SECOND READING.

HC Deb 07 March 1877 vol 232 cc1527-64

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, that a Bill of the same kind as this had been so frequently before the House, and its principle had been so frequently affirmed, that he should not detain them by offering any arguments in support of the measure, but would now simply move the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

rose to move that the Bill be read the second time that day six months. A similar proposal had already so frequently been before the House, and had been read a second time, that if the author of the measure had shown any serious disposition to meet the objections of those who thought it was pitched in too high a key, he should have been loth to move its rejection. But the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) had taken no step of that kind, his present Bill being, with one or two unimportant variations, identical with the one he introduced in 1875. He would not now repeat all the objections to which the measure was open; but he might remark that he thought the hon. Baronet was too sanguine, and relied a little too much on the majority which he obtained on a former occasion. He must be excused for saying that that majority was obtained upon false pretences. He did not, of course, mean that the hon. Baronet had been guilty of such practices; but it had so happened—as was sometimes the case on Wednesday afternoons—that there were few Members in the House when the reasons in its favour were brought forward, and a much greater number were present after luncheon, when sentiment generally predominated. That was what happened in regard to this Bill two years ago, when, after the hour he had named, the House swarmed with enthusiastic Members, who really thought the measure would preserve the glorious old abbeys and the historical castles scattered throughout the kingdom—one hon. Gentleman, who then spoke under that impression, waxing most eloquent and romantic under his inspiring theme. The one thing which the Bill did not do was to provide in an effective manner for the preservation of monuments of that description; yet the archæological fervour of Members was raised to such a pitch that hon. Gentlemen who had no extraordinary love for that Bill were led to believe that the measure would preserve works of great artistic merit and monuments of considerable historic im- portance. But what were the monuments to be preserved under the operation of this Bill? The Preamble said it was desirable to preserve certain ancient national monuments, the Commissioners were to be called the National Monuments Commissioners, and the Act was to be styled the National Monuments Act. But when they looked to the operative provisions of the measure, they found the important word "national" entirely dropped out—that word was altogether omitted from the clause which gave compulsory powers to the Commissioners—and there was no adequate security that the monuments to be preserved under the Bill would be monuments of such importance or interest as really to deserve the style and title of "national." What was a national monument? The Bill gave no information on the point, and they were left to find out as best they might what sort of thing all its elaborate machinery was intended to preserve. He did not think old stones scattered here and there, or a broken slab with an incised cross upon it, could be properly regarded as national monuments; they might very well be put into a museum, or left to take the chances of wind and weather, which they had stood so long. For his part, he could not admit that half the monuments which it was proposed to schedule really deserved to be called national; while, on the other hand, many quite as interesting as any of those included in the schedule were omitted. Some ancient monuments, again—such as Watling Street and Devil's Dyke — extended over a considerable tract of country, and he wished to know to what extent the Commissioners were to exercise their powers in such cases, and what amount of interference occupiers and owners of land were required to put up with? In connection with this subject, he might refer to a discovery which was made towards the close of last year on the site of an old building at Oxford, on which it was proposed to build schools. The ground was found to be honey-combed with round holes, and immediately the place swarmed with antiquaries, who declared them to be a British village. A British village, of course, was a rare find—almost unique—and it was easy to imagine the rapturous excitement those round holes created in antiquarian circles. It was true the sceptical mocked and scoffed at the antiquaries; it was even insinuated that the round holes were nothing more than old cesspools; but the antiquaries were determined that it was a British village, and nothing else. Now, he would just beg the House to consider the inconvenience that might arise in such cases if the Commission proposed in the Bill was at work. People who wanted to have some works of utility carried out might be put to a great deal of trouble and expense, and possibly litigation, merely to obtain what was their own. Were all the monuments which it was proposed to preserve really of a character to call for such strong interference as the Bill would exert? One could conceive what an amount of enthusiasm would be aroused even in the most Philistinic Members of the House by the thought that any of those great old ruins which we all admired were in want of preservation. But artistic beauty was not at all a feature of the monuments which were to be preserved by this Bill. There were, no doubt, many noble historical monuments in this country which we could ill afford to lose; but when there was anything worth preserving people preserved it. The Bill was not wanted for that. It was only when you had something not worth preserving that you had to fall back on the operation of the law. For instance, there was no provision in the Bill for preserving Newstead Abbey —yet, surely, Newstead Abbey was a monument of national interest—that was not in the Bill. Again, Stonehenge was a monument of great antiquity and interest—it was a national monument, and such monuments would be preserved without requiring the protection of an Act of Parliament. For the most part the monuments to be dealt with by the Bill had no striking historical or sentimental associations. The more uninteresting a monument was, indeed, the more likely it was to get into the Schedule. He could sympathize with anybody who desired to preserve monuments of antiquity and of great historical interest which were connected with some page in our history, some famous battle, some striking deed. All that was perfectly intelligible and reasonable. What he did not understand was that Englishmen should be called upon to exhibit enthusiasm for the monuments of that barbarous and uncivilized race whom our forefathers took the trouble to expel from the country. Our forefathers came from beyond the sea, and drove out those wretched people. ["Oh!" and laughter.] Well, if they did not, where were they? And were we now to be re-invaded by the Celtic race in this country? He begged to explain for the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) and his compatriots from the other side of the Channel that in speaking of the Celtic race he meant the Cimri. He did not quarrel with his Irish Friends for wishing to preserve their round towers and mounds—what he objected to was their preserving ours—the relics of the ancient Britons—which were destitute of all art and of everything that was noble or that entitled them to preservation. ["Oh!"] These were the reasons why, in his opinion, this Bill was a bad one. Its machinery, to his mind, was still more objectionable than its objects. The Commissioners were to have pretty much their own way in everything, untrammelled by the reasonable safeguards which were adopted in ordinary cases. They were to be exempt from rates, and yet were to have unlimited power, with the consent of the owners, for acquiring landed property. They were to have power to interrupt measures of public utility and sanitary works — and that without going through the forms and ceremonies required in all other cases. However important a municipal undertaking, for instance, might be, if it interfered with a monument, three months' notice, at least, had to be given to the Commissioners before a stone could be touched or a sod dug. That was a long interval to allow. While the Commissioners were leisurely considering whether they would preserve their monument or not, the town or district concerned might be ravaged by typhoid fever. Surely, these monuments were not of such importance as to justify the House in subjecting the public to a great amount of inconvenience and even danger for their sake? During that period of three months more harm might be done in a single district than good could be effected by the existence of the Commission at all. And here he had to say that he did not see why there should be a permanent Commission sitting to look after these monuments. He would make an offer to his hon. Friend with regard to this point. If he (Sir John Lubbock) would put into the Schedule of the Bill all the monuments of prime importance and interest which he thought it necessary to preserve, he (Lord Francis Hervey) would withdraw his opposition. He thought it was a fair and reasonable proposal to make, because monuments did not grow —you could not get a set of fresh ancient monuments whenever you liked. The promoters of the Bill no doubt knew what monuments they wanted to preserve, and they could surely schedule them at once, and thus render a permanent Commission unnecessary. If the Commission were allowed to run on indefinitely, they would for the sake of showing their raison d'être go on securing sites which really did not require to be secured, or which were of little or no importance. He had now given his reasons for opposing the second reading of the Bill. If the hon. Baronet opposite saw his way to make the concession he had indicated, he was ready—not being a Philistine, not being a Vandal, and not being a Goth—to meet him half way. If, however, the hon. Baronet still persisted in vexing people with his Bill in its present form, he should feel bound to persevere in the Motion with which he now concluded—namely, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." — (Lord Francis Hervey.)

