HC Deb 29 May 1911 vol 26 cc712-4
Mr. AMERY

asked the Attorney-General on what grounds he directed the trustees of the Bedford Library to withdraw Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" (John Bunyan's copy) from the sale fixed for 26th May; whether he is aware that withdrawing such a book may prejudicially affect its sale value; whether he is aware that on 11th July the trustees have to find £3,100 to pay off a mortgage; and whether, having caused the sale of the book to be postponed, he proposes to recommend the Government to assist the trustees from public funds to pay off the mortgage?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

It is not correct to suggest that I directed the withdrawal of this copy of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" from the sale. In consequence of further information supplied to me I did inform the president and vice-president of the Bedford Literary Institute that it must not be taken that I assented to the proposition that the book was the absolute property of the Bedford Literary Institute, or that it could be sold by the institute for its own purposes or benefit as claimed by the institute. I also informed them that I desired to make further investigation, and that, having regard to the possibility of the book being sent out of the country by the purchaser, I considered that the sale ought not to take place until I had had the opportunity of making fuller inquiry. The president of the institute and those acting with him, very properly as it appears to me, thereupon and in accordance with my view came to the conclusion that they ought not to proceed with the sale that day. In answer to the further questions, I do not believe that the temporary withdrawal of the book from the sale will prejudice the effect of its sale value. It does appear that the institute has to find a considerable sum of money in the month of July to pay off a mortgage, but I have reason to believe that an extension of time could, if necessary, be obtained. Every effort will be made to complete the inquiries at an early date. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. AMERY

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the deed of mortgage containing the power of sale, and thereby directly authorising the mortgagee, if necessary, to sell this copy of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" was executed on 14th January, 1886, in pursuance of an order of Mr. Justice Chitty, dated 25th November, 1885?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I am aware of that fact, but it must be pointed out that this particular question did not arise when the matter was before Mr. Justice Chitty. The fact that this is included in the schedule does not in my opinion controvert the proposition that the book was bought by public subscription, and that therefore it is the subject of a public trust.

Mr. AMERY

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if the mortgage of £3,100 is not paid off by July 11 the mortgagee will have the right to sell the property of the Literary Institute, including this copy of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs"?

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I do not want to go into this controversial matter, but I may say that I am aware of the state of things. I have seen the president and the vice-president of the Literary Institute, and have gone fully into the matter. They have placed every information before me. They have placed the documents before me, including the particular document to which the hon. Member refers. There are other documents of which the hon. Member is not aware which caused me to make further inquiry, because I am not satisfied that the institute or the mortgagees can do as they please.

Colonel GRIFFITIH-BOSCAWEN

May I ask whether if the Literary Institute show that they are really entitled to sell, the Government will refund the full costs they have been put to in consequence of the Attorney-General's act? I wish to press that question.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I do not think there can be any question of extra costs. Before the hon. Gentleman presses any question I think he should know more of the facts. I do not want to go into details regarding it. The Literary Institute took the view, quite innocently, but I think not quite accurately, that there was no material on which it could be suggested that there was any public trust, and that they had an absolute right to deal with the book as they chose, and, therefore, any delay that has arisen must be attributed to their having supplied that information.