The Manchester Art Federation, which included the Manchester Society of Architects and Manchester School of Art, led the protests. Opposition also came from the Royal Manchester Institution which argued that the proposed removal of the statues represented a breaking of the 'sacred trust' with those who had provided them. The Manchester sculptor, John Cassidy, also doubted whether Albert Square was the best available site. When the city council came to debate the issue, the arguments against moving the statues had been well rehearsed and it was the Piccadilly site that emerged - by a vote of 71 to 30 - as the favoured location. The proposal that only the Albert Memorial would be removed to make way for the war memorial was also defeated. Placing the memorial in Piccadilly - in the open space created by the demolition of the Infirmary - found particular support from members of the Art Gallery Committee who envisaged the memorial standing in front of' the art gallery that the city council intended to build there. But uncertainties still surrounded the plans for Piccadilly, and, in May 1923, the war memorial committee anxious to see the memorial scheme move forward, agreed to site it in St Peter's Square. It was understood that in order to make the necessary space for the war memorial that Temple Moore's memorial cross would be removed from the square.

But the suitability of the St Peter's Square site, selected, as one correspondent to the Manchester Guardian put it, 'more or less casually by a number of laymen, acting in a spirit of compromise', continued to be questioned. One of the concerns remained that although St Peter's Square was a central location it was very close to the city's theatre and cinema district. The selection of the design of the memorial also proved contentious. The importance of organising an open competition for such an important memorial had been emphasised by the Manchester Art Federation and the Royal Society of British Sculptors during the discussions over the site. The war memorial committee appeared to agree, appointing the Manchester architect, Percy Worthington, as the assessor. However, controversy erupted when it was announced that the committee was unwilling to leave the decision entirely to Worthington, reserving the right to overturn his selection. The announcement of this decision prompted an understandable reaction from architects and their professional association. The decision was debated in the local press, correspondents expressing their surprise and bewilderment over the committee's apparent arbitrary and arrogant stance. The Manchester Guardian turned to Charles Reilly, Professor of Architecture at Liverpool University, to explain the principles at issue to its readers. Paul Waterhouse, the son of Alfred Waterhouse, who had recently served as President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, regretted the deadlock whilst suggesting that he knew much more about the committee's internal conflict but would not betray confidences. The Lord Mayor, William Cundiff, was equally diplomatic, referring to 'certain insuperable difficulties' within the committee whilst confirming that it was to go ahead and select its own designer.

A sub- committee was appointed and instructed to approach an architect 'who can be trusted to prepare a suitable design.' That architect was Sir Edwin Lutyens. Lutyen's design was a cenotaph, and as with the majority of those he produced for other provincial towns (including Rochdale), the essential elements of the London cenotaph could be recognised. It was a simple, well proportioned undenominational shrine in Portland stone, with a central pylon surmounted by the Unknown Soldier. The elegance and restraint of the lettering was a noteworthy feature of the design. It represented 'the triumphant end of the war as well as the sadness and sorrow it entailed.' But not all those who studied the proposed design felt that it was an entirely appropriate monument. Some reacted to its modernity; others even doubted the validity of any formal memorial. One correspondent writing to The Builder argued for a simple open space. 'Surely the creation of some fine square or some much- needed street widening would be a more fitting memorial of the recent war than any monolith, which, after all, can never convey the magnitude of the debt the city owes to its brave dead. The dedication of the Old Infirmary site to be a permanent open square would be an admirable thing, and in the future it will be of greater value as an open space than it can ever be if built upon.' But after these extraordinary debates and arguments the project finally went ahead. By the early summer of 1924 Manchester's cenotaph was nearing completion. The intention to provide work for local men appears not to have been realised as Lutyens used the London-based Nine Elms Stone Masonry Works to erect the memorial. In all, it cost £6,490, the residual funds being used to provide beds in local hospitals for the families of servicemen. The unveiling ceremony in July 1924 was an occasion of dignified remembrance. No part of the ceremony was more significant than the unveiling itself which was carried out by the Earl of Derby and Mrs Bingle - 'a citizen of the working-class district of Ancoats ' - whose three sons had died in the war. The memorial was dedicated by Rev J. G. McCormick, the Dean of Manchester. Manchester's cenotaph was generally welcomed. Henry Cadness, a Manchester artist, acknowledged its simple beauty and dignity, providing 'an environment of consolation which will be ever sacred for all.' But it could not have gone unnoticed in the packed square that some people's view of the ceremony was obscured by the presence of Temple Moore's cross. Negotiations to remove it recommenced after the ceremony but the trustees were reluctant to do so.

The issue was a delicate one and after some further discussion Lutyens effectively closed the matter by stating that because of the 'susceptibilities of the donors ' he did not object to the cross remaining. But however appropriate Lutyens' cenotaph was, there still remained uneasiness about the suitability of the site, an uneasiness evident in 1925 when renewed discussions about the city art gallery were broadened to include the question of moving the cenotaph to Piccadilly. But no action was taken and the cenotaph was to remain in St Peter's Square.