Sidney Herbert, first Baron Herbert of Lea (1810-1861) was the son of the 11th Earl of Pembroke and his second wife, Countess Catherine (née Vorontsov). He was educated at Harrow and Oxford, and after his father's death lived at Wilton House, as if he were the Earl of Pembroke, his half-brother, the Earl, preferring to live abroad. He was elected to Parliament as a Tory in 1832. A faithful follower of Peel, Herbert left the Tory party with the Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Between 1846 and 1852 he spent much time at Wilton, where he built the parish church and did charitable work. In 1849 he and his wife founded the Female Emigration Fund, to assist "fallen women" in finding a new life. In the Aberdeen coalition government, formed in 1852, Herbert resumed the position of secretary of state at war, which he had already occupied under Peel, and found himself very much in the hot seat after the Crimean War broke out, forced to grapple with an unmanageable system of army supply. Although not formally responsible for the conduct of the war (this was in the hands of of the Duke of Newcastle, secretary of state for war and the colonies), Herbert was spokesman for the army in the Commons, and took such initiatives as sending Florence Nightingale and her team of nurses to the Scutari Hospital, to care for Crimean casualties. In 1859 Herbert became secretary of state for war in Palmerston's cabinet, responsible for important aspects of army reform and defence initiatives. He resigned in April 1860 and died at an early age from a combination of illnesses.
Lord Herbert is shown, according to one contemporary report, "in the act of delivering a speech" (Illustrated London News, no.1215, vol.XLIII, 1 Aug.1863). The Times specified that it was the House of Commons he was addressing. His posture is relaxed,his left hand resting on his hip, the right holding plans of the Herbert Hopital at Scutari, a reference to the provisions which he had made for the sick and injured British soldiery during the Crimean War.
The first meeting to promote commemoration of Lord Herbert took place in Salisbury, close to his ancestral home, Wilton House, on 26 Sept. 1861, one of its objectives being "that we should attempt a representation of our departed friend in the shape of a statue in this city".(Wiltshire County Mirror, 2 Oct. 1861) A big meeting with broadly similar aims followed in London, just over a month later. Held in Willis's rooms on 28 November, it was presided over by the Duke of Cambridge. High praise for Lord Herbert's industry and almost saintly character was heard from Lord Palmerston, W.E. Gladstone and Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and it was more than implied that, with his patrician sense of duty, Lord Herbert had worked himself into an early grave. At this stage, a double commemoration was not anticipated with any certainty. In fact a letter was read out, which had been addressed to the meeting by the very recently deceased Sir James Graham, recommending that "a statue.....if by an eminent artist, in Salisbury, will be a most suitable monument, under the shadow of the cathedral spire, which points to that Heaven where his hopes were centred". Further decisions were confided to an executive committee under Gladstone's chairmanship. (Times, 29 Nov. 1861) A month later, the Salisbury committee presented its report at a meeting in the city's Council House, having awaited the results of the London meeting before doing so.
At the Salisbury meeting, held on 17 December 1861,it was announced that the subscription for the Salisbury statue had reached the sum of £1078.1.6, but that, for a statue in bronze, £2000 would be needed. As for the choice of artist, although a sculptor had suggested that a limited competition should be held, the committtee had not thought fit to do this. The reason it gave, in its report, for not following the sculptor's advice was that "it is obvious that, in this case, we canot take a single step without the aid and cooperation of Lady Herbert to supply a likeness and a model". "For this reason", the report ran on, " and because we think our subscribers will gladly avail themselves of an occasion to consult the wishes of one who is so justly esteemed and so deeply interested in the success of our work, we propose to entrust the erection of the statue to the artist in whom Lady Herbert is known to have confidence, namely Baron Marochetti".(Wiltshire County Mirror, 25 Dec. 1861)
The London Committee appears to have held some sort of limited competition for a monument to Lord Herbert for the capital. This it was first proposed to erect in Parliament Square. The statue, eventually commissioned from the sculptor J.H. Foley, was erected in 1867 in front of the War Office, which then stood on the south side of Pall Mall. It showed Herbert wrapped in a cloak, in a pensive attitude, and was conceived in a far more poetic and "ideal" spirit than the deliberately down-to-earth and unrhetorical characterisation of Marochetti's Salisbury statue.
