Art. 2.-THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.

1. A Guide to the various classes of Documents preserved in the Public Record Office. By S. R. Scargill-Bird. Third edition. London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1908.

2. Studies in English Official Historical Documents. By Hubert Hall. Cambridge: University Press, 1908.

3. Bibliothèque de l'École nationale des Chartes. Paris: Picard, 1835, etc.

4. Archivalische Zeitschrift. Munich: Ackermann, 1876, etc. 5. Les Archives de l'Histoire de France. By C. V. Langlois and H. Stein. Paris: Picard, 1891.

6. Revue des Bibliothèques et Archives de Belgique. Brussels: Misch et Thron, 1903, etc.

7. Guide to the Manuscript materials for the History of the United States to 1783 in the British Museum, etc. By C. M. Andrews and F. G. Davenport. Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1908.

THE origins of the national archives occupy such a prominent place in the best modern text-books of historical bibliography that we may fairly assume the existence of a wider interest in the subject than is usually aroused by the perusal of departmental Bluebooks. In any one of a round dozen of scholarly monographs we can read the life-history of Domesday Book, and of the almost unbroken series of judicial and ministerial enrolments which illustrate the domestic history and foreign relations of this country. Visitors to the interesting museum erected on the site of the old Rolls Chapel are able to view the iron-bound chests and leather pouches which formed the primitive receptacles of priceless records. There too they may see specimens of ancient charters and writs, under successive devices of the royal seal, or bearing the sign-manuals of wellinstructed kings, together with tokens of a wealth of State-papers and historical autographs that could scarcely be matched in any other country.

The romance of the archives has also an archæological interest which is frequently demonstrated by English antiquaries. The ancient palaces of the kings of England were naturally selected as the repositories of records; and we are told that these were as precious

to our sovereigns as the relics and regalia beside which they were deposited. Closely connected with these ancient treasuries of records were the strong-rooms in Westminster Abbey, in the Temple Church, and in the Rolls Chapel itself, which has superseded all other repositories. From a very early date this classic site, commemorated by Matthew Paris and associated, after his time, with a long succession of famous judges and divines, was apparently destined to be the lasting receptacle of the public records. Whether this advantageous position is due, as the latest historian of the archives seems to think, to the central position of the Rolls Chapel mid-way between the fortress of London and the palace and courts of Westminster; or whether its later pre-eminence is due to the departmental change whereby the guardian of converted Jews was transformed into the keeper of the Rolls of Chancery, we need not pause to enquire. In any case, the earliest custody of the public records is marked by many strange vicissitudes and many quaint devices down to the year 1838, when the sixty scattered Record Offices of the metropolis were forced, by the pressure of public opinion, to yield up their contents to the new repository on the Rolls estate.

The history of a younger branch of the national archives, the State-papers, runs a course parallel to that of the legal records, traversing historic scenery that is scarcely less romantic. The evolution of the State Paper Office of the early Victorian period from the king's 'study' at Westminster and the royal library at Whitehall is indeed an instructive change; while the history of the great departmental collections, including those of the royal household, is full of antiquarian and personal interest.

At the same time it must be admitted that a large proportion of this official literature does not make pleasant reading to those who are jealous of national credit. The documentary treasures of which we are justly proud are, after all, the fortunate survivors of a great débâcle. We have certainly good reasons for believing that the records preserved to us form by far the more important portion of the entire series; but even the famous Chancery enrolments are incomplete. The total loss that we have suffered in respect of original instruments and detached Vol. 212.-No. 422.

D

documents can scarcely be estimated; and apparently no serious attempt has ever been made to calculate the extent of the deficit in individual series.

