CHAPTER VIII - The Memorial to the Exhibition of 1851
This memorial, designed by Joseph Durham,
with modifications by Sydney Smirke,
has occupied its present site since the early
1890's. Before then it stood further to the south,
where the carriageway of Prince Consort Road
now lies, surmounting a water-cascade in the
garden of the Royal Horticultural Society. It was
unveiled in June 1863, when The Art Journal,
whose editor was a member of the building committee,
remarked that 'the history of this Memorial
of the Great Exhibition and its illustrious
Founder need not be written—and never will
be!' (ref. 1) The records of the committee in question
have not come to light. In their absence no full
account of the memorial's history of dissension can
in fact be given. (For this chapter see the plans
between pages 54–5, and Plates 39, 52b, 55c,
56a, 72b.)
In 1853 the admirers of Marochetti's statue
of Richard Coeur de Lion, which had been an
exhibit in 1851, proposed to place it as a memorial
on the exhibition site in Hyde Park. The peculiar
unsuitability of that monarch's image to
celebrate peace and prosperity among nations
seems to have provoked a counter-move led by the
Lord Mayor, Thomas Challis. (ref. 2) He proposed to
raise a subscription for a memorial which would
also be 'a testimonial of admiration and esteem' to
Prince Albert, whose statue was to be its chief
feature. This was a slightly more popular idea,
not least with English artists and critics who
welcomed the sculptural opportunity and disliked
Marochetti. In June Challis wrote to Lord
Granville, as vice-chairman of the Great Exhibition,
setting out the reasons for commemorating
that 'noble work' which had 'awakened a spirit of
enterprise among the productive masses which, if
properly directed, will prepare them for a peaceful
rivalry with other Nations: And not only so, but
diffuse among them the means of pure and rational
enjoyment, bind their affection to the
Throne of Her most gracious Majesty, deepen
their respect for law and raise them in the scale
of social excellence and worth'. (ref. 3) A meeting at the
Mansion House in November, when the total of
promised subscriptions had reached £5,000,
elected a large committee, including the Dukes of
Norfolk and Devonshire, to erect a memorial.
Sir Charles Eastlake, Sir Joseph Paxton and (Sir)
William Tite were members, together with S.
Carter Hall, the editor of The Art Journal,
which henceforward was a champion of the
memorial and in particular of its execution in
sculptural terms. (ref. 4) (At least eight sculptors were
numbered among the subscribers, with contributions
ranging from one to ten pounds. Joseph
Durham gave three guineas.)
The promoters of the scheme were, however,
liable to accusations of sycophancy and self-aggrandisement:
The Times was hostile; and the
Prince himself, who had not been consulted, was
embarrassed by the proposal. He told Lord Granville
of his unwillingness to have a statue erected
to him during his lifetime, in words that showed
little confidence in the sculptors of the day (see the
quotation on page 148). He would have preferred
the money to be used to mark the 1851 site and
the surplus put towards erecting museums of
science and art. (ref. 5) In December he was hoping that
the project was only a 'nine days wonder'. (ref. 6) The
spasm of acute unpopularity that he was experiencing
no doubt made him cautious but in the
following May Challis approached him about the
employment of the memorial funds, which
amounted (partly in promises) to £6,868 from 774
subscribers. (ref. 7) The Prince wanted a memorial to
which he could himself subscribe. He asked for
the money to be used for the 'promoting of general
education in the Arts and Sciences, as applied to
productive industry', and particularly suggested
the foundation of travelling scholarships. (ref. 8) Challis
promised rather doubtingly to urge the scheme
on the subscribers. (ref. 9) But it made little appeal to
them (or, naturally, to the periodicals of art and
architecture). Some promised contributions were
withdrawn (ref. 10) and nothing was done for two years.
In 1856 Challis summoned a meeting of subscribers,
who decided to persevere with the erection
of a monument, and appointed a small
executive committee under his chairmanship.
The other members were F. Bennoch, T. B.
