Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:51:08.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Imperial Monumental Halls and Tower’: Westminster Abbey and the Commemoration of Empire, 1854–1904

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

G. Alex Bremner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the many remarkable changes of the last generation, none is more remarkable than the change in the political ideas uppermost in the minds of men… Today the words ‘Empire’ and ‘Imperialism’ fill the place in everyday speech that was once filled by ‘Nation’ and ‘Nationality’. In the never-ending struggle of political principles, authority rather than liberty seems for the moment to have the upper hand; power and dominion rather than freedom and independence are the ideas that appeal to the imagination of the masses; … the national ideal has given place to the Imperial.

In March 1904 John Pollard Seddon (1827–1906) and Edward Beckitt Lamb (1857–1932) published an extraordinary scheme entitled ‘Imperial Monumental Halls and Tower at Westminster’. Though never built, it was among the grandest and most visionary proposals London had ever seen and, next to Giles Gilbert Scott’s Anglican cathedral at Liverpool (1904–79), one of the last monumental expressions of Gothic revival architecture in Britain. Designed to immortalize the achievement of the men and women who had laboured to promote and defend the nation’s imperial interests, it was conceived as a lasting testament to the enthusiasm for empire that characterized late Victorian and Edwardian Britain (Figs 1-2).

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 47 , 2004 , pp. 251 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Monypenny, W. F. ‘The Imperial Ideal’, in Goldman, C. S. (ed.), The Empire and the Century: A Series of Essays on Imperial Problems and Possibilities by Various Writers (London, 1905), p. 5fGoogle Scholar.

2 Seddon, J. P. and Lamb, E. B., Imperial Monumental Halls and Tower at Westminster (London, 1904)Google Scholar. E. Beckitt Lamb was the son of Edward Buckton Lamb (1806-69).

3 Seddon had also produced designs for the New Government Offices competition (1857: his design for the War Office received fourth prize) and the new Law Courts competition (1867). See Darby, M., John Pollard Seddon (London, 1983)Google Scholar.

4 Some of E. Beckitt Lamb’s designs can be found in ‘Edward Buckton Lamb’, sketch book, London, RIBA Drawings Collection.

5 Building News, 80 (10 May 1901), p. 617. For the illustration, see Academy Architecture, 19:1 (1901), p. 2.

6 Smirke, S., Suggestions for the Architectural Improvement of the Western Part of London (London, 1834), pp. 133-35Google Scholar.

7 British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), ‘Final Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Present Want of Space for Monuments in Westminster Abbey’, 44 (1890-91).

8 Seddon and Lamb, Imperial Monumental Halls, p. 1.

9 Green, E. H. H., The Crisis of Conservatism: The Politics, Economics and Ideology of the British Conservative Party, 1880-1914 (London, 1995), p. 161f Google Scholar.

10 Hobson, J. A., Imperialism: A Study (London, 1902)Google Scholar.

11 Hyam, R., Britain’s Imperial Century, 1811-1915: A Study of Empire and Expansion, 3rd edn (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 240-47Google Scholar; Porter, B., ‘The Edwardians and their Empire’, in Read, D. (ed.), Edwardian England (London, 1982), pp. 128-44Google ScholarPubMed; Thompson, A. S., Imperial Britain: the empire in British politics c. 1880-1912 (London, 2000)Google Scholar; Darwin, J. G., ‘The Fear of Falling: British Politics and Imperial Decline since 1900’, TRHS, 5th series, 36 (1986), pp. 27–43 Google Scholar. See also Darwin, J., ‘A Third British Empire? The Dominion Idea in Imperial Politics’, in Brown, J. M. and Louis, W. R. (eds), Oxford History of the British Empire, 5 vols (Oxford, 1999), IV, pp. 64–67 Google Scholar.

12 Green, E. H. H., ‘The Political Economy of Empire, 1880-1914’, in Porter, A. (ed.), Oxford History of the British Empire, 5 vols (Oxford, 1999), III, pp. 344-68Google Scholar.

13 Cain, P., ‘The Economic Philosophy of Constructive Imperialism’, in Navari, C. (ed.), British Politics and the Spirit of the Age (London, 1996), pp. 41–65 Google Scholar; Thompson, A. S., ‘The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire: Imperial Discourse in British Politics, 1895-1914’, Journal of British Studies, 36 (1997), pp. 147-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For the various ways in which imperial ideology impacted on British public thinking, see MacKenzie, J. M., Propaganda and Empire: the Manipulation of British Public Opinion 1880-1960 (Manchester, 1986)Google Scholar.

