§ THE EARL OF CRAWFORD had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if before proceeding with the scheme to remove the statue of Queen Victoria, they will submit the matter to the Offices Committee of this House, and to His Majesty's Office of Works; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope my Motion may commend itself to the Government, and I will therefore merely move it formally, and not elaborate the case which I have to make.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, the noble Earl asks me if before proceeding with the scheme to remove the statue of Queen Victoria, His Majesty's Government will submit the matter to the Offices Committee of this House and to His Majesty's Office of Works, and I understand that he with-holds any observations which he proposes to make until I have answered the Question. I will endeavour to answer the Question that is upon the Paper.
I do not think that it is necessary to consult the Offices Committee of the House upon the subject for the following reason. I find on looking into the matter that the reference to the House of Lords Offices Committee, which instructs them as to the duties which they are to perform, is to consider the House of Lords offices; and it was in accordance with that aspect of their business that I remember myself bringing before the Offices Committee a few years ago the question of certain alterations which were contemplated with regard to the residence and offices of the Clerk of Parliaments, with a view of turning them into a residence for the Lord Chancellor. 1532 Similarly, I find that during the present year there has been before the Offices Committee a question dealing with the opening of an entrance from one set of Committee rooms to another. Those are matters which clearly fall within the scope of their reference. On questions of decoration, I find the House of Lords Offices Committee does not intervene and has not been consulted, and there is a full statement of the principles which regulate the matter in a Report which I have, and to which any noble Lord can have access, of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Palace of Westminster, on which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, sat in the year 1907. Any noble Lord who will look at that Report will see that there was a discussion on this very question, and the principles which, as I conceive, are the correct ones were laid down very emphatically by the then First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Lewis Harcourt, afterwards Lord Harcourt.
There is another leason for which it seems to me that the Offices Committee is hardly the best body to adjudicate upon a matter of this description, and it is this. I have attended many meetings of that Committee. There may be present eight or ten, possibly twelve or fifteen, out of a total number of, I think, something like forty noble Lords who are members of that Committee. It is clear that, with this sparse attendance, a decision may be arrived at on a very momentous subject that need be in no degree representative of the real sentiment of the House. And, if it be said that the House has the chance of considering and, if necessary, reversing the opinion of the Offices Committee, while that is true, the matter again, if brought up in your Lordships' House, might be decided by the vote of a number of Peers which need not necessarily be at all representative of the general sentiment of your Lordships' House. I will come in a moment to what I conceive to be a much better method by which the views of the latter can be ascertained.
Then the second part of the noble Earl's Question is whether the Government will submit the matter to His Majesty's Office of Works. They did so. I had a correspondence, which I have here, in the year 1919, with the Office of Works, before the 1533 noble Earl was connected with it, and when the head of that Department was Sir Alfred Mond.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMay, 1919.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONNot a bit of it. The correspondence was about the proposal. I had a correspondence with Sir Alfred Mond on that very subject. And I took advice at that time. He asked me whether I would bear in mind the interest that the Office of Works had in the matter. I took the advice of the Clerk of Parliaments on the matter, and I replied that—
The only two matters in respect of which the First Commissioner of Works is likely to be concerned in the erection of the proposed War Memorial in the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords are (a) if any expenditure is entailed upon the public purse which will not he the ease——That was with reference to the proposed Memorial in the Royal Gallery——(b) if any structural safeguards are required in consequence of the erection of the monument, as to which the Office of Works will, of course, be consulted in due course.That I believe to be—and I took trouble about the matter—a correct definition of the degree of voice in the case which is officially possessed by the Office of Works.Before I come to the proposal that I have to make, let me acquaint your Lordships with the actual sequence of events that has occurred in the history of this case. The subscriptions for the Memorial first began to be collected at the beginning of 1919. It was then that the Committee, of which I was the Chairman, held several sittings; it was then that we addressed the first appeal to your Lordships; it was then that in that appeal was mentioned, with as much argument in its favour as I could give, the suggested site in the Royal Gallery, which has been compared, in some quarters, to that of a sanctuary or a shrine. That suggestion was put before your Lordships, and the letter containing it was circulated to every member of your Lordships' House.
The subscriptions then began to come in, and it was in the course of the inflow 1534 of those subscriptions that many noble Lords came to me and said that they did not approve of that site, which they thought too remote, too secluded, insufficiently before the eyes of your Lordships in the daily discharge of your business. Then it was that the suggestion was made for a transference from that site to the larger one in the Princes Chamber. As I indicated the other day, the first step to be taken was to secure the approval of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who is responsible for the fabric of this House, and who warmly supported the proposal. The next step was to approach His Majesty the King, and I have his written assent, to which I made reference the other day.
The next step—and to this I call attention—was to inform your Lordships, and I thereupon wrote this letter, which was sent to every member of your Lordships' House. I do not know if all received it, but it was sent:
§ "November 27, 1919.
