Lords Sitting of 21 April 1899

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Barry Railway.
Cardiff Railway.
Central Electric Supply.
Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area).
Horsforth Urban District Council (Water).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (New Railways).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers).
Rhondda Urban District Council.
Tenterden Railway.
Wetherby District Water.
And also the certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill—
St. James's and Pall Mall Electric Light.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

DUNDEE GAS, TRAMWAYS, AND EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
MID-KENT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
KEW BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
KIRKCALDY CORPORATION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Read a third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
ILFORD GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
PARISH COUNCILS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
To be read a second time on Thursday the 4th of May next.—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read a second time (according to order).
ST. ANDREWS BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read a third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PETITIONS.
  OWEN'S COLLEGE, MANCHESTER.
  Petition of the Court of Governors of the Owen's College, Manchester, under their common seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill "to amend the constitution of the Owen's College, Manchester; for conferring further powers on the President and Governors; and for other purposes"; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
  BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY).
  Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two Irish Judges.
  EDUCATION (REVISED CODE).
  Petition for Amendment of Revised Code of 1899; of the Church Schools Association for the Archdeaconry of Birmingham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Petitions;—that a Committee should be appointed to define the extent to which municipal trading should be sanctioned by Parliament;—of Leamington and Warwick Tramways and Omnibus Company, Limited;—Westminster Electric Supply Corporation;—Enniskillen Gas Company;—Mansfield and District Master Builders' Association;—Farmers' Federation, Limited;—Property Owners' Association of St. Helens;—Newcastle-upon-Tyne Incorporated Trade Protection Society;—Committee of Leicester Ratepayers and Property Owners Association;—Bradford and Shelf Tramway Company, Limited;—Bristol Tramways
  180
  and Carriage Company, Limited;—Crystal Palace District Gas Company;—Western Wagon and Property Company, Limited;—Bristol Stock Exchange;—Imperial Tramways Company, Limited;—Reading Tramways Company, Limited;—Corris Railway Company;—London United Tramways, Limited;—and City, of Gloucester Tramways Company, Limited;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Poor of the Hackney Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURN.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) (EVICTIONS).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st March. 1899; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Clontarf—Was presented by the Earl of Waldegrave (for the Earl of Dudley); read a first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 51.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Camborne, Dukinfield, Fenton, Finchley, Shipley, and Swinton—Was presented by the Earl of Waldegrave (for the Earl of Dudley); read a first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 52.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to East Retford, Failsworth, Pemberton, Stourbridge, Swinton and Pendlebury, and Wednesbury—Was presented by the Earl of Waldegrave (for the Earl of Dudley); read a first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 53.)
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  THE DECORATION OF ST. PAUL'S.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government if they can by any means put a stop to the decorative destruction of St. Paul's that is now going on apace under the orders of the Dean and a Committee of Taste; and whether, if this is beyond their power, they will take such legislative action as will save our other cathedrals from the possibilities of a like evil fate. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in explanation of the reasons for putting this Question on the Paper. No doubt some of your Lordships read the newspapers, and, reading the newspapers, you must have observed of late that a good deal has been said and written in the form of letters and leading articles with reference to what is called the decorations now going on apace in St. Paul's. On such a question, with so many tastes, there is no hope of agreement as to whether the decorations are or are not beneficial. But there are certain things, I think, upon which we are all agreed. We must, for instance, all agree that perhaps the most beautiful specimen of Renaissance church architecture in the world is St. Paul's. It is a grand monument to the architect that conceived it, it is the pride and glory of our nation, and I venture to think it is a precious heritage which we ought to the best of our ability to preserve for those who come after. It is a building perfect in proportion, ideal in proportion and in all that is required in buildings of this
  182
  kind, and I think it is one of those cases where "Unadorned adorned the most" applies. I venture to think that when you have grandeur of form, proportion, harmony, and vastness, as you have in St. Paul's, decoration is a secondary matter—that it is subordinate to the general effect of the architecture and ancillary to the building, and ought not to be obtrusive. It ought simply to add richness to the building, if you like, but form part of a harmonious whole. If these principles are sound—and I venture to assert that they are—how are they being borne out by what is being done in St. Paul's? Anyone who has been, or who will go there, will see this—that whereas all the decorations in a church of that kind should be congruous, and should be consistent with the architecture of the church of the period—that period being in the case of St. Paul's the period of the Renaissance—will find Byzantine mosaics covering the choir. I do not intend to give my own opinion on this matter, but shall endeavour to quote authorities to which I hope your Lordships will give due weight to. The first person who raised this question in the public Press was a very able architect, a cousin from the other side of the Atlantic—Mr. Howe—and I would rather the question of the value of these mosaics and these decorations should be stated in this gentleman's words than give any crude opinions of my own. This is what Mr. Howes said in an article which appeared in the "Fortnightly Review":—
  "How it happens that the Dean of an English Cathedral does pretty much what he likes with the building under his charge I do not understand. The principal mosaics used in St. Paul's to-day by the present decorator are the revival of those in use centuries ago in Ravenna and Venice."
