NATURE 



THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1875 



THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL 



IT is so far gratifying that Sir John Lubbock's bill for 

 the preservation of the few remains of our ancient 

 monuments that time and the ignorant or sacrilegious 

 hand of the spoiler have left, passed the second reading 

 by a respectable majority on Wednesday week. The 

 Committee was fixed for yesterday, and we hope the bill 

 will pass through the ordeal with its main principle and 

 provisions intact. As our readers are doubtless familiar 

 with the purpose and main details of the bill, which has 

 been before the public for three years, it is unnecessary 

 to expound them here, especially as we have already 

 done so in a previous article (Nature, vol. vii., p. 297). 



The objections urged against the bill, both in the House 

 of Commons and in the Times article of Monday, seem to 

 us cither frivolous or inapplicable. They may be all 

 summed up in the statements that the bill interferes with 

 the sacred right of private property, and that it is unneces- 

 sary, as private owners and the public generally are fully 

 awareof the value of our historic and prehistoric relics, and 

 that no special provision is required for their preservation. 



As to the objection that the bill will interfere with the 

 individual rights of property, we can hardly believe 

 that even those who most strongly urged it really 

 believe that this objection will hold water. Were the bill 

 as it stands passed; into lavif, landowners on whose 

 estates any ancient monuments are situated that the 

 Commissioners thought came under the operation of the 

 Act, would be in exactly the same position to the relics as 

 before, with the exception that they would not be allowed 

 to do anything tending to their injury or destruction. 

 And we hardly think that even any of the honourable 

 objectors to the bill would openly declare that they held 

 the right of destruction of a national monument to be 

 one of the rights of private property. Nearly all the 

 objectors expressed their respect for the remains left 

 behind by the previous populations of this country, and 

 their anxiety that no harm should come to them ; and 

 this the bill proposes to accomplish in a way that can- 

 not possibly be done so long as these monuments are the 

 absolute property of private individuals. 



For the opponents of the bill in Parliament, as well as the 

 Times, may talk as they will of the public spirit of the 

 counti-y being a sufficient safeguard against the ruthless 

 destruction of these relics which all but the lowest class 

 of phihstians must regard as precious ; but there is no 

 doubt whatever that for want of a provision such as that 

 contained in the bill, many of the most valuable of our 

 ancient monuments have suffered grievous and irreparable 

 harm. No more forcible instance could be adduced than 

 that of " Cffisar's Camp " at Wimbledon, which, under the 

 eyes of the public, and by members of that public whose 

 " spirit " is so much lauded, is being rapidly obliterated 

 from the land. No one can at present prevent it. And 

 over all the country there are remains of equal value 

 whose preservation it is nobody's business to see to, and 

 which therefore, by destructive time, by philistian tourists 

 and owners, or ignorant farmers and peasants, are gradu- 

 ally being made to share the fate of Csesar's Camp. Had 

 such a bill been passed a century or even half a century 

 Vol. XI. — No. 286 



ago, how much valuable material might have been saved 

 to the student of history and antiquities, to the investigator 

 into the progress of civilisation and of the human race ! 



The Times, for some inscrutable reason, has seen 

 meet to oppose the bill to a great extent on practical 

 grounds, as if its purpose were to preserve every relic of 

 the past that might come to light, no matter at what 

 expense to the public welfare and convenience. But the 

 writer of the article either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes 

 the purpose of the bill altogether ; we believe that all the 

 monuments enumerated are so situated, are at such a 

 distance from the " busy haunts of men," that their 

 preservation neither now nor at any future time is 

 likely to interfere with the convenience and welfare 

 of the existing population. It is simply stupid to 

 speak in this connection of fragments of old walls and 

 tesselated pavements imearthcd in London ; Sir John 

 Lubbock himself, we believe, and those who support the 

 bill, would have no hesitation in sweeping away any ancient 

 monument whatever, if it could be really shown that it 

 stood in the way of the progress of the country and the 

 race. But in the Times article there is an unmistakable 

 inclination to doubt the " utility " of taking any care at all 

 to preserve the monuments left by our predecessors ; the 

 writer evidently cannot see that it serves any " practical " 

 purpose. Not even any of the opponents of the bill 

 objected to it on this score. The objection is similar to 

 that which the same paper urged against the Arctic Ex- 

 pedition, and might with equal force be urged against 

 every undertaking and every pursuit that had not some un- 

 mistakable so-called " practical " end immediately in view. 

 Were such a principle to have sway, then all science 

 might be " thrown to the dogs ;" but it is too late in the 

 day to bring it forward : and with regard to our ancient 

 monuments, we feel sure that all the intelhgent portion of 

 the nation would revolt were it proposed to take no further 

 care of them, but allow them either to crumble or be 

 carted away. There is no security against such a fate 

 for them unless by some such enactment as that which 

 the bill proposes. And, after all, we believe that the 

 Times itself would advocate the preservation of even a 

 fragment of tile, if it could be shown that it would in any 

 way conduce to the highest good of the race. 



Sir John Lubbock's reply to the objections urged in the 

 House of Commons is so admirable and so much to the 

 point, that we shall conclude by giving it almost entire. 

 There is a certain touch of well-deserved scorn in his 

 remarks upon some of the trivial objections which were 

 brought forward. 



" It would not be denied by anyone," he said, "that our 

 ancient monuments were gradually disappearing, victims 

 of the increased value of land and the demand for road 

 material and building stones. Now, he asked hon. 

 members to look at the ancient monuments in their own 

 districts mentioned in that bill, and tell him which of 

 them they would see destroyed without regret. Was it 

 Silbury Hill, the grandest sepulchral monument, perhaps, 

 in Europe ? Was it Avebury, the most remarkable of the 

 so-called Druidical structures ? Was it Stonehenge, 

 enigmatical and unique ? Was it Arthur's Round Table, 

 or the RoUrich stones, Kitscoty House, or VVayland 

 Smith's Forge, dear to all readers of Sir Walter Scott ? 

 Or, turning to Scotland, was it the curious Dun of Dorna- 

 diUa ? Was it the Burgh of Moussa, the only one, he 

 believed, mentioned in the Sagas, and which is even now 

 nearly perfect ? Was it Sueno's Stone .' or the Cats 