Brandreth Gibbs, Peter Graham, S. Carter Hall
and two honorary secretaries, the Rev. Mr.
Booth and George Godwin. The latter was editor
of The Builder which added its voice to The Art
Journal's in support of the argument that the
memorial should be a work of monumental art. (ref. 11)
The Prince carefully refrained from co-operation. (ref. 12)
In July 1857 the committee invited architects
and sculptors of all nations to submit designs
for a memorial to cost not more than £6,000. (ref. 13)
The hope was expressed that the site would be in
Hyde Park. The committee declared the intention,
but did not absolutely bind itself, to employ the
successful competitor: if not, he would receive
100 guineas. Five adjudicators were to aid the
committee—Lord Monteagle, Viscount Goderich,
M.P. (later Earl of Ripon), Daniel Maclise,
R.A., (Sir) William Tite, M.P., and Professor
Richard Westmacott. (ref. 14)
By the closing date in February 1858 twenty-two
models and some twenty-seven sets of drawings
had been received, and were exhibited in the
South Kensington Museum. The entries did not
bear the competitors' names, although apparently
almost all these were known to informed contemporaries. (ref. 15)
Only a few competitors, however,
were subsequently named, (ref. 16) and most are therefore
not now identifiable.
The Building News, as a journalistic 'outsider',
thought that the comparatively small
number of the entries showed that most artists
lacked confidence in the committee. (ref. 17) All agreed
that some of the entries were absurd. Among the
drawings were designs for a glass obelisk, and for a
glass, globe-shaped congress-hall in the Serpentine. (ref. 18)
Those who submitted drawings only and
not models were at a confessed disadvantage, (ref. 19) and
the 'short list' of six included only one who did so,
M. Bourgerel of Nantes. Models were submitted
by the other five—John Bell, Joseph Durham, W.
Calder Marshall, E. G. Papworth, and an unnamed
competitor. (ref. 20)
The Queen and Prince Albert viewed the entries
in February. (ref. 21) In the following weeks the
two 'inspired' organs, The Art Journal and The
Builder, published brief comments on the competition. (ref. 22)
Both praised Durham's entry most (so
did The Athenaeum), and on 15 March the augmented
committee duly chose it by ten votes to
two (Plate 39a). (ref. 23) The decision was quite well
received by the press. Even The Building News
thought that Durham's 'feeble commonplace',
although inadequate, was 'harmless enough'. (ref. 24)
Today greater interest probably attaches to
one of the unsuccessful entries. Alfred Stevens
submitted a model which is now preserved, together
with preliminary studies, in the Victoria
and Albert Museum (Plate 39b). (ref. 25) There is no
direct evidence which of the entries, as listed in
the press, this was, but it was probably that of
which The Builder said: 'the modelling is full of
spirit and skill, though roughly executed'. (ref. 26) It is
not known why it failed to reach the 'short list'.
One comment of Stevens's own was recalled by
G. C. Eaton: 'I remember that Stevens was rather
fond of saying in connexion with that memorial
that it was to stand among trees and therefore
should be "as unlike trees as possible".' (ref. 27)
Durham's successful design differed in many
respects from what was executed although the
general composition remained unaltered. (ref. 28) The
plain central pedestal, chamfered and tapering, was
of square plan, and was surmounted by a statue of
Britannia. The figures at the corners, of the four
quarters of the globe, were to be of Sicilian marble,
not bronze, and were much larger in relation to
the pedestal (and also slightly larger absolutely)
than in execution. The Builder thought the composition
'beautifully proportioned' (ref. 18) and The Art
Journal was pleased that Durham showed America
'as a young and vigorous Britannia, instead of as
an Indian chief'. (ref. 14)
The execution of Durham's design should
then have gone forward but this did not happen.