  He writes further of the "crude horrors" that disfigure the walls of St. Paul's, and says—
  "These expensive but coarse barbaric mosaics cover the walls of St. Paul's with their disfiguring motives. The work threatens to make the decorator known as the spoiler of St. Paul's."
  He ends by saying—
  "Stop, before it is too late, before St. Paul's becomes a confusing medley of badly devised painting and mosaics, the outcome of one of the greatest errors of the present time."

  183
  But, my Lords, it is not a question of merely putting up these mosaics. I am told on good authority that the original stonework over nearly the whole choir has been chiselled away to make room for these mosaics. I think that that is a very serious matter. You cannot undo evil of that kind after it has been done; but there is evil, I venture to think, still going on which it is possible to do away with or arrest the further progress of. Besides this treatment of the choir and the mosaics which are being spread more or less over the church in very curious, grotesque form, the stonework has been stencilled with red paint, and along the cornices and friezes and arches there is great black lettering. I do not know what the wording is, but I am told there are some very strange diphthongs in order to get letters within a certain space. If your Lordships would go and look at these mosaics and decorations, and would then turn your backs upon the choir and lock round on the, as yet, untouched nave and aisles, you would see what a relief it is, and how much to be deprecated is this system of decoration which, begun in the choir, has been extended to the transept, and will no doubt be extended to the nave and aisles of this must beautiful building unless steps are taken to prevent it. A memorial has been drawn up and presented to the Dean on the subject. The memorial is signed by the President of the Royal Academy, and bears the name of Lord Windsor, who is well known for his taste in architecture, and others who are well entitled to speak on the subject. This memorial says—
  "In the words of Dean Milman, 'The solemnity and the harmonious simplicity of the edifice may be disturbed under the present scheme.' We would venture to submit that the opinion of experts (appointed by the Royal Academy and the Royal Institute of British Architects) should be taken as to whether the stencilling in red paint of the principal mouldings and cornices under the dome, and the black lettering on the friezes are a form of decoration likely to impair the chief architectural features of the structure as originally conceived and carried out by Sir Christopher Wren."
  I was asked to sign that memorial, but I declined because I felt it would be in vain to go on bended knee to the Dean and ask him to do what the memorial asks; and that I was wise in my generation is proved by the answer that was
  184
  given by the Dean, which was the purest snub that could possibly be given to any memorialists. But since the presentation of the memorial, I may state there has been an interview between the Dean and some representatives of the Institute of Architects, and that the Dean has said that the stencillings are temporary and the matter will be considered. I venture to think that something more than that is needed, and if your Lordships will refer back to the public prints you will see the strongest possible article in "The Times," every word of which I should like to read to your Lordships. Excellent articles have also appeared in the "Saturday Review" and other papers, and a letter on the subject from an Italian visitor to London appears in one of the papers, and I would ask your Lordships to allow me to read this letter, which absolutely and truthfully describes the state of things existing in St. Paul's. The writer says—
  "I have the honour to send you this letter, translated for me from my own language by an English friend. For the first time. I am visiting your great city. I arrived a few days ago, eager to see all the beautiful works of art which it contains. Since I was a boy I have heard of the English, and how some of them would almost go to war to preserve an old building or statue in my country. At Venice, at Florence, at Rome, the municipalities are ignorant, and wilfully destroy many beautiful objects. But there are some Italians, like myself, who love the exquisite works of art which we have inherited. So when your countrymen, a few months ago, founded an English society to protect Italian monuments we were amused, but not ungrateful. I think that a certain Commendatore Richmond was one of the principal members."