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

remarked that the House often listened to the noble Lord with pleasure and edification, and always with amusement. Those were the feelings which he must confess to in regard to this last utterance. His noble Friend explained that he was looking at the Bill neither as a Goth, a Vandal, nor a Philistine. Well, then, he supposed it must be as an insular Englishman. At the same time, as a supporter of the Bill, his particular thanks were due to the noble Lord on this occasion for having adopted a line of argument which was calculated to induce every Member of a Welsh constituency to go into the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock). He had never heard a speech more destructive of itself than that of his noble Friend. His main argument was that certain monuments were not beautiful, and that they did not mark any particular incident in history. But those remains, though they did not tell a story to his noble Friend, were full of interest to the student of pre-historic times, and certainly deserved a better fate than to be demolished by the navvy's shovel and crowbar. Castles which were interesting on the face of them did not require protection; it was because these smaller remains were so helpless in themselves and so liable to be misunderstood by the uneducated mind, or even by the mind of his noble Friend, that they were cared for in the Bill. In fact, the estimate which his noble Friend, at this time of day, had formed of these remains was in itself an overwhelming argument for some measure of preservation. To him they were, without shadow of doubt, "ancient rubbish." In the course of his studies—cultured as they knew him to be—he had never come across a theory or a discovery which had led him to realize that their date and the ethnology of those who raised them were questions as interesting as they were difficult. He himself (Mr. Beresford Hope) had only a literary roving general acquaintance with the science of pre-historic Research, but this acquaintance was enough to make him appreciate that the testing of all these matters, which his noble Friend so easily took for granted, was an irresistible argument for keeping intact that evidence on which the investigation must proceed. But his noble Friend had other arrows in his quiver. The argument that these monuments might go because they were not beautiful was beside the question unless discriminative legislation of the kind were made general. For instance, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) ought to permit no women to have the franchise, except those whom a jury of bachelors pronounced to be good-looking. But his noble Friend had his savage mood. "Away with those relics of a conquered race! We have conquered the savages, perish then their memorials!" he exclaimed. Well, if there was one step in civilization which the human race in his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) opinion had made, it was that it was no longer thought expedient or right or commonly descent to signalize a triumph by destroying or allowing to be destroyed the monuments of the conquered. His noble Friend was so ruthless and coldly vindictive as to propose, after a lapse of 1,800 years, to do that which Generals were hardly to be excused for doing on the morrow of a great victory. Had he lived some 2,000 years earlier, and stood beside the great Macedonian at Thebes when Alexander Bade spare The house of Pindarus, when temple and tower Went to the ground. His noble Friend would have pleaded to destroy that house of the poet who had sung the great deeds of the enemy. Had he gone on to Persepolis he and not Thais would have snatched up the brand to consume the palace of the Great King. But all the objections which his noble Friend had made were really matters for Committee. After opposing the Bill on the Vandal ground, on the Philistine ground, on the ordinary, unsophisticated Englishman ground, and on the "no Welsh need apply" ground, he said he would withdraw his opposition if the hon. Baronet would make certain alterations in his measure enumerating the monuments which were worthy of preservation. In other words, the noble Lord was really a more enthusiastic and utopian supporter of the Bill than the hon. Baronet himself. He wanted to have it in its most perfect form. Ancient monuments were not limited, but they did not grow up like mushrooms, and he desired to include everyone. Well, if the noble Lord would make the change he proposed, the hon. Baronet would no doubt accept it gladly. The Bill at present could only come before the House in an incomplete form, and as a step towards that state of perfection in which his noble Friend desired to see it, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) trusted it would be read a second time.

MR. LEIGHTON

said, that, speaking from the antiquarian point of view, he entirely admitted the wisdom of preserving our ancient monuments; but he opposed the Bill, because he did not think that it would adequately effect that object. It was insufficient in protecting only certain monuments and not all monuments. He should put aside all the arguments brought against the Bill on the score of a fancied infringement of private rights, because he thought such arguments exaggerated, and he should address himself to the true question—namely, the best means of preserving historical monuments. He maintained that the learned and voluntary societies of antiquaries should do this work, and not the Government. Thus, public opinion would be enlisted on their side. Had the hon. Baronet applied to such societies, instead of applying to Parliament, the threatened monuments might already have passed into safe hands by the ordinary process of bargain and sale. Before asking Parliament for extraordinary powers the powers of the law should first be tried. There existed in the minds of most men a veneration for the antiquities of their own neighbourhoods. They felt a sort of part ownership with the actual owner in them. This patriotic and almost religious sentiment should be encouraged and intensified; but Government ownership and official inspection would destroy it. By remodelling the antiquarian corporations and affiliating to them the local societies; by giving them if necessary, powers similar to those accorded to every railway company, the preservation of ancient monuments might be carried forward throughout the land, without arousing the vague apprehensions created by this Bill; without dividing historical remains into classes and thus breaking historical sequence; without the necessity of applying to Parliament for public money, for the societies would proceed by private subscription, and so without the danger of such application being refused. Perhaps the worst clause in the whole Bill was that which proposed to give the custody of monuments to Boards of Guardians and Town Councils. There was not a town in the country which did not bear witness to the bad taste of such Bodies. The hon. Baronet who was himself accustomed to read the future by the past would surely agree with him that in every country and every age the Governments of the day had been the greatest of iconoclasts? They owed the destruction of the beautiful abbeys of England, not to the people of England, who often received hospitality at their gates, but to the Government of Henry VIII. They owed the destruction of the castles of England, not to the people of England, who often found safety within their walls, but to the Government of the great Protector; and if in their own days, and almost before their eyes, he desired another example, he would ask them to remember the destruction which the Communist Government of France—the de facto Government of the time—wrought upon the fair historical glories of Paris. For these reasons he should support the Amendment.

