ship with these valuable records was lost coming to London. I don't believe there is one word of truth in that,—Edward III. did not care one straw for the very best and most valuable records that could be found throughout the length and breadth of the land. (A laugh.) So the Irish said, "It was the Danes that came over and took away our historical records, and afterwards the Cromwellians did the same." I don't believe a word of this. The Cromwellians have not been in existence for these 200 years, and the genealogical researches I refer to belong to a much more recent period. The fact is, you can't find any public document of the parentage of any one born in Ireland a hundred years ago. It would be something if we had the public records of Scotland since the time of Edward III., and of Ireland since Cromwell—for they would be very useful in portraying the habits and customs of the people; but we cannot get them. Archæological research was very much prevented in Scotland by the attorneys, who told the people not to let any documents be seen that were in their charter- chests, or they would lose their property; the consequence was, that the very valuable documents in the charter-chests were not available, and we could get no knowledge of the manners and customs of the people through such direct agency. It is nothing but the want of such records which renders our history so incomplete. All our histories are nothing but compilations. You may take Hume, he is nothing but a compiler, and very inaccurate. I remember Mr. Bruce, one of the very first and ablest persons in the Record Office, stating that he had shown Mr. Hume some very valuable documents in connection with the history of the country, and he, on looking at them said, "I admit they are very interesting; but if I begin to read them, I shall have to write my history over again, for I am all wrong." (A laugh.) Of all histories I have been able to look into, I must say that the most correct I have met with is that of Dr. Lingard; and the next to it is one—the "Pictorial History of England," I think they call it. In both of these they give references, and I have had occasion to search for and verify those references, and have found them correct. I am still speaking of them as compilations, which all our histories are. You, as an Archæological Society, should endeavour to remedy this state of things. The great object of antiquarian research should be, to supply the want we now feel in regard to our history. We hear a great deal of the instruction of the million, about which everybody is mad nowadays. (A laugh.) Well, they can't take any but popular works, and are obliged to rely upon them, and therefore their knowledge is very superficial. They are obliged to take upon trust what Mr. Macaulay, Mr. M'Culloch, or Mr. Anybody-else says; they have not time to ascertain if their statements be correct. They can't inquire into the matter, and therefore they imbibe a sort of passive knowledge—they must trust to the exertions of other people. (Hear.) The first persons who induced you to think on this subject, and to go to the foundation for your historical facts, were Dr. Chalmers and Mr. Riddell, a lawyer in Scotland. And in this country Sir Francis Palgrave has followed this movement up. He is a very agreeable writer, and has gone more extensively into this particular field of research
