SBLBORN/ANA 163 
ourselves by quoting the following remarks on Stonehenge by 
the Right Hon. James Bryce. 
“ It seems to most of us extraordinary that a monument of the immense value 
and interest of .Stonehenge, should ever have been allowed to become the property 
of a private proprietor. Where has the Legislature been, and -vhere has that 
intelligent and large interest in the history and antiquities of the country been, 
that a monument of this character should have been allowed to be in the hands 
of a private proprietor, who is in a position to put a fence round it, and 
say that the public shall be excluded from it ? I venture to think that there 
is hardly any country in Europe where such a thing could happen. I have 
visited most places of historic interest on the Continent, but I have never 
been anywhere on the Continent where 1 can remember that anyone has 
been able to act in such a way in regard to public rights and interests ; and 
seeing what has been done in this country at Stonehenge, I think that the 
Legislature should not allow such a state of things to continue any longer. 
I should hope that the case will not present any great difficulty to the Law 
Courts, because it seems to be an a fortiori case to the Giant’s Causew.ay. 
Our prehistoric ancestors may not have taken any great interest in the Giant’s 
Causeway — there is no reason to think they worshipped there, and there is 
no reason to think they buried there ; but Stonehenge must have been a place 
of public access and resort far before there was any England, and far before 
our laws, for it was anterior to our law. Whether it was originally a place of 
sepulture, or a place of sacrifice in connection with Druidic or any other form 
of worship, or whether it was connected with the astronomical ideas of antiquity, 
this much is certain— that it was not put up to be looked at from a distance of 
half-a-mile. If it was put up for those who wanted to worship, or offer sacrifices, 
or if it was for the purpose of burial, the people of those days must have had 
free access to Stonehenge ; and therefore from lime whereof the memory of 
man runneth not to the contrary, and from long before that time if I may 
so express myself — from long before any time we can think of as belonging 
to history, there must have been a right of free access to Stonehenge. I hope 
very much that the action will be persevered in by the Society and those who 
support it, and I think we may confidently look forward to a successful issue. 
If an absurd demand of ;^50,ooo, or anything like that sum, is made, it could 
not be entertained ; because if one were to estimate the value of Stonehenge 
by the benefit the proprietor can derive from it, assuming he has a right to 
charge a shilling for everyone who comes to see the place, even so he could 
not get a very large income from it in the year.” 
The Report deals with a multiplicity of interesting cases, 
including the effect of the now defunct Port of London Bill on 
the amenities of the Thames, the protection of East Hill, 
Hastings, under the Harbour Railway scheme, the regulation 
of Oxshott Heath, the various steps taken to preserve the view 
from Richmond Hill, the proposed purchase of Purley Beeches 
and of Oak of Honor Hill, the acquisition of Hainault Forest 
and the proposed extensions of Hampstead Heath and Brockwell 
Park. It is illustrated by eleven excellent landscape views. 
The Report of the Kent and Surrey Committee, which is also 
illustrated by several interesting views of Purley Beeches, 
Merrow Downs and old farms near Ockley, is, of course, of 
immediate interest to our Field Club. It alludes to the natural 
objection of some of the inhabitants of Mitcham to the lease of 
most of their Common to a Golf Club, and to the proposed 
regulation of Malden and Horsell Commons and Gomshall 
Marsh. In the discussion of Walton Heath we see no reference 
to the Roman Villa. The faintly-marked traces of this, with 
