CLASSICAL MONUMENT IN A GOTHIC CHURCHTHE MEMORIAL TO THE XVIth EARL OF DERBY IN LIVERPOOL

CATHEDRAL

John Thomas, B.A., M.A.

As the long centuries of historical architecture drew to a close, the modern architect was able to look to an almost limitless multitude of precedent, sources and inspirations. In Britain, by the opening of the twentieth century, notions of stylistic propriety and rules of taste had ceased to carry conviction, and thus architectural electicism was totally liberated; indeed, architectural electicism had also become liberated from historical style itself. These factors led to that burst of the creative imagination which produced the Edwardian 'Free Style'; 1 but inspired creativity had not deserted specifically style- oriented architecture either, for the first ten years of the century witnessed a return to a dramatic baroque classicism that had its roots in the early eighteenth century, and ultimately in the Italian classicism of the Baroque and Renaissance. 2 The Edwardian baroque gave way to more chaste forms of classicism, a trend which led to the commercial stripped-classic of the 1930s. Butinthe 1920s, architects began to use the classicism of Renaissance Italy for the design of memorials. These were essentially warmemorials, designed for large war cemetries, for towns and villages, and for personal war monuments. 3 Architects such as Edwin Lutyens employed the pure forms of classicism to express national grief and horror at the totality of the war. There is one monument from these years, however, which is not connected with the war, its stylistic nature more complex, and its origins possibly traceable to specific experiences; this is the monument to the 16th Earl of Derby in Liverpool's Anglican cathedral.

Frederick Arthur Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby, died on 14 June 1908.' Born in 1841, he had a brief military career and, in 1865, entered politics. He came to hold many political offices, in the Admirality, the War Office and the Colonial Office. In 1888, he became Governor-General of Canada. On 21 April, 1883, on the death of his brother, he succeeded to the Earldom, inheriting family estates in Lancashire and elsewhere. Returning to England, he

118 J. Thomas

applied his talent for administration to domestic affairs. He was particularly involved with the City of Liverpool, near whose borders lay his family seat of Knowsley. In 1901 he became involved with the plan to build a new Anglican cathedral in that city.

The diocese had been carved out of that of Chester in 1880 and almost straight away, underthefirstbishop,JohnCharlesRyle, an attempt had been made to build a church worthy of the new diocese and the city. In 1886 a design was selected, that of William Emerson, but no progress was made, due to lack of funds. In 1900, anew start was made. A committee was formed, of which the Earl became president and in September, 1901, it resolved that the cathedral would be built in the gothic style of architecture. 3 The requirement that a church be gothic was by this time outmoded, and the committee's attitude caused a rumpus in the architectural and artistic world. The requirement was eventually dropped, but after the final competition, a gothic building was chosen, despite the strength of such classical entries as that of C. H. Reilly. 6 The successful design turned out to be by a twenty-two-year-old who had built nothing, Giles Gilbert Scott (1880-1960), grandson of the famous Sir Gilbert. 7 On the committal of his father to a lunatic asylum, Giles had been articled to the fine church architect Temple Moore, who had been one of his father's pupils. On winning the competition, he left Moore and, taking fellow assistant Arthur Crimp8 with him, set up his own practice.

The world of this young inexperienced trainee architect must have expanded very considerably and very rapidly after this instant, unforeseeable, success. Because of his youth, the cathedral committee insisted that he accept the assistance of G. F. Bodley (1827-1907) as joint architect; but he was also to receive the assistance and support of committee member Frederick Morton Radcliffe (1861-1953)." It was Radcliffe who persuaded the committee to keep Scott and his design, hence the arrangement made with Bodley (one of the competition assessors). Born in Liverpool, son of a former mayor of the city, Radcliffe devoted his career to legal practice and achieved tremendous success due to his reputation as a wise, discreet, family solicitor, possessed of old-world courtesy and tact. He was also known as a man of culture, devoted to the pursuit of the arts. He had a brief experience as a newspaper proprietor, which gave him an important insight into methods of communication and the value of publicity. He was also honorary secretary of the 1886 Liverpool International Exhibition and was knighted in 1922. In all, he was perhaps ideally suited to take up the cause of cathedral building in his native city. He was honorary treasurer of the executive committee from 1901 to 1913, chairman from 1913 to 1934 and president from 1951 to 1953. It was Radcliffe who was to be the driving force behind the cathedral's progress, particularly in the crucial inter-war decades,

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 119

and as his position in the committee developed in importance, so did his influence on architectural and artistic matters, the Derby memorial being a key example of this.

On 23 November 1908, five months after the earl died, Radcliffe wrote to Sir William Forwood (committee chairman 1901-13),"' suggesting that a suitable monument be erected in the cathedral to their first president." Nothing came of this, but in November 1911, a marble statue of the earl was unveiled in St. George's Hall, where it stands beside those of other local worthies. This was the work of F. W. Pomeroy (1856-1924), and Radcliffe later suggested that it was his own efforts that secured the sculpture's execution and erection. This information is found in a letter to Forwood of 1916, in which Radcliffe revived the cathedral monument scheme, determined that it should succeed. 1 ' He solicited the support of Derby's successor, the 17th earl (who was committee president from 1908 to 1948), and put to him the idea that the memorial take the form, not of a window or plaque, but a recumbent effigy." The source of this idea was the tomb of the 14th earl, in St. Mary's Church, Knowsley, the work of Matthew Noble, erected in 1872. i4 It is set in the Derby Chapel where the 16th earl had been buried in 1908. The 17th earl supported the idea, and so Radcliffe formally proposed it to the committee on 6 November, 1916.'' By this time, he had already informed Scott of what he had in mind. 1 "

It would be interestingto know exactly what Scott's thoughts were on reading Radcliffe's proposal. Already by this time, his practice had achieved much success. The Lady Chapel at Liverpool had been completed before the war began, and the huge choir was well under way. In 1910, following the removal of Bodley's interfering influence," Scott had completely re-designed the cathedral in a totally different form, which the committee had, perhaps amazingly, accepted.'" Much other work had come in the form of church commissions, though his expansion into industrial and other forms of building (for which he is so well known today) was still in the future. The war had taken Crimp away, temporarily, but he had acquired articled assistance, such as that of F. G. Thomas, who was destined to play such a major part in the project after 1967." It would be valuable, also, to know how much Scott knew about the art of sculpture, and what his views were on architectural sculpture, at this time. He was undoubtedly trained in the Gothic Revival's tradition of ornamental sculpture as part of the fabric of the building, designed by the architect and executed by stone-carvers. But equally he was no doubt influenced by the tradition of close collaboration between professional sculptors and architects which had arisen towards the end of the nineteenth century. This was a product of the new ideas concerning the nature and role of sculpture, propounded by the so- called 'New Sculpture', the realisation of which is seen in so many