MR. GRANT DUFF

I wish to say a word about this Bill for several reasons, but chiefly because ever since it was much talked about in the country, my constituents at Elgin have perseveringly petitioned for it. Why, I do not exactly know, but, I presume because they have had experience of the advantage of having a public authority to look after the ruins of their Cathedral, which takes so high a place amongst the ecclesiastical remains of the Scottish Middle Age. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Francis Hervey) complains that the Bill does not propose to preserve mediæval monuments. But why does it not do so. Because these are, it is to be hoped, already protected by all the intelligent members of the community. If such an Act had been passed in the beginning of this century it would probably have preserved many architectural treasures which are now lost to us; but Sir Walter Scott and the Oxford movement of 1833 between them have saved us from the reproach of neglecting our Middle-age antiquities. Interest in the antiquities to which this Bill applies awoke much later. Many of them have gone irreparably; but the House will, I trust, interfere just in time to prevent many objects being destroyed which posterity would bitterly regret, for the science of prehistoric archæology, the science which teaches us to spell out from the records of the past the unwritten story of mankind, is quite a new science, and in 30 years people will be far more familiar with it than they are now. Then the noble Lord sneered at the Celtic race. That was rather hard on Irishmen and Scotchmen; but he is a clever child who knows his own father, and I strongly suspect that the noble Lord is himself descended from the Celtic race. Nay, I believe that when prehistoric archælogy is more developed it will disclose that there is reason to believe that the noble Lord's ancestor was a Celt who sailed to the Levant with a return expedition from the Cassiterides; that he settled in Philistia, found the climate suit him, lived there, and prospered. In after-time one of his descendants, nearer ancestor of the noble Lord, married a daughter of the giant, which explains at once the noble Lord's valour in rushing to the attack, and his frequent discomfiture. Then the noble Lord told us that the proceedings of the Commissioners might interfere with health. So they might, just as the sky might fall and smother the larks; but not otherwise. Turning to the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Leighton), I find that he thinks that our national monuments can best be preserved by interesting the masses of the people in them. Of course, that is true, but how long will it take to get farm labourers to appreciate prehistoric antiquities, when an educated man like the noble Lord holds them so cheap? In the meantime frightful mischief may be done. I have myself seen monuments of this kind destroyed, simply because the country people did not know what they were. The hon. Member would like the archæological societies to do the work, but they have not the necessary organization. The machinery of the Bill is much better. It proposes seven Commissioners, all men in whom we may have implicit confidence, and gives them very moderate and limited, though sufficient, power. The Bill has really no bearing at all on the rights of property. Its only bearing is on the wrongs of property. It does not come into action at all till a man ceases to use and begins to abuse his rights. The 5th clause guards the sacred right of doing mischief in the most effective way, for the owner can force the Commissioners to give him an answer within three months. They must either let him do as he likes, or pay a fancy price for their interference. Then, if anyone is aggrieved by them, he may appeal to a Judge. The hon. Member sat down, complaining that Governments had often been iconoclastic. So they had, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) brought in hi Bill for the express purpose of making one Government the opposite of iconoclastic.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, he was glad that the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had availed himself of his right, and postponed his speech to the period of the debate when, according to the noble Lord the Mover of the Amendment, sentiment predominated. His (Mr. Dalrymple's) impression was, that it was earlier in the debate that sentiment predominated, and that it was at the close of the discussion that the common-sense of the House prevailed. The noble Lord made a variety of charges against the Bill, some of which he had made before, and some of which were new. The noble Lord had referred to the Schedule of the Bill, and had remarked upon the exclusion from that Schedule of some of the most remarkable monuments of the country; but surely it was obvious that to include in the present measure such places as Fountains and Tintern in England, and Dry-burgh in Scotland, and such as the seven churches in Wicklow, would have been ridiculous, and an affront to the different parts of the country in which those monuments were situated. The interest in those structures was such that they would be effectually protected without being inserted in an Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Dalrymple) had the authority of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) for saying that the Schedule had been drawn up by the Archæological Society in a way most likely to secure the preservation of monuments that were now in comparative obscurity. Looking at the quarter from which the Schedule came, he thought the House might safely accept it without much scrutiny. On the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson), speaking at a late period of the debate, spoke of the Bill as an interference with the rights of property. Those who raised that contention should carefully examine the Bill, and he was convinced they would be relieved from any anxiety on that score. Others spoke of the interference with private rights, and one hon. Member had said to him—"I cannot have this or that man coming into my property and capsizing everything." Now, it was for the very opposite purpose of securing the maintenance and preservation of what was valuable on private property that the Bill was framed; and it was an obvious remark to make that in those parts of the country where most care was taken of existing monuments, there would be the smallest interference. The noble Lord referred to the appearance of the pre-historic man in the Bill. Well, he (Mr. Dalrymple) would not enter on so learned a question; but he confessed that it was to him an interesting fact that the author of the Bill should be so learned a Member of the House as the hon. Baronet, in whom he believed that most people recognized a future President of the British Association. No one desired to interfere with the Archæological Societies, or to supersede their labours; and the more these Societies did, the less work would be left for the Commissioners under the Bill. No one who had any anxiety about the Bill could look at the names of the Commissioners without having the anxiety removed. The last of the names of the Commissioners was that of Dr. Stuart, who had done such good service in connection with the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and just as Dr. Stuart, in reference to the historical manuscripts, had induced many persons to enjoy the wonderful possessions which they had, so the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone was likely to preserve to the country a variety of monuments which, from ignorance or through local improvements, were liable to be removed. He (Mr. Dalrymple) had voted formerly for the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that, notwithstanding the opposition which it had met with from the noble Lord and from others, the House would read it a second time to-day.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

said, he joined with some regret in the opposition to the Bill, because he respected the purpose which the hon. Baronet had in view; and he altogether disclaimed any sympathy with the sentiments of the noble Lord who had moved the rejection of the measure (Lord Francis Hervey). He was a native of a county in which ancient monuments, castles, tumuli, and camps were far more numerous than anyone would imagine, and therefore as a Welshman it was impossible for him to regard without interest the preservation of those ancient remains. If it had been proposed to deal only with recognized monuments such as Denbigh Castle, Carnarvon, Conway, and Ruthin Castles, and many others he might name, he certainly would have had nothing to say against the measure, But the num- ber of objects which might be regarded as ancient monuments under this Bill was enormous. The definition given of "ancient monument"—it did not deserve to be called a definition—was "anything which may be regarded by the Commissioners as a monument, or a place where a monument has existed." In his own district there was hardly half a mile in which there were not three or four of these "ancient monuments;" but there were also on the hillsides many tumuli and mounds of various kinds as to which there was great doubt whether they were ancient at all. When he looked at the Bill be was alarmed at the immense power which it proposed to give to interfere with the rights of private property. He was not afraid of the great landed magnates, for they could take care of themselves; but in the Principality to which he belonged there were a great many small proprietors who could not defend themselves against invasions of the kind contemplated. On land in his own occupation there was an object which an archæological friend of his had regarded as an ancient tumulus or an ancestral tomb. When he (Mr. Watkin Williams) was going to remove it for some agricultural purpose, his friend remonstrated with him and assured him it was one of the most interesting tombs in the neighbourhood. When asked whether he had examined it, he said he had, and that it was obviously an ancient tomb. In point of fact it was an old limekiln which had been out of use for probably about a century. Similar instances might, he believed, be multiplied. With regard to the appeal which it was proposed to allow, he desired to point out that no principles were laid down on which the Court was to proceed, and in conclusion he entered a humble protest against the Bill in its present form.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