15 Hyland, A. D. C., ‘Imperial Valhalla: A Study of the Problems Existing in the Nineteenth Century of Accommodating the Monuments in Westminster Abbey, Together with a Brief Account of Some of the Designs Proposed for a Monumental Chapel’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (JSAH), 21:3 (1962), pp. 129-39Google Scholar.

16 See Bradley’s comments in ‘Final Report’, p. 12L

17 For the full report, see G. G. Scott, ‘Westminster Abbey’ (Report on) to The Reverend Lord John Thynne, Subdean of Westminster, 29 March 1854, Public Records Office (PRO), London, WORK 6/411. See also G. G. Scott, ‘Westminster Abbey: Report on Royal Monuments’, 21 January 1854, PRO, WORK 6/120.

18 Ibid., (WORK 6/411), pp. 16-18.

19 This final design of 1863 is the only one that Scott mentions in his memoirs. See Scott, G. G., Personal and Professional Recollections, ed. Stamp, G. (Stamford, 1995), p. 287 Google Scholar. See also Building News, 10 (17 April 1863), p. 293.

20 BPP, ‘Report of the Commissioners appointed to consider Plans for making a Communication between The Embankment …’, 24 (1863), p. 38. Although Hyland mentions this scheme, he mistakenly associates it with Scott’s earlier design. Hyland, ‘Imperial Valhalla’, p. 132.

21 He did attract criticism, however. See Port, M. H., ‘Government and the Metropolitan Image: ministers, parliament and the concept of a capital city, 1840-1915’, in Arnold, D. (ed.), The Metropolis and its Image: Constructing Identities for London, c. 1750-1950 (Oxford, 1999), p. 118 Google Scholar.

22 Lefevre, G. Shaw, ‘Public Works in London’, Nineteenth Century, 12 (1882), p. 681fGoogle Scholar.

23 Stanley, A. P., Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey, 5th edn (London, 1882), p. xviii Google Scholar. Stanley believed that the new cloister should not be used as a ‘lumber room’ for the Abbey’s unwanted monuments but should stand in its own right as a building that would continue and build upon the venerated traditions of the Abbey.

24 Shaw Lefevre put this idea of ‘external assistance’ in the following way: ‘What a great opportunity is here open to some wealthy Londoner to connect himself with a scheme, great enough to carry his name down to remote future … In default, however, of any such benefactor, and with the many works which the Government has in hand, it is scarcely to be expected that Parliament will be induced at present to vote the necessary means.’ Shaw Lefevre, ‘Public Works’, p. 682.

25 Miele, C., ‘The Battle for Westminster Hall’, Architectural History, 41 (1998), pp. 220-44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Quiney, A., John Loughborough Pearson (New Haven, 1979), pp. 188-90Google Scholar.

26 Lefevre, G. Shaw, ‘Statues and Monuments of London’, Nineteenth Century, 15 (1884), pp. 46–48 Google Scholar.

27 Pall Mall Gazette, 29 January 1884, p. 11. See also Builder, 46 (12 January 1884), p. 53.

28 Builder, 46 (22 March 1884), p. 398; ‘Final Report’, p. 18.

29 ‘The proposed “Campo Santo” or Monumental Chapel, Westminster’, 15 January 1885, PRO, WORK 6/411. See also Pall Mall Gazette, 29 January 1885, p. 11.

30 Builder, 46 (16 February 1884), p. 224; idem. (23 February 1884), pp. 284-85. See also Building News, 63 (29 February 1884), p. 326. The debate between Fergusson and Somers Clarke over the significance of the medieval ruins at the Abbey continued for a number of weeks. See Builder, 46 (1 March 1884), p. 320; idem. (8 March 1884), p. 354.

31 Letter to Duke of Westminster (from Francis K., Marlborough House, Pall Mall), 20 July 1886, London, Westminster Abbey Muniments (WAM), 61701. The committee included among its members, apart from Shaw Lefevre and the Dean, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Westminster, the First Lord of the Treasury (W. H. Smith) and Lord Wantage.

