Without in the least wishing to impugn its legal soundness,
we deeply regret Mr. Justice Farwell's decision in regard to Stonehenge. By it not only is Sir Edmund Antrobus's exclusive ownership established, but it is clearly stated that the public have no right of access to Stonehenge. We have not space to go into the argument in virtue of which the rights of private property have been thus rigidly applied to a great national monument. We cannot help thinking, how- ever, that this is a case in which an adverse decision, by enlightening the public, will clear the way for more vigorous action. Now that it is realised that Sir Edmund Antrobus has not only the right to enclose Stonehenge, but, if he so chose, to build a brick wall round it, exclude the public altogether, or sell the stones to an American millionaire, a powerful impetus will be given to the movement for acquiring the monument for the nation. For this reason we cannot agree with Mr. Justice Farwell when he said that the case ought never to have been brought. As the Times remarks in an excellent leading article in the issue of the 20th inst., "it is hardly reasonable that it should be in the absolute discre- tion of a private individual to control the future of so remark- able a relic of the earliest inhabitants of the British Isles."
Bank Rate, 21 per cent.
Previous page