, premising that his observations expressed merely his own opinion, and that he did not speak either for the Government or any of his Colleagues, said, that he sympathized to a great extent with the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) in the object he had in view, but could not approve the means by which he proposed to accomplish that object. His objections to the Bill were, that it gave the Commissioners not only very extensive, but also very uncertain, vague, and indefinite powers; that it proposed to interfere very seriously with the existing law of settlement; that it would also interfere greatly with the rights of private property; that it would introduce into the legislation of this country a principle which, if acted upon, would, in his humble opinion, produce very disastrous consequences; and lastly, he objected to the measure that it was unnecessary. The powers conferred on the Commissioners under the 3rd clause might be exercised not only with respect to the monuments specified in the Schedule, but also with respect to any British, Celtic, Roman, or Saxon remains, or any monuments which in the opinion of the Commissioners were of a like kind to those specified in the Schedule. Now, it would be very difficult for the Commissioners to say what monuments were "of a like kind;" but he supposed it would be quite open to them to apply the provisions of the Bill to every monument which might come under the designation of a British, Celtic, Roman, or Saxon monument. Well, how would that operate? In some parts of the country there were Roman roads running it might be for miles through the estates of private individuals. If the owner of one of these estates proposed to interfere, it might be for some necessary purpose, with a portion of the road, were the Commissioners to be empowered to put a restraint upon his action in reference to his own property—were they to be empowered to purchase from him the whole of the property? Take the case of the old Roman Wall, which extended at a point east of Newcastle to the Solway Firth. Were the Commissioners to be empowered, on the slightest interference with it by the local proprietors, to buy up the estates through which it ran? If they had that power they might come into possession of a vast amount of property. This was, perhaps, an objection which might be removed by an Amendment enabling the Commissioners to deal only with the portion of the estate where the monument existed. But the Bill proposed also to alter the power of settlement. If an estate upon which there was one of the monuments in question was in settlement, the tenant for life, or any one who might happen to have the property for a term of 50 years, would be entitled to dispose of that monument, although the owner might have regarded it as the most valuable part of the estate. It would not be surprising if a tenant or lessee, who cared less for the ancient remains than for some ready cash, was found willing under these circumstances to part with what had been esteemed the dearest part of the possession. A Bill that went to that extent seemed to him to be open to very considerable objection. As to interference with the rights of property, he quite admitted that where there was a great public necessity —arising, for example, from sanitary considerations or from the need of communications between one part of the country and another— private rights must give way. But was there any such necessity in the present case? He thought not. He feared there was a growing desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to make private rights subservient not only to public necessity, but also to public convenience. It was now contended seriously that commons should be dedicated to the public; and perhaps it would be contended some day that because the public had been allowed to enjoy parks which private individuals had thrown open the owners ought to be restrained if they wished to close them. If they adopted the principle of the Bill in this respect, where was its application to cease? If they were going to preserve at the expense of private rights everything which happened to be of interest to the public, why should they confine the legislation to those ancient monuments? Why should they confine the Bill to British, Roman, Saxon, or Celtic remains? Why should they not equally provide for preservation of the mediæval monuments—of those old abbeys and castles which were quite as interesting as the Druidical remains? And why should they stop even there? Why not impose restrictions on the owners of pictures or statues which might be of great nationa interest? If the owner of the "Three Marys" or of Gainsborough's "Blue Boy" proposed to send it out of the country, were they to prevent him, on the ground that the matter was one of national concern? If they said that a certain circle of stones was of such national interest that an interference with private rights was justifiable in order to preserve it, might they not also say that a certain row of beech trees on a man's estate which gave great pleasure to persons passing by ought in the same manner to be preserved? If the logical consequences of acting on the principle of the Bill were carefully considered, he thought the House must come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to adopt that principle. He was not aware that any of those ancient remains had been very seriously interfered with; and such monuments as were mentioned in the Bill were, he thought, likely to be objects of such great interest to those on whose property they happened to be situated that they would not permit them to be ploughed up by the tillers of the soil. It was only in cases where it might be profitable to a man to turn over some portion of his estate to building purposes that there was any real danger to them of destruction or injury, and in such cases the remedy was perfectly easy, for societies like the Archæological Society might buy the property, which would in all probability be in the market. For these reasons he felt it to be his duty to record his opposition to the Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he had heard no argument advanced against the second reading which, in his opinion, might not be easily obviated by some concessions which he had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) would not object to make. He thought that when they were in Committee they could define with some degree of accuracy the monuments, tumuli, and other things, which it was sought to protect by the Bill—they would, in short, be able to lay down a definition of what the Commissioners were to deal with. As to the Commissioners being liable to be taken in by a limekiln, as the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams) had suggested, he could only say that he did not believe they would be so unwise as to take anything under their charge which was not in itself worthy of protection. There was, he might add, at present no law which would enable an owner of property practically to dedicate to the public any ancient monument on his land, and that defect the Bill would supply. As to the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that its operation would interfere with the rights of property, he would merely observe that it appeared to him to have been framed with the utmost regard for those rights —the object of the Bill was to enable a public authority to buy from the owner the right of destruction. That some such measure was required was clearly proved, he thought, by the case of Cæsar's Camp at Wimbledon, which the owner of the property—who, he regretted to say, was a Member of the House—preferred to destroy—although £5,000 or £6,000 had been subscribed to buy it—rather than take the money; an act of Vandalism which the law, as it stood, was powerless to prevent. He might add that his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone had mentioned to him since the debate began the case of a Druidical circle at Avebury which was about to be destroyed had he not stepped in and purchased the property on which it was situated. But should the Bill pass, it was his confident belief that the landowners, as a rule, would be prepared to place the monuments on their estates under its operation. There existed in France a Commission for the Preservation of Historic Remains similar to that which it was now proposed to establish, and which included within the scope of its duties the maintenance of ancient chateaux and churches. He had a letter not long ago from one of the Commissioners, who stated that, although they had no compulsory powers, yet they had not known a single owner to refuse to give his assent to the preservation of the monuments on his property. There were, he might add, no fewer than 800 or 1,000 of such remains under the protection of the French Commission and a sum of £40,000 a-year was voted for their maintenance. The Bill therefore, in his opinion, was a step in the right direction, and would, he believed, preserve some of the most interesting historical monuments in the country.

MR. GREGORY

said, that the Bill contained several provisions of a somewhat arbitrary and objectionable character. It conferred very large powers on the tenant for life to deal with the property in question, and there would be some difficulty as to furnishing the money for the purchase of the estates which the Commissioners might have to buy, seeing that it was to be provided by Parliament; but he was, nevertheless, prepared to admit that the object which the supporters of the measure sought to attain was a desirable one, and he did not think the Bill ought to be rejected at its present stage. The evil of which complaint was made might, however, he thought, be obviated or mitigated without its being necessary to pass the Bill in its present shape. It was, so far as he could see, a very fair proposal to ask for the appointment of a Commission, with power to superintend and maintain our ancient monuments; and if that could be done with the consent of the owners, so that the arrangements might be based on a voluntary footing, the objects of the Bill might be substantially carried into effect. As for the tenant for life, he might be enabled to hand over to the Commission the custody of any monuments on his estate, while the interests of the remainder man might be protected by affording him an opportunity of objecting, if he thought fit. If they got into Committee he hoped they might be able to make the Bill a good one; but he thought, on the whole, that the best course to adopt would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

