Lords Sitting of 27 October 1899

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Order of the 17th instant discharged.
Ordered, That for the purposes of the judicial business of this House, Thursday the 16th day of November next be deemed the "first sitting day after the Recess."

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
  Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1897–98. Vol. XXXI.

  WEST INDIES.
  Further correspondence relating to the hurricane on 10th–12th September, 1898 and the relief of distress caused thereby (in continuation of [C.-9205], March 1899).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Orders No. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.
PETITIONS.
  STATUE TO OLIVER CROMWELL.
  Petitions that this House will refuse permission for the erection of a statue to Oliver Cromwell on public land; of persons signing three petitions; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MEMORIAL STATUES.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE, who had given notice to move to resolve—
  "That it is inexpedient that memorial statues should be erected within the precinct of the Palace of Westminster without the sanction of Parliament; that the site between Westminster Hall and the road leading to
  750
  the House of Lords be reserved for a statue of Her Majesty the Queen, unless it should not appear to Parliament a suitable spot on which to erect any statue"—
  said: With your Lordships' permission, I desire to withdraw the latter half of the motion standing in my name on the Paper. My motion will then read—
  "That it is inexpedient that memorial statues should be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster without the sanction of Parliament."
  It may appear to some of your Lordships that the present is a somewhat unbecoming moment for me to draw the attention of the House to this question, but my excuse must be that it was not until the pedestal of the proposed statue to Oliver Cromwell had reared itself into view that the critical nature of the emergency became apparent. On the other hand, my Lords, I dare not postpone my motion until next session, as by that time the very thing I wish to prevent would have become an accomplished fact, past, I fear, all remedy. It is no part of my business on this occasion to discuss the merits of the career of Oliver Cromwell—I can spare your Lordships that infliction—but I should like to say one or two words in reference to that portion of the motion which I have withdrawn. I am very far from assuming, and have been very far from assuming, that the present site is a suitable one from the point of view of artistic effect, but I did think that Her Majesty's Office of Works were competent to decide on what was or what was not a suitable site; and as they had decided that the statue of Oliver Cromwell should be erected there, it seemed to me, owing to the undoubted conspicuousness and prominence of the site, that the British public would prefer to have upon it a statue of one who typifies the union of the Crown, Constitution, and Church, rather than the statue of a military dictator, who, so far as I know, is chiefly remembered as the destroyer of all three. The chief point I wish to address myself to on this occasion is that, whether there is to be a statue or not, the question ought not to be decided without consulting the two Houses of Parliament. I am satisfied now that this site is not a suitable one. Those whom I have consulted, and who, I believe, are most competent to express an opinion on the artistic sides of the question, hold that it is wholly unsuitable; in fact, my Lords, one critic remarked to