120 J. Thomas

fin desiecle buildings, particularly those of the Free Style.'"The New Sculpture was very important, from our point of view, inotherways. Central to its art was a rejection of the cold forms of Neo-classicism and a rediscovery of Renaissance Italy, both the High Renaissance (particularly Michelangelo) and the Quattrocento. Also, it brought about a revival of the late-Mediaeval/early Renaissance forms of funerary monument. In addition, the New Sculpture, along with the principles of the Arts and Crafts Movement, strongly promoted the skills of bronze-casting, metal-working, and the use of techniques involving the amalgamation of metals with stones, marbles, gems and other materials. 2 '

Finally, it is important to know Scott's attitude to the whole question of ecclesiastical monuments and those intended for the cathedral in particular. Fortunately, we have more information here. Scott expressed the wish that his building be the setting of monuments, but he clearly had a horror of the prospect of vast numbers of ill-fitting additions, crowding the walls and blocking up spaces. The amount of damage that an excess of inappropriate accretions could do to a gothic church was apparent to all at Westminster Abbey and Scott must surely have been aware of the Abbey's condition. 2 ' Scott's response to Radcliffe's suggestion of an effigy monument to Derby shows this. As yet there were no monuments and he fears that this one, if installed, will be the 'thin end of the wedge', setting a dangerous precedent though not a bad idea in itself."

Much insight is given into early twentieth century monumental sculpture by a book published in 1915, Lawrence Weaver' s Memorials and monuments ." The especial value of this book is that it tells us the state of the art and the ideas that were prevalent, just before the design of memorials was affected by the special needs and circumstances of the war memorial, which were soon to be produced in their thousands. It also shows what types of monuments were being produced in the years immediately before Scott turned his mind to Radcliffe's project. In addition, it shows a source of historical information that Scott must have looked at, for in addition to its hundreds of recent works by famous and lesser-known sculptors, it illustrates many works from previous centuries. That Scott looked at the book can perhaps be inferred from the fact that it illustrates a monument that he himself produced in 1909 and who can resist looking at a book that illustrates one's own work? This was a monument to Margaret Coulston, outside St. Joseph's church, Skerton, Lancashire. 25 It takes the form of a gothic preaching- cross, which incorporates a rood. The book's illustrations of historical tombs include the well-known Torrignani tomb of Henry VII, and the chest and effigy tomb of Sir George Villiers (both in Westminster Abbey) and many lesser known English wall-tombs and tablets from

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 121

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Recent examples included an Eleanor-cross type memorial by Bodley, and relief plaques by George Frampton and William Goscombe John. There is also a particularly fine free-standing chest tomb with effigy, byjohn, the monument to Lady Lever. It is set in a large open vaulted exedra which projects from the body of the church in Port Sunlight, Lord Lever's model village. J " The monument to Francis Meynell in the Church of the Holy Angels, Hoar Cross (by Cecil Hare, 1912; the church by Bodley) depicts Meynell praying at a faldstool,' 7 a form which Scott was to use later at Liverpool in his relief-memorial to Bishop Chavasse (1931). These contemporary examples in Weaver's book draw attention to the central role played by architects on many occasions in the production of monuments.

Three drawings exist in the Liverpool City Libraries collection which show stages in the evolution of Scott's design for the monument. Possibly the first scheme is that represented by the drawing dated 13 February 1922 ('Drawing 1')."' On this day, the Stained Glass Committee (who seem to have had responsibility for various kinds of decorative work in the building) met and approved this scheme, which, appropriately, they referred to as a 'cenotaph'." 1 From the beginning, the monument was intended for some position in the (liturgical) South-East transept, 31 as a result, surely, of Radcliffe's idea, first expressed in 1908, that the monument should stand on the very spot where, in 1904, Derby had stood, beside the King, as the latter had laid the foundation stone of the whole building. 12 However, the question was for long unresolved as to whether the memorial should be set against a wall, or completely free-standing. Drawing 1 seems to indicate the presence of a wall at some distance in the background. A second drawing, dated 29 November 1923 ('Drawing 2') shows a variant of the same idea." This 1923 effort to produce the monument clearly came to nought, despite various attempts to follow it through in 1924." In 1925, there was what amounted to a fresh start. In documents dating from the summer of 1925, we read of a new 'amended' design. JJ This was intended to be set against a wall, at the 'end' of the transept, and under a window; and this must mean under the transept' s main window, at its southern extremity. On 5 October 1925, the committee examined this design and referred the issue of its siting to the Bishop and the Chapter for their approval." This scheme may have been that represented by the third, undated, drawing in Liverpool City Libraries ('Drawing 3'), 37 which is clearly set close to the stonework. It is still, however, a sarcophagus with effigy designed in the round, but with one viewpoint blocked off (the memorial to Bishop Ryle (1933) was to take precisely this form, with the addition of a framed background and shallow canopy).'8 It may be, though, that in the previous year, Scott had considered a different form of

122 J. Thomas

memorial against the wall, and that this approach had not entirely been replaced. On the back of a letter from the engineers G. N. Haden, Scott made a dozen or so pencil sketches. Two are perspectives of a memorial which takes the form of a sarcophagus with effigy. However, it is clearly intended to be raised up on the wall, for beneath each end are large ogival corbels, as high as the sarcophagus is deep. That this sketch was thought of as a Derby memorial is made certain by the fact that the heraldic device of the eagle (part of the Derby arms), is seen projecting from beneath the pillow, as it does in Drawing 3. Indeed, this monument, apart from the corbels, is very similar to that depicted in Drawing 3, though the effigy is set with the head to the left, unlike in Drawings 1-3. This square, solid, sarcophagus, on its ogee brackets, suggests the Florentine cantoria by Luca della Robbia. Hint of another possible solution may just have slipped out, unintended by Scott, in Vere Cotton's Official handbook. He refers to the forthcoming Derby memorial as an 'altar tomb', no doubt meaning a wall-tomb of the Italian variety. This was in the 3rd. and 4th. editions (July and August 1924)."' Reference to this, or any specific type, is absent in the 5th. edition (December 1924). The letter from Haden's one of hundreds at the RIBA is dated 1 November 1924, but the sketches cannot be dated accurately.