thought the Bill was one which commended itself to all who took an interest in the historical monuments of the country; but, at the same time, he could not but admit that its clauses required careful consideration, so as to guard against any violation of the rights of property, and to guard the public purse against an expenditure on what were worthless as ancient monuments. He did not expect the Commissioners would mistake an old limekiln for the remains of a Roman or Saxon castle; but they all recollected how Mr. Oldbuck, in The Antiquary, was undeceived by Edie Ochiltree in regard to his purchase of the Roman camp, when the old bedesman said, "Pretorian here—Pretorian there—I mind the biggin' of it." Although the Commissioners might not have to be reminded of any such mistake, still they might err on the other side, and not preserve some monuments of the greatest historic importance. Looking to the Schedule, for instance, the Roman and Saxon monuments set out there were either stones or earthworks—thus leaving out of the scope of the measure such a building as Richborough Castle, one of the finest remains of Roman brickwork in England. He objected further to the constitution of the Commission. He could not understand why the Master of the Rolls was put at the head of it. That learned Judge was already overburdened by his judicial functions—and though the present occupant of the office was able to do the work of two men—or of half-a-dozen, for that matter—it did not follow that his successor would be a man of equal powers. In his opinion, the best way would be to appoint a Commission of 12 Members—four for each of the three Kingdoms, England, Ireland, and Scotland. He would leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say where the money was to come from.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the remarks he was about to make represented merely his own views, and not those of the Government. He confessed he was filled with astonishment at the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and other hon. Members, that this measure, so far from being an invasion of the rights of property, was a protection of them. For its contradiction there was the main principe of the Bill, which took from the owners of property those safeguards which hitherto it had always been the practice of Parliament to accord to them in analogous cases. The Bill had been ruled by the authorities to be a public Bill; but surely the owners of property ought to be entitled to the same power of resistance as they would have if it were a private Bill, by appearing by their counsel and agents before a Select Committee. Any appeal which was made against a decision of the Commissioners was now to be submitted to a single Judge, who would have very scant powers, and a jurisdiction whose extent it would be very difficult to define. If the Judge agreed with the Commissioners that the property should be taken, the owner had no appeal from his decision. If, however, this Bill had been held to be a private Bill, the owner of property would have had many opportunities of opposing it. The present measure was based upon and embodied many of the provisions of the Defence Act of 1860, which was one of the most stringent and arbitrary Acts that ever appeared in the Statute Book. Indeed, it was so stringent that the Government had been extremely cautious in extending its principle, and its compulsory clauses were not introduced into the Localization Act of 1872. Moreover, the Defence Act of 1860 was obsolete, its operation having been confined to one year only. Yet the hon. Baronet had introduced into his Bill the most arbitrary provisions of that Act for the purpose of depriving owners of their property in order to gratify his own peculiar fancy. What analogy could there possibly be between the necessity for preservation of apocryphal monuments and the defence of the country? He submitted that no case had been made out to justify the proposed interference with the rights of property. No case could be made out for depriving any man of the use of his property except for objects of public policy or for some great national requirement. We had no right whatever to alter the law and to interfere with a man's quiet enjoyment merely because he happened to have what some people might consider an ancient monument on his estate. The Bill was also full of technical defects. He entirely concurred in the objection of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with regard to the constitution of the Commission. Curiously enough, no power of sale was given to the Commissioners, who consequently, if they bought sham antiquities, or other property they afterwards wished to get rid of, had no power to do so. Then the Schedule was delusive, because it did not include innumerable ancient monuments quite as worthy of preservation as those that were mentioned. He did not pretend to be either an antiquary or a man of taste—he was particularly glad he was not a man of taste—but he wanted to know why the most important Roman remains in this country were not included in the Schedule? The new port gateway at Lincoln, for example—one of the most perfect Roman remains in this country—and near that gateway were extensive portions of the Roman Walls of the city, and the city itself so abounded in these remains that the Commissioners ought to acquire the whole. Last year a good deal was said about the stones of Shap. Those stones were very numerous, for the works of the Druids were said to be carried on from Shap to the High Street, a distance of 20 miles; and this, perhaps, was the reason why the stones were taken out of the Bill. Again, why was Shap Abbey not included? Mediæval remains had never been taken so little care of in this country as they were at the present day. He would quote, in support of his opinion, Sir G. Gilbert Scott, who, in addressing the Institute of British Architects on his election as President, said— Our old buildings too often—nay, in a majority, I fear, of cases—fall into the hands of men who have neither knowledge nor respect for them, while, even among those who possess the requisite knowledge, there has too often existed a lack of veneration, a disposition to sit in judgment on the works of their teachers, a rage for alteration to suit some system to which they had pledged themselves in their own works. The result has been truly disastrous; so much so that our country has actually been robbed of a large proportion of its antiquities under the name of restoration," and the work of destruction and spoliation still goes on merrily: while, at the public festivities by which each auto da fé is celebrated, we find ecclesiastical dignitaries, clergy, squires, and architects congratulating one another on the success of the latest effort of Vandalism. But then, on the other hand, Sir Gilbert Scott had himself been denounced for his dealings with mediæval remains, and declared to be a destroyer rather than a restorer, and he (Mr. Bentinck) thought there were good grounds for that opinion. He should like to know what the hon. Member for Salisbury thought of the late alterations at Salisbury Cathedral. If that and similar results were not arguments for including ancient churches in the Bill, he did not know what could be so considered. The hon. Baronet possessed a palatial residence in the City. Did he know what destruction of noble monuments was going on there? What more beautiful specimens of architecture could be found than the steeples of Sir Christopher Wren? yet the City of London was doing its little best to destroy them. An hon. Friend of his had a frenzy for preserving what he believed to be Cæsar's Camp at Wimbledon, and yet he was actively engaged in pulling down the steeple at St. Margaret Pattens, a chief ornament of the East end of London! There was yet a nearer example in the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, the steps of which the Board of Works proposed the other day to sweep away. Now, supposing the Corporation of London, which did not enjoy the reputation of having the highest taste, were to propose to do away with the portico and steps of the Mansion House, would the hon. Member for Maidstone oppose such a scheme or not? He maintained it was far better that these beautiful buildings should be preserved, rather than the apocryphal objects protected to by this Bill. The Bill went either too far or not far enough. If the hon. Baronet would bring forward a scheme to preserve all monuments of whatever age, on the principle adopted by the Commission in France, something might be said for the proposal. But the present measure was defective in both principle and construction, and he trusted the House would not agree to read it a second time.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

inferred from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke that he had not quite made up his mind on what ground to oppose the Bill—because it went too far, or because it did not go far enough. In his own opinion, the Bill did not in the least interfere with the rational enjoyment of property; it only prevented wanton destruction. For these old monuments the owners could not lay claim to any sentimental value, inasmuch as the very motive of the Bill was that they were about to destroy them; and as to their money value, the Commissioners would pay them the market price. To hear the speeches of the opponents of the Bill one would suppose that no such thing had ever been heard of in this House as a railway Bill, or that no man's house or garden had ever been taken away from him for public purposes. How many persons had been rendered houseless by the erection of the new Law Courts and the Midland Railway Terminus? The right hon. Gentleman said the supporters of the Bill had made out no case; but no one had ventured to deny that these ancient monuments were worthy of preservation. At present there was no law to secure that they would be preserved, and there was ample evidence to show that in many instances the process of destruction was going on rapidly. Therefore, as the Preamble of the Bill had not been controverted, he thought the supporters of the Bill had made out their case for the second reading. All the objections which he had heard stated were really objections to matters of detail which could be dealt with in Committee. It could not be said that the preservation of public monuments was not a public object, for they were part of our national history; and as to the expense which would be incurred, it would not amount to one-tenth the cost of an ironclad which went to the bottom of the sea, and nobody said anything further about it. He was in favour of the second reading on the ground of public policy, and also in the interest of the rights of private property itself. The argument as to the rights of private property was a horse that might be ridden too hard. If the rights of private property were more respected in England than in any other country of Europe, it was because they had never been strained too far. Who did more to ensure respect for the rights of private property—the nobleman who generously threw open his park or his picture gallery for the benefit of the public, or the curmudgeon—for he deserved no other title—who built a high wall round his land to shut out a view of his trees in order "not to interfere with his privacy"—which really meant the privacy of a few rabbits and pheasants? He believed that a large number of the owners of these ancient monuments, so far from objecting to the provisions of the Bill, would welcome them as a means of conferring on their country a great national benefit at little or no inconvenience to themselves.