  751
  me that Oliver Cromwell emerging from the area of Westminster Palace suggested to his mind nothing so readily as Mephistopheles in the play rising from the nether world. I must ask your Lordships' attention for one moment while I refer to the facts of this case. It was on June 14, 1895, that the Vote on the Estimates came up in the House of Commons for a statue of Oliver Cromwell. On that occasion there was a debate, and one of the most ardent opponents of the proposal was the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House, who was then Leader of the Opposition. The Vote was, however, carried by the small majority of fifteen. On the 17th of the same month, on the Report stage, there was a second debate in a larger House, and Mr. Balfour again led the opposition, and was successful in getting a majority of 137 against the proposal. The actual figures were 220 to 83. That was on the 17th of June, 1895. On the 21st of June—four days afterwards—LordRosebery's Government resigned. Therefore the anonymous donor who came forward and offered to present the late Government with this statue must have done so between those dates, and I think we are entitled to know from Her Majesty's Government the actual date when this offer was made, and the actual date on which it was accepted. It is obvious that the anonymous donor must at the time have been hardly conversant with what was going on in the House of Commons, because it was scarcely credible that he should offer to present to the Government of the day a statue which Parliament had distinctly said they did not wish to have. I conclude that he must have been under the impression that it was a question of £500, and thought that if the country did not choose to spend the money he would. At any rate, it is clear that the Government of the day accepted this statue in defiance of the expressed wish of the House of Commons. The present Government accepted office on June 25th, 1895, and I think it is almost the strangest part of the affair that they endorsed the action of their predecessors, and endorsed it in the face of the fact that Mr. Balfour had led the opposition to the proposal only a few days before. And it must be remembered that what Mr. Balfour opposed was not the expenditure of£500;he opposed the erection of a statue to Oliver Cromwell. I do not
  752
  wish to detain the House one moment longer than is necessary this morning, and therefore I am not going to quote from the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman delivered; but if your Lordships will refer to them you will see that he exhausted every argument that history or rhetoric could afford. Seeing that Mr.Balfour was the means of successfully conducting the opposition to the proposal, I would ask—How comes it that Her Majesty's Government now endorse the action of their predecessors, and studiously ignore the very decision which Mr. Balfour was the means of obtaining in the House of Commons? I know that the Government have been asked on more than one occasion for an explanation of their action, and that the First Commissioner of Works, in reply to questions, has justified his action solely on the ground of continuity. He says, in effect, that it is a legacy the Government inherited from their predecessors, and that it would be an ungracious act not to accept it. It seems to me, my Lords, that the whole policy of every Government may be considered a legacy; but if that theory is to hold—if such a theory is to be adopted—our whole system of party government would be reduced to nothing else than a farce. No one denies that continuity in non-contentious matters is desirable, but can it be seriously suggested that this is a non-contentious matter? I would refer your Lordships to public feeling on the matter, to the numerous petitions which have been presented, and to Mr. Balfour's two speeches, which effectively dispose of any such suggestion. There is no denying that this is a highly contentious question. I think we are entitled to know from Her Majesty's Government when the gift was made and what conditions were attached to it. I have heard that there were conditions, and I think we should know what they were. I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long, but I have done my best to place before you as concisely as possible the position in which we stand with regard to this matter. If my motion is adopted it will effectively prevent anything being done till next session of Parliament, when both Houses will have an opportunity of discussing it. I cannot help feeling some small satisfaction in having been the means of bringing this matter to your Lordships' notice, for although the House of Commons has been consulted