Less than a month after discussion of the scheme to build at the end of the transept, the chairman reported (committee meeting of 2 November, 1925) Scott's request to 'revert' to the 'original' position, namely under the arch in the transept, opposite the memorial to the 5 5th Division, and this means beneath the arch which divides the transept from the transept aisle. The word 'original' makes it certain that Drawing 1 was intended for this position also. It is interesting to note that Scott, not the Bishop, rejected the siting against the wall, and whatever schemes he may have considered, he rejected them. Drawing 3, however, whatever its date, is essentially the suspended monument returned to the floor. It would be fascinating to know if, as Cotton suggests, a complete wall-tomb preceded the ideas seen in the sketches of the suspended version.

The three drawings referred to are all somewhat schematic, No. 2 particularly so; but we are, nonetheless, able to see enough of the nature of Scott's thinking to evaluate his proposed works. What immediately strikes us is the lack of promise displayed. The figure depicted, the Earl, is in each case rendered somewhat insignificant by the fact that the effigy is rather smaller than the sarcophagus. In Drawing 2, the sarcophagus overhangs its plinth, crushing the 'supporting' lions. In Drawing 1 the base is small and projects inadequately. In Drawing 3, the small effigy is set on such a high base as to be far too remote from the viewer (in the 'suspended'

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 123

scheme also, the effigy would be difficult to see properly). Above all, the monuments are stylistically indeterminate, and lacking in any real character or distinction. Yet from these inauspicious beginnings, Scott was able to produce a work of sculpture of a very high order. He did this, I would suggest, by looking to classical traditions, particularly those of the Renaissance and infusing his already chosen form with themes and qualities of Renaissance art. Though Scott consciously retained a gothic element in the work, he turned from a purely gothic style (which would have been the obvious choice) to a sublime synthesis of gothic and classic, and in this way reflected the subtleties and complexities of his overall conception of the cathedral. 10 His reason for looking to the Renaissance, it seems to me, and for the pronounced use of classicism, is that in searching for an appropriate type in which to cast his monument, Scott turned to the Renaissance image of the great patrician, or humanist, finding in the life and works of the nobleman a modern-day equivalent of those members of the great patrician families of Italy, whose lives are celebrated in the splendid tombs of Florence, Rome and Venice. It is significant, in this context, to note that on one occasion Vere Cotton even refers to the' House of Stanley', as one might the' House of Medici'. 41 Likewise, when designing the tomb of Cardinal Gasquet (in Downside Abbey), Scott employed the appropriate manner of gothic tomb set within tiny chantry-chapel-like space. The Derby monument must also be seen against the background of contemporary Anglican neo-Baroque taste, though not a product of that movement.

Renaissance tomb sculpture, however, was a source of ideas for some of Scott's other works at this time, and also those of other architects. His work for St. George's Chapel, Chester Cathedral (1921) involved an altar decorated with winged victories/angels holding a wreath, as found on Roman and Renaissance sarcophagi. 42 Above this, however, the reredos is in the form of a wooden triptych with closing wings, in the late gothic manner. Likewise his (roughly contemporary) war memorial for Beaumont College includes a sarcophagus held on brackets against a wall, in the manner of a Renaissance wall-tomb, recalling the sketch discussed above. 4 ' The effigy resting on bier, set above sarcophagus, in the Renaissance form, was a feature of Lutyens's monumental repertoire, and is used to surmount his war memorials at Rochdale and Southampton. 44 The classic-gothic synthesis at Chester is a key to the way in which the Renaissance element arrived at Liverpool, for somewhat similar to the Chester work is the Liverpool war memorial chapel'saltarpiece. In the design of this work, classicism seeped in by some almost osmotic process. Another drawing at Liverpool, again undated, shows a design for the reredos of this altar, which is the principal feature of the north-east transept. 45 It takes

124 J. Thomas

the form of a great wooden winged triptych in the gothic style. It is a clear development from that found in the Lady Chapel, which, with its elaborate cresting, is an excellent re-creation of the South German late Gothic altarpiece. Whereas the Lady Chapel' s triptych is thoroughly gothic, splendidly matching the ornate delicacy of the chapel's carved stonework, the War Memorial Chapel reredos in this drawing has very definite Renaissance intrustions. Above the altar is set a sarcophagus held by brackets, and above that is found the familiar tripartite divisions of panels seen on so many Florentine Quattrocento tombs. The great wings, which are in fact fixed, still display influences of Scott's early gothic work, and are suggestive of Bodley's style. In the final work (which letters indicate was under construction in November 1923)*5 the Renaissance ingredients have increased and the gothic element has been restricted to the multi- curved parapet and cresting at the top. The tripartite division of the panels has been reduced to bipartite, enabling the division to form a cross (Lutyens did something similar on the side of his Southampton memorial which was erected in 1919). Winged victories with wreath now adorn the sarcophagus, and bronze palms are set either side of the cross. Either side of the reredos stand a soldier and sailor. The war memorial altarpiece is in fact something of a compromise, elements of the Quattrocento tomb employed, but with gothic at the top (necessary, no doubt, in that it is at that point seen against gothic stone and glass decoration); the wings, the most gothic feature, have gone entirely.

In looking at the later successful stages in the Derby memorial project, it is necessary to examine very closely the question of who was responsible for its actual design and execution. As suggested above, Scott designed the building, its stonework and its decoration, and much of the necessary, ornate, carving was done on site by stonecarvers employed by the contractors (Messrs. Morrison & Sons). In addition, sculptors were, on occasion, employed direct to produce special works, normally statuary. On some occasions, however, when attempting to secure works in this way, Scott was thwarted by the factor of cost. A sculptor would make a model, submit it for approval, and then quote for a properly-carved version in stone. When this proved too expensive, Scott resorted to a cost-cutting arrangement whereby the sculptor sold his model as it was, at a cheap price, and a stonecarver on site produced the final version. The angelic figures on the memorial to the 55th Division are a case where this happened, and Tom Murphy, the sole-surviving stonecarver at Liverpool, remembers being presented with a clay model in this way. This blurring of the edges between the arts and their practioners is part of the context within which the means of production of the final work must be seen. Involved in the Derby memorial project, from the beginning, were the stonemasons and sculptors, Farmer

