr. Essex was inaudible): The planting of trees at Holyrood Palace is already occupying the attention of the First Commissioner. I was not aware of the defective details of the Scottish quarterings referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Price). I will see that the design is examined.
Captain MURRAYIn view of the courteous reply of the hon. Gentleman below, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.