  753
  and ignored, your Lordships have hitherto not even been consulted.
  Moved to resolve, "That it is inexpedient that memorial statues should be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster without the sanction of Parliament."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the motion now before the House. My noble friend who has brought this matter forward wired to me, and I have come from Scotland for the special purpose of giving my support to his motion. I have taken great interest in the question of the Cromwell statue, and your Lordships will remember that in the month of April last I brought the matter before the House. I am very glad my noble friend has omitted the latter part of his motion. As regards the first part, I do not think there can be any doubt that if statues of public men are to be erected within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster Parliament ought to have a voice in their selection, and also as to the sites upon which they are to be placed. I do not know whether the Crown is all-powerful in this matter and can override the declared wishes of Parliament, but even if it has that power some deference should be paid to those wishes. I am not opposed to a statue of Oliver Cromwell being erected; it is the site which chiefly interests me. I am a Cromwellian to this extent, that I believe him to have been one of the greatest men England has ever produced, and that we ought to have a Cromwell statue. But when my noble friend, in the latter half of his motion—which has, I am glad to say, been omitted—proposed that this site should be kept as the site of sites for a statue of the Sovereign and not of Cromwell, I own that I was greatly surprised, for of all the absurd sites for a statue this is, in my opinion, the most absurd. I observe that the Irish, who were very hostile to the erection of a statue of Oliver Cromwell, are now silent, and I cannot help thinking that this silence is due to the fact that Cromwell is to be placed in a hole, which must be very satisfactory to them. The site is rather suggestive of a bear-pit at the "Zoo," with a pole sticking out and Cromwell at the top looking like a bear waiting for buns to be thrown, and some people
  754
  may throw stones. At the bottom of this statue, on the first tier—there are a series of tiers—is a broad base. On that base is to be the British lion couchant—also down in the hole—a fact which will no doubt greatly delight the gentlemen who write in such a friendly manner of England and the British lion in the foreign press. Then comes the pedestal on which Cromwell's statue, which is to be eleven feet high, is to be raised. When I brought this matter before your Lordships' House last session I pointed out that in the erection of statues there ought to be something like uniformity as to scale and size. Close to this site you have the statues of Palmerston, Beaconsfield, and others, all of which are between seven and eight feet high; and this statue of Cromwell—which, as I have said, is to be eleven feet high—will be out of all keeping with its surroundings. It will make the others look like so many pigmies at his feet. The statue should not be placed in a hole, in a ditch, in an area—a very good place for a policeman's statue, but not for a statue of Cromwell. When I ventured to suggest last session that a model should be submitted of the statue, Lord Salisbury—I regret he is not here to day, for I much prefer to say what I have to say of him in his presence—met my motion with flouts and sneers. Indeed, it seemed to me, judging from the noble Marquess's speech at the last Royal Academy banquet, that what he took most interest in, in the way of art, was the architecture of ladies' continuations. He said he preferred what they had in diplomacy—the fait accompli. If a model had been exhibited before the erection was proceeded with, indicating the height to which this statue would go, I am certain public opinion would have condemned the raising of it on this site. I have been most anxious, as your Lordships know who have read the pamphlet I have issued on the subject, that models should be used in regard to the War Office and all new public buildings, in order that the public may have an opportunity of judging which is the most suitable building, and which plan is the best for the ornamentation of the metropolis. But here again I was sneered at and flouted by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, who said one could not judge from models, and that Her Majesty's Government had consulted

  755
  the Institute of British Architects, whose President—Professor Aitchison—had helped them in the selection of the design. The noble Marquess implied, I think, that Professor Aitchison did not care the least for models, that he thought they were neither necessary nor desirable, and that he was of opinion that Lord Salisbury's fait accompli in public buildings was the best thing. Well, my Lords, I have always contended that no man in private life is safe for a day in building unless he goes step by step with the assistance of models, and I entered into a correspondence with Professor Aitchison, who is, I find, more favourable to models than any man I have yet met. I have sent him a copy of my pamphlet, and, in acknowledging its receipt, he said he understood there were to have been models of the proposed War Office buildings. Professor Aitchison states that all the most celebrated buildings in the world were erected from models—he instances, amongst others, St. Peter's, Rome, and St. Paul's, London—that Sir Christopher Wren was strongly in favour of models, and that the use of models in the case of St. Paul's Cathedral probably saved us from having an inferior design adopted. He says, in conclusion—
  "I certainly think that, even now, there ought to be models made of the new War Office, and also of the other plan. The expense would be a mere fleabite."
  I still have hopes, my Lords, that the Government will consent to have models made in connection with the new War Office. It will be remembered that, within a week, one hundred and forty Peers—including Archbishops, Bishops, members of the Government and the Opposition, Field Marshals, and others—signed a memorial to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government asking that models might be made before the building was decided upon; but this petition was set aside. I hope, however, that, encouraged by the example of what was done by the Committee of which the Prince of Wales was president with reference to the Millais Memorial, and strengthened by the opinion of Professor Aitchison, their own adviser, the Government may be inclined to take a different view and agree to models being prepared. I heartily endorse the motion of my noble friend, and hope he will press it to a division.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, before the division is taken I desire to say a few words upon this subject. I will commence by expressing my great regret that there should be such a thin attendance. I was not aware that the noble Earl who has just spoken called the attention of your Lordships in April last to this matter, but shortly before the close of last session I addressed a few words to the House on the subject. I then received no support, and the Government threw cold water on my protest. On the present occasion I am supported by a large number of petitions against the erection of the statue, and the thousands of signatures can hardly, I think, be overlooked The petitions come from London, Bedfordshire, Northampton, Huntingdonshire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, and, indeed, from every part of the country, and I would direct your Lordships' attention to the length of them. A resolution similar to the one moved by the noble Earl would have been brought forward in the House of Commons, but there was not room for it in the present session. I contend that a site more utterly unfitted for a statue of Oliver Cromwell could not have been selected, as it is within view of Westminster Abbey, which he desecrated, and within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, which he was an instrument to destroy. I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any public money has been expended on this most unfortunate project, and to urge that, in view of the feeling which exists out of doors on this subject, the erection of the statue should be postponed until the beginning of next session.
  LORD CHURCHILL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Pembroke, the duty of replying on behalf of the Government falls upon me, and I hope I shall have your Lordships' indulgence if I am not as well posted in the details of the subject as I should have been had the matter not been sprung upon me at the eleventh hour. I may remind your Lordships that on the last day of the session we are somewhat inclined to imagine that our business will be of a purely formal nature, and therefore I trust your Lordships will excuse any shortcomings on my part. I can only draw the noble Earl's attention to the answers which have been given by Mr. Akers-Douglas in another place; and with

