But it is of his relations to this Society that I purpose to speak. He was elected a member in February, 1886, mainly in recognition of his minute and accurate knowledge of Boston and its history. At the Annual Meeting in 1893 he was elected Cabinet-Keeper, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Dr. Oliver in the preceding December. This office he filled to universal acceptance for five years, when he declined a re-election. He was strongly urged to withdraw his resignation by his associates in the Council and by the Committee for nominating Officers, who knew how valuable had been his services under peculiarly difficult circumstances. Besides doing much to put the Cabinet into a more orderly and attractive condition, and to add to its treasures, he cheerfully assumed on the death of our great benefactor, the late President of the Society, the entire charge of selecting from the bequest of Dr. Ellis such articles of personal property as it seemed desirable for the Society to retain, and of selling to the best advantage such articles as it was thought necessary or expedient to convert into money for addition to the Ellis Fund. A little later, when the Society's building on Tremont Street was sold, he took entire personal charge of the removal of the books and Cabinet as well as of the furniture to the storage warehouses; and on the completion of this building he took similar charge of the necessary details in transferring our various possessions to their new home. Without his energy and watchfulness, it is not easy to see how the work could have been done so well or so speedily. All this was outside of the duties of a Cabinet-Keeper; and in fact when we came here he had ceased to hold that office.

In 1887 he was appointed, with our late associates Edward J. Lowell and Roger Wolcott, on a committee to consider what course should be pursued with reference to publishing a selection from the Pickering Papers. He subsequently served on the committee which published in 1896 the Historical Index to the Pickering Papers. Besides the duties assigned to the committee of which Mr. Lowell was chairman, Mr. McCleary voluntarily undertook to prepare, and completed, an index on cards of all the persons incidentally mentioned in the Pickering Papers. "This index," said Mr. Lowell in his report, " contains about eleven thousand cards, giving the full names of all persons mentioned in the fifty

eight volumes, with the exception, sometimes, of those which appear in the general index. The value of such a work to genealogists and biographers is obvious. The lists being authentic, and in many cases official, may be compared in their utility to parish and private registers." On the publishing committee which carried the Historical Index through the press he rendered prompt and useful service.

Mr. McCleary was very constant in his attendance at the meetings of the Society; and from time to time he made short written or extemporaneous communications. In March, 1891, he paid an extended and appreciative tribute to our late associate Samuel C. Cobb, who had been an Alderman and Mayor while Mr. McCleary was City Clerk. But his most important contribution to our Proceedings was in October, 1897, when he read a full and interesting history of the Fund bequeathed to the town of Boston by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, of which he was from 1876 to a year or two before his death the faithful and careful Treasurer.

Mr. McCleary's opinions on political and religious questions, as well as on matters of lesser importance, were firmly but unobtrusively held, and he was always able to give a reason for the faith which he professed. First a Whig and afterward a Republican, he was never a party man. Growing up and coming to maturity at a time when the Unitarian pulpits of Boston were filled with strong and able men, he was deeply and permanently influenced by their preaching and writings; and he never forsook or modified in any marked degree the views to which he had given a well-considered assent. His acquaintance with men and affairs was large and various; his knowledge of the history of Boston, especially since its incorporation as a city, and of the State legislation in any way affecting it, was thorough and exact; and on questions of parliamentary practice he was a recognized authority. His busy life left him little time for wide reading, but he was familiar with the best literature, and he had a very retentive memory. His style, whether in speaking or writing, was, like the man himself, direct, transparent, and forceful.

In all the relations of private life he was an agreeable companion, a steadfast friend, a wise counsellor. Those who knew him well will not hesitate to say of him, they never knew a truer or better man. Into the sacred precincts of

his home life I will not venture; but it should be said that what he was outside of his own family that he was in far greater degree to those bound to him by the closest ties. Besides the qualities already mentioned what chiefly impressed me in the friend whose example was always an inspiration, and whose memory will be a cherished possession now that he is gone, was his high sense of honor and his spotless integrity, his absolute unselfishness, his serene courage, and his deep, settled religious faith. Disappointment came to him, and heavy sorrows; but with Milton he might have said truly,

"Yet I argue not

Against Heaven's hand or will, nor bate a jot

Of heart or hope; but still bear up and steer
Right onward.”

There was no fruitless repining, no duty left undone. Whatever his hand found to do, that he did cheerfully; and with eager eye he sought occasion for serving others.

Mr. James M. Bugbee was appointed to prepare a memoir of Mr. McCleary for publication in the Proceedings.