32 ‘Proposed Jubilee Memorial Chapel at Westminster Abbey’, Letter from George Prothero to the Dean, 18 August 1886, WAM, 61706. It was even suggested that a shop be attached to the chapel ‘for the sale of Colonial products’. For a discussion of imperial honours, see Cannadine, D., Ornamentalism: How the British saw their Empire (London, 2001), pp. 85–100 Google Scholar.

33 Although Queen Victoria agreed with the committee’s proposal, it is clear that by late July 1886 the idea of making the Colonial Indian and Exhibition permanent in some way had begun to crystallize. See letter to the Dean of Westminster from Sir Henry Ponsonby, 21 July 1886, WAM, 61702. See also BPP, ‘First Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the present want of space for monuments in Westminster Abbey’, 44 (1890-91), p. 30. For the Imperial Institute, see Bremner, G. A., ‘“Some Imperial Institute”: Architecture, Symbolism, and the Ideal of Empire in Late Victorian Britain, 1887-93’, JSAH, 62:1 (2003), pp. 50–73 Google Scholar.

34 Shaw Lefevre believed that a substantial amount of the cost might be met by the derelict coal duties fund. Thus, the committee was hastily reformed and a parliamentary Bill prepared. Additional members of the committee included Lord Brassey, Baron F. de Rothschild, H. H. Gibbs, and E. Freshfield. The final version of the Bill concluded by noting that: ‘the Abbey is a national possession in the highest sense of the term; and it is on this account, and because it seems right that the present generation should do its best to continue and hand down to future ages the means of doing honour to the illustrious men of each successive generation, that the Promoters of this scheme lay it before Parliament, and hope that the Bill may be read a second time, and be referred to a Select Committee, which may be empowered to consider alternative schemes.’ See: ‘Westminster Abbey (Monumental Chapel) Bill’, WAM: 59914, p. 3.

35 William Morris believed that whatever kind of chapel was proposed it should not be physically connected with the Abbey in any way. See: Morris, W., ‘Westminster Abbey and its Monuments’, Nineteenth Century, vol. 25 (1889), pp. 409-14Google Scholar. Although the Society of Antiquaries accepted the need for additional space, they were only prepared to sanction the scheme if it did not interfere with the ancient buildings and ruins of the Abbey and its precincts. See: The Times, 25 February 1889, p. 6. See also: ‘Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries’, 21 February 1889, WAM: 59910.

36 ‘The Proposed Enlargement of Westminster Abbey’, The Times, 21 February 1889, p. 8.

37 On 12 April 1889 the Bill’s second reading was postponed until 3 May at which point it was read, discharged and withdrawn. In the mean time, during March, the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey had written a formal petition to the First Lord of the Treasury stressing how desperate the situation had become regarding space for monuments and pleading for the matter to be placed before the consideration of a Royal Commission. The government agreed and the Commission was appointed the following year. See: The Times, 13 April 1889, p. 8; idem, 4 May 1889, p. 8. See also: ‘Petition from Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey to First Lord of the Treasury regarding the extension of Westminster Abbey in the form of a Memorial Chapel’, WAM: R106. Initially, it was thought that the matter should be put before a Parliamentary Select Committee in the House of Commons but Shaw Lefevre thought this unwise as he knew ‘there was opposition, no doubt, to the scheme in Parliament from various causes.’ ‘First Report’, p. 32.

38 These included Sir Austen Henry Layard, archaeologist and discoverer of Nineveh; Sir Frederic Leighton, President of the Royal Academy; George Granville Bradley, Dean of Westminster; Alfred Waterhouse, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects; and David R. Plunkett, then First Commissioner of Works.

39 For a description of these proposals see: Hyland, ‘Imperial Valhalla’, pp. 129-39. See also: ‘First Report.’

40 The Times, 7 August 1891, p. 5.

41 See: Letter from Thompson to Shaw Lefevre, 16 February 1894, PRO: WORK 6/411.

42 Shortly after Thompson’s intention became public, someone complained in the press that his proposal apparently did not include provision for ‘navel or military men.’ Thompson later felt it necessary to retract this stipulation through fear that it might effect the success of the scheme. See: Letter from Thompson to Shaw Lefevre, 6 March 1894, PRO: WORK 6/411.

