HL Deb 01 August 1905 vol 150 cc1129-39
LORD HAWKESBURY,

in moving "That this House, whilst anxious that a suitable site should be found in West-minster Abbey for the National Memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury, desires to express its opinion that the monument to Captain James Cornewall (the first monument erected by vote of Parliament to a naval officer, who, when in command of H.M.S. "Marlborough" in the action off Toulon in February, 1743–44, lost both his legs, but remained on the quarter-deck and fought his ship till he died), ought not to be removed without due notice being given to Parliament," said: My Lords, I feel that some apology is due from me to your Lordships for pressing this Motion at such a late hour of the evening, and I know that I shall stand in need of all the kindness and indulgence that you can afford in asking you to bear with me for a few moments while I deal with the question. I am well aware that this question of moving monuments is a somewhat delicate one, but I feel most strongly that it is a very important one for both Houses of Parliament. The question is whether, when monuments of a national character have been erected by the vote of the two Houses of Parliament, it should be possible for them to be removed, and, as the proposal stands in this case, to be mutilated and only small portions of them retained, and these placed in a position where they cannot be seen and will be soon forgotten. Surely when Parliament decides to perpetuate the memory of a great Englishman we do not look forward to the time when the monument erected with that object shall be placed in such a position that it cannot be seen.

I am well aware of the difficulties of the case. Westminster Abbey, as we know, is very crowded, and probably at some time, sooner or later, it will be necessary to carry out one or other of the schemes for enlarging the space, which from time to time have been put forward. With regard to the removal of monuments, my noble friend Lord Camperdown, some six years ago, introduced a Bill, as your Lordships will remember, dealing with the subject. That Bill received the assent of your Lordships' House and the support of the late Archbishop of Canterbury; I think it passed this House without any Amendment of any moment, but owing to the pressure of business in another place it failed to pass into law. Another attempt was made to deal with the subject elsewhere three years later, but that attempt likewise failed to reach a successful issue from the same cause.

I hope that it is unnecessary for me to say that in common with all your Lordships I felt the very greatest respect and regard for the late Lord Salisbury, and I am sure that in common with every Member of this House I feel the same great reverence for his memory. Of this I am certain, that we here at this day are as unanimous in our wish and desire that the late Lord Salisbury should have the best monument that can be erected to his memory, and, further than that, that he should have the best site available in Westminster Abbey, as were our predecessors more than a century and a-half ago when they voted a monument to the gallant Captain Cornewall. But that being so, I trust it may be possible to carry out that desire in the best and most satisfactory manner without desecrating—if I may use the term—the monument to this naval hero. As to an alternative site, I will not now enter into that question further than to mention that it has been suggested that a place might be found for the monument of Lord Salisbury in the Eastern part of the Abbey, the position of honour, and where a recumbent effigy would be more in keeping with the surroundings.

As I understand the proposal of the Dean, it is intended to move some five monuments in Westminster Abbey, namely, the one in question, that to Captain Cornewall; one which stands back to back with it, that to Mr. Secretary Craggs; two on the opposite side of the Abbey, one being that to Lord Howe, and the other that to Charles James Fox; and I think the fifth is the one known as the Massachusetts memorial. But of these five monuments the one to Captain Cornewall is the only one which it is proposed to take to pieces and to retain only a portion. I believe that the portion to be retained includes the panel bearing the inscription, which is now about eight feet from the floor of the nave, and which it is proposed to place on the sill of the west window of the South West tower of the Abbey, some eighteen or twenty feet above the floor; another panel having on it in relief the naval battle; and a medallion with the head of Captain Cornewall on it; these three fragments being there framed in new stone work. When it is placed in position on the sill of the window which I have described it will be impossible with the light in one's eyes and at that height to read the inscription or to see the carved representation of the ships that fought in the engagement. As a matter of fact it will be out of sight and out of mind, although it was voted to perpetuate the memory of this great Englishman, who deserved so well of his country—for he, with Hawke, who were the heroes of that action, were the beginners of that long series of naval captains who deserved so well of their country, and who brought the Navy to the perfection which it attained at the time of Trafalgar.

It seems rather a curious coincidence that this year, when in two months time we are to celebrate the centenary of Trafalgar, should be chosen to put forward this proposal, which I trust may not take effect. However that may be, I feel bound to protest against it, and I trust that your Lordships will join with me in protesting against the mutilation of this monument. I know from communications I have received, that there is a strong feeling on this matter, not only in this House and in the House of Commons, but also in the service to which I have the honour to belong, and of which Captain Cornewall was so gallant and distinguished an officer. It was the first monument erected by Parliament to a naval officer, and the other monument which we are hoping to see erected shortly is the last which Parliament has voted, and it is not a pleasant thing to think that as time goes on, as we perhaps now think that the monument which was considered a splendid and suitable one 150 years ago is not in the best of taste in a Gothic church, so tastes may again change, and the time may come when the monument we are about to erect to a statesman, whose name we revere and whose memory we desire to preserve as a pattern and object of reverence to his countrymen, should in its turn be swept away by those who may take a different view from ours of that monument. At this late hour I will not say more; I will conclude by moving the Resolution which stands in my name.