  When I was in Italy last spring I was asked to sign a memorial calling upon the Italians to protect their monuments. I declined to do so, as I thought it was a cheeky thing to do, and again it has been proved that I was wise in my generation. The Italian visitor continues—
  "You can imagine that I expected to see in a capital of a country so anxious, not to say so violent, in the defence of Italian art, every new building and statue as beautiful as possible, and every old work of art protected with the eager, not to say intrusive zeal which is displayed by your country in reference to mine. I have seen, Sir, the Temple Bar Memorial, and the statues on the Thames Embankment and at Westminster. I wish to see no more. In many Italian towns there are statues of Garibaldi which are better. I have also seen your Palace of Justice, and some other

  185
  public buildings, some new streets, and Piccadilly Circus. The latter, which should have been a noble piazza centrale, is a hideous, shapeless space. It does not seem to me much more beautiful than the ugly Piazza Vittorio Emmanuele at Florence, which the English so loudly condemn. I have, therefore, seen enough of your new buildings. The municipality of London is evidently no more artistic than the municipality of Florence. At last, this morning, I think to myself that there remain the old buildings, which are no doubt protected with love and reverence. I will visit the Cathedral of London. As soon as I arrive I see that it is the masterpiece of a great artist. The beauty of the building is in its form alone, for there is no colour as in Italy. I enter by the west door. The interior of the nave, also designed without colour, is superb. Here is a building which even the municipality of London would not dare to touch. I advance, and suddenly I perceive under the great dome a space mottled with colours so hideous, so incongruous, that even an Italian house painter would hesitate to use them in the decoration of a restaurant. Pink, and green, and yellow! They are exactly the colours of the English lobster salad—the pink of the lobster, the green of the lettuce, the yellow of the sauce. The yellow shines in spots, the green glitters in misshapen panels, but the pink is formed by a red pattern on a white ground, resembling a cheap wall paper. Beneath, in gigantic black letters, is an inscription. Though I understand some English, I cannot read it, for the letters join and mingle together in strange and unknown diphthongs. Even here, then, the municipality of London has laid its desecrating hand! But no! I ask for information from a sacristan, and discover that this imitation of a lobster salad is the work of the Commendatore Richmond himself. Diavolo! It is he who would tell us in Italy how to manage our own business. As I hurry away, I notice an alms-box inscribed, `For the decoration of the Cathedral.' Is it possible that anyone can contribute? Tomorrow I return to Florence to inaugurate an Italian Society for the Protection of Ancient Monuments and Beautiful Edifices in England. Unless we, the lovers of art in Italy, interfere soon, the exterior of your beautiful Cathedral may also become pink and green and yellow."
  The letter is signed "Leonardo Tiziano Buonarotti." The question is whether there is not some means of putting a stop or cheek upon the proceedings, or at any rate of having the subject of the decorations considered by a proper authority such as is suggested in the Memorial—namely, the President of the Royal Academy and of the Royal Institute of Architects. What the position of the Government is in the matter I do not know. I had been under the impression that there was no power under any existing Act of Parliament of controlling the action of the gentlemen who are now dealing with the decoration of St.
  186
  Paul's, no doubt in a way that appears wise and excellent to them. But since I put my Notice on the Paper, no later than last night I received a letter from a gentleman—he does not wish his name to be mentioned—who is as high an authority on Ecclesiastical Law as there is in the country. This gentleman writes—
  "It is competent to any member of the Cathedral body to question the propriety of these decorations by petitioning the Bishop of London as Visitor of the Cathedral to hold a special Visitation of the Cathedral in respect of the alterations now being made in the Fabric; and there is an appeal from the Bishop's decision to the Arches, and from there to the Judicial Committee. There are 30 Prebendaries of St. Paul's, any one of whom is entitled to take this step, and the cost of his doing so might be defrayed by subscription. See 'Phillpotts v. Boyd,' Law Reports and Privy Council Appeal Cases, p. 450."