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 125

and Brindley of Westminster Bridge Road, London, a long- established company who were engaged on construction of the War Memorial altar at the time of the monument's first real conceptions. 4 Hence we can read details of their quotation for the job on 6 November, 1923, and further letters to Scott concerned with the project, throughout that year. 4 " At this stage, however, when the scheme seen in Drawing 2, and perhaps Drawing 1, was projected, Farmer and Brindley would only have been involved with the stonework of the sarcophagus and base, and the final erection operations. On 26 May, 1924, though earlier involvement is most likely there is an estimate for the effigy from sculptor Walter Gilbert (1871-1946)'". Gilbert, at this time, worked with Louis A. Weingartner in Birmingham. They had worked on the gates of Buckingham Palace, and each did much work at the cathedral, including bronze palms for the War memorial reredos, and it was Gilbert who produced the model of the angelic figure for the 55th Division memorial. Gilbert's estimate, at this date, for the effigy alone, was £1,500; it was, however, to be in alabaster, not metal. On 7 June, 1924, Scott wrote to Gilbert to tell him that the scheme had been shelved, but says that he wants to acquire the sculptor's model, which was no doubt of plaster.'" When the project was revived, the tendering began again, Farmer and Brindley agreeing (1 August 1925) to erect the monument for £817 (a portion, no doubt, of the total expenditure)/' 1 This was most likely a tender given in connection with the 'Amended' design, which is probably that represented in Drawing 3. The question of the effigy still had to be settled, and on5 August 1925, Scott suggested to Radcliffe that they approach academician Francis Derwent Wood (1871-1926). 52 However, they must have gone back to Gilbert, for in November, 1925, he quoted for an effigy in alabaster or cast bronze (the same price for either material)." Gilbert was no doubt quoting on the basis of a model, whether the 192 4 one or a new one, and it is probably this model which Scott submitted to the committee on 7 December, 1925. M This was most likely the 'miniature model' which was shown to the 17th earl, in London, later in December. 1" Whatever this model was like, it was scrapped and possibly as a result of the controversy which broke out over the dress in which the figure was to be depicted (see below). However, in December, 1926, Gilbert is known to have been producing another model (ie., his second or third). 56 But byjune, 1927, Scott is referring to his own model, and in October of that year, Gilbert is being paid-off: just £50, for the work he had done. 1 '

Printed accounts tell us that Scott was not satisfied with the efforts of available sculptors (ie. Gilbert), and thus found it necessary to do his own. This suggestion must be examined, and consequently Scott's role, and abilities, as a sculptor. Scott was never formally

126 J. Thomas

Platel: Giles Scott: project/or Derby Memorial, Liverpool Cathedral, undated. Reproduced by kind permission of the Liverpool Central Library.

Plate 2: Giles Scott, sketch of part of the Guigno Tomb, the Badia Florence, P1908. Reproduced by kind permission of the British Architectural Library, R.I.B.A.

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial

Plate 3: Giugno Tomb, TheBadia, Florence. Mino de Fiesole, mid-1460s. Reproduced by kind permission of theCortauld Institute of Art.

128 J. Thomas

Plate 4: Memorial to the 16th earl of Derby, general view.

Plate 5: Memorial to the 16th ,-url of Derby, detail. Photograph by Brian Harding.

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 129

trained as an artist or sculptor, but he did, however, have undeniable skill in drawing the human form. Roger Pinckney, an assistant of Scott's at this time, remembers his master constantly absorbed by his little plaster model, ever changing and re-thinking it/'" By May 1928, a full-size version of Scott's eventual model was complete, and this was made by Farmer and Brindley."" Cotton tells us that 'in modelling the details (of the monument) Sir Giles was fortunate in obtaining the technical assistance of Mr Tyrell (sic) and Mr Wilson of Farmer and Brindley' ." Sadly, all trace of 'Mr Wilson' seems to have vanished, but the other is the sculptor Thomas Tyrrell (1857-1929)."- Thomas Tyrrell studied at the South Kensington and Royal Academy schools, and became assistant to W. Silver Frith, the Head of modelling and applied arts at the Lambeth school, for twenty-five years, before he eventually succeeded him in that position. Tyrrell was a sculptor of undoubted abilities and accomplishments. Joining the Royal Society of British Sculptors in 1906, he exhibited at the Academy (twenty times between 1905 and 1928), andin Glasgow. Works exhibited at the Academy in the period we are concerned with include a bronze head (1926) and a marble bust (1928). However, much of his work seems to have been the production of sculptures for architects, based on designs which they produced in one medium or another. This practice was common at the time, the sculptor working as an executant artist, or slightly- glorified stonecarver. It is useful to compare it with the procedure observed, that of sculptors producing models for execution by stonecarvers. Tyrrell did this work as an employee of Farmer and Brindley, as suggested by Cotton, and combined it with his post at Lambeth, the Lambeth school always having a close connection with the Westminster masonry firm." One of Tyrrell's works was the sculptural figures for No. 82 Mortimer Street, London. Designed by architect Beresford Pite, this composition is a powerful evocation of the spirit of Michelangelo. 64

It would seem, then, that the large model, from which the Derby memorial effigy was cast, was Tyrrell's work, assisted, no doubt, by the unknown Wilson. Immediately after it was completed, plaster casting began, and almost exactly a year later, on 7 May, 1929, Tyrrell died. At the end of this month, his son Arthur was writing pathetically to Scott, saying, in effect, that he understood that his father had worked on the Derby memorial effigy, and could this be made public, as part of a forthcoming obituary?1" Scott agreed, and the obituary in question is probably that which appeared in The Builder on 9 August, 1929.* It includes pictures of the memorial (complete and installed by this date), and a useful photograph of the full-size clay model. Tyrell's work, of course, does not detract from Scott's authorship of the monument. It is hard to imagine, however, that a small model, and drawings (no doubt supplied also), could do much

130 J. Thomas

more than indicate the overall forms and disposition of the work. The details, and also the face, must surely be Tyrrell's work, and we know that photographs of the Earl were passed to Scott, and thence to Farmer and Brindley ." 7 So perhaps Tyrrell's work must be seen as that of an interpretive artist, rather than that of a pure executant. Scott, above all, produced the whole, and the effigy, though the most important part of the monument, is still part of a totality which involved sarcophagus and stonework, and the setting and entire context, features which Tyrrell was only partly aware of. Throughout the building we see that architectural features, carving, decoration, ironwork and glass, and even monuments, are part of an integrated whole, and seem to have been regarded by Scott in this way, even involving the subordination of figure sculpture to the general effect. Perhaps Scott intentionally prevented figure sculpture from being of such quality and remarkability that it stood proud, as a special individual feature. Perhaps this is why, to answer the question often asked, Scott did not employ sculptors of outstanding ability to produce works of their own devising, as particular items of interest, in the way that was done in the newer, post-war, cathedrals.