43 He continued: ‘Many such statues could, in the years to come, be ranged around its walls, and would give it a life, a meaning, and an interest now lacking — bringing it back as it were into the full current of the national life.’ See: Nineteenth Century, March 1889, p. 416f; and July 1890, pp. 54-8.

44 Seddon, J. P., ‘Ancient and Modern Architectural Ornament Contrasted’, Building News, 4 (29 January 1858), pp. 109-12Google Scholar.

45 The most notable examples from the late eighteenth century include: Richard Widmore’s History of the Church of St. Peter (1750), Rudolf Akerman’s History of the Abbey (1812), John Neale and Edward Brayley’s History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster (1818), and George Gilbert Scott’s Gleanings from Westminster Abbey (1861). Earlier accounts include: William Camden’s Reges, Reginae et Nobiles in Ecclesia Petri Westmonasteriensis Sepulti (1603), Henry Keepe’s Monumenta Westmonasteriensia (1683), and John Dart’s History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of Westminster (1723).

46 Stanley, A. P., Dedication of Westminster Abbey: A Sermon (Oxford, 1866), p. 18 Google Scholar. See also Wolffe, J., Great Deaths: Grieving, Religion, Nationhood in Victorian and Edwardian Britain (London, 2000), P.71fGoogle Scholar.

47 Bolitho, H. (ed.), A Victorian Dean: A Memoir of Arthur Stanley, Dean of Westminster (London, 1930), p. 236fGoogle Scholar.

48 Prothero, R. E., The Life and Correspondence of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D. (London, 1893), p. 278 Google Scholar.

49 Stanley, , Historical Memorials (1st edition, 1868), p. 35fGoogle Scholar.

50 Bradley in ‘Final Report’, p. 11f.

51 Ibid., pp. 9-12.

52 Sentiment toward the Abbey was also strengthened during the nineteenth century by the revived interest in gothic architecture. See: Stanley, , Historical Memorials (3rd edition, 1869), pp. 577-83Google Scholar.

53 E.g. Stanley, A. P., England and India: A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey (London, 1875)Google Scholar; idem, Address to the Friends of the Hon. Sir Arthur Gordon Governor of the Fiji Islands … King Henry Vll’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey on July 4, 1879 (London 1879). Stanley also had numerous personal connections with Britain’s empire. For instance, his wife, Lady Augusta Bruce, was the sister of the 8th Earl of Elgin who was governor of Jamaica (1842-46), governor-general of Canada (1847-54), and governor-general of India (1862-3). Stanley’s brother also lived in Hobart, Tasmania.

54 Stanley, Historical Memorials, p. 577.

55 For the American response to Westminster Abbey, see: Mulvey, C., Anglo-American Landscapes: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Anglo-American Travel Literature (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 93–106 Google Scholar.

56 ‘Petition from Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey to First Lord of the Treasury regarding the extension of Westminster Abbey in the form of a Memorial Chapel’, March 1889, WAM: R106.

57 Stanley, Historical Memorials, p. 279.

58 The ordination in 1884 of the Bishop of Sydney, for instance, was attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury along with the bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, Lincoln, Rochester, and Dover. See: Pall Mall Gazette, 1 January 1884, p. 8. See also: A. Campbell, , A Sermon Preached in Westminster Abbey …at the Consecration of the First Bishop of British Columbia (London, 1859)Google Scholar; and the sermon for the consecration of two Indian bishops in: The Times, 22 December 1877, p. 6.

59 Morris, ‘Westminster Abbey’, p. 410.

60 Statham, H. H., ‘London as a Jubilee City’, National Review, 19 (1897), pp. 594ffGoogle Scholar.

61 Harper, C. G., ‘The Government and London Architecture’, Fortnightly Review, 66 (1899), p. 532 Google Scholar.

62 Gomme, G. L., London in the Reign of Victoria (1837-1897) (London, 1898), p. v Google Scholar.

63 Gilbert, D., “London in all its glory? or how to enjoy London”: guidebook representations of imperial London’, Journal of Historical Geography, 25:3 (1999), pp. 284ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also: Schneer, J., London 1900: the Imperial Metropolis (New Haven, 1999)Google Scholar.

64 Griffin, L., ‘An Imperial City’, Pall Mall Magazine, 1 (1893), pp. 656–68 Google Scholar.

65 Emerson, in the Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 8 (10 November 1900), p. 15 Google Scholar; idem (11 November 1899), p. 11.