The circumstances are not wholly clear, although
one factor was the replacement of the Liberal,
Sir Benjamin Hall, as First Commissioner of
Works, by the Conservative, Lord John Manners,
in February 1858. Lord John is said to have
refused to allow Durham's design to be erected in
the park, but to have been willing to consider
another design. Among the committee there was,
following the refusal, 'an impression prevailing
that an obeliscal design would be more favourably
received'. (ref. 29) This impression was evidently derived
from the Prince's known tastes as much as
Lord John's. Immediately after the competition
result was announced one of the entrants, the
likeable and unscrupulous John Bell, tried to
engage the Prince's influence on behalf of his
obeliscal composition, and although the Prince's
secretary, Charles Grey, replied that the Prince
could not interfere he admitted that 'your idea of
what it should consist of corresponds entirely with
that of H.R.H.' (ref. 30) Bell, who was evidently abetted
in this by his friend Henry Cole, publicized his
obelisk, (ref. 31) and the committee were driven to invite
him and Durham to offer them obeliscal designs.
They preferred Durham's. Then Lord John's
successor, Henry Fitzroy, refused (in the summer
or autumn of 1859) to allow any monument at all
to be erected in the park. (ref. 32) By November 1859
thoughts had turned to an alternative site. Under
the Prince's inspiration the centre of the estate of
the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners on the other
side of Kensington Road was about to be made
into a show-garden for the (Royal) Horticultural
Society, rich in architectural and sculptural
features. It offered a setting in some ways highly
suitable for the memorial, although a monument
to an exhibition becomes still more otiose when it
does not even mark the site. The committee
wanted to adhere to Durham's original design,
and early in 1860 they and the (Royal) Horticultural
Society agreed to place it, as the property of
the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners, in the garden,
where the Society would contribute £800 to
make the base more ornamental. (ref. 33)
The Prince regretted the committee's resistance
to an obelisk. (ref. 34) This fact was thereafter
promulgated by Bell, who was to pester the Albert
Memorial committee persistently on the subject.
The development of the design in 1859–61 is
very imperfectly recorded. It is clear, however,
that with his own statue no longer included the
Prince took a close interest in the design; and he
now subscribed £250 to its execution. (ref. 35) In
December 1859 he instructed the secretary of the
1851 Commissioners that questions relating to the
memorial should be referred to him directly, for
discussion with Durham, Godwin, and representatives
of the Commissioners and the Horticultural
Society. (ref. 36) This would have by-passed the Science
and Art Department triumvirate (Cole, Fowke
and Redgrave) that had been constituted to
manage the garden layout, and although the next
two years saw, with the increasing stature of the
Department's artist, Godfrey Sykes, a continuance
of its influence, the Prince's individual
contribution was appreciable.
According to Andrew Murray, the Horticultural
Society's secretary, the Prince designed
the clasp on the mantle of the figure of America. (ref. 37)
More importantly, in the spring of 1860 the
Prince suggested how the pedestal should be elaborated,
evidently by the addition of the coupled
columns at the corners. (ref. 38) A more ornate pedestal
was designed by Sykes, and also the architectural
substructure (with keystone modelled by Reuben
Townroe) which formed the cascade at the head
of an ornamental water: unlike Sykes's pedestal,
this was retained in execution. (ref. 39) Cole urged that
models should be made, and the Prince carefully
scrutinized them at the Museum, where his
examination of a large 'mock-up' (in the south-east
part of the present quadrangle), in the early
summer of 1861, is shown on Plate 39d. (ref. 40) By
then a further change had been effected. In April
Cole had made a scornful attack on Durham's
design in a letter to Grey and asked for the non-sculptural
parts to be taken from him and given to
Sykes and the Horticultural Society's consultant
architect, Sydney Smirke. The Prince, apprehensive
of ill-feeling, refused. (ref. 41) But a day or two
later he came to the Museum and asked Smirke,
according to Cole, to 'alter ye Top'. (Cole noted
that he 'wanted everything done at once as
usual'.) (ref. 42) According to Murray it was Smirke who
substituted the present rather handsome cylindrical
pedestal for the elaborated square pier, (ref. 43) and thus,
as Cole says, made the model 'satisfactory to all
parties'. (ref. 44) Smirke's participation in the architectural
design was acknowledged at the opening. (ref. 45)
The foundations of the memorial were begun
in July 1861. (ref. 46) In that same summer the Queen's
statue was substituted for Britannia. The Art
Journal in October called Durham's figure 'a
noble work'. The intention to execute the statuary
in marble had been abandoned, probably at an
early date, and the figure was to be cast in bronze.