The PRESIDENT then said that Mr. Hoar had taken so active a part in the various steps which led to the return of the Bradford Manuscript that the Society would gladly hear anything which he might be inclined to say on the subject. Mr. HOAR said:

I did not know that the President intended to say anything about the Bradford Manuscript, or that he wished me to say anything about it. I told the story of the restoration of that precious manuscript to Massachusetts, in an address to the Legislature when it was received, and in much greater detail in a paper published in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society.

Bishop Creighton deserves all the gratitude and commendation that Mr. Adams has expressed. But the great kindness and service of his predecessor, Bishop Temple, now Archbishop, ought not to be forgotten.

Great good fortune at every step attended the effort to get back the manuscript. I delivered an address at Plymouth on the two hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the landing. In getting ready for that duty, I read again Bradford's narra

tive with new interest and delight. William Bradford seems to me one of the most attractive characters in our history. I do not know what it is, but you are impressed with the loveliness. and grace of the man by his handwriting and his style, as you are impressed with the quality of men sometimes by a glance of the eye or the sound of the step. Everything recorded of him, everything he says and does, is infinitely attractive.

When I went abroad in 1896, I determined to visit the locality, on the borders of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, from which Bradford and Brewster and Robinson came, and especially to see the Bradford Manuscript at Fulham, and, if possible, to get it back to Massachusetts. I spoke to Mr. Bayard, then our Ambassador, about it, and he promised to help me. But I was compelled to go to the Continent, and nothing was done about it then. In the fall, a week before I sailed for home, I dined with a friend who had been very kind to me. As I took leave of him late one night, he asked me if he could do anything further for me. I said, "No, unless you happen to know the Bishop of London. I should like very much to get a sight of Bradford's History." He said he did not know the Bishop himself, but a friend of his and mine, at whose house I had spent Sunday shortly before, was a nephew of the Bishop by marriage, and he would gladly give me a letter of introduction. The letter came the next Sunday morning. I sent it to Bishop Temple. He asked me to call at the Palace Tuesday afternoon, when he would show me the "Log of the Mayflower," as he called it. I kept the appointment, and found the Bishop waiting for me with the manuscript in his hand. After looking at it, I said, "Bishop, I am going to say something that you may think highly audacious. But I think this manuscript ought to go back to Massachusetts." I told him what was known of its history and loss and discovery. He said he thought so too, but he did not know we cared anything about it. I said that if there should be discovered an original manuscript in the handwriting of King Alfred, giving the history of his reign, it would not be more precious in the eyes of Englishmen than this history is in ours. I then stated all the reasons I could think of for sending it back. He listened graciously and said, "I myself think it ought to go back. But I must have the assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed I think I should speak to the Queen about it. We

ought not to do such a thing behind her Majesty's back." I am told by a friend who afterwards had a conversation with the Archbishop that the Queen was spoken to and gave her hearty approval.

I told him that as soon as I got home, I would have some of the Historical Societies make a proper application, and we would see what could be done. When I got home, I prepared a paper, requesting the return of the manuscript, signed by myself, Stephen Salisbury, Edward Everett Hale, and Samuel A. Green for the American Antiquarian Society; by Charles Francis Adams, Bishop William Lawrence, and President Eliot for this Society; by Arthur Lord, William M. Evarts, and William T. Davis for the Pilgrim Society; by Charles C. Beaman, Joseph H. Choate and J. Pierpont Morgan for the New England Society of New York; and by Roger Wolcott, then Lieutenant-Governor and acting Governor of the Commonwealth.

I had stated to the Bishop in our conversation everything contained in this application, except a reference to a precedent which had been set by the Philadelphia Library, when they returned to the British Government some important documents belonging to its archives, which had in some way come into · the possession of the Library.

I mention these facts now, because I understand that our late associate Mr. Winsor, in some remarks which I believe were never printed, said he was inclined to think that the arguments made in the written application to the Bishop were not calculated to promote the desire of the applicants. These arguments are precisely those which satisfied the mind of Bishop Temple when they were stated to him orally, with the exception of the citation of the action of the Library Association, which precedent is cited and relied upon by the Consistory Court in the judgment ordering the return of the Manuscript.

After my interview with Bishop Temple, he became Archbishop, and was, I have no doubt, consulted by Bishop Creighton, as he expected to consult his predecessor if he had himself remained Lord Bishop of London.

Archbishop Temple, as appears by several letters written by him after the affair was over, took the deepest interest in the whole transaction. He is entitled to our gratitude. I think