CAB129-45 — Page 300

Page 300 of

587

Page-300 of 587

236Craighatial : 17/4/51 (5pm)

237

THIS DOCUMENT THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MADEST GOVERNMENT)

CONFIDENTIAL

C. P. (51) 111

17TH APRIL, 1951

CABINET

COPY NO. 31

THE STONE OF SCONE

Memorandum by the Attorney-General

I have given further anxious thought to the question of instituting proceedings in connection with the removal of the Stone of Scone from Westminster Abbey and I have reviewed all the evidence obtained by the police in the course of their enquiries.

2.

J

I am satisfied that it would be unwise to prosecute for larceny or for sacrilege. The felony of larceny consists in 'fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith...taking something away... with intent permanently to deprive the owner thereof." There is no doubt that the individuals concerned in the removal of the Stone were putting forward some sort of claim of right: if they honestly believed in that claim, although it was ill- founded in law or fact, that would afford them a defence. Moreover, it would be most difficult to establish any intention permanently to deprive the owner. To deprive the owner temporarily is no theft a fact which led to the alteration of the law some few years ago to meet the frequent cases of motor cars being driven away, used for a few days and then abandoned, If in the present case those who removed the Stone said (as they probably could truly say) that their object was simply to get the Stone to Scotland and by depositing it there to raise a political controversy which might result in the Stone being allowed to remain, say, in St. Giles Cathedral, that would be a defence. It is always difficult to say how Juries will react: my own impression is that on the facts here a Jury would probably not convict of the felony of larceny.

3.

Similar considerations apply to sacrilege, an offence consisting in breaking and entering a Church with intent to commit a felony therein. In the present case one would have to establish an intent to commit the felony of larceny and similar difficulties would arise.

4.

There remains a possible charge of malicious damage to property. The wooden throne in Westminster Abbey was damaged in the course of the removal of the Stone, the oak seat being slightly split and a wooden batten which held the Stone in position being broken. The latter has been repaired on previous occasions. I have personally examined the damage which was rather worse than I had understood. None the less it seems clear that the damage can be made good in a way which would conceal its existence. The cost of making good the damage would be negligible. It would be difficult, however, to assess the diminution in the value of this ancient throne by the fact that this damage had been caused to it. There is no doubt that the damage to the throne was an act of vandalism which it would be difficult to defend. I have, however, although not without hesitation, come to the conclusion that I should not direct a prosecution in respect of it. In a way the damage to the throne was incidental and collateral to the main offence. I do not belittle it but the fact is that public attention Pheben foncentrated on the removal of the Stone Anglez prosesation which had no reference to the Stone might seem to some an anti-climax. Moreover,

-1-

238