§ "My Lord,
§ "You will be interested to learn that 420 Peers have now promised or subscribed a total sum of £6,960 towards the above object. The subscription list will presently be closed. Since the issue of my last circular letter His Majesty the King has graciously signified that he is willing that, in view of the scale and importance of the projected Memorial the large marble group, with the seated figure of Queen Victoria in the centre, that now stands inside the Princes' Chamber, should be re moved to a position at the head of the Royal Staircase in the Victoria Tower, and that the site thus vacated should be placed at the disposal of the Memorial Committee. This gracious act on the part of the Sovereign will enable the War Memorial to be erected on the finest site in the building, where it will he seen daily by the Peers, and will fitly commemorate the glorious participation of their Order in the recent war.
§ "The Committee will meet shortly to consider the form of the Memorial and the selection of a sculptor. In the meantime may I urge on any Peer who still desires to subscribe to forward his contribution without delay to the Assistant Librarian, House of Lords.
§ "I have the honour to remain,
§ "Your Lordships' obedient servant."
§ After the issue of that letter to every Peer it is impossible for any noble Lord to contend that your Lordships have not been taken into full consultation in the matter.
1535§ And after the circulation of that letter I did not receive a single objection from any Peer. On the contrary, quite a number of Peers came to me and expressed their gratification at the proposed change of site, at the substitution of what they thought a much nobler framework for the suggested statue, and, as I said the other day, one of the most eloquent in the expression of those sentiments was the late Lord Harcourt. It was naturally therefore and inevitably that we proceeded upon that basis. Sir Thomas Brock came here and saw that site. The sculptors who were suggested by him were invited to give designs for that site. They came here, they spent hours here, and the whole proceedings, over three and a half years, rested upon the assumption that that site would be chosen. Not one single voice of disapprobation has been raised in the interval.
§ The first hint of any disapproval that I encountered was from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. I mentioned to him in the month of November, 1921—I have the correspondence—a year and a half ago, that we were proceeding with that suggestion and the noble Earl at that time expressed his personal regret that that statue should disappear, for the reasons ho named the other day. But he suggested no reference to the Offices Committee. He did not suggest that I should desist from the proposal. Ho made no concrete suggestion of any sort whatsoever. Thus I think your Lordships will see that those of us who have been engaged in the matter have had the fullest ground for proceeding in the manner we have done.
§ Now we come to the present situation. The noble Earl made a powerful speech the other day in which he indicated his personal views of dislike to seeing the features of this structure as they were originally set up in any way interfered with. His views, I believe, are entertained by a number of other noble Lords. If there is one thing upon which we shall all agree it is this, that a matter of this sort which, as all artistic matters do, raises rather sharp differences of opinion, should be settled in accord with the general sentiment of the House. That fundamental principle I lay down. I have indicated the reasons for which I think a reference to the Offices Committee would be highly undesirable 1536 and, indeed, contrary to precedent. I have indicated the degree of concern which, as I am authoritatively informed, the Office of Works has in the matter. The real tribunal and the only tribunal that can settle the matter is the House of Lords itself, and, while I think I have shown conclusively that the Committee and I have been thoroughly justified in every step we have taken up to the present moment, clearly neither the Committee nor I have the slightest desire or right to foist upon the House of Lords a decision of which it disapproves.
§ It seems to me that much the best solution would be this: that instead of referring the matter to Committees which are necessarily small in number and the decisions of which may provoke dispute later on, the best tiling to do would be to refer it to the House of Lords, and I propose, with your Lordships' consent, to circularise the House of Lords again and to send a letter to every Peer indicating briefly the history of events as they have passed, pointing out that a difference of opinion has arisen as to the site of this monument, and asking noble Lords to record their individual opinion. I am quite content to accept the opinion of the majority in whichever direction it goes; and, indeed, let your Lordships remember that the suggestion of the site in the Royal Gallery was mine, and should the House of Lords decide against the site in the Princes Chamber that was not my suggestion and no one will more readily bow to it than myself since I was responsible for the other suggestion. That is the proposal that I submit to your Lordships, and I hope you will agree not only that it is fair and equitable, but that it is the only really practical way of settling this rather difficult and delicate matter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. I should like to say this, in the first place. I bring this matter up again at the instance of an enormous number of Peers sitting in all quarters of the House. I have spoken to many and a still larger number have spoken to me, and I have been surprised at the weight, the mass, and, above all, the influence of the opinion, the growing opinion, against the mutilation of the statue of Queen 1537 Victoria in order to erect a War Memorial in its place. I shall not traverse what the noble Marquess has said. I merely safeguard myself by saying that the Office of Works is concerned. The Office of Works is the guardian of the structure of this palace. Nobody but the Office of Works can put a nail in or take a nail out. Nobody except the Office of Works is competent to advise your Lordships upon this matter which raises enormously difficult questions not merely of architecture and engineering, but of architectural and artistic propriety. I will give your Lordships one case in point.
