The Times Letters on the Sale of Stonehenge, 1915

In October 1915, Stonehenge was sold at auction for £6,600, a price that Lord Eversley criticized as a lost chance for public ownership, noting his unsuccessful £10,000 offer in 1901 to secure it for government protection—thwarted by the owner’s £50,000 demand. The National Trust recently contemplated buying it but deemed the over £10,000 asking price too high and couldn’t raise funds in time. The estate agents, Knight, Frank, and Rutley, clarified that Sir Cosmo Antrobus, the owner and tenant for life, set a lower auction reserve despite feeling pressure to maximize the sale. Mr. C. H. E. Chubb, the buyer, insisted he didn’t purchase Stonehenge as an investment, expressing surprise at the Trust’s absence and considering lower admission fees for soldiers. Despite post-sale offers exceeding his purchase price, Chubb rejected rumors of selling to an American millionaire, stating he wasn’t eager to part with it.

The Times, October 6, 1915

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir,—The sale by auction a few days ago of Stonehenge for the comparatively small sum of £6,600 will, I think, cause regret in many quarters that the opportunity was lost of vesting this most important national monument in some public body, and of restoring to the public the access to it, free of charge, which had been enjoyed for countless centuries.

It will be recollected that 14 years ago litigation was undertaken with this object. The claim was made that two well-worn ways leading up to, and through, the outer circle of stones were obstructed by the enclosure, which was erected partly with the object of guarding the stones, but mainly for the purpose of enforcing a charge of admission of 1s. a head.

Those of us who were engaged in this attempt were worsted in the suit and were heavily mulcted in costs. It was not generally known, however, and could not be stated at the hearing of the suit, that at an early stage of the proceedings we offered to purchase the monument and a few acres of Down land surrounding it for the sum of £10,000, with the purpose of placing the monument under the full protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. The effect of this would be that the Government would be charged with the duty and cost of guarding and preserving the stones, and that access of the public to them would be secured, free of charge, for ever.

The then owner of the property did not object to a sale, but he said that his price was £50,000. For this sum he had already offered the monument to the Government, and when it was rejected, on the ground that it was altogether exorbitant, he threatened to sell the stones to an American millionaire, who would ship them across the Atlantic. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the offer and threat were verbally made, very properly replied that if an attempt was made to remove the monument he would send a regiment from the camp on Salisbury Plain to prevent it.

In spite of this rebuff, the excessive price was insisted upon, with the result that the suit was proceeded with. Since then the admission fees have been maintained, and I am informed that the visitors to Stonehenge have been only one-fourth in number of what they used to be. The net produce from the charge for admission has averaged the last three years £320, after deducting the cost of guarding and preserving it. The fees for admission during the last half-year have been greatly reduced in consequence of the war.

When, a few weeks ago, the intended sale of the monument was announced, I would gladly have made an effort to raise a sum for its purchase, with the object of undoing the wrong which had been done in 1901. But I found that, in view of the many claims arising out of the war, it was impossible to raise by subscription even the moderate sum which appeared to be the full commercial value of the monument, based on the admission fees.

There remained, however, the possibility that the monument might be purchased by some public body, such as the National Trust, who would maintain the charge for admission to it, until more favourable times, when it would be possible to reduce or abolish that charge. In this view, the National Trust, at my suggestion, entered into a correspondence with Messrs. Knight, Frank, and Rutley, the agents for the sale of the Amesbury estate. The society had no funds at its immediate disposal for such a purpose, but among its generous supporters there would probably have been found those who would advance the purchase-money on loan on the security of the admission fees.

It was necessary, however, before applying to any such friends to know the price demanded for the monument. The society was informed by the agents that the owner could not name a price, but was prepared to entertain any offer from the National Trust above the sum of £10,000—a price evidently based upon the offer made for it 14 years ago.

The society replied to this that, after careful consideration, they had come to the conclusion that the minimum price named by the owner was altogether excessive, particularly in view of the exceptional conditions consequent on the war, and that they were unable to make an offer of that amount, or above it.

The reply of the agents to this, on September 17, was "that the vendor, who is a tenant for life of the property, would not be justified in selling Stonehenge previous to the auction except at a price which was considered by us (Messrs. Knight, Frank, and Rutley) to be high." They added:—"The reserve at the auction, however, is a low one, in our view, and is thousands of pounds below the amount mentioned in our previous letter," namely, £10,000. They suggested that the National Trust should be represented at the auction.

It was thus practically admitted that the price named by the owner in the previous letter was, in the opinion of the experienced agents who advised him, too high by some thousands.

The letter was received by the National Trust on Saturday, September 18, three days before the sale by auction. It was impossible, in this short interval, to make arrangements for finding the possible purchase-money. The society, therefore, was not represented at the auction, and made no bid.