  757
  regard to the suggestion that the matter has been settled without discussion, I must also call his attention to the fact that Mr. Akers-Douglas suggested on May 1 that, if any questions were to be raised, hon. Members should raise them on the Vote for his own salary. No reduction of my right hon. friend's salary was moved, and therefore I take that as tantamount to the proposal being acceptable to the House of Commons. I can assure the noble Viscount who spoke last that no public money has been expended on the statue, nor will any be expended. The whole expense will be defrayed by the anonymous individual who is making this gift to the country. With regard to the question of these projects being discussed in Parliament, I can only say that it is customary for gifts such as this to be accepted on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and Mr. Akers-Douglas, in making the remarks he did on his succession to the office, was merely endorsing what was done by his predecessor, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who accepted the gift on behalf of the Government which was in office at the time. I am exceedingly sorry that I am unable to give more details, but I have failed to find in reading through the Papers any details with which noble Lords are not already acquainted which would elucidate the matter.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: It is very important that the House should know the conditions laid down by the anonymous donor. I am very sorry the Government are unable to accept my motion. Considering that the admirers of Cromwell have waited so many hundreds of years before erecting a statue of him within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, I do not think there is anything out of the way in my motion, which only asks that three months should be allowed to elapse before the work is proceeded with. I regret to say that I shall be compelled to press my motion to a division.
  LORD CHURCHILL: I am sorry I omitted to answer the question put by the noble Earl. The understanding on which the work was to be executed and given was that a suitable site, satisfactory to the donor and to Parliament, should be given by the Government.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Satisfactory to the donor and to Parliament! Why did Her Majesty's Government, in face of that understanding, think it was not necessary to consult Parliament?
  LORD CHURCHILL: The terms were arranged by the late Commissioner of Works, not by Mr. Akers-Douglas.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of) HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess I somewhat regret that my noble friend has expressed a determination to divide on this matter. I cannot feel that it is calculated to add to the dignity of the House, or the dignity of our discussions, that on the last day of the session, which, as the noble Lord who replied stated, is supposed to be of a purely formal character—there should be a discussion raising what is, in one sense, an important point, when not a dozen Peers are present. Can anybody suppose that the result of a division obtained in this way can have any effect on the administration or on the opinion of the country? I protest against its being supposed that the question which is now before the House is what my noble friend has stated it to be. My noble friend said that his proposition was that the matter should be postponed till next session. There is no such motion before the House. There is only an abstract resolution binding the House for all time. I think my noble friend would find it extremely difficult to point out any occasion when such a question as this has been debated in Parliament. The selection of sites has always been left to the Administration, and the present Administration ought not to be asked to set aside all that has been done by their predecessors. Consent having been given, and the anonymous donor informed that his gift had been accepted, and that a suitable site would be given by Her Majesty's Government, just imagine what a precedent the present Government would be establishing if they set all that aside and refused to act. If I am asked my private opinion, I am not certain that I entirely disagree with my noble friend Lord Hardwicke with regard to the statue, but that is not what we are discussing. The question is, first, whether it is proper to make a new precedent of this kind, and make the erection of every public statue, whether it involves any cost to the public or not, subject to a

