anything it is because it reminds me in some way or other of yourself. For instance, I not long ago attached myself to a Venetian for no earthly reason but because she was called **, and she often remarked, without knowing the reason, how fond I was of the name.'

Again there is the erasure of a four-letter name, and Mr Edgcumbe reminds us that the Venetian was called Marianna, Anglicè, Mary Anne, which were the two Christian names of Mrs Chaworth-Musters. The writer goes on to declare that the thought of their separation is heart-breaking, and that Paolo and Francesca were more leniently treated in hell; he insists that her reformation tortured him; asks her if she recollects their parting; begs her to write not of commonplace people and topics, but of herself, and to say that she loves him; and winds up by protesting that his passion grows and will grow till it annihilates all thoughts, hopes, and feelings that do not refer to her and their recollections.

Everything worth noting in this letter precludes the idea of its having been written to Augusta, whose name was all but twice as long as 'Mary,' to whom the suggestion about the Venetian woman's name would have been meaningless, and from whom he had heard repeatedly, and to whom he had written, says Mr Edgcumbe, twice a month on an average since he left England! We will contrast this outpouring of despairing passion with some extracts from letters really written to his sister in the first three years of his exile. The first is from one written on June 3, 1817:

'For the life of me I cannot make out whether your disorder is a broken heart or earache-or whether it is you who have been ill or the children-or what your melancholy apprehensions tend to or refer to-whether to Caroline Lamb's Novels-Mrs Clermont's evidence-Lady Byron's magnanimity, or any other piece of imposture.'

The second was written about six months after the letter of May 17, 1819; so far as we need quote it, it runs thus:

'DEAREST AUGUSTA,-The health of my daughter Allegra, the cold season and the length of the journey induce me to postpone for some time a purpose (never very willing on my part) to revisit Great Britain.

'You can address me to Venice as usual. Wherever I may be in Italy, the letter will be forwarded.

'I wrote to you not very long ago, and as I don't know that I can add anything satisfactory to that letter, I may as well finish this. In a letter to Murray I requested him to apprise you that my journey was postponed; but here, there, and everywhere, know me, yours ever and very truly,

'B.'

Can anything be more ordinary, easy, brotherly, and genuine, or freer from fiery passion and tearful reminiscence?

How Augusta could have played so fatuously upon Lady Byron, as she undoubtedly did, in regard to the letter of the 17th of May 1819, and during the correspondence which arose upon it, is one marvel. How Lady Byron could have spread the falsehood of a confession by Augusta to herself, which, if actual, would have been in the highest degree confidential, is a second. How these two women, in the circumstances, could have remained Dearest A.' to one another for eleven years, until 1830, is a third. They quarrelled in that year over the appointment of a new trustee to a marriage settlement, and only met once afterwards, in 1851, in presence of the well-known Brighton clergyman, Mr Frederick Robertson. That meeting was avowedly arranged with the object of bringing Augusta's admission or denial of guilt to a point. Augusta sternly asserted her innocence, and a memorandum of the conversation was drawn up by Mr Robertson. But it was too late; by that time irreparable mischief had been wrought.

Thus far, then, we are in agreement with Mr Edgcumbe. We accept as real poor Mary's tragedy. We adopt the ascription to her of all the verses quoted which ring of remorse and guilt. We feel sure that the letter of May 17, 1819, was addressed to her. The false fatuousness of Augusta in playing upon Lady Byron in regard to it may startle and shock us, but no more. But when Mr Edgcumbe goes on to enunciate a second theory, that Medora Leigh was the child of Byron and Mary, and was acknowledged by Augusta as her own to shield its parents, we respectfully take leave of him. We feel inclined to smile when he asks us to believe that she went through the form of a 'simulated confinement' for this purpose. Mrs Leigh had indeed a child by her own husband in April 1814. The event was generally known,

and anticipated in the ordinary way. Byron himself casually mentions his sister's condition, in a letter written to Mr Hanson, while she was visiting him for the first time in the winter of 1813-1814, as a reason why he could not ask her to leave Newstead, so long as the roads were rough, dangerous, and almost impassable from snow. The whole idea is monstrous, against nature, and would have involved a fatuity far beyond that connected with the letter from Venice. May we further ask what part the husband would have played in the concoction of such an arrangement? The assertion, for it is no more, is unsupported by a tittle of evidence, and is, moreover, gratuitous, and quite unnecessary for Mrs Leigh's acquittal. We leave it with a confession of regret that this one blot should deface an otherwise well-considered and valuable contribution towards the solution of a longstanding mystery. There may even be some who will think that to prove the guilt of poor Mary is a piece of cruel surplusage, but it must be remembered that Mr Edgcumbe's apology for this is the publication of Lord Lovelace's 'Astarte.' The one point in that book which seemed to want a conclusive answer was the letter of May 17, 1819, and the correspondence to which it gave rise. The internal impossibility of its having been written to Mrs Leigh was, indeed, always existent, but the discovery of its real destination is invaluably conclusive. And if truth does indeed lie in the attribution to Mrs. Chaworth-Musters of misconduct which, though sad and reprehensible, is still within the range of condonation, it is something like a consolation that such of us as value the memory of a great genius should be able to repose upon the certainty that at least its possessor was not guilty of a crime which would have put him beyond the pale.

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 hare 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