Moved to resolve, "That this House, whilst anxious that a suitable site should be found in Westminster Abbey for the national memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury, desires to express its opinion that the monument to Captain James Cornewall (the first monument erected by vote of Parliament to a naval officer who, when in command of H.M.S. 'Marlborough' in the action off Toulon in February, 1743–44, lost both his legs, but remained on the quarter-deck and fought his ship till he died) ought not to be removed without due notice being given to Parliament."—(Lord Hawkesbury.)

EARL SPENCER

I think it would be better that I should say the few words that I intend to address to your Lordships on this subject before the noble Lord who represents the Government replies to my noble friend. This is a matter that ought to be very carefully considered. It is a very grave question, as has been shown by my noble friend behind me. Here is a monument—the first naval monument ever voted by the nation—placed in Westminster Abbey, and it is now proposed that it should be moved and placed in a position where I am afraid it will not be seen. I think that Parliament which voted the money for the great monument which we hope to see erected to the late Lord Salisbury, whom we all revere and to whose memory we wish the best monument possible to be placed in Westminster Abbey, has some right to express its own opinion on this matter, and to express it pretty clearly.

I should like to refer to the history of the monument which it is proposed to remove. It has been stated somewhere that the monument has been touched already by one of the most distinguished Deans, and one who had more reverence for history than almost any of his predecessors, namely, Dean Stanley. It is true, according to a very moderate and able letter from the present Dean, which appeared a little time ago in The Times, that Dean Stanley did touch this monument, but I venture to say that that is no reason why it should be touched again. It is rather an argument why it should remain where it is, because Dean Stanley altered it as much as he could, and he evidently did not consider that he ought to go any further. On another argument, the Dean in his letter says that there was at one time a great desire to erect a monument to Ruskin, but there was very great difficulty in finding a place for it. He suggested to Dean Bradley the possibility of a recumbent effigy in the very place on which it is now proposed to place a recumbent figure of the late Lord Salisbury. But what was the answer of the Dean? He would not undertake to do it, because he thought that public opinion would be too strong for him. I think that these facts ought to be remembered when we are dealing with this subject.

Then I should like to say a few words on another point. There are two schools in regard to this matter. There is the school that loves architectural beauty, and desires that the architectural beauty of the time when the splendid cathedrals or abbeys were erected should be preserved and restored to what it was intended to be by the great architects who planned the buildings. I quite admit that there is a great deal to be said for that point of view. Then there is another school which desires that nothing whatever should be done to any monument. I have thought a great deal about this question since it was first brought forward, and I have some sympathy with those who wish to preserve, and if possible restore, the greatest architectural beauty; but I do not think that any alteration should be made merely to secure architectural beauty, or even to find room for another monument, unless you can secure an equally good or nearly equally good position for the monument which was raised 100 or 150 years ago. I have visited the Abbey and seen this monument to Captain Cornewall, but unfortunately I did not see the position in which it is proposed it should be placed, but I gather, from what my noble friend has said and from what others have told me, that it is to be placed in a position where it will not be seen, and where, therefore, it will lose all the importance which it has had for so many years in the place where it now stands.

I will not say more now, but I would urge upon His Majesty's Government that they should do their utmost to preserve this monument. I have a strong hope that, if they succeed in that, a fine site will nevertheless be found for the recumbent monument to the late Lord Salisbury.

This is a matter which stirs very much the feelings of the service which for some time I had the honour to represent in this House, namely, the Navy, and from representations which have been made to me I know that they have a very deep feeling with regard to the removal of this, the first naval monument ever voted by the country, and erected to a most gallant man whose last action was one of almost unexampled bravery and valour. I cannot help thinking that the country at large will support this view, and I sincerely trust that His Majesty's Government will be able to bring their influence to bear in the proper quarters, and prevent the alteration of this monument.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I wish to add my protest to that which has already been made by the noble Lords who have spoken. I do not wish to enter into this individual case, nor am I at this hour of the evening going to raise any questions with regard to taste. What I want to do is to protest against the principle involved in this proposed alteration of a monument. Surely when the nation has voted a sum of money for the erection of a public monument to a naval hero, and when the Dean of the day must have given his consent to the placing of that monument in the Abbey, it is not right that, without giving notice to Parliament or obtaining the consent of the family—because of course in this case the family would object as much as it possibly could to any movement or alteration of the monument—it is not right that the Dean should remove the monument as is now proposed. As the noble Lord who introduced this Motion stated, some years ago there was another case in which a somewhat similar proposal was made, and on that occasion I took the opportunity of bringing in a Bill dealing with the matter. That measure passed through this House, and received the approval of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. I think the principle that was embodied in that Bill would commend itself to the public and to Parliament, and in the strongest way that I can I wish to protest against the action which now proposed

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, several naval officers have spoken to me on this subject requesting me to use whatever influence I may have here or elsewhere to prevent this monument from being removed and treated in the manner proposed. Whenever I enter Westminster Abbey my artistic feelings are entirely submerged by my historical recollections. Though I greatly prefer modern monuments to those of the 18th century, I think it probable that the people of the 22nd century will have very similar views about our taste to those which we entertain regarding the taste of our predecessors. Perhaps they will look at the marbles of ancient and modern days as quite obsolete, and insist on having monuments made of some compound of radium or argon or of some substance at present utterly unknown. I think it is a pity to destroy historical continuity by defacing or destroying monuments which are not in accordance with the ideas of the present day.