  759
  debate in both Houses of Parliament; secondly, whether, when a former Administration has arranged a matter, it ought to be raised again when the benches on one side of the House are absolutely empty, and when less than a dozen peers are present. Is that a proceeding likely to add to the dignity of the House? There is another circumstance which ought not to be lost sight of. By general consent this session of Parliament has been devoted to one particular subject, every other subject being intentionally excluded from discussion; and I do not think a question should have been raised now which does not come within the subject-matter to which this session was supposed to be absolutely devoted. I strongly protest against a division being claimed, as I think this motion, if it is carried, is not likely to have any other effect than to establish some sort of reflection upon your Lordships' House.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I hope I may be excused for rising again, but I wish to say that the question has been brought forward now owing to the fact that during the recess an enormous pedestal has been raised on the site, and the work is steadily progress
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am extremely sorry to find myself at variance with my noble and learned friend, and it is very difficult for me to decide whether or not to press my motion to a division. In reply to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who deprecated the bringing forward of this motion on the last day of the session, I may point out that it was my intention to have brought it forward earlier, but the House adjourned for a week, and it was impossible to get it on the Paper for yesterday. This, therefore, was the only day on which I could bring it forward. The fact of there being only a few Peers present rather goes to show that Her Majesty's Government do not really regard this as a matter of much importance. If my resolution is carried, the probability is that the matter will be discussed in the next session of Parliament. I cannot help thinking that if Her Majesty's Government were desirous that this statue should be erected immediately and that there should be no delay, noble Lords would have come here to vote against my motion, of which
  760
  full notice was given. In the circumstances, feeling, as I do, very strongly that it would be a disastrous thing that the statue should be erected on this particular site, I have no alternative—unless the Government will give an undertaking that nothing further shall be done until next session—but to go to a division.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I can confirm what my noble friend said as to his intention of putting the motion on the Paper for yesterday. I understood that it was to have come on yesterday, and I came here to take part in the discussion.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 6; Not-contents, 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Hardwicke, E.

  [Teller.]

  Malmesbury, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  [Teller.]

  Crofton, L.

  Shute, L.

  (V. Barrington.)

  Wemyss, L.

  (E. Wemyss.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E.

  (L. Chancellor.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  [Teller.]

  Churchill, L.

  [Teller.]

  Kintore, L.

  (E. Kintore.)

  SECOND SESSION (EXPLANATION) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  TREASURY BILLS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la ; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bills read 2a (the Earl Waldegrave); Committee negatived; Bills read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

  1. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

  761

  2. Treasury Bills.

  3. Second Session (Explanation).

  QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's commands), as followeth:—
  "My Lords and Gentlemen,
  "I am happy to be able to release you from the exceptional duties which have been imposed upon you by the exigencies of the public service.
  "I congratulate you on the brilliant qualities which have been displayed by the brave regiments upon whom the task of repelling the invasion of My South African Colonies has been laid. In doing so, I cannot but express My profound sorrow that so many gallant officers and soldiers should have fallen in the performance of their duty."
  "Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  "I acknowledge with gratitude the liberal provision which you have made to defray the expenses of military operations in South Africa."
  "My Lords and Gentlemen,
  "I trust the Divine blessing may rest upon your efforts and those of My gallant Army to restore peace and good government to that portion of My Empire, and to vindicate the honour of this country."
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:
  "My Lords and Gentlemen,
  "By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to her commands, prorogue this Parliament to Monday the fifteenth day of January next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday the fifteenth day of January next."