Vol 55

16 Barney SloaneCity, from his premises in Lothbury and thenFinsbury Circus, he had collected a renownedmuseum of antiquities covering every periodof occupation of the City. Wishing to ensurethat the collection, well known by antiquariansthroughout Britain and the Continent, andvisited on at least one occasion by royalty in theperson of Prince Albert, should enter publichands rather than be dispersed, Smith hadentered into negotiations with the Corporationof London. The City authorities refused to takeon the collection, as did the British Museum,following subsequent approaches to them. RoachSmith had valued his expenses in gathering thecollection at some £300 but it would appearthat officers in the Antiquities Department ofthe Government considered the worth to be farlower. The issue became a cause celebre, and inJuly 1855 petitions were submitted to the Houseof Commons, and a memo to the Treasury,signed by influentials of the day. On 3 May 1856,the Illustrated London News (from which this briefextract is drawn) was able finally to publish anannouncement that following pressure from theAntiquities Department to the British Museum, asum of £2000 had been agreed for the purchase,lamenting in summation that 'it is much to beregretted that the directors of our national establishmentsshould appreciate so little whateveris really national'! Roach Smith retired fromLondon that year, but his collection survives tothis day (for a fine potted biography of RoachSmith see Hobley in London Archaeologist vol 2 pt13 (1975), 328-33).Members of our Society also had their trialsand tribulations at this time. Our ReverendThomas Hugo was in 1855 very active in theBritish Archaeological Association, and heldoffice on their council. In an alarming andembarrassing affair, he had brought forwardaccusations of a terrible sort against the Association'sTreasurer of the day, apparently relatingto the misappropriation of funds at a certainexcavation. An Extraordinary General Meetingwas convened to consider a motion to removeHugo from office. Factions developed and aconsiderable debate ensued, but the membersdecided outright that the hapless Hugo was guiltyof impugning the name of the Treasurer and hewas ejected from the Association forthwith (JBAA10, 88). It may have been a reporter friend ofone of the anti-Hugo camp who quite viciouslyreported in The Athenaeum in October 1858, onthe failure of the arranged hosts of a LAMASouting to Enfield to appear, that 'the unhappyexcursionists found themselves floundering inthe antiquarian shallows of the Reverend ThomasHugo'! What irony it would be if Hugo's forcedexpulsion from the BAA (no matter whetherdeserved or not) had catalysed his will to establishour own LAMAS?One penultimate piece of news is not (as far asI am aware) London-related, but deserves widercirculation in the light of the current Treasure Actand the associated very positive agreement madeby DCMS to support the Portable AntiquitiesScheme from this year onward. It is tucked awayin the Archaeological Journal (12 (1855), 200), so Ithink it worthy to quote in full:A few weeks since, as a servant was choppingwood, the log of wood which had served fora chopping board for several years suddenlysplit and out flew fifty guineas of the reignsof Charles II and James II. These were atonce sent to the Lords of the Treasury,who, having allowed the British Museum toselect such as were required for the nationalcollection, sent back to the proprietor theremnant and also the amount paid by theMuseum for the selected pieces. It is hopedand believed that the liberality displayedby the Lords of the Treasury upon thisand other occasions will be a means ofpreserving from destruction many objects ofinterest and value.I could not possibly speculate on what the view ofthe DCMS (or indeed of the current Chancellor)would be on a request to return to this Treasuryledapproach, but would very much like to thinkthat in this particular case the largesse shown byHer Majesty's Government found its way in turndown to the lowly woodcutter! Fifty is such anice, round number, is it not?AND FINALLY...Subscription to LAMAS in 1855 was 10/-, or 50pin current parlance. Using the fabulously crudeestimate of 2.5% inflation over the last 150 years,that would according to my calculations equala sum of £20.30. Members should not panic,as Council have no immediate intent to raise itto this dizzying height, but it does demonstratewhat a fantastic bargain membership is in the21st century! Many, many happy returns!!