The clay model depicted in The Builder was itself made from Tyrrell's full-size model, which was completed in April, 1928. 68 The small model of the cathedral, which is set under the pillows which support the Earl's head, was sculped in June, based on photographs sent by Scott. 69 Work was going on, simultaneously, in connection with the marble sarcophagus and base. On 26 June, Scott authorised the use surely novel of concrete breeze blocks to fill the interior of the sarcophagus. 70 When the plaster model was finally complete, the next stage was to cast it in bronze, and this was done by A. B. Burton of Thames Ditton. The work began around the 19 December and, a month later, Scott visited Thames Ditton to inspect the work and ordered extra polishing of certain portions. 71 The cutting of the inscription was complete by 27 December, and on 14 March, 1929, Farmer and Brindley reported to Scott that fixing operations had begun on site. 72 After an inspection in May, Scott ordered Burton to make various areas of the bronze more dull. When the final bill came in, it required £1,992 for execution and fixing, £8 12s.6dfor polishing the effigy, and £200 for 'modelling extra details'. Scott disputed the third figure and, on 11 April, reported to Radcliffe a final cost of £2,180 12s.6d. 73 At 3.00 pm on Sunday, 5 May, the monument was unveiled, with little ceremony, just before Evensong; on the following day, the committee congratulated Scott on his achievement. 74

The final work was, as suggested, developed considerably from the schemes first projected. The effigy alone was much changed, even in its actual disposition. The eagle (along with a child both Stanley emblems) moved from the head (as seen in Drawing 3) to the foot,

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 131

and the model of the cathedral, at the Earl's head, is also a later thought. The actual appearance of the effigy was affected by the difficulties referred to, concerned with dress. When the effigy, or aversionofit, was being planned in 1926, Radcliffe had suggested, it seems, that the Earl be depicted wearing his Garter robes. Scott, however, recommended that he be shown wearing academic robes, those of the Chancellor of the University of Liverpool. 73 The Garterrobes, Scott knew, involved knee-breeches, and allowed for ludicrous possibility of the earl lying recumbent displaying skinny leg-bones in the horizontal position. 'My dear Scott (replied Radcliffe, incensed at Scott's suggestion) No! It really won't do . . .' Garter robes it must be, and he must simply get on with it. 76 Radcliffe brought in the support of the 17th earl, and Scott was outgunned: though the earl did point out that the Knowsley monument of the 14th earl, Radcliffe's original inspiration, diddepict the subject wearing the robes of the Chancellor of Oxford University. 77 The family Garter robes, as worn by the 15th, 16th and 17th earls, were then loaned to Scott to enable him to carry out his instructions correctly. 7 " Artistically, Scott had been right, and Radcliffe's objections had been based on other considerations. Scott got around the problems by arranging the fabric of the cloak in such away as to render the shins only visible to a viewer peering over the sculpture.

An issue on which Radcliffe does not seem to have had his way was that concerned with the design of the inscription. Scott asked his advice as to the wording to be used, and he replied with a suitable text on 16 October 1928 (noting the date of death, he bemoaned the tardiness of the project: T am apalled when I observe that the good man died in 1908 and that his monument . . . is only approaching completion now'). 7 ' 1 Radcliffe, the 17th earl, and the bishop, all had to approve the design of the inscription, but only Radcliffe took exception. The letter R was not ' ... of a very pleasing design . . . ', but, he added with a note of resignation, ' . . . this is a matter for you and not for me . . . '.*" His objection was concerned with the size and siting of the R's tail. Scott, clearly forearmed, replied that in almost all the examples he had looked at, the tail grew out of the curved portion. He also specifies that these were actual Roman examples. Amidst letters to Lord Derby, in Cannes, about the unveiling arrangements, Radcliffe complained further to Scott of the letter's 'small and ratty tail . . . ','" but it seems to have been cut in accordance with Scott's wishes, not Radcliffe's. Such authorities as Edward Johnston recommend a prominent tail for Rs in inscriptions, but Radcliffe may have had in mind the greatly exaggerated swash tail of fin de siecle typography. 82 Such things were used by Scott but here, he consciously turned to the Classical. Radcliffe supported Scott on one

132 J. Thomas

important issue, however. He was instructed to design posts to hold ropes, by which the monument would be railed-off. Radcliffe probably realised the extent to which this would destroy the whole visual effect of the monument, particularly the gradual way it 'rises' from the floor, and its unified spatial connection with the setting. Radcliffe's opposition probably secured the defeat of this plan though the posts were designed."3

Reference to Scott's examination of Roman letters raises an important question not as yet posed: what was the nature and extent of Scott's knowledge of classical sources? By the beginning of the twentieth century, published depictions of Roman, and Renaissance, art were surely too numerous for us to doubt Scott' s ability to make close study of all relevant objects, once the need for such was decided upon. The sixth volume of Venturi' s Storia dell 'arteltaliana (La Scultura dequattrocento), ( 1908) included among its 781 photographs pictures of almost every important Renaissance tomb, monument, memorial, and much else beside. Wilhelm Bode's Florentine sculptors of the Renaissance (1908), however, is curiously short of illustrations of tombs. The most important source is surely direct experience, for only by this means can an artist fully understand other works. Fortunately, we are here, again, able to turn to documentary evidence. Not long after Scott won the cathedral competition, Frederick Radcliffe took the young man in hand, and personally contributed to his development as an artist by means of taking him on visits to different parts of Europe. One such visit was to Spain, an experience which led to the all-important influence of Spanish late Gothic, which is seen so vividly at the cathedral. Though not a great amount is known of this Spanish trip, information concerning other journeys exists in some of the twelve sketch books which are kept at the RIB A. Book Seven contains drawings made on a trip to Italy which seems to have been made in the Summer of 1908."4 Ironically, just a few months after the Earl of Derby had died, Scott was in Tuscany looking at tombs. We can be certain of the date because a sketch of the floor of Pisa Cathedral is inscribed' 19/9/08'. On a nearby page is a sketch of a typical Quattrocento tomb, captioned 'La Badia, Florence'. Two other sketches, a few pages earlier in the book, show cruder depictions of elements of the Florentine tomb (sarcophagi, effigies, etc.), and these may also have been inspired by specific monuments. The Badia sketch, on close inspection, is seen to be the Guigno tomb (mid-1460s), by Mino da Fiesole(1429-84). Mino's other tomb in the Badia, theCountHugo tomb (assembled 1481) is much better known, but for some reason, Scott was attracted to the lesser-known work. His overriding interest was clearly in the effigy and sarcophagus, though he notes the conventional tripartite division of the panel above the effigy, and its (less usual) standing figure, set in the central portion. His sketch

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 133

is rapid and vigorous, lacking the finish and definition of other in situ sketches. Though Scott did not draw the Count Hugo tomb, he surely looked at it, and may, indeed, have been struck by the two figures which stand either-side of the sarcphagus, in front of the columns: they may just have been the ultimate inspiration for the statues of soldier and sailor, which, in the Liverpool war memorial altarpiece, stand in an equivalent position. The pairs of beasts (gryphon and stag) which project from the sides of the extant Derby monument, with their salient plinths (they are even more pronounced in Drawing 1) are surely ultimately derived from the brackets which project from beneath Quattrocento sarcophagi and biers, though the exact route of their descent may be very complex.

