Sale of Pearse letter (and similar artifacts)

whisky_galore

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fears-padraig-pearse-letter-written-three-days-before-his-death-could-leave-country-in-dublin-auction-767469.html

What is peoples' take on this, should the State step in to purchase things like this or is money better spent elsewhere?
The National Museum can more of less compulsory purchase ancient artifacts for a fraction of market value, pretty much a 'finder's fee' why not these?

Del.Monte

whisky_galore wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/fears-padraig-pearse-letter-written-three-days-before-his-death-could-leave-country-in-dublin-auction-767469.html

What is peoples' take on this, should the State step in to purchase things like this or is money better spent elsewhere?
The National Museum can more of less compulsory purchase ancient artifacts for a fraction of market value, pretty much a 'finder's fee' why not these?

According to what I've read the National Museum already has several similar letters and this one is not that exciting - the latter my opinion. Apparently it sold for €700k the last time out - it wouldn't be my cup of tea. Put the €1.5m estimate towards a National Transport Museum first, but of course that won't happen either. The letter will probably be better looked after by a private collector in any event.

Willfarman

If the state let it be known it was going to buy any item there will always be a mystery bidder appearing.
A solicitor acting for some unseen party and the said item will make an extraordinary amount of money...
The state cannot be seen as having an open Cheque book for every aul cobweb.

Del.Monte

@ whisky_galore

You're in luck the Pearse letter has just failed to sell as bidding only reach €800k - so much for all the hype. Get in there quick.

Arsemageddon

whisky_galore wrote: »

The National Museum can more of less compulsory purchase ancient artifacts for a fraction of market value, pretty much a 'finder's fee' why not these?

The difference between ancient artefacts and the Pearse letter is that the letter has an identifiable owner whereas ancient artefacts do not.

The National Monuments Acts state that all archaeological objects found after the enactment of the act in 1930 are the property of the Irish people and are curated and stored by the National Museum. The purpose of the acts is to stop looting of archaeological sites.

The museum does occasionally give financial rewards to individuals for turning in particularly significant artefacts. This is not in any way comparable to compulsory purchase.

The National Museum, National Library etc, have been chronically underfunded for years, I think it would be far more beneficial to invest money in providing the facilities to properly store and conserve the documents and objects we have than to splash out €800k on a single letter.

Manach

As above poster stated. As well under European and Irish law, there has to be a reasonable level of compensation when acquire a citizen's property, which treasure trove had by-passed by being one of the inherited powers of royal perogative.

Peregrinus

Manach wrote: »

As above poster stated. As well under European and Irish law, there has to be a reasonable level of compensation when acquire a citizen's property, which treasure trove had by-passed by being one of the inherited powers of royal perogative.

But in order to claim the reasonable level of compensation the citizen has to show that the item concerned is his property.

Clearly, an object like the Pearse letter mentioned in this thread is somebody's property, and the owner generally won't have too much difficulty proving his title. Treasure trove more usually applies to property which has been abandoned, or whose owner can't be identified. There's no absolute rule that says that you acquire ownership of such property simply by finding it, or simply by virtue of owning the land on which someone else finds it.

Manach

True, but after a reasonable amount of time/effort on the finder's behalf to discover the true owner, ownership does devolve to the finder (treasure trove being one of the exceptions AFAIR).

pedroeibar1

Manach wrote: »

True, but after a reasonable amount of time/effort on the finder's behalf to discover the true owner, ownership does devolve to the finder (treasure trove being one of the exceptions AFAIR).

FWIW the provenance of the letter was in the past questioned but it has been verified and the present vendor has clear title.

What I find more interesting is it’s not the original surrender letter, it’s a copy. Pearse re-wrote the surrender letter when in prison when asked to do so by a Capuchin priest. That is what was on sale.

The State already owns an actual surrender order, signed by Pearse, and co-signed by Connolly and MacDonagh. The wording of that order is almost identical to the copy letter (that did not sell) and is a much more authentic and important document. The craze for 1916 paraphernalia drove the price up to €700k a few years ago, the buyer banked on a quick killing and it did not work. At €800k it is overvalued. I’m glad the State was not suckered into it by the hype. Well done to Heather Humphries and her team.