MR. RODWELL

thought there could not be a shadow of doubt that this was a distinct interference never before attempted with the rights or enjoyment of private property. The principle of the Bill was novel and dangerous, and it behoved the House to consider the proposal well before adopting it. If these monuments were of a certain class, the Commissioners might put their Seal on the property and regulate or forbid the user of it by the owner; and upon warning to owners of the monuments specified in the second Schedule, any person who destroyed; removed, defaced, or in any way permanently or temporarily endangered their safety would be liable to the penalties of the Act. Was not this an interference with the rights of private property? If it was not, he did not know what was. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) said that private property was often taken for purposes of public utility. In no case, however, had private property been dealt with under a public Act, except where there was a great public necessity, or where the object was the preservation of the public health, or attaining some other great social advantage. Was this a case of great public necessity? If you took an inch of land for a railway the owner was entitled to appear before a Select Committee, which gave him redress or saw that he was fairly dealt with. There was no analogy between such cases and the mode in which private property would be dealt with under the Bill, which would give to owners no opportunity of saying anything. Everybody seemed to desire that these ancient monuments should be preserved—the only question was whether the Bill proposed a right and fair way of securing this object. In his opinion, the preservation of our ancient monuments ought be left to the liberality and good feeling of the owners, rather than be made the subject of legislation. Moreover, in his opinion the Bill was bad both in principle and in detail. Besides, the House ought to have some definite information as to the cost which it would entail. From this point of view it was material to know upon what principle compensation would be made—whether, for instance, the owner of Stonehenge would simply receive the value of the stones for building materials? The person whose rights were invaded would be put to expense in asserting those rights; and if he did not accept the sum allotted, he might even be mulcted in costs. The Bill was a distinct interference with private property, and he should vote against the second reading.

MR. LAW

hoped that hon. Members would lay aside all mere sentiment and prejudice, and calmly look to see what was the real issue involved in this measure. To say that the Bill involved no interference with what some people regarded as private property was, perhaps, going too far; as it was on the other hand to say that there was an interference with property as that term was generally and properly understood. The question was whether any necessity existed to take measures for the protection of ancient monuments, and if so, whether the present proposals of giving power to a body of Commissioners to watch over and protect those monuments was a reasonable mode of effecting that object. Now, after the speeches that had been made not only by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, but also by Her Majesty's Attorney General, and other hon. Members opposite, it seemed to him but too certain that many of our most interesting and valuable relics of antiquity, in a scientific or historical point of view, must be so entirely unappreciated by their owners as to be in imminent danger of destruction. This, however, he believed the House and the public desired to prevent; and, therefore, what remained for decision was whether the interference or restrictions proposed by the Bill were sufficient, and no more than sufficient, for the preservation of these national antiquities. One objection to the Bill was that it did not extend to mediæval monuments, the reason being that owners adequately appreciated that class of monuments, which were, therefore, in no danger of destruction; but if any hon. Members were not satisfied by this reason, it was open to them to move in Committee to extend the scope of the Bill. On the other hand, the Attorney General objected that the principle of the Bill would justify a similar measure for the protection of beautiful pictures or statues. To this it appeared to him (Mr. Law) a sufficient answer to say that such things as these were in no such danger. Their owners might, no doubt, part with them either by sale or otherwise, but were not at all likely to destroy them; or if they did exhibit any such insanity, there were already, as he begged to remind his hon. and learned Friend, ample means of controlling them by having recourse to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lunacy. Now, it ought to be remembered that under this Bill the Commissioners would have no power to acquire any property of their own mere motion and against the will of the owner. Suppose, for example, the operation of the Bill to be confined to certain scheduled monuments. The powers of the Commissioners would only come into play in the event of the owner being about to destroy one of those monument, in which case he might be prevented from doing so, but would receive the estimated value of the monument. Nor would there be any great difficulty in ascertaining the fair price to be paid for a monument which the owner was about to turn to account as valuable only for the stone or earth of which it was constructed. Then, again, it had been objected that no estimate had been given of the probable expense of carrying out a measure of this kind. But it would be seen that the Commissioners were to carry on their operations under the control of Parliament, which would have the entire discretion as to the extent of their expenditure, and there was some guarantee, therefore, that no extravagance would be permitted; but a country which spent some £10,000 a-year in buying Egyptian and Syrian antiquities ought surely not to grudge a few thousands for preserving upon its own soil monuments which once gone could never be replaced. He should imagine that very many landowners would be glad of the opportunity which such a measure as the present afforded for securing the preservation of ancient monuments; for the law did not allow a perpetual entail, but, under the Bill, a landowner might place any such monument under the protection of the Commissioners without parting with his property, and thus perpetuate its maintenance for the benefit of his own successors, as well as of the public. This was not a Party question, but he owned he was surprised to hear so many Conservative Members contending for the right of mere destruction as an essential element of property. He believed, however, that the majority of hon. Members approved of the principle of the Bill, which he would venture to suggest might with advantage be referred to a Select Committee to settle its details.