  Thus there is a power if it can be put in motion. Surely some of the Prebendaries take the view that what is being done is not quite right. I have also got a letter from a Member of the Committee of Taste, whose name I cannot mention, saying that he disapproves of everything that has been done, and that he is not in a position to resign. I do not know what answer I shall get from Her Majesty's Government, but according to this letter which I have received from a great ecclesiastical authority, there is no occasion for the Government to act until they find that the powers already existing are not exercised. All that is required to be done is to put the law in force, and if the law is put in force, I have little doubt as to what the verdict will be. All that you would require would be to get one of these Prebendaries who objects, and guarantee him against any expense he might incur, and I have no doubt there are many who would be glad to contribute towards the cost. Be that as it may, what I venture to do now, my Lords, is to put to the Government the Question of which I have given notice, and I hope my noble Friend the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom I am glad to see back from his holiday in health and vigour, will give a satisfactory answer as to the intentions of the Government in the master.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I shall accept my noble Friend's challenge by answering the Question he has put. I do not propose to follow him in certain other parts of his speech, or to interfere in the issue which he has set up between himself and Il Commendatore Richmond. That he will, no doubt, follow to its proper issue; and I have no doubt that right will succeed. But it is neither my official duty nor within my personal capacity to express any opinion as to whether his censures are correct or whether they are overstrained. It is not generally thought to be part of our duty to qualify ourselves in that branch of political subject. But it is not very difficult for me to give an answer to my noble Friend's Question, though it might be very difficult to follow the argument which he has laid before the House. I am asked whether we can by any means put a stop to what my noble Friend calls—
  "The decorative destruction of St. Paul's which is now going on apace under the order of the Dean and the Committee of Taste."
  I am afraid to that Question I have no answer to give except an absolute negative. We have no authority, no power over the management of the structure of St. Paul's or of any other Cathedral. In the course of his speech, my noble Friend indicated another mode of action, which was that the Prebendaries out of their abundant wealth should go into the courts, and, by process of law, compel the Dean and Chapter to take my noble Friend's view upon the decorations that are being achieved or perpetrated in St. Paul's. My Lords, I doubt very much whether they will be induced to take that course. Everybody who has had anything to do with it knows that ecclesiastical litigation is one of the most expensive amusements in which a man can indulge; and if you add to that the expenses that may naturally be supposed to attach to artistic litigation I do not think the prospect is one by which the Prebendaries of St. Paul's, however wealthy they may be, will be attracted. My noble Friend added, quite in a parenthesis, that the ultimate decision of this question would rest with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That un-
  188
  fortunate body has many burdens on its shoulders already. It is elected no doubt with a conscientious and absolute regard for the duties it will have to perform, and as those duties include many things—the interpretation of all the law systems of India, including the Vedas and the Koran, I believe; the law prevailing in the Cape of Good Hope and other Colonies; all the Admiralty Law; and last, but not least, the settlement of all our ecclesiastical disputes—I think everyone must admit that their duties are sufficiently extensive, and that the men who are selected must be men of special capacity for the decision of all these subjects, and must be men not only of no common power, but equal to no common amount of labour. If you add to that that they are to determine whether the architecture which was prevalent in the days of the Exarchate of Ravenna is proper to apply to St. Paul's, and what the precise tone of the decorations should be—whether it should be of that staring character which my noble Friend says "pulls the eyes out of your head," or of that more modest tint which I have found that all decorations in this happy City invariably assume—whether these or any other should be the guide of the Dean and Chapter in their present duties, that is among the things which, according to the plan of my noble Friend, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will have to determine. And among the many duties, responsible and terrible, which they have to discharge, exposing them to criticism from all sides, I think this new duty which my noble Friend would put upon them would be the heaviest and most terrible of all. I think it is quite right to say we have nothing to do with the decision whether anyone will invoke this species of litigation. That remains to be seen. I feel that the result is much more likely to prove their own devotion and to show that they do not spend their incomes for their own enjoyment than to attain any practical result. This happens to be a question which embraces in itself two of the most fertile subjects of discord which have been discovered to separate human beings or to encourage litigation with each other. It is highly artistic, and it is also highly theological, and anyone who undertakes litigation to which that character may be rightly applied is a person of no common devotion

  189