A few pages further on in this sketchbook, there is a sketch of another tomb. An effigy on a bier, it is surmounted by a curious arched structure, with columns ascending before the figure. The structural system of the canopy, or whatever it is, is not properly explained. What is it a sketch of? It does not look like an Italian Renaissance work, but could be a Neo-Classic monument in Italy (or in France, as the book also contains sketches made on a French trip). Perhaps this sketch can yet be connected with a real monument. Or, it could be that what Scott saw in Florence caused him to try his hand at a tomb design of his own. Or again, that what he saw reminded him of some native experience. The sketch is slightly like the lower portion of the great monument in the nave of St. Paul's Cathedral that was erected to the Duke of Wellington. The work of Alfred Stevens, it was not finally completed until 1911. The basic structure, however, was in situ at the beginning of the century. The sketch may represent Scott's efforts to recall the details of this, or some similar sculpture. The Badia drawing, along with the two small sketches, contain all the essential elements of Scott's classically- inpired monuments. The 'tomb with arches' also has much significance for his work.

It may be that these sketches, or memories of the objects they depict, were used by Scott when he came, much later, to designing the Derby monument. We know that architectural ideas lingered in his mind, to be used years later, because of the Cathedral's Spanish element, which was experienced in the Edwardian period, but continued to be a source of inspiration after the Second World War."5 In addition, we know that he kept a collection of visual images which he consciously used as a source."" However, his use of this kind of material was generally indirect, a work supplying, say, a basic form, its translation often employing, in effect, a change of function. 8 ' The tomb sketches on the reverse of the 1924 letter from Haden's have clear descendence from those done in Florence, depicting the same kind of monument in the same kind of way.

134 J. Thomas

The final form of the Derby monument recalls such tombs as that of Henry VII, Westminster Abbey (itself a quasi-Renaissance monument in a late-Gothic church), and that oflllariadel Caretto in Lucca, by Jacopo della Quercia (after 1405), the latter of which he may have seen in 1908. Among modern works its form approximates that of the Clarence tomb at Windsor (1890s), the Lady Lever tomb at Port Sunlight (1913), Lord Leverhulme' s tomb there (1925), the Yeatman-Biggs monument at Coventry Cathedral (1925), and the Elphinstone memorial, finally erected in Aberdeen in 1926. 88

The Derby memorial succeeds because of the extent to which Scott managed to produce the Renaissance quality ofgravitas, achieving a tremendous sense of dignity and nobility, yet without having to renounce the personal qualities of its subject; and also by means of the addition, to this, of touches of extreme delicacy, and even whimsy. The overall gravity of the effect is in part produced by the expansive form and the grey tone of the stonework (we know that Scott was very sensitive to the exact colour of the stone from the extensive search, made for him in 1923, for a marble which had the precise shade of grey required)."9 The carved wreaths (strongly suggestive of the neo-Classic vocabulary of contemporary war memorial design) have a suitably dour effect. The subject's face is a noble rendering of dignified death without loss of humanity or personality, for it serenely conveys the feeling of utter lifelessness, without sentiment, and without the rigidity of a mere death-mask. A monument involving public display, it still has a personal air of the sadness of death. The bronze-work matches the scale of the effigy to the sarcophagus (unlike in Drawings 1-3), and provides just enough area for the small forms (angels, eagle-and-child, etc.) in proportion to the large, principal, form. The eagle-and-child at the foot balance the two angels, set beneath two cushions, at the head (Scott clearly experimented with various combinations of locations for these). The angels are extremely delicate and sensitively detailed. They pull back the drapery which has veiled the model of the cathedral but not sufficiently to reveal the western extremity of the building which had not as yet been designed or decided upon."" The brocaded pillows, tassels, and flowing drapery contrast with the formal folds of the sheet which overhangs the slab on which the body rests. The touch of whimsy is added by the tiny mouse, which creeps out from under the cushions on the eastern side. The most successful aspect of the drapery is the long, deep folds of the cloak, which serve to emphasise the horizontal, and thus the body's length/" These also produce deep shadows and shining highlights, which are vital to the overall effect of chiaroscuro. Chiaroscuro was surely one of Scott' s principal concerns in the designing of the work, as shown by the attention given not only to the stone colouring, but to the careful polishing and

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 135

the dulling ofthebronze. In the first photographs, taken by Stewart Bale,we see the effect Scott must have intended. The monument emerges from the sombre gloom of the space in which it is set. Its contrast of highlight and shadow is paralleled by that of the darkness of the transept aisle and the light that falls into the space beyond it, the diagonal arch of the vaulting standing out vividly. The austere lettering, when first revealed, had a prominence now faded. Scott, a master of the sublime, used baroque effects of lighting on many occasions, but perhaps never so successfully as here. Sadly, the Admiral Horton memorial (unveiled 1957), the only truly inappropriate addition to be made to the building in Scott's lifetime, succeeds in wrecking the background, with its strident, licorice-allsort polychromy, reminiscent of a Victorian gravestone.'' 2 Later additions, includinglights, havedonefurtherdamagetotheeffect. But nonetheless, the Derby monument retains its overall splendour: the product of changing times in the history of sculpture and architecture, itpossesses, perhaps as a result of its complex ancestory, a quality of timelessness. It is surely the last great personal funerary monument to be produced in Britain.

It is perhaps ironic to reflect that the Derby monument by far the finest of many in the building commemorated one whose involvement with the project, however important, was briefer than almost everyone else's. Its creators fared rather worse from the point of view of memorials: Radcliffe received only a simple inscription cut into the wall in the North Choir Aisle; there is, however, a statue which is said to bear his likeness. In the form of Fortitude he looks down, like some mediaeval prince of the church, from one of the jambs outside the Chapter House.'" Thomas Tyrrell was buried in Streatham Park Cemetery, London: sadly and, ironically for a sculptor and stonecarver, his grave is completely unmarked (at least today). For long, Scott fared little better. His son designed a small plaque which is set in the pavement at the building's centre. But in his 1942 scheme for the west front he had planned aportecochere, an exedra in which, at its western-most point, his body was to be buried. 94 And in 1960, buried there it was, but theporte cochere was absent in the new 1967/68 scheme, and his grave disappeared beneath the mess of the site and the wheels of the plant, leaving seekers of his monument to look around at his works. Recently, a simple stone was placed over his grave.