The battle that was fought off Toulon when Captain Cornewall lost his life was one of the most discreditable engagements ever fought by the British Navy. The admiral was dismissed the service, five captains were cashiered, one was found guilty of failing in his duty, one was dismissed his ship, one went away to avoid Court-martial, and one died before he could be tried. Luckily there were better men than those in the British Navy. There were Hawke and Captain Cornewall. Hawke rose to the rank of admiral and afterwards commanded the Fleet in two successful actions, but Cornewall lost his life, forty-two of his men were killed, 120 wounded, and the main and mizzen masts of the ship were shot away. The country wished to mark its sense of Cornewall's conduct as compared with that of the captains who had so misbehaved, and a large sum of money was voted for the erection of this monument, which has remained as a record of how some few men were heroic at a time when others failed in their duty. That is why I think it would be a pity to and to Parliament, and in the strongest remove such a monument, or to put it in a way that I can I wish to protest against place were it would be lost sight of, simply because a certain number of people in this country have not sufficiently studied naval history.

As regards the late Lord Salisbury, for many years I looked upon him as my political leader. I have the greatest possible respect for him, and I hope the monument which is to be erected to his memory will remain, wherever it is placed, undisturbed, and I think that there will be a greater chance of its remaining undisturbed, if those who in the future may wish to move it, are unable to adduce the argument that when it was placed in its position, it displaced another.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am not quite sure that even if this Motion were carried we should greatly advance the cause my noble friend has at heart. The Motion asks that the monument should not be removed "without due notice being given to Parliament." I d not know exactly what is intended by "due notice," but both Houses have in fact had due notice of the intention of the Dean and Chapter. But I will not argue the question on technical grounds. I am sure I am expressing the general feeling of the House when I say that our universal desire is that owing to our great respect for the memory of Lord Salisbury there should not be any unseemly controversy as to the site of his monument. Nor will your Lordships desire that anything should be done that would give offence to the present representatives of the distinguished officer whose monument is the subject of discussion. I would go further and say that most of us would object, even in the interest of the beauty of the Abbey, to anything approaching to a ruthless or inconsiderate disturbance of monuments which, if they do not adorn, add to the historical interest of the building.

The noble Lord who spoke just now added an epigram to our debates when he said that when he entered the Abbey his artistic sense was submerged by his historical recollections. That is a feeling which many of us share. But I venture to think that any one who has read the Dean of Westminster's letter to The Times of July 15th will admit that the time has come when some rearrangement of the monuments is necessary, unless the Abbey is to be closed to further memorials. I am inclined to say that there is a case either for moving the place of the Cornewall monument or making some alteration in its form. On the other hand, I am bound to say that my impression derived from a visit to the spot and an inspection of the sketch of the proposed alteration is that the Cornewall monument will be over-severely dealt with. As I understand it, the alteration will involve a complete disturbance of the constituent parts of the monument. The medallion containing Cornewall's head, the tablet on which the battle is portrayed, and the tablet containing the inscription are to be removed from their positions and re-erected at a height where it will be very difficult for anyone to decipher the inscription.

The position in which we find ourselves, however, is a rather difficult and singular one. I understand that the Dean and Chapter who control the fabric of the Abbey have accepted the proposed alteration, and that the matter has been before the House of Commons, who have to pay for the monument, and I have to-day learned that Sir G. Cornewall, the present head of the house, having been to see the place, has expressed himself as fully approving the proposed change. These are somewhat formidable considerations, and the only course I can suggest is not to pass this Resolution, which will not greatly advance the matter, but that there should be some further discussion between those interested and the Dean and Chapter as to the manner in which the Cornewall monument should be dealt with. The Dean has assured me that he would not only not resent any such discussion, but that he would cordially welcome any proposal which might be made by those interested in the question. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not take a division, but will accept the suggestion of a conference in which the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Windsor, the Dean, and if possible, some member of the Cornewall family might perhaps take part and assist in coming to a wise conclusion.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

My Lords, may I say one word on this subject. It will be within the recollection of some of your Lordships that it was proposed to remove a naval monument in St. Paul's erected by Parliament to make room for a monument to the late Lord Leighton, but the proposal was stopped through the intervention of Admiral Keppel, who induced a very high personage to bring his influence to bear. I wish to remind your Lordships that Westminster Abbey is a Royal peculiar, and, though the Dean and Chapter claim very great privileges in an ordinary cathedral, the Crown is the Visitor of Westminster Abbey, and I am quite sure that it would be competent for those who advise the Crown to secure that a word should be spoken which would be imperative in preventing the movement of this monument. When such a monument has been put up by the nation to commemorate a national service, I think it has passed out of the jurisdiction of the persons commemorated and of those connected with them. The monument is the expression of the feeling of the nation, and it seems to me that the nation is the only party to be consulted as to the removal or mutilation of the monument.

Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.