In the Queen's left hand an orb of glass bore a
dove of aluminium. (ref. 47)
But in December the Prince died. Within a
few days, in a letter to the Horticultural Society,
the Prince of Wales declared the Queen's wish
that Prince Albert's statue should replace her own,
and his own wish to make a gift of his father's
statue to the Society. (ref. 48) (fn. a) Durham was retained for
the task but was required to consult with a committee
of six—three sculptors, Marochetti, Foley
and Westmacott, and Smirke, Godwin and Grey. (ref. 50)
By October the work was far enough advanced
for The Art Journal to praise Durham's likeness
of the Prince. (Andrew Murray says that the
attitude of the Prince's right arm, habitual to him,
was determined by the Queen. (ref. 51) ) The Art Journal
also admired Durham's relentless detailing—'there is no evading that which would be difficult
in modelling and composition, and, of course,
expensive in carving—the lines are decided where
required, and for the effect there is no want of
darks and half-lights...' (ref. 52)
The memorial was unveiled, with great ceremony,
on 10 June 1863. Journals recorded that
the materials of the pedestal were red Aberdeen
and grey Cornish (Cheesewring) granite, and that
the statues were of electro-typed bronze by
Messrs Elkington of Birmingham. (ref. 53) This process
was one in which the Prince Consort had had
great faith, according to Gilbert Scott, who
thought it looked 'exceedingly well'. (ref. 54)
In accordance with Marochetti's advice (ref. 55) the
Prince was represented in the robes of the Bath
(freely interpreted). Durham's acquaintance, Sir
William Hardman, thought the 'tights and boots
in the Robin Hood style . . . the only objectionable
part of the figure.' (ref. 56)
The Builder announced remarkably that in this
statue 'the idea embodied is Britannia (typified by
the Prince)'. (ref. 57) The Building News said the Great
Exhibition did not need a memorial; 'but the
present is an age of testimonials and commemorations'. (ref. 58)
In The Art Journal's report gratification
was, naturally, expressed, but in a backward
look the writer recalled that 'the "authorities at
South Kensington"' had tried to persuade the
Prince that Durham was incompetent and that 'a
gentleman high in their favour and confidence
was the right person to do this work'. The Prince
had, however, come to realize that the committee
had been right to stand by their choice of Durham
'when to do so was not agreeable, nor indeed
safe from obloquy'. (ref. 59) It is not clear whether this
refers to Cole's advocacy of Smirke, Sykes or Bell,
or to some other episode. The writer proceeded
to make the negative prophecy quoted at the
beginning of this account. Conceivably the committee
thought it best to suppress any record of
disagreement with the deceased Prince.
According to The Building News the total cost
was about £7,500. (ref. 58)
The memorial did not give the Queen a high
opinion of Durham's abilities. (ref. 60) He never
advanced from Associateship to become a Royal
Academician, and at his death in 1877 The
Builder noted that he had for some time lacked
commissions. (ref. 61) (fn. b)
When the Royal Horticultural Society's
garden was abolished to make way, at its northern
end, for Prince Consort Road, the memorial was
moved, c. 1891–3, to its present position. (ref. 63) In
1898–9 the 1851 Commissioners had the present
terrace constructed around it over vaults, by
Higgs and Hill (with a pavement laid by Italian
workmen), at a cost of £12,000 (Plates 39c, 52b;
plans b, c, d between pages 54–5). (ref. 64) The
memorial is still owned by the Commissioners.