394 POSTSCRIPT. 



for certified copies of the two last -mentioned entries, was informed, 

 on April 19, 1887, that it was not the practice of the Record Office 

 to supply certified copies of any portions of index or catalogue of 

 documents preserved there except when the Records themselves are 

 wanting. 



On May 7, 1887, the Compiler wrote to the Secretary of State, 

 Home Department, Whitehall, directing his attention to the certified 

 copy of the document contained in the " Home Office Records : 

 Warrant Book," vol. xi., p. 47, and the communication of April 19 

 from the Record Office, pointing out that the latter was tantamount 

 to an admission that the documents referred to were in the custody 

 of that department notwithstanding the report to the contrary, as 

 alleged in the letter of the Secretary of State to the Compiler of 

 the 6th ultimo (B. 1036/6). Both of those original papers were 

 enclosed on that occasion ; and on the strength of that evidence the 

 Compiler again reiterated his application for the usual " permit," 

 as he was much pressed for time, and requested, in a postscript, 

 that the enclosures should be returned to him. 



On the ensuing June 13 the Compiler finally wrote to the 

 Secretary of State, Home Department, Whitehall, requesting at- 

 tention to his (the Compiler's) letter of the 7th inst., and the favour 

 of a reply at his earliest convenience, and that the Secretary of 

 State would be good enough to return the enclosures contained 

 therein. That letter was registered by the Compiler, who holds the 

 receipt given by the Post Office for its safe delivery. No acknow- 

 ledgment or answer has yet been received by the Compiler to that 

 letter, nor have the enclosures been returned to him. 



Such ai-e the pleasures incidental to origmal historical researches, 

 particularly in the " after date " period. Fortunately the Compiler 

 can stand aside. The imputation on his veracity is untenable. 

 But it is a public duty that this singular incident should be cleax-ed 

 up. It rests between the two Public Departments to decide which 



is the . If the Record Office reported to the Home Office that 



no such documents as those in question are in their custody, the 

 certified copy, e.g., suppUed to the Compiler must have been spurious, 

 and consequently he was defrauded of the fees demanded and paid 

 thereon. He knows, as a matter of fact, that such a contingency, 

 under the circumstances, cannot be entertained. Likewise he knows 

 nothing of the report alleged to be made by the Record Office to the 

 Home Office. That document is too interesting to remain buried in 



