TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 829^ 



In 1882 a Bill was passed through Parliament known as the Ancient Monu- 

 ments Act, to enable those who desired to do so, to place the ancient monuments 

 belonging to them, under protection of the Government, and to make it illegal for 

 future owners or others to destroy them : also to enable local magistrates to punish 

 summarily, with a fine of 51. or imprisonment for one month, offences committed 

 under the Act. No power is taken to compel any owner to place his monument 

 under the Act, but provision is made for a small annual expenditm-e in order to 

 preserve the monuments offered voluntarily by their owners. A schedule of certain 

 monuments was attached to the Act, without the consent of the owners, merely to 

 indicate the monuments to which the Act applied, but these, like any others, had to 

 be voluntarily offered before the Government could accept them. Any other monu- 

 ments not in the schedule could be accepted, but only after the olier of them had been 

 laid 40 days before Parliament, in order, I presume, that the country might not be- 

 come charged with the preservation of monuments that were unworthy of protection. 



In November 1882, 1 was asked by Lord Stalbridge, in a complimentary lettei, 

 written by desire of the Prime Minister, to undertake the oiRce of Inspector, inti- 

 mating at the same time that my position as landowner would place me in a favour- 

 able position for dealing with other landowners to whom the monuments belonged, 

 and I accepted the post, hoping to render a public service, not, perhaps, sufficiently 

 considering the difficulties that I should have to encounter, and the amount of time 

 that would have to be devoted to it. 



A Permissive Act naturally implies that there is some one in the country who 

 desires to make use of it ; whereas, as a fact, no owner has voluntarily offered any 

 monument to be put under the Act, except one to whom I shall refer again 

 presently ; all have had to be sought out and asked to accept the Act, and of the 

 owners of scheduled monuments the larger number have refused. 



Sir John Lubbock was chiefly instrumental in passing the Bill through Parlia- 

 ment, although in the condition in which it actually passed it was not his Bill. He 

 had proposed to make the Act compulsory in the case of some of the more impor- 

 tant monuments, but the proposal had been overruled on the ground of its being an 

 improper interference with private ownership. 



Being a member of the Liberty and Property Defence League, I have lately 

 received a list of 55 measures which have been brought before Parliament in the 

 session of 1888, which that body have thought it desirable to oppose on account of 

 their interference with private property, nearly every one of which would have dealt 

 more hardly with the owners of property than the Ancient Monuments Act would 

 have done had it been made compulsory. But all these measures have been proposed 

 by members of Parliament with the view of catching the votes of particular con- 

 stituencies, whereas the ancient monuments have no votes to give and very few 

 people to vote for them. Sir John Lubbock had included his own monuments in 

 the original schedule, but finding that the Act in its final form was purely permis- 

 sive, and not believing, as he told me at the time, that anyone would voluntarily 

 make use of it, naturally being unwilling to put his own property at a disadvan- 

 tage, by being the only one to come under it, he at first hesitated to sign the deed 

 for their inclusion in the Act, though he did so readily after the adhesion of other 

 owners assured him that he would not stand quite alone. 



Finding myself involved in the matter I have done what 1 could to work it 

 out, and with some success. 



The accompanying map of Great Britain (see next page) shows the monuments 

 that I have been the means of obtaining by the consent of their owners. 



The Pictish Tower at Mousa in the Shetlands, which is well known to be the 

 best preserv»»d monument of this class in the country, has been included by the 

 owner, Mr. Bruce, and some necessary repairs have loeen done to it by the Govern- 

 ment. In the Orkneys the owners of the scheduled monuments declined to make 

 use of the Act, but they are well looked after. The same applies to the Bass of 

 Inverurie, the Vitrified Fort on the hill of Noath, the pillar stones at Newton, in 

 the Garioch, and the British settlement at Harefaiilds, in Lauderdale, which latter, 

 however, is in such ruinous condition that the remains of it are scarcely worth 

 preserving. The Suenos stone near Forres ; the Cairns at Clava, on the banks of 



