OUR HISTORICAL MONUMENTS.
1lHE general meeting last week of the National Trust forPlaces of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty introduced a new era in our attempts to save our most precious possessions from ourselves. The efforts of the Trust used to be private ; henceforth they will be national. For that is the meaning of the change in the constitution of the Trust which was effected in the last Session of Parliament. The Trust was formed in 1895, and was placed under the Companies Acts in 1904, but it still represented only the enlightened and magnanimous labours of unofficial persons. Last Session, however, it was sanctioned by Parliament, and new powers were vested in it which enable it to acquire lands and buildings by purchase or gift and to hold them without license in mortmain. It can now maintain and manage lands as open spaces, and buildings as places of resort or instruc- tion, and may accept property in trust for any public purpose. The government of the Trust is to be composed of about fifty persons, nominated by various artistic and scientific bodies and by the Vice-Chancellors or Senates of the older Universities. Membership is open to subscribers and donors and to those who forward its objects. All this is a considerable step, but we shall not be satisfied till the State can prevent private owners from destroying historical monuments which by virtue of their associations are really the property of the whole nation. Powers of compulsory purchase are necessary ; it is inconceivable that they would be abused under the proper restrictions, and in countries where they exist there has never been even a suggestion that they have been abused.
England has long been behind other countries in pre- serving her treasures. There is hardly a comparison with the laws of the most civilised countries of Europe which is not to our disadvantage. The care of a nation for the relics which, like milestones, mark its progress along the road of art, religion, and Constitutional liberty ought to be in direct proportion to its civilisation. Yet in England it notoriously has not been so. We remember within recent years the destruction of the Edwardian enceinte of the old castle at Berwick-on-Tweed because the sturdy "common-sense" of railway shareholders or directors would not tolerate the deviation of their line from its direct course for the sake of some old stones. Then there was demolition of the old tithe-barn at Peterborough ; and the Trade Guild which owns the Plummer Tower at Newcastle-on-Tyne actually proposed that the Town Council should buy the tower in order to carry out an " improve- ment." We can understand that the total disappearance of many buildings would be an improvement, but we do not appreciate the word as applied to a proposal for abolish- ing the Plummer Tower. Whitgift Hospital at Croydon, too, did not easily escape destruction. These are only examples at hazard of vandalism which ought never to have been allowed, or of projects which ought never to have been put forward. The fundamental difference between foreign protective laws and ours is that they give the State the power of compulsory expropriation.. Our Act of 1882 placed certain monuments in the care of the Commissioner of Works. Other monuments might be added to his list at the request of the owners. An inspector was appointed, but the office was not refilled after the death of General Pitt-Rivers in 1900. However, that does not matter now that the National Trust has received increased powers ; it may be relied upon to do its own inspec- tion with the satisfactory knowledge that it is no longer a " private " voice crying in the wilderness of demolition and neglect. In 1892 the Act of ten years before was reinforced with some new clauses, the chief of which gave to County Councils similar powers to those of the Com- missioner of Works. The significance of this departure was, that it introduced the principle of decentralisation. "Local " pride in the preservation of ancient buildings and beautiful places is the strongest and most effectual kind of pride. County Councils began to consult local anti- quarians, and the Councils came into touch with the National Trust, and thus, for the first time, there was a. real and intimate linking up of the anti-vandalistic influences. In decentralising we are certainly on the right-- lines. A head centralised body there must be ; but the:' tentacles of that body can only be made to reach far and.: wide by a devolution of authority.
The French method, though very thorough, is too highly centralised. It is the system of classement. Officials in Paris classify the monuments which ought to be cherished, and the defect, of course, is that the line between the classed and the not classed is too rigid. Not to classify a relic is by implication to withhold from it that protection which it deserves in any case, and may deserve in almost as high a degree—if it is near the dividing- line—as the noblest monuments in France. In Germany and Italy the system is decentralised ; Italy has ten super- vising Boards, and in Germany each State appoints a Committee or a custodian responsible to the Minister of Public Instruction or the Minister of the Interior. In both France and Germany the right of expropriation depends roughly on the public " utility " of the monu- ment or site. This condition leads to an interesting and important social question. Is it a matter of public utility that people should be educated and inspired with pride in their country by free contact with the unspoiled relics of their past ? Other countries have no hesitation in saying " Yes " to this question, but we in Great Britain have not got so far as to acknowledge that it is well worth while for the State to put the question, answer it, and see that the answer is acted upon.
Nevertheless, we have come nearer to the only logical conclusion, and such new powers as the National Trust has been granted will, we are sure, be used as wisely and zealously as the Trust has used its too limited opportunities in the past. The preservation of monuments and scenes of natural beauty requires discretion as well as zeal. It may happen that more harm than good is done by zealots who will not, or cannot, discriminate. If , a new railway is essential to the prosperity of a certain district, it would be preposterous to say that it should not be built because the country through which it would run is beautiful. Nor is everything worth preserving merely because it is old ; otherwise we might refuse to mend our roads because road-making means the displacement and shattering of stones which are hundreds of thousands of years old. Real common-sense is required, just as the sham common-sense of some commercial minds has to be resisted. ' The constitution of the new, government of the National Trust satisfies us, for the very reason that it is likely to be well informed and sensible as well as enthusiastic. We hope that it will be supported cordially by the public, so that it may make the best use of its new openings. The danger which still hangs over Crosby Hall will remind every one who was likely to forget of the great need to perfect all the machinery by which the community may be safeguarded against the whims or exaggerated interests of individuals. If Crosby Hall is saved, the long anxiety of every person who has a sense of civic decency will not have been endured in vain if it- helps indirectly to advance such a body as the National-Trust in public esteem and usefulness.
Previous page