66 E.g. Daniels, S., Fields of Vision: Landscape Imagery and National Identity in England and the United States (Oxford, 1993), pp. 11–42 Google Scholar. See also: Wolffe, J., ‘National Occasions at St Paul’s Since 1800’ in Keene, D., Burns, A., and Saint, A. (eds.), St Paul’s: The Cathedral Church of London 604-2004 (New Haven and London, 2004), pp. 381-91Google Scholar.

67 For the history of the Chapel of the Order of St. Michael and St. George see: Galloway, P., The Order of St. Michael and St. George (Lingfield, 2000), pp. 289–323 Google Scholar.

68 Bradley, S., ‘The Englishness of Gothic: Theories and Interpretations from William Gilpin to J. H. Parker’, Architectural History, vol. 45 (2002), pp. 325-46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also: Frew, J. M., ‘Gothic is English: John Carter and the Revival of the Gothic as England’s National Style’, Art Bulletin, vol. 64:2 (1982), pp. 315-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Service, A., Edwardian Architecture (London, 1977), p. 60 Google Scholar.

70 Bremner, ‘“Some Imperial Institute”‘, p. 66f.

71 Pundt, H. G., Schinkei’s Berlin: A Study in Environmental Planning (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), p. 53 Google Scholar.

72 Bergdoll, B., Karl Friedrich Schinkel: an Architecture for Prussia (New York, 1994), p. 40fGoogle Scholar.

73 Flaxman, J., A Letter to The Committee for Raising the Naval Pillar, or Monument, under the Patronage of His Royal Highness The Duke of Clarence (London, 1799), p. 13 Google Scholar.

74 A thanksgiving ceremony for the public was held at St. Paul’s cathedral on the day after the coronation (10 August). Daily Express, 11 August 1902, p. 6. For the relationship between religion, national identity, and the changing perceptions of St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey in the public imagination, see: J. Wolffe, , God and Greater Britain: Religion and National Life in Britain and Ireland 1841-1941 (London, 1994), pp. 153-58Google Scholar.

75 For the imperial significance of Edward’s coronation, see: Tetens, K., ‘“A Grand Informal Durbar”: Henry Irving and the Coronation of Edward VII’, Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 8:2 (2003), pp. 257-91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 E.g. Daily Telegraph, 9 August 1902, pp. 6-11; Daily Express, 11 August 1902, pp. 3-8; Daily Mail, 11 August 1902, pp. 4-9.

77 Illustrated London News, 16 August 1902, p. 232.

78 For instance see: Daily Telegraph, 9 August 1902, p. 10; 11 August 1902, pp. 4, 9; Daily Express, 9 August 1902, p. 1. See also: Tetens, “A Grand Informal Durbar”, p. 262.

79 Bodley, J. E. C., The Coronation of Edward the Seventh: A Chapter of European and imperial History (London, 1903), p. 201 Google Scholar.

80 Ibid., p. 280f.

81 Welldon, J. E. C., The Consecration of the State: An Essay (London, 1902), pp. 1–10, 54-9Google Scholar.

82 Ibid., p. 2f.

83 Welldon, J. E. C., Recollections and Reflections (London, 1915), p. 304fGoogle Scholar.

84 Ibid., p. 307.

85 Welldon’s sermon published in: Nineteenth Century and After, no. 307 (1902), pp. 528-32.

86 Hughes, C., ‘Imperialism, Illustration and the Daily Mail, 1896-1904’ in Harris, M. and Lee, A. (eds.), The Press in English Society from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries (Cranbury, London, and Mississauga, 1986), pp. 187–200 Google Scholar.

87 Mangan, J. A., The Games Ethic and Imperialism: Aspects of the Diffusion of an Ideal (London, 1986), p. 44fGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘“The grit of our forefathers”: invented traditions, propaganda and imperialism’ in J. M. MacKenzie (ed.), Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester, 1986), p. 120f.