MR. KING-HARMAN

said, he thought it desirable that our ancient monuments should be preserved, and would support the Bill if he really believed that, as the Preamble indicated, it would lead to their preservation. He doubted, however, whether in point of fact it would not rather lead to the destruction of many of them. Looking at the Schedule under "Ireland," he found there no mention of the Round Towers or old masonry works. The reason alleged was that the public preserved them; this was not the case, for the walls of the cottages and houses around some of these old structures contained stones which had evidently been taken from these monuments. The monuments specified in the Bill were generally cairns on the top of high hills, which were held sacred by the peasantry as tombs of kings and queens, and were now in no danger of desecration; but he much feared that if they were handed over to the keeping of archæologists in Dublin, we should have enthusiastic archæologists making excursions to some of these cairns and returning flourishing the thigh bone of an ancient Irish King or Queen, just as a German archæologist had recently got hold of the thigh bone of Agamemnon. Believing that the measure would lead to the spoliation of many old monuments, he should oppose the second reading.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) that this could in no sense be regarded as a Party question; and on previous occasions when the Bill was before the House some Members of the Government had expressed their sympathy with the object of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock). He shared with his hon. Friend the desire largely felt by the House and by the country for the preservation of our ancient monuments, and he thought the country owed a debt of gratitude to his hon. Friend for having called attention to the subject, and for the perseverance with which he had endeavoured to attain his object. It had been said that the Government had intimated their intention of introducing a measure dealing with the subject. He did not think that was the case. The Government had made no promise to take up the subject, but they did say they would consider whether anything could be done. Accordingly the subject had been considered by himself and the Secretary to the Treasury, with the endeavour to ascertain if anything could be done to meet the requirements of the case, and to obviate the difficulties which stood in the way of the hon. Baronet. They had also communicated with the Trustees of the British Museum to see whether they could give any assistance. The Government did not, however, find much encouragement in that quarter;—and altogether they had seen their way much more clearly to the difficulties of dealing with the question than to any mode of overcoming those difficulties. As to the particular measure now under discussion, certain obvious difficulties presented themselves. In the first place, there was the difficulty of the constitution of the Commission. He did not mean as to the names of the Commissioners: but the Government had to consider what would be the effect of appointing any Commission of this kind which was not under their control. The result would be the appointment of a body of men, selected for their acquaintance with the subject and their interest in it, but free from all responsibility except for the preservation of ancient monuments, and therefore under no restraint as to expense. They would naturally say— "We desire to preserve this or that monument; we think it a matter of great interest; we fully recognize the necessity of compensation, and any price which is considered fair shall be paid to the owner. We have ourselves no funds, but as they are to be provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer we can act generously towards the owners of property." Thus the country might be landed in a serious expenditure. It was not a question of the stones at Stonehenge — how they were to be valued, or what was their value as old stones—for the site of the monument might be the remains of an ancient camp now become of great value for building, or of considerable importance for works for sanitary or other important purposes, or under which there might be valuable mineral rights. Thus the question of compensation might be a serious one, and it would therefore be the duty of the Government, if the Bill passed a second reading, to introduce some efficient machinery for the purpose of giving the Government greater control over the expenditure of the Commissioners. But was there not a great danger of doing more than the hon. Baronet proposed? With regard to the great proportion of our national monuments any legislation of the kind proposed was unnecessary. He believed the public feeling of the country, enlightened as it was, by the action of the hon. Baronet and other gentlemen who took an interest in this question, was sufficiently alive to the importance of the matter, and that it would be found that there was no danger—or only an inappreciably small danger—of the interesting monuments scheduled in the Bill being wilfully destroyed by their owners. But this Bill might offer a great temptation to owners to throw the burden of preservation off their own shoulders to the shoulders of the State. A man who would not think for a moment of destroying an interesting monument on his estate might, if he thought he could get it preserved by the State, go to the Commissioners and say—"I want to plough up this land or to level this property, but if you take it off my hands I won't do it." Such a man would not incur the reproach of Vandalism by destroying the monument himself, but he would get it taken off his hands if he could. This was a question of considerable magnitude, because the Bill not only provided for the places scheduled in it, but also gave a general power for making proposals with regard to any Roman or British remains, and throwing the preservation of those remains into the hands of the State. Therefore, though he did not wish to oppose any well-considered measure for the preservation of these monuments, or to stand in the way of proceeding with the Bill if the House desired to do so, it would be the duty of the Government to watch the measure very jealously, and to put a greater restraint on the proceedings of the Commissioners than was done in the Bill. And when the House came to consider the details of the Bill and what securities would be effectual, it would find that it would be exceedingly difficult to make it or any Bill effectual and at the same time unobjectionable. For his own part, he thought it would be better to consider whether they could not make provision for any special monument that might be in danger rather than undertake the task which the Bill would impose. He believed it would be very difficult to give effect to the object of the hon. Baronet, and that the greater part of the provisions of the Bill were open to objection.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