  and courage. My noble Friend takes a step further, and asks whether, if we have no power, we will take such legislative action as will save our other cathedrals from the possibility of a like evil fate. To deal with the practical question first, I may say that the state of public business in the other House of Parliament is not at all likely to be such as to enable the Leader of that House to enter upon so thorny a question. But I do not know why in such a matter as this the Government should be alone the authors of a salutary legislation, and I do not know why the other House of Parliament should have the monopoly of such agreeable occupation. I would suggest to my noble Friend that he should lay on the Table a Bill and himself assume the character of legislator, and let us see what provisions he proposes to enable us to save all other cathedrals from the possibility of a like evil fate, by which I understand him to mean not only the clutches of Il Commendatore Richmond, but also from generally making the decorations too brilliant and conspicuous and committing an error as to the precise date in the history of Christendom to which these decorations shall be attached. It is a heavy duty, and I should be curious to see how my noble Friend proposes that it should be discharged. That he will invite the Executive Government to accept that function I can hardly imagine, but I can assure him beforehand that, whether we sit on this side or the noble Lords opposite sit on this side, I am quite certain no political Party will be inclined to give this duty to the Government of the day. My noble Friend will have to find a tribunal, and he must make up his mind that, when he begins to select that tribunal, every possible fault will be found with every selection that he makes, and whatever he proposes it will be pointed out that he has made the worst possible selection that can be thought of. And at the end of it all, though it has been rather deprecated as a low and sordid view, these decorations, whatever their character, to whatever school they belong, must be paid for by somebody, and it is quite possible that the tribunal will order decorations which no munificent person can be found to pay for. I do not know that anything can be done, but I can quite
  190
  imagine the Dean and Chapter saying the critic they prefer is the critic that subscribes. I do not know whether the machinery my noble Friend will set up if he presents us with this Bill which he has in his mind—I do not know whether it will meet that difficulty, which is not the smallest; but I can assure him that he will carry with him our hearty sympathy in his desire to get rid of this subject of difference between persons of great eminence and of undoubted goodwill; and if he is able to lead us to not only a beautiful, but an uncontested decoration of this splendid, ancient monument that has been handed down to us, he will deserve the thanks of his generation.
  *LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not think any Member of your Lordships' House can be surprised at the answer which the noble Marquess has given to the Question put by the noble Earl; but after all, that answer, distinct and to the point as it was, does not console those who, like myself and like many others, agree with my noble Friend that a good deal of harm is being done in St. Paul's Cathedral. Of course, after the answer of the noble Marquess, it is quite clear that the only thing we have to rely upon to put a stop to that is public opinion, and therefore I think a Debate in your Lordships' House on this point. may be of some little use in that way. We are not great experts, we are not like the artistic Italian whose letter the noble Earl has read, but the expression of the views of this House on the decoration of St. Paul's Cathedral may be taken as an expression of the general taste, a sort of "man in the street" exposition. Sir Christopher Wren left behind him, I believe, no record of what he wanted done, and this is now a source of difficulty. But there is something to be said for what the Committee of Taste, headed by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, are doing about the mosaics. The literature on the subject brings out that Sir Christopher Wren himself designed to fill in some of the places left in his stonework with mosaics, and he thought of bringing over four eminent Italians to do this work. Eminent Italians, however, in those days were distrusted by the English people, and the thing came to nothing. Later on, when in 1773 Sir Joshua Reynolds made

  191
  certain proposals for decorating the Cathedral to the Dean and Chapter, it is related by Bishop Newton, who was then Dean of St. Paul's, that Sir Christopher Wren had always complained that his wings were clipped, and that money which had been devoted to the fabric of St. Paul's was appropriated by Parliament to William III.'s wars. Be that as it may, I am very sceptical as to whether Sir Christopher Wren's views as to mosaics and the present Dean and Chapter's ideas of mosaics are at all identical. What is quite certain is that Sir Christopher Wren did not approve of any decoration of St. Paul's Cathedral during his lifetime, notably he disapproved of Sir James Thornhill's frescoes, and it is conceivable that before he died he changed his mind on the subject of mosaics, and determined to leave the Cathedral in a state of severe simplicity. It is quite true that in his later days he had little to do with St. Paul's, but he once shed tears when some sort of decoration was forced upon him that he did not approve, and he died, I believe, as regards St. Paul's, a discouraged and a disappointed man. He would have shed tears now if he could have seen the coloured stencilling which is being applied to the dome of St. Paul's. I am very sorry that this has been done. I am glad to see a letter from a noble Earl opposite, who is on the Committee of Taste, which appeared in "The Times" this morning, that what is being done has been put a stop to. I wish other noble Lords would get up and say they are also glad of that. It is in that way that we may enforce public opinion, which is already set against the further interference with St. Paul's. I will, in conclusion, quote from a very excellent letter written by Lord Windsor, who is a man of great taste and knowledge, and which appeared in "The Times" of 6th April. In that letter Lord Windsor said he hoped the Dean and Chapter might pause before laying hands upon the transept and the nave, and would consider whether the real value of Wren's work is not being lost in this new and original treatment.