The monument was bought for £6,600 by a gentleman resident in the neighbourhood, who has stated that he has bought it as an investment, but with the full intention of doing his best to preserve it—a promise which I doubt not he will fulfil.

Nevertheless, however, it is to be regretted that the monument has not become the property of some public body, with the prospect of the reduction or remission of the entrance fees.

I may be permitted also to point out that the price obtained at the auction, while it confirms the opinion of the agents who conducted the sale, is also striking proof that the sum offered for the monument in 1901 was most generous, and such as, in the interest of the entailed estate and of the public, should have been accepted.

I am your faithful servant,
EVERSLEY.

Abbots Worthy House, Winchester, Oct. 1.

The Times, October 7, 1915

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES

Sir,—We have just read the letter written by Lord Eversley on October 1 and which appears in The Times of this morning.

Sir Cosmo Antrobus is very sorry that the National Trust did not buy Stonehenge at the auction, and in view of Lord Eversley's letter he desires us to communicate to you the following facts:—

On July 20 last the secretary of the committee of the National Trust wrote to ask the price which would be accepted for Stonehenge, and on July 29 we replied that we were not in a position to quote any definite price, but that if an offer of anything over £10,000 were made we should be pleased to see our client upon the matter.

No answer was received to our letter until September 17, which was only four days before the sale, when the secretary wrote thanking us for the information afforded, and intimating that the National Trust were not prepared to make an offer at any such price.

We replied the same day, pointing out that we had suggested a figure which in our opinion it would be necessary for the National Trust to give if they desired to purchase Stonehenge by private treaty, as the vendor, who was tenant for life, would not be justified in selling Stonehenge previous to the auction except at a price which was considered by us to be high. We added that the reserve at the auction would be a low one, and in fact thousands of pounds below the amount mentioned by us in our letter of July 29, and we thought if the National Trust desired to become possessors of Stonehenge they should be represented at the auction.

We also telephoned to the secretary on the Monday (the sale being the following day) as he was not available on the Saturday, asking that the National Trust should be represented at the sale if they had any desire to own Stonehenge, adding that if they were prepared to bid even £6,000, it would be worth their while to come to Salisbury.

We now learn from Lord Eversley's letter that no one bid on behalf of the National Trust, although there were three bidders for Stonehenge at the auction, the highest price offered being £6,600, at which figure the property was sold to Mr. Chubb.

Sir Cosmo Antrobus, as tenant for life of the Amesbury Abbey Estate, felt that he should not dispose of Stonehenge prior to the auction sale, and without competition, except at a price which was considerably beyond what we are afraid must be termed the ordinary commercial value.

When Stonehenge was offered by auction, we were advised that the figure to be fixed as the reserve should be the best price the property might be expected to realize having regard to its intrinsic worth, without taking into consideration what might be called the sentimental value which attaches to a monument of such historic interest.

Sir Cosmo Antrobus, being most anxious that Stonehenge should be preserved as hitherto, imposed such conditions for its protection as he was advised by his solicitors he had the power to sell under.

We are, Sir, your obedient servants,
KNIGHT, FRANK, AND RUTLEY.

Hanover Square, W., Oct. 6.

MR. CHUBB ON LORD EVERSLEY'S LETTER

Mr. C. H. E. Chubb, of Bemerton Lodge, Salisbury, the owner of Stonehenge, had his attention called to Lord Eversley's letter in The Times of yesterday with regard to the recent sale of the monument and the position of the National Trust.

Mr. Chubb pointed out that in one respect Lord Eversley had been incorrectly informed. "I have never said that I bought Stonehenge as an investment. Before the sale I never discussed Stonehenge with a view to purchase with anyone, and at the time of going to the sale I did not even know any figures as to the receipts. I think I have said before that when I went into the sale-room I had no intention of buying, and I certainly did not look upon it as an investment."

With regard to the position of the National Trust, Mr. Chubb said he had had no communication from the Trust, and expressed surprise that as the Trust is so desirous of acquiring the monument it was not represented at the sale.

Asked if he had formed any plans for the future of Stonehenge, Mr. Chubb said:—

"I have had such a short time since the sale that, although I have been repeatedly asked what the plans for the future are, I have been unable to form any. One has not yet got used to the idea of owning Stonehenge. It has, however, occurred to me that as there are so many soldiers in the neighbourhood of the monument they should be admitted at a greatly reduced fee."

It will be remembered that the purchase price of the monument was £6,600, and, as was anticipated, Mr. Chubb has had several offers at higher figures. Within a day or two of the sale he received a telegram from a gentleman, whose name is widely known throughout the country, offering a substantial advance upon the purchase price. Mr. Chubb has also been approached from other quarters.

Discussing these offers, he remarked with a smile: "There is no American millionaire in the background, and he would not get it if there were. I am not eager to sell Stonehenge either to the National Trust or anyone else."

Click to embiggen