NOTES

1 Alastair Service, ed., Edwardian architecture andits origins (London, 1975), Part Seven.

2 Service, Edwardian Architecture and its origins, Part Six.3 Gavin Stamp. Silent cities. An exhibition of the memorial and cemetery architecture

of the Great War (London, Royal Institute of British Architects, 1977).

136 J. Thomas

4 On the 16th Earl of Derby see Reginald Lucas's article in the Dictionary of national biography: Supplement, the twentieth century. 1901-1911, 1912. On the family's earlier history see William Pollard, The Stanleys of Know sky (Frederick Warne, 1869).

5 For the early history of the project, the competition and the resulting controversy, see my article 'The style shall be gothic', The Architectural Review, Vol. 158, September 1975, pp. 155-262.

6 Illustrated: Gavin Stamp, The great perspectivists (Royal Institute of British Architects (hereafter RIBA) Drawings Series, London, 1982), plate 105, p. 91.

7 Bryan Little, Architect and Building News. Vol. 217, 20 April 1960, p. 511-6; articles by Gavin Stamp: 'Centenary of a modern man', RIBA Journal, Vol. 87, November 1980, pp. 10-11, and 'Giles Gilbert Scotland the problem of "Modernism" ', Architectural Design, Vol. 49, 10/11, 1979, pp. 72-83.

8 See my obituary of Arthur Crimp (1880-1982) in RIBA Journal, Vol. 89, October 1982, p. 134.

9 See The Lwerpolitan, April 1936, p. 6; Who was who 1951-1960; Bulletin of Liverpool Cathedral Committee (afterwards: LCC Bulletin) Vol. 8, No. 75, December 1953, pp. 141-3, Plate 370 (portrait).

10 William Forwood, Recollections of a busy life (Liverpool, 1910) tells us much about the kind of men who promoted and supported the cathedral-building project. On the cathedral, and the 1904 stone-laying ceremony, see pp. 194-203.

11 Letters to and from Sir Frederick Radcliffe are kept at the local history department of Liverpool City Libraries, and in the collection of Scott papers, on loan to the Royal Institute of British Architects library (British Architectural Library). In some cases, copies of letters appear in both collections. Letters are cited as LPL (ie. Liverpool Public Libraries), with date, or RIBA, with catalogue details. LPL Radcliffe to Forwood, 23 November 1908.

12 LPL Radcliffe to Forwood, 18 October 1916.13 On the public and political career of the 17th Earl, see Randolph S. Churchill,

see LordDerby, 'King of Lancashire'(London, 1959). LPL Radcliffe to the 17th Earl, 17 October 1916.

14 Nikolaus Pevsner, South Lancashire, (The Buildings of England, 1969), p. 132.15 Minutes of the Liverpool Cathedral Committee are kept at Liverpool City

Libraries. Entries are taken from the transcripted version and bear reference numbers. Thus the item referred to here is cited: LCC Mins, 6 November 1916, 89/16.

16 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, 19 October 1916.17 At least, Scott was often, in later years, to refer to Bodley's contribution in

this way.18 See Vere E. Cotton, The book of Liverpool Cathedral, Liverpool, 1964, Chapter

3, Plates 5 to 8, 9 to 12.19 On Thomas, see Building Design, 30 September 1977, p. 23: and my article

on the final decades,'Building a cathedral', ,ft/.B4/o«"!a/, Vol. 90, May 1983, pp. 39-42.

20 See Susan Beattie, The New Sculpture, (London, 1983).21 GeorgeFrampton'sLam!a(1899-190), forexample, consists of bronze, ivory

and opals.22 In 1904 there were attempts to create a special repository for the remains of

distinguished people and their monuments. See Felix Barker and Ralph Hyde, London as it might have been, London, 1982), pp. 150-3.

23 LPL Scott to Radcliffe, 1916 (dating uncertain, but probably late October).24 A Country Life publication, London.25 Weaver, Memorials and monuments, Fig. 212, p. 405.

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 137

26 Weaver, Memorials and monuments, Fig. 78, p. 179.27 Illustrated: Weaver, Fig. 79, p. 183.28 Illustrated: LCC Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 25, September 1931, plate 98.29 These drawings at Liverpool are in the binder labelled 'Cathedral Plans'.

'Drawing 1' is numbered 7/3 2 and bears an endorsement of approval dated 15 (or 17) February 1922.

30 LCC Mins, 13 February 1922, 14/22.31 All directions given are liturgical. In reality, the 'West' end faces North.32 LPL Radcliffe to Forwood, 23 November 1908; LCC Mins, 6 November

1916,89/16.33 'Drawing 2' is also numbered 7/32. A copy of this would seem to be that

numbered ScGG (64) 1220, 29 November 1923, in the Drawings Collection oftheRIBA.

34 This is evidenced by various letters kept at the RIBA, eg. those to sculptor Walter Gilbert (26 May 1924, 7 June 1924, both in the box numbered ScGG/183/; the first of these refers to an effigy in alabaster). See also Note 89.

35 LPL Scott to Radcliffe, 5 August 1925.36 LCC Mins, 5 October 1925, 105/25.37 'Drawing 3', undated, is numbered 7/32A .38 Illustrated in Cotton, Book of Liverpool Cathedral, plate 49, opp. p. 87.39 Ibid, the'altar tomb' was to go 'under the gallery' (p. 26 in the three editions).

Also in December 1924, the committee discussed the positions of the memorial, LCC Mins., 1 December 1924, 175/24.

40 The building, as has long been recognised, is very classical in plan and basic form, or rather, Baroque, having, for example, similarities with Wren's St. Paul's cathedral.

41 LCC Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 16, June 1929, p. 27.(ForVols. 1 and 2 the title was 'Cathedral Builder's Quarterly Bulletin').

42 Illustrated: Architects Journal, 7 January 1925, p. 28, Scott's workatChester is outlined by G. W. O. Addleshawin 'Architects, sculptors, designers and craftsmen 1770-1970, whose work is to be seen in Chester Cathedral', Architectural History, Vol. 14, 1971, pp. 98-99.