  EARL EGERTON: My Lords, I have a very great respect for the Dean of St. Paul's, and I protest against his action with very great reluctance as criticising the action of a personal friend, and as
  192
  one who has done much to improve the service at St. Paul's, and with whom I have every sympathy in his desire to make the decoration of St. Paul's as effective as possible. But I am bound to join with those who object to the possibility of a Dean of a Cathedral having the power to alter the character of his Cathedral by a system of decoration. We do not want St. Paul's turned into a St. Peter's at Rome, nor an imitation of St. Mark's at Venice, nor of St. Sophia at Constantinople. I have had an opportunity of seeing all the principal buildings in the world where mosaics are being carried out, and I venture to say that in no part of the world is there a conjunction of this style of decoration with the Italian style in which St. Paul's is built. The decoration of the dome is not of so much consequence, because it is not easily distinguished, but what we do complain of is, that the great breadth and the simplicity of St. Paul's is marred by the introduction of small and insignificant ornaments which entirely do away with the general effect of the building. Blotches of colour are placed in panels where bare spaces are intended. In one of these panels there is a fine bold carving of foliage in Sir Christopher Wren's best style. In the middle of this a sort of coat-of-arms has been placed, and the bold foliage with which it is surrounded cannot but strike anyone as incongruous. As an Ecclesiastical Commissioner I feel bound to protest against such an alteration by the Dean and Chapter as will diminish the architectural value of this great cathedral, which has been handed down to us from mediæval or post-mediæval times.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I think we owe a great deal to my noble Friend for having brought this matter forward, and although Parliament has no power in the matter we may help to bring public opinion to bear on what many of us think is a desecration of one of the most magnificent buildings in the world. I have always thought, when this desecration was talked of, why not leave it alone? It was magnificent before, and what has been done in the way of decoration is in every instance incongruous and not pleasing. Of course, it was perfectly clear, even before the noble Mar-

  193
  quess gave his answer, that the Government have not power to act in this matter. But the noble Marquess laid great stress on the ruin that would fall upon the Prebendary who moved in this matter, but my noble Friend who raised this question made it quite clear that what he proposed was that the Prebendary should be assured that he would not be out of pocket, but that the money would be found by subscription. The only thing I can see that can be done is for my noble Friend to rouse up one of the Prebendaries and get the law that at present exists acted upon. I suppose most of your Lordships have seen these very disagreeable mosaics; if not, I hope they will look at the mosaic recently unveiled in the Central Hall of the Houses of Parliament, in which they will see a specimen of the sort of work which is being done in St. Paul's, and which, I should say, was only fit for an East-end public-house. I have never seen anything so inartistic or so ugly in my life. I am glad that attention has been called to this matter, because we all know what influence the Dean has in his Cathedral, and it is only by getting public opinion to bear that anything can be done to stop this vandalism.
