xii 
give notice to the Commissioners, who might then, within a month, 
refuse to consent. If they did not refuse, the owner or occupier 
might proceed to deal with it as he proposed ; but if they notified 
their refusal, the owner or occupier would not be allowed to 
interfere with the monument. Then there were compensating 
clauses ; and there was a clause which provided that the Com- 
missioners should have access to those monuments, either for 
themselves or for persons whom they might authorize, at any hour 
of the day or night, if necessary for the protection of such monu- 
ments. 
Mr. St. Aubyn said he feared there would be great difficulty 
in carrying such a Bill into operation. It interfered—he would 
not say with the duties, because he held it to be the duty of every 
person upon whose land a monument of this kind was found, to 
preserve it—but it certainly interfered with the rights of private 
property to an extent which it was not likely would be accepted. 
For example, the Cross on St. Michael’s Mount was only a few 
yards from the Castle; and under this Bill, the Commissioners 
might be enabled to put up a railing which would disfigure the 
place, and to prevent all access to it by others, while they claimed 
perpetual access to it for themselves. This would create a degree 
of license which would lead to considerable abuse, and cause 
numberless quarrels and lawsuits. In Cornwall, this point was 
one of great interest, for its monuments liable to be scheduled in 
sucha bill were extremely numerous; in fact, he supposed there 
was not a single parish in the county in which there was not to 
be found a cross, or some druidical remains, some holy well, cliff 
chapel, or other monument, to which the schedule would apply. 
He was afraid therefore that the Bill, as it stood, was too strin- 
gent in its provisions. At the same time, he must not be 
understood as not desiring to give his adhesion to any reasonable 
and workable scheme for the preservation of our national and 
historical monuments. He had written to Sir John Lubbock, and 
had also spoken to him on the subject; telling him of his appre- 
hensions with regard to this county. Sir John Lubbock’s reply 
held out some prospect of amendment, but did not state what 
direction that amendment would take. Sir John said:. “In con- 
“sequence of the suggestions we have received, the Bill has been 
“considerably modified in form, and indeed re-drawn, though not 
“much altered in substance. Sir Roundell Palmer, Mr. Bouverie, 
“and Mr. Beresford Hope will put their names at the back of the 
“ Bill, if we can get Mr. Lowe’s consent to its introduction. With 
“this object we have sent him a copy, and are now waiting his 
“reply.” Now, considering that this was written on the 4th of 
May, and that no reply had yet been received, it was probable 
