Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 3.djvu/308

 302

NOTES AND QUERIES. [9< s. in. APRIL 22,

losses I have sustained by the frauds of some rela- tions and others, and by the injustice of some in great power."

Ker, indeed, thinks it necessary to defend " Jacobus npster " from the charge of having neglected his own kin, and shows that he left them a good provision. His money came partly from a bachelor brother who was Governor of Fort St. George (Madras), and his fortune was increased by annuities settled on him, as was often then done, by the parents of young noblemen to whom he had been tutor. One of these was the first Duke of St. Albans, son of Charles II. and Nell Gwynne. He held the secretaryship of Chelsea Hospital a long time forty years, according to Ker. The Chelsea records, however, say that he was appointed 1 July, 1689, and ceased to be secretary 20 May, 1718. His degree of " Juris Utriusque Doctor" was given him by the University in recognition of his noble bene- factions. He was James II.'s Licenser of the Press, and Ker represents him as much in favour with George I., who liked talking to him ("eum in deliciis habuit Geo. I mus, et cum illo ssepe sermones conferre haud dedig- natus est "). Besides two daughters, one of whom was Mrs. Impey, he left two sons, of whom, apparently, only one, William Fraser, had surviving children. I should be glad if any reader of ' N. & Q.' could refer me to any information as to trie descendants of this William, who emigrated to Philadelphia. I find that the Edmund Morris, rector of Nut- shalling, who was known as the friend and correspondent of Lady Hervey (Molly Lepel), married a daughter or his, Martha Fraser. R. B. LITCHFIELD.

31, Kensington Square, W.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Under this head- ing Mr. J. Horace Round contributed to the Nineteenth Century for last December a drastic criticism of Mr. Frederic Harrison's strictures on ' The Historical Method of Pro- fessor Freeman.' I have not read the latter, but Mr. Round's succinct summary and in- cisive defence of research, as distinct from synthesis in historical studies, challenge the thanks of earnest toilers in such grooves. Very clearly he convicts Mr. Harrison of " confusion of thought " in confounding pro- cesses with results. But is his own indict- ment altogether free from this charge ? Is it safe to speak of " the mere collection of abso- lutely worthless facts " ? Facts are the stones which compose the historical edifice. Some may be less suitable than others for founda- tions, or corners, or pillars, but none can be absolutely worthless. The hewers of wood

and the drawers of water have their need and place equally with the designers and the brick- setters. Rejection of any single fact, however apparently insignificant, is fatal to historical accuracy in any method of research. Cer- tainly there must be a " patient sifting and classification of material," but no wholesale rejection of facts. A partial disuse there may be on the score of irrelevancy, but no fact can be "absolutely worthless." The most trivial in a life or a period is bound to have some reference to the plan or working of a central scheme or epoch. I submit, therefore, as one who has devoted many years to his- torical research, that its true work lies precisely in a "prolonged accumulation of evidence," even to the minutest details. This is the method for which Freeman is pilloried alike by Mr. Harrison and Mr. Round, but which, pace both, I maintain ought to consti- tute the very essence of either " the modern scientific spirit or the modern ardour for discovery."

Again, as it seems to me, Mr. Round insists too strongly on the difference between chronicles and manuscripts as materials for research. With his condemnation of Freeman for neglect of the latter, and with Mr. Har- rison's laudation of the same historian for that negligence, I am not just now concerned. My present point is that chronicles or books are as much " research " as " records writ on the parchment or graven on the stone." Of course "paraphrasing patches of chronicles" is not writing history but is not the study of chronicles as much an integral part of " research " as is the deciphering of "records"? Besides, what are chronicles but printed records or manuscripts? No scientific con- ception of history is possible with a differen- tiation between the two ; linked together they form not only its possibility, but its certainty. A divorce between them is as fatal to the claims of a perfect historian as a jaundiced attitude towards his facts.

Lastly,! venture to demur to the statement that " the writing of history must vary with successive generations, because the nature of the interest that they take in history varies. Institutional, economic, social development, these are the subjects that excite the chief interest now." If this canon be enforced, then history -writing becomes a gigantic snare from its very one-sidedness. To make history from such a standpoint is to belittle a pro- fession which owes its vitality to impartiality and a due sense of proportion. Better are the dry bones of history the scissors-and- paste method of the narrator pure arid simple than a pandering solely to the varying