  EARL BROWNLOW: Before this matter drops, I should be glad, as a member of the Dean's Committee, and, I am afraid, the only member of that Committee who is present to-night, to say a very few words. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches, in putting his Question, has expressed an isolated and individual opinion.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: That is what I did not do. I gave opinions drawn from the Press and other sources, which I believe to be correct.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I understand that my noble Friend differs from Lord Windsor, and entirely objects to mosaic work at all in this connection. He objects to the stone being cut to prepare a bed for the mosaic. We know, unfortunately, very little of what Sir Christopher Wren's views were in regard to decoration; the only thing we do know is that at one period of his life he certainly was in favour of mosaic, which he called beautiful and durable material. The question of whether
  194
  mosaics are satisfactory or not is, of course, entirely a matter of taste, and I might remind your Lordships that when the choir of St. Paul's was reopened to the public, and the mosaics for the first time exhibited, there was a perfect pæan of approbation both from the Press and the public, in consequence of which a considerable sum of money poured in for the continuance of the work. But there is another question upon which my noble Friend appears to be entirely in accord with Lord Windsor and those who signed the memorial, that of the stencilling of the stone under the dome. The opinion has already been expressed by the Dean to the deputation of architects who waited upon him that that was to a great degree experimental. Sir William Richmond, trusting to his artistic knowledge, believed that this work would be effective, that he could produce an agreeable and pleasant effect, but now that the coverings are taken down, I am sorry to say I am convinced that his hopes have certainly not been realised. I know this to be the opinion of several members of the Committee, and, moreover, I have reason to believe that Sir William Richmond himself is anything but satisfied with the result. I wrote to the Dean some time ago telling him I thought it was very desirable that the work should be stopped, and he replied, telling me that he had already stopped it himself, and he has undertaken that it shall not be resumed, at any rate not till after a meeting of the Committee. A meeting of the Committee will be called as soon as possible, and they will decide what is best to be done under the circumstances. The whole history of -architectural decoration is full of controversy, and Correggio and other artists have had much opposition to contend with at one time and another, although succeeding generations have spoken in the highest terms of their work. I can only hope that, under the severe light of criticism, Sir William Richmond may produce works worthy in the future to be ranked with those of his more distinguished predecessors.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I only rise for the purpose of offering my sincere thanks to the noble Marquess opposite for the answer which he has given, and in which he indicated

  195
  that the duty which my noble Friend wishes to be thrown on someone is not to be accepted by the Government. If those who sit on this side of the House should at any future time find themselves on the other side, I think they will be very glad that no precedent has been laid down by which they could be charged with the task of determining on matters of taste. I confess myself to be a person who has no taste. My reason for saying so is that, although—in common, I suppose, with all persons who have had any education—I certainly take pleasure in seeing fine works of art, I have never been able yet to find that there is any agreement whatever in regard to what is taste. Therefore, I have always thought it safer not to profess to have any particular taste whatever. I think it would be found that most of those who take a prominent part in the political affairs of this country have quite a sufficient burden thrown upon them not to have this additional duty, which is one almost impossible for them adequately to discharge. I would go further than that; I have no confidence whatever in what a Committee of the Government would do on this subject. I have myself, as a Member of the Government, taken part in the consideration of what should be the form of certain public buildings, and I have seen sketches that have been submitted of buildings which it was designed to construct, but I have never found any very satisfactory opinion to be derived from the Cabinet on the subject. I interfered once in a matter of taste, and I hope I was justified in so doing. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw with horror a large dome rising up so as to obstruct my window at the Foreign Office, a structure due to the new Admiralty building. I represented the matter to my colleague on the Board of Works, and said that I had annoyance enough at the Foreign Office without it being added to by this dome every time I looked out of the window. I was happy to learn that this horrible structure was an experimental one, and to be assured that its size should be reduced, but I never have been able to understand why architects think that they improve the appearance of their buildings by covering them with little, or large, pepper-boxes. With regard to the particular matter before us, I have
  196
  not had an opportunity of seeing the new decorations, and should not express an opinion on them if I had, but I have read the correspondence which appeared in the newspaper, and the only remark which occurred to me was that the Dean and Chapter, who are entrusted with the preservation of so splendid and important a national monument as St. Paul's, would always do well to pay more attention than the Dean paid to a memorial coming from persons who certainly have as good pretensions to express an opinion on a matter of taste as probably any other body in this country. I think it would have been wiser on the part of the Dean, as well as more graceful, and more in consonance with the performance of the very important duties attaching to his office, if he had shown more sympathy and more consideration for the opinion that was expressed. It is worth while, especially in matters of taste, where there are such very wide differences of opinion, before coming to a conclusion on any great matter, to hear what can be said by persons who may be considered competent to express an opinion. I sincerely hope that as these stencillings, which are particularly objected to, are not likely to be proceeded with, so the whole decorations will be fully considered by the Dean, not only in the light of the advice, no doubt very excellent, of the Committee of Taste, but also in the light of such advice and opinion as can be obtained from bodies who have, at all events, some considerable public opinion behind them. I do not say the Dean is bound by any means to follow that advice and opinion; but what I say is that it is somewhat rash, and I think imprudent, to disregard opinion of that sort when expressed from quarters which are quite disinterested and by persons who have in their hearts the same desire which we all have—namely, to see that St. Paul's should be preserved in the most beautiful and satisfactory condition.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I should just like to say that my Question, which the noble Marquess at the head of the Government has met with a non possumus—that would have been better applied to their socialist legislative Measures—was directed to a condition of things in which a Dean may be doing

  197
  a wrong or foolish thing, and I asked whether Her Majesty's Government has power to take any steps, or would endeavour by legislation to obtain power, to make our ancient cathedrals safe. I should have thought a Government would have felt it a duty to take some steps for the object, but that does not appear to be the view of the noble Marquess. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) said that I wanted a Committee of the Cabinet. That is the last body I should think of. What I want is an outside body, drawn from the Royal Academy, or composed of persons in whom the public would have confidence.

  THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to complete the monument of the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral; who are responsible for the preservation of the full-sized model of the equestrian statue, the head of which has been detached from the trunk; and where and in whose keeping is the head at the present time? I trust I need not apologise to your Lordships for bringing this matter to your notice. It is one, in my humble opinion, of very great importance. It. is within the knowledge of your Lordships that on the death of the Duke of Wellington the sum of £100,000 was voted for a public funeral. Only £80,000 was spent, and in pursuance of a Resolution of Parliament the remaining £20,000 was voted for the erection of a monument in St Paul's Cathedral. A few years afterwards—I think it was in 1855—from a large number of competing designs, that of the late Alfred Stevens was selected. I wish to know whether it is intended to complete that statue as Alfred Stevens designed it. Alfred Stevens is recognised as one of the best sculptors this country has had, and it is necessary to go back to the time of the Italian Renaissance to find any sculpture so perfect in design as this monument and the Duke of Wellington. I went to St. Paul's Cathedral to see this monument, and found that the equestrian statue was hidden away in the crypt of the Cathedral, but minus the head.
  *THE EARL OP WEMYSS: It is in bronze?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: No, in plaster. I trust Her Majesty's Government, if they cannot use any influence with the Dean in reference to decoration, will be able to give some assurance that, in discharge of what is almost a national obligation to the memory of our greatest soldier, and in justice to the sculptor, the original design shall be carried out.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if, in my answer, I show that my knowledge of this matter is not quite complete; but, as far as I can ascertain, the money that was voted by Parliament to the erection of this monument has been expended, and full-size plaster east of an equestrian statue was completed from Mr. Stevens's design. Somehow or other the model appears to have belonged to Mr. Stevens, and from his executors it was purchased by a pupil of Mr. Stevens—a Mr. Stannus—and he from the Cathedral authorities obtained permission to store it in the crypt. It is not the statue, it is the model from which the statue will be afterwards made in bronze; but the money having run short, work was arrested in its present stage of development. It is fair to add that not the whole of the statue is in the crypt; the head has been separated—it is a very extraordinary thing how the heads of distinguished persons have become separated from their bodies—and has been retained by Mr. Stannus at his private house. That is the exact stage of the affair. I imagine that it is a question of money whether the development shall be carried to its natural conclusion, and for the answer whether the required money will be furnished, I am afraid I must refer my noble Friend to the proper authority over the way.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Although Her Majesty's Government profess ignorance, and are not prepared to take action with regard to the so-called decoration of St. Paul's, they have at any rate made themselves fully acquainted with the present position of this horse's head.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: It is not the horse's head; it is the hero's head.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I quite agree with all that my noble Friend has said about the excellence of the monument. An experiment has been made as to the effect of placing the statue under the middle arch of the nave, on the left-hand side looking towards the choir. Lord Leighton was mainly instrumental in having the monument removed to its present position, where it has destroyed the effect and harmony of Sir Christopher Wren's great work. If this monument is to remain where it is now placed, the only thing that will restore the symmetry and balance of the nave will be the placing of a counterpart monument in the corresponding archway on the opposite side. And to whom could such a monument be more appropriately raised than to the Duke of Marlborough, the contemporary of Wren and a worthy companion to Wellington?
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes after Five of the clock.