Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:08:36.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The law and practice of Treasure Trove

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2012

G. F. Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I do not propose on this occasion to make any contribution to the exceedingly obscure and difficult question of the origin of the law of treasure trove. The writer who has most recently discussed the subject, Mr. Cecil S. Emden, states the object of his article as being ‘to emphasize that, the law of treasure trove being indefinite, the practical difficulties in its administration which may arise are due not so much to the complexity attaching to particular cases as to the haze in which the origin of the law rests, and to the casual manner in which the rules have taken shape’. Where many better qualified writers have too often, like the celebrated ‘Mr. Parker, made the case darker, which was dark enough before’, further discussion by one who has no legal qualification is hardly to be encouraged. I shall confine myself therefore to a consideration of the definition of the subject, of the rules governing the administration in recent times, with especial reference to this country, and to the bearing of these rules on the interests of archaeology. Such references to older law and usage as cannot be avoided are made without any claim to original research.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1930 , pp. 228 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 228 note 1 In the Law Quarterly Review, vol. 42 (1926), pp. 368–81Google Scholar, reprinted in the Numismatic Chronicle, ser. v, vol. ix (1929), pp. 85 ff.Google Scholar

page 228 note 2 The notes to Mr. Emden's article mention all that it is necessary to recall in the way of earlier discussions, with the exception of the useful article by Blanchet, Adrien and Grueber, H. A. on ‘Treasure Trove, its Ancient and Modern Laws’, in the Numismatic Chronicle, ser. iv, vol. ii (1902), pp. 148–75.Google Scholar This embodied a translation of M. Blanchet's communication entitled ‘Les Lois anciennes relatives à l'invention de trésors’, in the Procès-Verbaux et Mémoires du Congrès International de Numismatique réuni à Paris en 1900, which is especially valuable in respect of the history of the subject in France. Reference may also be made to the articles by Munro, R. in the Juridical Review, xv, 1903, pp. 267–77Google Scholar, and Anderson, J. in the Scottish Historical Review, i, 1904, pp. 74–80 (both on the Irish Ornaments case), and to Professor B. Pick's article, ‘Die Ansprüche der Museen auf Schatz- und Gräberfunde’ in Museumskunde, vol. xi, pp. 113–22.Google Scholar

page 229 note 1 Cp. also Halsbury, The Laws of England, vol. i, p. 531 note.

page 229 note 2 De Legibus (ed. Travers Twiss), vol. ii, pp. 269–70.

page 230 note 1 ‘The truth is that the object which the law of treasure trove is now invoked to aid is diametrically opposed to the object which it was originally devised to subserve. Its original intention was to secure to the Crown a not inconsiderable source of income; it is now invoked, on the contrary, to ensure the preservation of objects of antiquarian value for the public benefit. The Crown has long ceased to assert its rights in its own patrimonial interest.’ Juridical Review, v (1903), p. 276 (Editorial Note).Google Scholar

page 230 note 2 e.g. Selden Society, vol. v, p. 52.

page 231 note 1 1886, vol. xliii, p. 342.

page 232 note 1 Halsbury, op. cit., vols. i, p. 531 note, and vii, p. 213. See also Law Reports (1903), 2 Ch., pp. 598–614 (the Irish Ornaments case).

page 233 note 1 50 & 51 Vict. c. 71. Halsbury, op. cit., vol. viii, p. 247 note. See Blanchet and Grueber, op. cit., p. 162, for this and later rulings.

page 233 note 2 Mr. Justice Stirling in Attorney General v. Moore, 16th October 1891, cited by Blanchet and Grueber, loc. cit., L.R. 1893, 1 Ch. 676. Cp. Halsbury, op. cit., p. 247.

page 233 note 3 4 Edw. I, stat. 2.

page 234 note 1 It will be found printed by Blanchet and Grueber, loc. cit., p. 168.

page 235 note 1 ‘returned’ as printed in the Circular and in the Num. Chron. is a misprint, which has remained undetected for some forty-five years.

page 236 note 1 See Halsbury, op. cit., vol. ix, p. 521.

page 237 note 1 See also J. Anderson in Scott. Hist. Rev., i, p. 79, on the feeling on this subject in Scotland.