Lords Sitting of 8 February 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Intestates Estates * (6); Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts) * (7); Matrimonial Causes * (8).

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The EARL SYDNEY)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
"I THANK, you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
"I am confident that the measures which will he submitted to you will receive your earnest consideration, and you may rely upon My co-operation in your endeavours to promote the well-being of My subjects."

METROPOLIS (HYDE PARK CORNER)—THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD DORCHESTERsaid, that in putting the Question which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, he desired to act in the most deferential manner towards those Gentlemen who had taken the trouble to determine what should be done with the statue of the Duke of Wellington; but when the removal of the greatest monument in the town, perhaps, save one, to a distant part of the country was concerned, he thought he would be justified, in their Lordships' opinion, in asking for information. The late Duke was personally known to many in that House. To all he was known as the greatest captain of this century; and he was as distinguished in his political wars as in his career as a soldier. The statue at Hyde Park Corner was erected in October, 1846, was cast from cannon taken in the many battles he had won, and was paid for by private subscriptions. At the time it was erected, the site was considered a very questionable one, and the same opinion had existed ever since. It was moulded by the first sculptor then living, and its arrival was witnessed by the Royal Family. The Duke himself sat more than once to the artist to whom the casting of the statue was intrusted, and it was not the fault of the age if a more eminent sculptor than Mr. Wyatt could not be found. He thought that a colossal statue of that size must be judged in comparison with other colossal statues that existed in Europe. The statue of Nelson, if lowered from the Roman candle upon which it was set, would, doubtless, present many faults which were not now to be seen. The Wellington statue was never intended to be hung, as they would say at the Royal Academy, "on the line." It was intended to be erected at a great height; it was a work of patience and great expense; and to dispose of it in the manner recommended would be a poor tribute to the liberality of those days in which the Duke lived. He thought that the Metropolis had a right to be considered in the matter, and that it should not have been decided by a mere quorum of the Committee. The question should have been adjudicated upon by a Committee of common-sense men, and men

  287
  of capability to decide such questions. The civil and military friends who served with the late Duke, and who were now living, would do all in their power to save the statue from destruction. The statue, it appeared, was not to be decapitated, but it was to be subjected to the next most severe punishment in the eyes of Englishmen—namely, banishment from home. When the Duke of Wellington died, Aldershot was not dreamt of; and he could not help thinking that a much better site might have been selected in the vicinity of London. There were Victoria and Battersea Parks; or, if it was necessary to have a military stronghold, why not have chosen Woolwich, which, besides being the most important arsenal, offered one of the finest sites? Dover or Portsmouth would have rejoiced to have had the statue; but to send it to Aldershot and erect it amid the wooden huts there was scarcely a worthy or dignified place for one of the greatest Generals the world had seen. It was also very important to know in whom this statue and the many others in the Metropolis were vested. As he understood from replies he had received upon this subject, the property of statues erected by voluntary contributions was vested in the Government, who had the power of removal, as they might remove a regiment of soldiers, but who had no power to destroy them. It was essential that subscribers to public statues should have this information; and with regard to the removal of the statue in question, he appealed to the Government, in the name of the subscribers and the officers of the British Army, as well as in memory of the great Duke, that they would carefully consider the question before finally deciding. He would now ask the Government, Whether it is decided to remove the statue of the Duke of Wellington from Hyde Park Corner to the Camp at Aldershot; and, if so, whether this is done by authority of Her Majesty's Government; and also in whom the property of the said statue is vested?
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Dorchester) had only mentioned a part of the project. He saw no reason why the original view of the Committee of placing the statue op-opposite the Horse Guards should be changed, unless the spot was required to make provision for the erection of a
  288
  railway station. The Committee had considered the matter, and adopted this site; if they were to wait until the whole of the artistic world and Members of both Houses of Parliament had arrived at a decision, it would be a long time before the statue was removed from the crutches on which it now stood. There was a further proposal to erect at Hyde Park Corner another statue, to be paid for by public subscription, assisted by a Parliamentary grant of £6,000, and to carry out certain decorative works there. With reference to the suggested name, "Wellington Place," he might say that he had looked in The Directory and had found there 22 Wellington Places, Roads, or Terraces. To do honour to the Duke there should be only one Wellington Place, and as this would necessitate the re-naming of 22 other Places, Terraces, or Roads he did not see how this part of the scheme could be carried out. Besides, Hyde Park Corner had a European, quite as much as a Metropolitan, reputation, and there was no real reason why it should be altered to another name, however great or distinguished. Their Lordships were aware that an influential Committee was in the course of formation to undertake the decoration of the new Place, the removal of the statue to Aldershot, and the erection of another by private subscription, aided by this Parliamentary grant of £6,000. With every respect for the Committee, and the illustrious guidance under which it was directed, he trusted that not one of these suggestions would be carried out.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that this question was before their Lordships several times during the past year. For a long time it had been a matter of considerable difficulty to decide where the statue should be placed. It would be remembered that last year a Committee was appointed by the Government. It embraced some of the most eminent gentlemen connected with Art, and included Sir Frederick Leighton, Mr. Boehm, the eminent sculptor, Lord Hardinge, the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Ferguson, and Mr. Milford, of the Board of Works. It was thought that this Committee would be able to determine, from an artistic point of view, the best position in which the statue should be placed. The noble Lord implied that it would have been better to have had a Committee governed