43 Illustrated: Architects Journal, 7 January 1925, p. 34.44 See A. S. G. Butler, The architecture of Sir Edwin Luty ens, London, 1950, Vol.

3, Plate LXVII, photograph 93 (Southampton), Plate LXVII, photograph 94 (Rochdale).

45 This drawing (un-numbered as well as undated) is also in the 'Cathedral Plans' binder. No drawing of this scheme seems to be in the RIBA collection.

46 RIBA. ScGG/183. Letters between Scott and stonemasons Farmer & Brindley.

47 On the origins of this company, see Beattie, The New Sculpture, pp. 24-27.48 RIBA. ScGG/181,/183, 195, 196, 197.49 Information on Gilbert is reproduced inj. Johnson and A. Greutzner, The

Dictionary of British artists 1880-1940, (1976). Several of Gilbert's letters exist in the papers of Dr. Percy Spieleman, kept at the Royal Academy; especially useful is his letter to Mrs Hamilton-Scott, 26 September 1946 (SP/20/1/1-3). A note made by Spieleman on his copy of a letter to Gilbert makes clear that though Gilbert was a close friend of the better known Sir Alfred Gilbert, he was no relation. Did Scott and, through him, Vere Cotton, think Gilbert was related to the sculptor of Eros and the Clarence tomb? (See LCC Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 68, December 1946, p. 8). I am grateful to Dr. Beattie for information about Gilbert. Gilbert's estimate of 26 May, 1924, is RIBA, ScGG/183.

50 RIBA. ScGG/183.51 RIBA. ScGG/183.52 LPL Scott to Radcliffe, 5 August 1925.

138 J. Thomas

53 RIBA. ScGG/188, Gilbert to Scott, 14 November 1925.54 LCCMins, 7 December 1925, 143/25. This model was of a memorial to go

in the S. transept, as agreed at the meeting of 6 November, 1916.55 LPL 17th Earl of Derby to Radcliffe, 17 December 1925.56 According to a report to the committee: LCC Mins, 6 December 1926, 92/26.57 LPL Scott to Radcliffe, 27 June 1927 and 21 October 1927.58 Eg. that in the Liverpool Daily Post, 29June 1928. Interestingly, this suggests

that Scott failed to find a sculptor possessed of sufficient gothic abilities.59 I am grateful to Roger Pinckney for supply information to me on this and

other matters. For his vital contribution to the building's completion, see my article cited in note 19 above.

60 RIBA, ScGG/195. Farmer & Brindley to Scott, 19 April 1928.61 Cotton, Book of Liverpool Cathedral, p. 57. I am grateful to Tom Murphy for

drawing my attention to the importance of Tyrrell's work, and other information and help.

62 Seenote65. Beattie, The New Sculpture, pp. 26, 80, 83; The Dictionary of British artists 1880-1940 (details Note 49).

63 Beattie, The New Sculpture, pp. 24-6.64 Beattie, The New Sculpture, pp. 80, 83 (82 Mortimer Street sculptures

illustrated plates 59 and 60).65 RIBA, ScGG/197. Arthur Tyrrell to Scott, 27 May 1929; Scott to Arthur

Tyrrell, 31 May 1929. The first of these suggests that Tyrrell, in addition to Gilbert, worked on the cathedral reredos.

66 The Builder, August 1929, pp. 213, 214(portrait, clay model), 210, 212 (photos of the Derby monument).

67 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, 12 November 1928.68 RIBA, ScGG/195. Farmer & Brindley to Scott, 19 April 1928.69 RIBA, ScGG/195. Scott to Farmer & Brindley, 15 June 1928.70 RIBA, ScGG/195. Scott to Farmer & Brindley, 26 June 1928.71 RIBA, ScGG/196. Farmer & Brindley to Scott, 19 December 1928; A. B.

Burton to Scott, 17 January 1929; Farmer & Brindley to Scott, 22 January1928.

72 RIBA, ScGG/197. Farmer & Brindley to Scott, 14 March, 1929.73 LPLScotttoRadcliffe, 11 April 1929. RIBA, ScGG/197. BilldatedS April

1929.74 LCC Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 16, June 1929, pp. 27-8.75 LPL Scott to Radcliffe, 3 November 1926.76 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, undated.77 LPL 17th Earl of Derby to Radcliffe, 8 November 1926.78 LPL 17th Earl of Derby to Radcliffe, 21(?)January 1927.79 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, 16 October 1928.80 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, 30 November 1928.81 LPL Radcliffe to Scott, 5 December 1928.82 Edward Johnston, Writing, illuminating and lettering ( 15th edition; London,

1927), p. 274. RIBA, ScGG/64/1222, 18 October 1928.83 LPLRadcliffetoCotton, 9 April 1929. RIBA, ScGG641218, ISJuly 1927.84 RIBA, ScGG (187), 7.85 The principal reredos is the most dramatic example. Designed before the

First World War, it was clearly inspired by the gateway to the College of S. Gregorio at Valladolid. The screen of the Rankin porch, designed 1949, was inspired by the rejas (ironwork screens) which divide and define spaces in Spanish cathedrals.

86 The whereabouts of this collection is in doubt.87 As in the examples given in Note 85.88 See Alastair Service, Edwardian architecture (London, 1977), p. 127, plate 152.89 FordetailsofstonesseeRIBA, ScGG/181, letters between Scott and Farmer

& Brindley from November and December, 1923 and 15 January, 1924.

XVI the Earl of Derby's Memorial 139

90 Cotton, Book of Liverpool Cathedral, p. 57.91 Exceptionally, the Horton memorial was designed, as well as executed, by

thesculptor. E. Carter Preston, whodidmuchqualityworkinthebuilding. See LCC Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 79, pp. 25-6, Plate 409.

93 Radcliffe donated his collection of liturgical mcunabulilo the cathedral as the foundation of a library; this is now known as the Radcliffe Library.

94 See RIBA Journal, Vol'. 90, May 1983, pp. 39-42. The setting of this tomb is not unlike that of the Lever tombs at Port Sunlight, though in Scott'sexedra, this function is secondary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In addition to those persons mentioned in the notes, the author wishes to thank the following whose assistance enabled this article to be written: The Dean of Liverpool, Mr. H. Cotton (Liverpool Cathedral Committee), MrsE. H. Cotton, Mr Geoffrey Rimmer; Margaret Richardson, Alex Coulter and Angela Mace (RIBA); Janet Smith & staff (Liverpool City Libraries); Brian Harding, Francis Ames-Lewis, Dr. Susan Beattie, Tom Murphy, Roger Pinckney and Richard Gilbert Scott