832 REPORT — 1888. 



others have been surveyed ; plans, drawings, and sections have been made of them, 

 which are contained in tlie book now upon the table, which is open for the 

 inspection of the members. I hope to publish these shortly. Besides these monu- 

 ments which are included under the Act, a good deal of useful work has been done 

 by communicating with the owners of other monuments, without using the Act. 



I think it speaks well for the landowners that so many should have been will- 

 ing to accept the Act, considering that few of them take much interest in antiqui- 

 ties. There is not a more public-spirited body in the world than the much-abused 

 landowners of England. 



Those who have refused have generally done so on the grounds that they wish 

 to remain responsible for their own monuments, and T think I may say, from my 

 own observations, that there is very little damage to prehistoric monuments going 

 on at the present time. Public opinion has done more than any Act of Parliament 

 could do, and it appears to me that it is generally known throughout the country 

 that any wUful damage to the monuments would be universally condemned. 



But it is well to consider the operation of the Act, and how it may be improved. 

 The provision which makes it illegal, ever after, to destroy the monuments that are 

 now placed under the Act by their owners, and to enable magistrates to punish 

 offenders summarily, appears to me excellent and worthy to be retained. But 

 there are defects to which it would be well to give attention. By the present Act 

 the Government are made responsible for all the monuments that are included, 

 which entails expense, and as members of Parliament generally take very little 

 interest in ancient monuments, and the great object of Government must always be 

 to curtail expenditure, additions to the list are not as a rule encouraged. 



1 last year obtained eleven new monuments, but I was told that this was too 

 many and that some must be omitted, so I selected three of the least important and 

 they have not been included. This, I think, is objectionable, the two provisions 

 of the Act which I have mentioned should be applied as widely as possible. If the 

 provision making Government responsible for the preservation of the whole of 

 them is altered, there will be no inducement on the part of the authorities to 

 reduce the number to be included. At present local archaeologists wash their 

 hands of the matter, thinking that there is a Government Inspector whose business 

 it is to look after the monuments. This is a mistake : the proper function of the 

 Inspector is simply to look after the monuments that are included, and to advise 

 the Commissioners — Not to obtain new monuments for the Act. I have done so 

 because I was charged in a special manner with the organisation and working of 

 the Act on its first introduction, but it is beyond the proper functions of the 

 Inspector. I have done it as a private individual who takes an interest in the 

 subject, and any other private individual may do the same. Moreover, it is 

 impossible for an Inspector to stand sentry over all the monuments that are put 

 under the Act. The police are requested to look after them as well as they can, 

 but damage must occasionally be done which local archaeologists are in a better 

 position to ascertain and to remedy, using the provisions of the Act for the 

 purpose. 



It may be that my position as a landowner, as Lord Stalbridge said in his letter 

 asking me to take the appointment, may have had some effect in enabling me to 

 persuade some of the other landowners, but you cannot ensure always having a 

 landowner for an Inspector, and it is desirable now to put the Act on a working 

 footing. It is much to be wished that local archaeological societies should be 

 made to feel themselves responsible both for the inclusion of monuments under the 

 Act and their preservation afterwards ; the Act arms them with full powers for the 

 purpose if they think proper to use it. 



At present no archaeological society has rendered any assistance whatever, but 

 Sir Herbert Maxwell, in Galloway, has not only offered his own monuments, he 

 has persuaded his neighbours to do the same. What Sir Herbert Maxwell can do 

 others equally public-spirited can do also, if it is clearly understood that it rests 

 with them to take action in the matter, and I think it should rest with them, 

 because, being local, they can do more than a single Inspector charged with the 

 supervision of the whole of the monuments of Great Britain. I think that the 