  289
  by good common sense rather than by artistic considerations; but their Lordships would probably agree that such a Committee would act with fairness and common sense. They tried, as their Lordships were aware, several experiments, but found very great difficulty—first, because of the colossal size of the statue; and, secondly, it was not a good work of Art. With regard to the latter difficulty, several opinions were extant which showed that when the statue was first erected it was not then considered a great work of Art. A wooden profile had been recently erected opposite the Horse Guards, and the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Longford) would agree with him that the experiment was not very successful. Finally, the Committee found that so great was the difficulty of finding a site for this statue, which seemed to overtop everything else, that they decided that the only thing they could do with it was to break it up. During the autumn the First Commissioner of Works, who, throughout, had been most anxious that nothing should be done to militate against the name and fame of the great Duke, found that there was a considerable number of persons, especially in the Army, who objected to the statue being broken up. The Chief Commissioner of Works made inquiries, and found that the views of the objectors were that, if a proper place could not be found for the statue in London, it should be erected elsewhere. As regarded the statue he should like to correct the noble Lord. He understood that the late Duke never sat at all to the sculptor.
  LORD DOECHESTER: He did, in Mr. Wyatt's studio.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he was speaking upon the authority of the present Duke when he said that the late Duke never actually sat at all; but whether that was so or not, at Hyde Park Corner a large and expensive Metropolitan improvement had been made—one that could not be completed so long as the statue remained in its present position. The illustrious Prince sitting on the Cross Benches (the Prince of Wales), who was always ready to help in any project for beautifying the Metropolis, had taken a great interest in the "place" opposite Hyde Park Corner, and he had induced a number of gentlemen to form themselves into a Committee to con
  290
  sider how the "place" could be fittingly adorned, and to raise funds for the purpose, and the illustrious Prince had also proposed that the name of Wellington Place should be substituted for Hyde Park Corner. Anxious that every care should be taken that the great name of the first Duke should be respected, the illustrious Prince suggested that it might be well that the statue should be removed to Aldershot. The Government considered the matter, and they assented, provided they were not asked to contribute more than £6,000 towards the cost of a new statue. They would also meet certain expenses that would be incurred in permitting the men of the Royal Artillery to take down the present statue. It would rest with the Committee to determine the plans for the beautifying of Wellington Place, as it was proposed to call it. Although there were several streets called after the Duke, certainly the large corner opposite his house might fittingly be called Wellington Place. It was hoped that the Committee would see their way not only to remove the statue to Aldershot, but to erect a quadriga on the Arch as originally intended. The £6,000 which the Government contributed was given on the understanding that a bronze statue of the usual size should be erected on the ground, and he hoped this would soon be done. As regarded the Question which the noble Lord asked with reference to the statues and in whom they were vested, he might say that this one especially, as were most of the others in the Metropolis, were by Act of Parliament vested in the First Commissioner of Works.
  LORD DORCHESTERasked whether it was to be understood that the direct reply given on behalf of the Government was that it had been decided that the statue was to be removed to Aldershot?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, it was decided that the Government would ask the House of Commons to vote £6,000 towards carrying out the suggestions he had referred to.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, with great submission to all opinions, he had heard of no objection to Lord Melbourne's plan of "leaving alone" and placing the statue in the immediate neighbourhood of Apsley House, which was given by this country. This course

