§ Lord Redesdalesaid, that on examining the papers which had been laid on the table of their Lordships' House, relating to the destruction of the Exchequer records, he found that those which related to the actual destruction of the papers commenced on the 17th of March, 1838, and ended on the 18th of December in the same year. Now, their Lordships would remember, that a bill had been passed by which all the records of the country were placed under the control of the Master of the Rolls. Therefore the Exchequer had no authority to act as it had acted. He should be glad if the noble Lord opposite would give some further explanation of this matter.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, he was very sorry that the question should be put to him in the absence of his noble Friend, because, if he were present, he would be able to set him right, if the reply he was about to give was at all founded in any misapprehension. He believed the noble Lord had not attentively considered the act of Parliament, or he would have found, that though it was perfectly true that certain records were to be placed under the control of the Master of the Rolls, an office at present filled by a noble Lord whose manner of discharging its duties entitled him to the gratitude of the House, yet those documents were specified in the act, and they were the pell records, which were so transferred from the Exchequer to the Rolls. But the documents referred to in the returns had no relation whatever to the pells, but were documents over which the Rolls had no power to exercise any control. The papers which had been destroyed were not of the nature of pells, but were entirely of another character.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenwas sorry to say that a great deal of carelessness had been displayed in the destruction of these re- 1313 cords. He had no doubt that a great portion of them were utterly worthless, as the noble Lord had before stated. But the persons who had been employed in this proceeding had either performed the work very negligently, or were incompetent to the task. He understood, that at present, most of the papers which had been mutilated and sold, were in the hands of auctioneers in the metropolis, for the purpose of being sold-to the highest bidder, and therefore, they could not have been so worthless as the noble Lord had described them. By mere accident, however, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) saw some of those documents on Saturday, when he happened to be at the British Museum on other business of the trust. A portion of these very papers had been brought to the Museum for sale; they had fallen into the hands of a bookseller, who made up a lot for that purpose. They referred to various subjects, and no doubt the trustees of the British Museum would purchase them; but he thought it was a little hard that the public should be made to buy their records in this fashion. He had the curiosity to look at these papers, and the first thing he saw was a letter from the Papal Secretary of State to Leo X., addressed to Cardinal Wolsey, transmitted with the cap and sword of state, which it was customary for the Popes of Rome to send to the favoured foreign princes of Christendom from time to time. The next document, which consisted of several sheets, was a list and description of the jewels bought for the use of Queen Elizabeth. He also heard of another paper, which he did not see, which was an account of the expenses of Charles 1st. during his imprisonment. It might be asked, of what use could these papers be? In this philosophical age it might be difficult to assign any particular use for them; but it could not be denied that history, more or less, was made up from such documents, and there was always a strong desire among the learned and wise to preserve them. He did not think that such papers ought to be sold or destroyed. On looking at the return which had been presented by desire of the noble Lord (Redesdale) it appeared to him that the business had been gone into in a way that could not be satisfactory. Sir John Newport wrote about the "unpleasant and disagreeable business in which he was engaged," and the chief clerk also wrote in the same style, and seemed to 1314 think that his health would suffer from poring over those musty records. If those persons undertook the work in that way, what could be expected? He knew that there were persons who would have sat down to such a task with as much appetite and delight as others would sit down to a feast. He thought, most undoubtedly, that negligence existed somewhere.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, he must say a few words in justice to his right hon. Friend who preceded him in office, for personally, the House would please to recollect, he had no concern whatever in this proceeding, having been called on to become Controller of the Exchequer after the destruction of those documents. Still he was not the less disposed to do justice to his right hon. Friend. When so much was said about the destruction of important papers, noble Lords, and particularly the noble Earl, seemed to exclude from their memory, that had it not been for the interposition of his right hon. Friend, the whole of the papers would have been destroyed. For fifty years previously, the records in question, about which so much anxiety now was expressed, were left in an open vault, subject to the irruption of the tide from the Thames, and they might have been destroyed but for the interposition of his right hon. Friend. That fact was proved by the documents now before the House. But it had been said that carelessness had been manifested in the discharge of this business. Persons most conversant with the documents had been employed; and among them was a gentleman who had served under the late Lord Grenville for fifty years. In the return was a letter from Mr. Devon, who was a gentleman of great antiquarian research, in proof of the competency of the persons employed in the business. Many of the documents which had been sold might be valuable as matters of curiosity, but not as public records. Moreover, they might not be originals, but copies. Was the letter from Rome which the noble Earl had mentioned an original or a copy?
§ Lord Monteagle, then, doubted extremely whether that document came out of that lot which was sold. They might have come out of the pells.
§ The Earl of Aberdeensaid, there could be no doubt that a great deal of matter of the same description might have been discovered; but that was a reason why 1315 they should have been examined with more accuracy. Had they been all Exchequer records, a cursory examination might have sufficed. But they were composed of a vast variety of materials; and he would only say, though not very much accustomed to such documents, he found no difficulty at all in reading those to which he had referred. Therefore there must have been great negligence and want of attention, or the examination would have been more complete and satisfactory. He should be much surprised if the public had not to purchase other records besides those he had mentioned.
§ Lord Redesdalereferred the noble Lord (Monteagle) to the Act of Parliament on the subject, and said his reading of it was very different from that of the noble Lord, It was clear to him that the records were transferred to the custody of the Master of the Rolls by the first clause of the 1st and 2nd of Victoria, cap. 94, and that the proceedings of the Exchequer had been illegal. The return itself furnished a clear proof of negligence, inasmuch as Mr. Devon wrote to the Controller of the Exchequer on the 24th of March, 1836,sta-ting that the ancient documents were lying in a vault which exposed them to destruction, but not one single step to save them was made until March, 1838; so that after they had been pointed out as being in a perishable condition, they were allowed to remain and rot for two years more. Then, with regard to the proceedings of the Exchequer, it appeared that there were about "a hundred boxes of papers so piled upon each other, that the contents without great labour could not be ascertained." But it did not follow that those documents should be treated as waste paper, and that a contract should be made with any person who chose to enter into it to remove those boxes at 8l. per ton, which contract had been made. All those documents which the British Museum would have to purchase back had been sold at 8l. per ton. Some private individuals had referred to him several documents which had been recovered. Some of them were more interesting than others, of course; but amongst them he met with an account of the pay of the ships engaged against the Armada, stating the number of men on board. That paper had been mutilated, but why it was mutilated he was at a loss to know. It could not be brought forward in any objectionable form against 1316 the Government. It was, at all events, a curious document, and signed by Lord Burleigh. There was another document, apparently the work of some lawyer, who was employed in an investigation of the Babington conspiracy; and some others equally curious, which he had seen. Altogether, from what he had heard and seen, he must say there had been very great carelessness. Whether there had been more than carelessness he did not feel that he was then qualified to decide upon.
§ Subject dropped.