Marochetti went quickly to work. Very early in the new year he travelled down to Salisbury to meet the committee of the subscribers and to select a site. A position in front of the town's Council House was chosen, though this remained to be sanctioned by the corporation. (Building News, vol.8, 10 Jan. 1862, p.29) When it came to producing a model, his first efforts were found far from satisfactory by the friends of Elisabeth Herbert. She wrote a long and rather panicky letter, reporting her friends' opinion, and expressing her fears, to the secretary of the Salisbury statue committee, Sotheran Estcourt. This is such an interesting document that it seems worth quoting it in full.
"I hear from everyone that Marochetti has completely failed , not only in likeness but in conception; and if this be so, would it not be possible to induce him to make a fresh model? I do not, of course, know what arrangement has been made with him by the committee, but I conclude for his own sake, he would wish to do something which would be not only approved of as a work of art, but be as correct a representation of the features and bearing of the person. Now, this is what one of the members of the London Committee writes today to a friend of mine: 'Marochetti's statue of Herbert is as bad as a statue can be. He is knock-kneed, the legs are simply two bits of stick which support very unsatisfactorily a wooden frame for a coat and waistcoat, and a hat is in his hand!! You never saw such taste. And it is not redeemed by the head, which is uninteresting, poor, stiff, dismal and unlike. I am so grieved to think of what Lady Herbert will feel when she sees it, and of what the people in Wilts will feel at having poor S.H. traduced in such a way for all eternity.' So much for one opinion. The family write me word that it is unlike, and that it has not the least his look or bearing. The Gladstones simply say 'It needs great alterations'.
Now I feel great delicacy in writing all this, dear Mr Estcourt, as you may justly say 'it is not my concern', but you will, I know, make allowance for the feelings of a wife in the matter.
I bitterly regret having suggested Marochetti at all. But I thought he knew my darling Sidney well and would therefore be able to catch his manner and expression. Also I knew that Sidney had a very high opinion of his genius. What strikes me is that it would be such a 1000 pities to go on with this one, if it be universally disapproved of, and that it would be easy to persuade Marochetti to begin another. It has been suggested to me that he never succeeds well except in equestrian statues; would it not be possible ? My poor Sidney's favourite horse is now in the Wilton stables and could go up any time as a model. I only throw this out as a suggestion for your consideration.
Noble has prepared a statuette for the London Committee to see, of which the design sounds very good. It is on a huge plinth with soldiers mourning on the back and bas-reliefs. There is at any rate some feeling and artistic conception in that idea, but a man with a hat in his hand in sculpture sounds atrocious.
There is no great judge of art now to whom one can apply who knew him well! Ld Ellesmere, the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Sutherland, all are gone. Lord Lansdowne is too old. I thought of Ld Somers and Ld Elcho as being with Mr Gladstone, opinions worth having but in any case, would it not be possible to scrap this model, if so unsuccessful? You know I have never seen it, and therefore I can only hear what others tell me. But I should be so grieved for the subscribers (as well as for myself) to have a caricature in his county town instead of a fine statue.
I know that Marochetti failed in his first statue of Peel and himself condemned it to the melting-pot! Therefore I feel he would not object to undertaking a new and totally different view of this subject; and after all it cannot have gone beyond a model yet. Have any photographs been taken of this one? If so, I should so much like to see one.
Pray forgive me troubling you with so long a letter and speaking so frankly on this delicate matter." (letter dated 20 Feb. 1862, Goucestershire Archives D1571/X205)
On 10 March 1862, Marochetti wrote to inform Estcourt that his model was ready for inspection by the committee. Whether or not modifications were demanded, the model must eventually have been approved by the committee. The sculptor evidently had every assistance in getting the details right, since, as the Illustrated London News (no.1215, vol.XLIII, 1 August 1863, p.104) reported, after the inauguration, "the coat, the waistcoat, the tie, the very boots his Lordship wore were all before Baron Marochetti whilst the model was being prepared".
The unveiling was performed by Earl de Grey and Ripon, standing in for Palmerston, who was indisposed, on 30 June 1863. Despite Lady Herbert's misgivings, the statue had been produced and erected with exemplary speed, and the Illustrated London News said of it that "a more exemplary likeness could not be desired". The magazine produced two illustrations, one showing the inauguration (11 July 1863), the other, the statue itself (1 Aug. 1863). A local paper, the Salisbury and Winchester Chronicle, in its issue for 4 July 1863, seemed to appreciate what Marochetti had sought to do: "It is not only a good likeness, but the form and attitude are well preserved, the pose of the figure being admirable. It is a realistic work, with no attempt at ideality, and the Baron has certainly succeeded in handing down to posterity a statue which is not only a resemblance of an excellent man, but a work of art worthy of our age and country".
The statue has been removed from the town centre and re-erected in Victoria Park.
|