  291
  would involve a very slight cost. Of course, he did not mean that the statue was to be left in its present ridiculous plight. It was intended to be on an elevation; and to put it where it was seemed to many, and particularly to foreigners, an insult to, and a degradation of, the greatest and most honest man who ever lived in this country.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was sorry to hear that the Government had agreed to the removal of the statue to Aldershot. No one had ever contended that this statue was what was called a fine work of Art. It was no ideal horse or ideal man, but a very good portrait of both the man and the horse. All who ever saw the horse well knew that it was a very good portrait indeed of the animal. It seemed to have been left where it was to make it look ridiculous and contemptible. Of course, a colossal statue on the ground would not look well; but at a proper height, and in a proper place, it would look as it was intended it should look. Then as to putting another figure—of they knew not whom or what—on the top of the Arch, he could not see the necessity of it. It would not improve the Arch, and it would not be a bit better than the statue of the Duke. Why should it not be replaced on the top of the Arch? It I would not look worse than it did before, whatever might be the opinions of artists; there was a very strong feeling indeed against the banishment of the statue to Aldershot. No one, as he had stated, said that it was a fine work of Art; but it was a work of very great interest, and of far greater interest than that of an ideal horse and man.
  In reply to the Earl of REDESDALE,
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that it was hoped the Committee would carry out the original intention, when the Arch was erected, of placing a quadriga on the top.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): Whose statue is to be put up on the Arch?
  A noble LORD: Mr. Shaw Lefevre's.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, it must be obvious that the plans sketched by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government could not be carried out for £6,000. Therefore, all were placed in an awkward position until it was known whether the excess above £6,000 would be
  292
  provided. He thought that the proposal of the Government was about the best under the circumstances, considering the difficulty of the question. At the same time, he must press for an answer to the question how the Government arrived at the conclusion that the scheme could be carried out if they subscribed £6,000 only, the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants of London making up the remainder?
  LORD SUDELEYthought that he had explained that the £6,000 was to be given as a contribution, which was to be supplemented by the funds which would be raised by the Committee. It was thought that it would be a Metropolitan improvement, and that very many gentlemen would come forward and help to carry it out. He would remind their Lordships that the horse Copenhagen died three years before the statue was commenced, and, therefore, it could not be a portrait.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that he had not stated that the statue was modelled from the horse; but if the noble Lord would compare it with the drawing in the possession of Lord Penrhyn, he would find that it was a perfect likeness.
  EARL CADOGANwished to know whether the Government had finally decided that the statue was to be removed to Aldershot?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the Government had consented to the removal to Aldershot, if the Committee succeeded in obtaining sufficient funds to carry out their proposal.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to know what the hypothetical expression meant? Did the noble Lord mean if the roads were strong enough to bear the statue, or whether the money of the public could be found to carry it? He did not wish to interfere in that discussion, as he belonged to that class who had nothing to boast of except their common sense, if they had any. He always felt, in discussions of an artistic character, that nothing could be pleasanter for the vulgar herd than to follow the opinions of artists, if only the artists could agree among themselves. But of all classes of experts he ever met they bore the worst character in that respect. In this matter, his first question was, what were the opinions of the noble Duke, who represented the family of

  293
  the distinguished hero of whom they were speaking? and, secondly, what were the opinions of the Services over which that great General presided? If their opinion was in favour of the proposal, he did not think their Lordships had much further to look. But, in any case, he rather dreaded the dilemma in which they would be left, if the contributions should not be subscribed and the status quo should be maintained. Of all possible solutions that probably would be the worst. It was a case to which the legal maxim was practically applicable—that it was to the interest of the commonwealth that there should be an end to controversy. He did not see how any end was to be attained to this controversy, except by submitting to those who were considered authorities in the matter. His confidence in Her Majesty's Government was never pushed to extravagant or unregulated lengths. But in that affair he wished the matter to be decided by somebody, and he did not see how it was to be decided except by those who were in possession of power.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsuggested that there should be two subscriptions, one for a pedestal for the statue at Hyde Park Corner, and another for a pedestal for it at Aldershot. He had no doubt as to which would receive most support.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—REINFORCEMENTS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT BURY: Seeing the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, I beg to put a Question to him of which I have given him private Notice. It is whether, as stated in to-day's papers, reinforcements have been sent to the Bed Sea; and, if so, how many and of what character the reinforcement is; whether it is to be a separate and distinct force with a military organization of its own; or whether it is simply to be in the nature of detachments sent out to assist the existing organization?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The report referred to is correct. Reinforcements have been sent to Admiral Hewett. They consist of Royal Marines to assist the forces of the Royal Navy already on the spot.
VISCOUNT BURY: The noble Earl does not say what is the strength of the reinforcements.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My noble Friend will see that it is not desirable to press that Question.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—REINFORCEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL. [H.L.] (NO.
  6.) A Bill to amend the law respecting the administration of the personal estate and the escheat of the real estate of deceased persons:
  BANKRUPTCY APPEALS (COUNTY COURTS)
  BILL. [H.L.] (NO. 7.) A Bill to amend the law as to Appeals in Bankruptcy from County Courts: And

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. [H.L.] (NO.
  8.) A Bill to amend the law as to the restitution of conjugal rights:
  Were presentad by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.