With regard to the Offices Committee, I think this case ought to go to the Offices Committee as well as to a plebiscite. None of your Lordships has been formally consulted about the proposal to remove the statue of Queen Victoria. It has never been to the Offices Committee, and I think it ought to go to the Offices Committee or, at any rate, to some body representing the House as a whole. This is the only memorial to Queen Victoria, so far as I know, which was erected by the taxpayers as a whole. It is, therefore, essential that Parliament in one form or another should give its verdict upon the proposal to remove it. The Offices Committee is a microcosm of the House. The Office of Works is the Department upon which this House is entitled to call for advice and I think they should examine this question and advise the House upon the matter which is now to be submitted to them.
When I was First Commissioner of Works I assure your Lordships that every structural question was submitted to the Lord Great Chamberlain, who in turn, brought those questions before the Offices Committee. The civil servants' bench in this House was put up when I was First Commissioner of Works. The question had to go to the Offices Committee because the structure was affected. It can be removed in two hours without making any mark upon the structure of this House. But that was a matter which I most scrupulously referred to the Offices Committee, because it is the only Committee which can deal with this kind of question. I will not elaborate it beyond saying this. I should have preferred that this matter should go for revision to the Office of Works and to the Offices Committee of this House; but if the noble 1538 Marquess, Lord Curzon, prefers a plebiscite it is not for ma to take objection. I would, however, make this observation. Seven thousand pounds out of the £8,500, or whatever it is, that is now in the possession of the Committee was collected on the strength of the letter recommending the embrazure site at the end of the Royal Gallery. Seven thousand pounds was collected upon that selection of site to which the King had, as was announced, given his approval and which, as Lord Curzon himself then mentioned, in his opinion at any rate was the best available site in the House. I subscribed on those terms and all my friends did so. We may have forgotten, I certainly had forgotten, that it was ultimately proposed to change the site to that in the Princes Chamber.
Therefore, the proposal that your Lordships as a whole should pronounce a verdict upon this is one to which I am quite agreeable, though I should much prefer the smaller degree of publicity that would be involved by referring the question to the Offices Committee. But the case must be stated fully to the Peers, and I think that the Offices Committee, in the first instance, should draw up the statement to be submitted to your Lordships, and that they should not do so until the only relevant Department, the only Department with technical knowledge, experience and equipment to advise, has recorded its views upon this subject; that is, His Majesty's Office of Works. I hope that this can be done, and, if so, I shall be content to leave the decision as indicated by the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, to the Peers as a whole, who, I hope, will give very close and earnest attention to this matter, because if a mistake be made it will be one which as years go on will cause your Lordships increasing regret.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, evidently at this stage of the Session your Lordships are in a difficult position in dealing with this matter. None of us wishes that further delay should take place; indeed, it is desirable that the matter should proceed without further delay. The noble Earl who has just spoken has accepted the suggestion which was made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and I am sure that we are all obliged to the noble Marquess for having made such a suggestion. But will he allow me to say that it seems to 1539 me hardly fair to members of your Lordships' House, especially to those who have not had the advantage of hearing the speeches which have been made by the noble Earl who has just sat down, that they should not hear both sides of the question? If such a letter as that which is in the mind of the noble Marquess is sent out it will presumably have the nature of an ex-parte statement.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONOh, no. I could meet that point. It will not. That is the last thing I desire. Clearly, if the case is to be put it must be put fairly. For the reasons I named, and because the House is now rising, I think it undesirable that the matter should be referred to the Offices Committee, but I am prepared, in drawing up the letter, to send my draft to the noble Earl opposite, as representing the Opposition, and that he should consult the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and that the letter shall not go out until they are satisfied that it presents both sides of the case with perfect impartiality.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI suggest that the Office of Works, as the technical authority, should be responsible.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONOh, no. Your Lordships have raised this money, or rather, on behalf of your Lordships, I have had the privilege of raising it. This matter is one for your Lordships. It has nothing whatever to do with the Office of Works until structural alterations are required, in which the staff of the Office of Works would have to be imported. I should decline to set a precedent which I think would be most unfortunate. I have gone, I think, to the limit of reasonable concession by the suggestion I have made, which is absolutely fair and impartial, and I do invite your Lordships to accept it.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I was saying, when I gave way to the noble Marquess, that I cannot help feeling that a great many members of your Lordships' House would be glad to know what the opinion of the Office of Works is upon the subject. They might not be influenced by that opinion on the one side or the other, but in these difficult matters affecting taste and art one is, I think, particularly glad to have the advice of 1540 the experts. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for the suggestion he has just adumbrated. We should all be glad, if we could have it in some shape or form, of the advice of experts upon this question. If, however, the noble Marquess will allow the letter to become a matter of private correspondence between the noble Earl and himself and myself, I think we shall probably be able to arrive at some arrangement.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.