thought he had some reason to complain of the line taken by the Government on this occasion. Up to the last moment he was under the impression that Her Majesty's Government were going to support the second reading of the Bill. But not only were they not going to support the measure, but they had let loose the dogs of war upon it in the shape of the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate General. As this Bill was almost the same as one which had already twice passed the second reading, he would confine his remarks within a narrow compass. As regarded the question of expense, it would not be large, because the monuments proposed to be dealt with were not of such a nature as to require continual repair—the only expense would be the original purchase. Then as to the interference with the rights of private property—the rights of property would not be interfered with, but only the rights of destruction. Nor would even this interference be necessarily exercised —the Bill merely provided that where the owner wished to destroy any monument of the kind referred to he should give the Commissioners the option of purchase, the price to be paid being determined under the Fortification Act. Some thought that they should go further, and claim for the nation the direct and immediate right of purchase. It seemed to him wiser not to interfere unless the necessity really arose; but if they were to interfere at all, they could hardly take a more moderate course than that proposed in the Bill. It had been said that no case had been made out for the Bill, and that the force of public opinion would be sufficient to prevent wanton destruction; but so far was this from being the case that every Archæological Society in England, Scotland, and Ireland had petitioned in favour of this Bill, on the ground that these monuments were rapidly being destroyed. He had, on previous occasions, given many instances of this as regarded England, and would not occupy the time of the House by repeating them. As regarded Scotland, he might refer not only to the testimony of antiquarians, but also of several cities and towns, including Edinburgh, which had petitioned in favour of the Bill; while the Bills Committee of the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Aberdeen, had recently reported that from the fact that in their county a number of monuments of great archæological and historical importance had been destroyed, they were satisfied of the necessity of this Bill, which they hoped might become law. In Ireland the rapid disappearance of ancient monuments had been a source of deep regret to every archæologist and to every patriotic Irishman. Dr. Stokes, in his Life of Petrie, said— The number of ancient remains that even during the last century have been wantonly destroyed is so great that their enumeration would be tedious. Miss Stokes, a lady than whom no one was better acquainted with Irish archæology, had kindly furnished him with a very long list of ancient remains which had been destroyed during the present century. He would only just mention a few instances. At Clonmacnoise had been destroyed an Ogham stone, peculiarly interesting as being one of only three cases in Ireland where the inscription in Ogham was accompanied by one in Roman characters. The so-called Palace of Emania, near Armagh, had been entirely destroyed, and when Dr. Petrie had remonstrated with the owner for removing a national historical monument, that gentleman replied that "Ireland had no history." The great Rath, or Pagan Fort of Kilbannon, built on the conversion of the native Chief by Patrick, was visible in part till 1826, but had now entirely disappeared. The ruins of Holy Island, in Loch Dearg, were rapidly perishing. These buildings were erected by King Brian Boru, and from an architectural as well as from an historical point of view were of great interest. At Innes Murray the early Christian inscriptions, many of which were perfect in 1834, had all been destroyed but one; and while in 1800 there were 118 round towers in Ireland, more than 40 of them had since perished. Moreover, the reasons which led to the destruction of these were often of the most trivial character. The round tower of Dungiven, which had a special interest because the date of its erection was supposed to be known, was destroyed on account of an idea that treasure was concealed in its foundations. That of Drumcliffe was taken down about the year 1840, in order that the materials might be used in building a bridge. Dun Angus was being pulled to pieces in pursuit of rabbits. St. Manchan's Church—Tempul Manchain, as it was called—was not long ago surrounded by curious arched cells, supposed to have been those of early Christian anchorites; but they were all destroyed a few years ago by an economical Scotch tenant. The remains of the church and round tower on Ireland's Eye, which had a special interest, because the tower was connected with the church — the square base serving as the chancel was taken down by the proprietor 30 years ago, lest it should fall on his cows. In some cases even an excess of reverence had proved fatal, as in the case of the unfortunate descendant of the Prophet, who was put to death in order that a shrine might be erected in his honour. In the same way the carvings on the base of the great cross at Clonmacnoise had been worn away by the pious peasantry, who thought that if they could stretch their arms round the sacred symbol some special blessing would be secured. Some of the churches on the west coast of Ireland had life-size wooden figures of Saints, which were placed beside the altar. One of these, in the Island of Innes Murray, though obviously early Christian, was taken about 30 years ago by a Protestant missionary for a Pagan idol. Accordingly, he took it out to sea and threw it overboard. The House, however, would be glad to hear the venerable image rose to the emergency, swam boldly to shore, and quietly resumed its old place. He would only mention one other fact. Though we might in many cases infer Shakespeare's opinions, there was, he believed, only one case in which we had the actual expression of his own sentiments, and it was one bearing directly on the object of this Bill. It appeared that there was in his day a question of enclosing some land near Welcombe, on part of which was an old camp known as the Dingles, commanding a ford over the river near Stratford-on-Avon. The corporation sent an agent named Greene, who was a cousin of Shakespeare's, up to London, to protect their interests. Parts of Greene's diary were preserved, and under the date of the 1st of September, 1615, was an entry that his cousin Shakespeare told him he could not "beare the enclosing of Welcombe." In the last volume of the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, one of our archæologists related the result of an attempt to see the Long Stone, a monolith described in the last century by Rudder in his History of Glocestershire. On inquiring of a farm labourer the way, the man replied, "Ah, Sir, you be too late." It had just been blown up, broken to pieces, and thrown away because it cumbered the ground. He would implore the House not only to pass this Bill, but to do so before "it be too late."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, at the risk of being included in the category of "the dogs of war," he would ask the House to listen to a few reasons before they adopted the principle of the Bill. The only result which had hitherto attended the exertions of the hon. Baronet and his friends had been the destruction of an ancient monument at Wimbledon. The hon. Baronet had failed to address himself to the main objection to the Bill, which was that, for the purpose of preserving ancient monuments, he had violently set aside those wholesome safeguards by which property in this country was protected. When the hon. Baronet first introduced this Bill, four years ago, he (Mr. Lowther) put down an Amendment to the second reading to the effect— That it is contrary to the usage of Parliament that a measure should be proceeded with in the form of a Public Bill which deprives any individual of his private rights in his estate (named in the Bill), without notice duly served upon him, and without an opportunity being afforded him of being heard against the same. The hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said that the principle of the Bill had already been sanctioned by railway legislation. But the contrary was the case. The principle involved in that Amendment had been always held sacred by the House in the case of railways, canals, and other works; so that there was a Standing Order that notice should be served in the month of November on the person whose property was proposed to be taken, so that he might have ample time to take measures to protect himself. They had been told that to talk of the rights of property in this case being interfered with was a mere bugbear, and that was the argument of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). The hon. Gentleman did not regard with any great veneration the rights of the lords of manors; but the principle of this Bill went a great deal further than even the hon. Member might be disposed to go. The hon. Member for Reading also said that the principle involved in the Bill had worked well in France; but it was not the principle involved in the Bill that had worked well in France, but the voluntary principle. Many who, like himself, sincerely desired to see these national monuments preserved and handed down to posterity would rather rely on the good taste and feeling which had hitherto animated the great bulk of the people of this country than on any compulsory enactment of the Legislature. They would rather rely on that Conservative instinct which had always animated the owners of the soil than embark in a course of legislation which, sooner or later, must sap the foundations of the principles on which the safety of property was based.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman) that this Bill was not only objectionable in principle, but also in detail. Now, although the discussion had extended over a considerable time, yet he was anxious to point out to the House one or two matters of detail that were most objectionable. The measure conferred most extraordinary and unusual powers in regard to dealing with private property. It enabled the Commissioners who were to be appointed under its provisions, because of their supposed fitness for the work, to transfer their powers to another body. The 16th clause enabled the Commissioners, at any time they thought fit, to transfer to any local authority or borough in or near which an ancient monument existed, all the powers conferred upon them by the Bill. He could understand the Antiquarian Society, or members of the Royal Society, or eminent persons who were learned in art, being entrusted with the powers contained in the Bill; but he thought it would be admitted that in recent times that House had shown a strong indisposition to allow bodies appointed under a Parliamentary sanction to act through delegates, and in this case it might happen that the Commissioners would delegate to the corporation of a small town, powers which they were altogether unfitted to exercise. There was another provision of the Bill to which he wished to refer —namely, that enabling the Commissioners, or any person authorized in writing by them, at any time between sunrise and sunset to inspect or enter upon the property of another, and if necessary to break into it. Now, at midsummer the sun rose at a very early hour, and set at a very late one, and he could not conceive a state of things in which it would be necessary to authorize the eminent personages who were mentioned in the Bill to break a gate or climb over a wall. He objected to any such power as that being conferred upon any persons whatsoever by Act of Parliament. It was quite sufficient, he thought, to attempt to transfer private property to public usages, and not force proprietors to keep persons constantly on the watch, lest trespassers should come on their property in the guise of agents of these Commissioners. The third and last objection which he entertained to the Bill was that owners of property in the country if they had upon their estates a national monument would inherit not only the property and the monument, but a perpetual liability to a lawsuit in a Court of Equity. That was a responsibility to which no proprietor ought to be exposed unless a great public necessity was shown for it. No such necessity had been shown to exist in regard to ancient monuments. One case had been quoted—namely, that of Cæsar's Camp; but he thought that they might leave the public opinion of the country, which had always been considered so strong, to exercise its just influence upon the conduct of those who might feel disposed to violate the public conscience for the sake of private gain. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had stated that the proprietors in France would be subjected to a similar law to that now proposed if they had not always facilitated the Government in its efforts to preserve the national monuments. Well, he did not think the proprietors of property in England ought to be considered less public spirited, and that public spirit would be best evinced by allowing them to preserve the monuments gratis than by forcing upon them a Commission to be supported out of public funds which they strenuously resisted.

EARL PERCY

said, there appeared to be a great confusion in the speeches of hon. Members between restricting landed proprietors from destroying monuments on their estates, and restricting them from allowing them to fall into ruin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the county of Londonderry (Mr. Law) had stated that this Bill would not apply to any landowner who did not intend to destroy what he had got. But he would like to ask whether the owners of the monuments scheduled in the Bill were to engage not to destroy them? He hoped before that was done that the accusation against the owners of the 72 monuments placed in the Schedule involved in such an assumption would be supported by stronger evidence than had yet been adduced. Then the House had been told that the Commissioners had no power to acquire any land, except with the consent of the owner. That might be the case in point of law; but in point of fact he wished to be informed in what "acquisition" consisted. The Commissioners were not only to take possession of these monuments, but they were to have access to them at all times, and power to deal with them in any manner they pleased. They had also power to acquire an acre and a quarter of land around these monuments; and some of them were of a very extensive character. His main ground of opposition, however, to this Bill was, that it struck at the root of all private property. Would they deal with a gallery of pictures in the same manner? There was nothing to justify this extraordinary exceptional legislation with regard to real property as opposed to personal property. They were now entering on a new system of legislation. They were taking the property of owners, not for utilitarian purposes—for railways, and purposes of that sort—but for purposes of sentiment, and it was difficult to see where they would stop.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 163: Majority 48. (Division List, No. 28.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday, 16th March."

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "a" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Select Committee,"—(Mr. Gregory,)—instead thereof.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.