88 Gomme noted that the ‘Aldwych’ component of the development derived from the Danish village of Aldwych which was located just outside the City walls during the early fourteenth century. He also noted that the Romans had a settlement in the area, locating a bathhouse there. The Kingsway section derived from the so-called ‘King’s-way’ or ‘King’s-road’ that led from London to Theobald’s, the royal residence in Hertfordshire. Gomme, G. L., Opening of Kingsway and Aldwych by His Majesty the King, accompanied by Her Majesty the Queen (London, 1905), p. 20, 25Google Scholar. See also: Winter, J., London’s Teeming Streets 1830-1914 (London, 1993), PP. 209-13Google Scholar.

89 Daily Express, 11 August 1902, p. 5. See also: Daily Telegraph, 11 August 1902, p. 8.

90 Daily Express, 11 August 1902, p. 7.

91 Daily Telegraph, 9 August 1902, p. 8 and 11 August 1902, p. 9.

92 The Times, 2 August 1900, p. 8; Daily Telegraph, 2 August 1900, p. 5. Some of the original signatories to the proposal included Winston Churchill, Rudyard Kipling, Sir Charles Dilke, Herbert Asquith, G. L. Gomme, Earl Minto (Governor General of Canada), Lord Curzon (Viceroy of India), Viscount Milner, (High Commissioner of South Africa), Sir Wilfrid Laurier, (Prime Minister of Canada), Alfred Deakin, Sir Edmund Barton, and Richard J. Seddon (Premier of New Zealand).

93 The Times, 6 December 1900, p. 10. Cook was a member of the memorial committee.

94 The Times, 18 March 1901, p. 7.

95 Builder, vol. 81 (14 December 1901), p. 536. Apart from information that had appeared in the major daily papers, news of the proposal may also have been circulated throughout the architectural community in London by John Belcher and T. G. Jackson who were members of the first general committee. See: The Imperial Peace Memorial in London to Men of All Ranks from Every Part of The Empire Who Fought Under the British Flag and Died During the War in South Africa, 1902, London, British Library: Campbell Bannerman Papers (CBP), vol. 32, Add. 41237.

96 Letter from Theodore Cook, 11 July 1904, CBP, vol. 32, Add. 41237. The 25, 000 names was to include: ‘men of all ranks, and both services, from every part of the Empire, who fought under the British flag in South Africa and died in battle, or by wounds, or from sickness’ (p. 261).

97 See: RIBA Drawings Collection, PA 69/1(1)-(3). It seems that Webb had already been working on these buildings before it was agreed by the government to turn them into the Imperial Peace Memorial in early 1904. See: ‘Circular, “The Imperial Peace Memorial”‘, 1 July 1904, CBP, vol. 32, Add. 41237, p. 259. It is possible that Webb’s sketch dated 16 November 1903 was a preliminary design to show the Committee what the memorial might look like. Lamb’s Gothic scheme may also have been inspired by the initial call to place the Victoria Memorial either in front of Buckingham Palace or in proximity to Westminster Abbey. See: Esher, Lord, Queen Victoria Memorial: Report 1901-1911 (London, 1911), p. 3 Google Scholar.

98 Building News, 88 (28 April 1905), p. 588.

99 Builder, 80 (9 March 1901), p. 229.

100 Daily Mail, 12 August 1902, p. 4.

101 See: ‘Circular to Campbell Bannerman from Theodore Cook, “The Imperial Peace Memorial to the Dead in the South African Campaign’”, 13 July 1904, CBP, vol. 32, Add. 41237, p. 253fr; The Times, 28 November 1905, p. 10.

102 ‘Petition from Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey.’

103 Welldon, Recollections, p. 328.

104 Building News, 86 (25 March 1904), p. 445. The leases on the remaining houses in Old Palace Yard and on Abingdon Street did not extend beyond 1904. See: ‘First Report of the Commissioners’, p. 31.

105 Builder, 86 (26 March 1904), p. 341.

106 The dimensions of the various components of the scheme were as follows: the central hall, 192 ft. by 65 ft; the south-east transept 157 ft. by 45 ft. The tower was to be occupied by a series of galleries, round which monuments were intended, with storage space above. It was also designed to have a public promenade directly beneath the spire. See: Morning Leader, 25 March 1904.

107 Academy Architecture, vol. 25:1 (1904), p. 3.

108 For Jackson’s scheme see: Architectural Review, vol. 10:61 (December 1901), p. 209.

109 Tomes, J., Balfour and foreign policy: The international thought of a Conservative statesman (Cambridge, 1997), p. 71 Google Scholar.