It is true that foreign archives have probably suffered more extensive damage than our own; but these losses have been largely the outcome of invasion or civil war, while ours are chiefly due to the inefficiency or apathy of the official custodians. The almost incredible recital of these misdeeds may be perused in the reports of parliamentary committees during the eighteenth century; and the charges have been repeated by modern antiquaries. Some of us will recall the brilliant passages in which the late Prof. Maitland described those shameful scenes; and a fairly comprehensive sketch will be found in the most recent story of the archives. Painful as this story is, it has a moral that must be impressed upon the public conscience. The heritage of the ages must be closely guarded by its official trustees, for moth and rust can corrupt even the treasure of kings. Unfortunately the prerogative of the Crown has for a long time past been impaired in several important particulars. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries legal records and State-papers were removed from official custody with complete impunity. The records of the Assize Courts throughout England have been abandoned since the reign of Edward IV to inadequate local custody; and the bulk of these records have long since perished. Even in the present day State documents are openly sold by booksellers whose title the most zealous official would scarcely venture to question. Besides the outstanding judicial records, there are many others that would be regarded abroad as 'departmental or 'communal' archives. The fate of these does not immediately concern us here. That it is trembling in the balance was clearly shown by the report of a Treasury committee in 1901; but, as matters stand, we are not entitled to claim more than a small proportion of these local records' as official documents.

Such was the treatment of the ancient archives of this country from their earliest inception down to the accession of Queen Victoria. Their primitive but not insecure custody in royal palaces or churches had been exchanged, during the eighteenth century, for emergency

quarters in numerous defective repositories, where the ravages of hungry vermin and the greed of ill-paid officials completed their destruction. Here, moreover, the records were almost as inaccessible to the public as in the days when lions roared and arms clashed within the Tower, or when watchmen in coats of mail stood on guard outside the Treasury at Winchester.

The very fact of the preservation of the earliest records in company with the regalia and the royal treasure is perhaps sufficient evidence that their contents were from the first at the disposal of the Crown. So early as the fourteenth century, however, the right of public access to certain legal records was vindicated in Parliament; and, even in causes in which the Crown was interested, an appeal to such documentary evidence was readily conceded. During the seventeenth century the records were of course regarded from a constitutional point of view as public documents; and this theory has only been affected, in the subsequent period, by the exigencies of their custody. During the eighteenth century, indeed, it was readily conceded that the recordsearcher might inspect any document that he was fortunate enough to find, provided that exorbitant official fees were paid for the privilege. The dark scandal of this system has been fully exposed by official writers since the reign of William IV. It would clearly seem to have been the intention of the famous Act of 1838 to put an end to these abuses; but this was not finally accomplished for another twenty years.

There is one more aspect of the ancient records of the Crown which is presented to us both in early treatises and modern handbooks. Their custody is, from the very first, associated with the preparation of official inventories distinguished by well-known symbolic press-marks. The medieval compilations of this nature will naturally appear more curious than helpful to the modern student; and their scope is not extensive, though Palgrave's 'Kalendars' do not include all the lists that are now known to us. The subject of the equipment and functions of the medieval archivist is, however, an interesting one; and it has been too long neglected in this country. With the advent of the printing-press we have indeed a few professional works dealing with the classification of the

documents or describing their contents; but these are wholly inadequate in both respects. After the middle of the eighteenth century, the perfunctory or obscure official index was supplemented by the more pretentious undertakings of the methodisers and Record Commissioners. These unscholarly labours were considerably amended by the permanent official staff at the Rolls House, between the accession of Queen Victoria and her first Jubilee, in the voluminous but disconnected series of the Deputy Keeper's Reports.

In other directions, work of a more ambitious character was accomplished by the last generation of official antiquaries, though much of it has no connexion with the English archives and should never have been undertaken by the Rolls authorities in preference to the elucidation of their own treasures. The famous series of Chronicles and Memorials,' published under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, is chiefly concerned with literary MSS.; and, in fact, out of the hundred editions comprised in this collection, less than half a dozen deal with actual records in official custody. But, besides this extraneous undertaking, Lord Romilly and his advisers, or their immediate successors, may also be credited with the series of 'Calendars of State Papers,' which, with all its defects of execution, must be regarded as an epochmaking work. Not the least important feature of this edition consists in its inclusion of the Scottish and Irish documents deposited amongst the public records.

The literary relations between the English archives and those of the sister kingdoms and Imperial colonies have formed an occasional subject of discussion in the 'mother of Parliaments'; but they are seldom rightly understood by English scholars. In the case of Scotland, there has existed from very early times a collection of national records which has fortunately survived several wanton acts of spoliation and careless restitution on the part of English conquerors from Edward I to Oliver Cromwell. These records were retained as a national possession under the Act of Union; and they have been published in a national series. In addition to the abovementioned records, a few stray Scottish 'documents' and State-papers preserved in London, together with numerous English records relating to Scotland, have