Del.Monte

I don't think that Heather Humphries and her team deserve much credit and I'm sure that it was more to do with penny pinching than anything else. The letter in question is of little genuine interest save for the fact that it was apparently written by Pearse and it's no harm to see a speculator burnt.

Peregrinus

Manach wrote: »

True, but after a reasonable amount of time/effort on the finder's behalf to discover the true owner, ownership does devolve to the finder (treasure trove being one of the exceptions AFAIR).

Ownership does devolve to the finder, but only because we have a rule to that effect. Property is a social construct, and we could just as easily have a rule that ownership of unclaimed property devolves not to the finder, but to the State. Or, a rule that such property is not something in which ownership inheres. Or pretty well any other rule you can think of.

The point is, laws requiring compensation for the acquisition of a citizen's property don't kick in unless the item concerned is the citizens property. And it's only the citizens property if we, as a community, decide that it is, and adopt a rule to that effect.

We've already done that with respect to objects found within the precincts of a national monument. But if we wished, we could do that with respect to, say, objects of historic, cultural or artistic signficance found anywhere.

Jellybaby1

Any views on why the Capuchin priest would have asked a man awaiting execution to re-write the letter?

Del.Monte

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Any views on why the Capuchin priest would have asked a man awaiting execution to re-write the letter?

Maybe he anticipated the coming of eBay.

Jellybaby1

Del.Monte wrote: »

Maybe he anticipated the coming of eBay.

Was thinking along the same lines. But the Capuchins passed it on to the Franciscans. I wondered if Pearse had asked the priest to deliver it to some of the garrisons that wouldn't have received any news or believed what they were told? Surely Pearse wouldn't have been thinking, 'I'll write this for the Capuchins/Franciscans so that in the future they may profit from it'. More likely he would have seen it as historic value for the nation. It all seems a bit of an unusual thing to do, or ask someone to do, while they were preparing to meet their maker.

pedroeibar1

Del.Monte wrote: »

Maybe he anticipated the coming of eBay.

Not so, yer éminence. Being a Capuchin it would have been a 'grey market' deal.

Jellybaby1

Ahh! I see.

whisky_galore

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Any views on why the Capuchin priest would have asked a man awaiting execution to re-write the letter?

To acquire a 'holy relic' of sorts, perhaps?

Peregrinus

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Any views on why the Capuchin priest would have asked a man awaiting execution to re-write the letter?

Some elements of the Four Courts Garrison (which had advanced out of the Four Courts to occupy a number of nearby properties) were still holding out, unsure about the veracity of claims that Pearse had surrendered. Pearse was asked to write out a second surrender instrument which the priest would then take to the holdouts in the hope that they would then surrender (which is what happened).

Pearse wasn't "awaiting execution" at the time. The letter was written on 30 April or 1 May. The court martial wasn't held until 2 May. Pearse was shot on 3 May.

pedroeibar1

There is a full page on this topic in yesterday's Sunday Times (which I have not yet read).

kildarejohn

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Surely Pearse wouldn't have been thinking, 'I'll write this for the Capuchins/Franciscans so that in the future they may profit from it'. More likely he would have seen it as historic value for the nation. It all seems a bit of an unusual thing to do, or ask someone to do, while they were preparing to meet their maker.

For what its worth, a possible reason for Pearse and the priest deciding to write the letter would have been in order to pre-empt any British attempt to publish a falsified version. If Pearse feared the British would publish a falsisfied version of his surrender to make him appear a coward for propaganda reasons, then he would have been keen to ensure a correct version of his surrender was in the public domain.

Jellybaby1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Some elements of the Four Courts Garrison (which had advanced out of the Four Courts to occupy a number of nearby properties) were still holding out, unsure about the veracity of claims that Pearse had surrendered. Pearse was asked to write out a second surrender instrument which the priest would then take to the holdouts in the hope that they would then surrender (which is what happened).

Pearse wasn't "awaiting execution" at the time. The letter was written on 30 April or 1 May. The court martial wasn't held until 2 May. Pearse was shot on 3 May.

Yes of course, I note the dates now. Although technically he was awaiting court martial and not awaiting execution, he knew the risks and would have been aware that the sentence could be execution.