Sidney Webb, instruction was provided in 1896 for the deciphering of the unequalled sources of Economic and Social History available in London archives, and from this beginning sprang a readership which served the requirements of the University at large.

This preparatory instruction is now provided in most of the British or Colonial Universities, while in the United States the cult of archives is pursued almost as seriously as in the Continental Schools of Charters' or in the London Institute of Historical Research.

We may hope, then, that assiduous research in the original sources will, in time, make good the heavy arrears that have accumulated. It is obvious, however, that these sources cannot be adequately described or profitably studied without reference to the printed literature of the subject. It is a mistake to assume, as many eager students have done, that the true interpretation of History is to be found only in the inventories of archives. The services of historical bibliography are equally essential as a guide to study; for apart from the time saved by using printed texts, students can best observe the relationship of the several sources from their printed literature, and they will at the same time keep in touch with historical method and criticism.

Unfortunately the recent devotion of historical scholars and students to the investigation of archives has not been accompanied by equal attention to historical bibliography. To be candid, we must admit that this necessary discipline of study has been often shirked, and that the efforts made to remedy this defect have been somewhat feeble. In order to realise the position, we must go back thirty years, to the strong criticisms of our national shortcomings in respect of historical bibliography published by Frederic Harrison and Henry Tedder, followed by similar criticism of our neglect of archives by York Powell and Sir Adolphus Ward. The remedy available was promptly applied, though not by British hands. An American scholar, Charles Gross, had already published a needed bibliography of British municipal history in 1897, and in response to these appeals he compiled, single-handed, a bibliography of English medieval history in which, for the first time, the literature was co-ordinated with the original sources.

Although this great work, published in 1900, has been supplemented by a few special bibliographies and source books (some of which are of American or Continental origin) it stands alone, leaving the postmediæval period of our history unrepresented by any complete or adequate work. This fact indeed was fully recognised by Charles Gross himself; but as the suggestion for an individualist continuation of his work found no acceptance on either side of the Atlantic, it has had to wait upon the opportunity of co-operative compilation and publication under the auspices of an Anglo-American committee, which has not yet completed its task. At the same time, it must be remembered that this was not yet fairly under way when the World War suspended its progress; and the broken threads of such co-operative enterprises are never easily joined. Even when they remain intact, the process of weaving must be a slow one, and it took five years to prepare a second edition of Gross's work.

The importance of these remote and almost forgotten happenings is emphasised in the reflexions of some difficulties of advanced historical study that were offered at the outset of this article. Those difficulties, as we have seen, are largely due to the want of a complete and scientific bibliography of British History which could be supplemented by more detailed bibliographies and source lists for particular aspects. Hitherto historians have relied on Gross and on isolated bibliographies or select lists. They have also had the run of the general catalogues compiled by great libraries, while some local bibliographies have been often helpful.

The results of this method of study are not satisfactory, and even if the effort of recalling titles collected in many different publications may earn for some scholars a reputation for encyclopædic learning, the method itself is obviously unscientific and wasteful; moreover, it does not usually assist the student to co-ordinate the original sources and literature of his subject. Indeed, the practical effect of this state of affairs is seen in the difficulty of selecting a subject of study that has not been previously exploited and for which the sources appear to be adequate or accessible; also in compiling an exhaustive list of the materials for its study.

A list of subjects of economic and social interest for which information exists but is not readily available would be a long one. We are not only insufficiently informed as to what early Victorian antiquaries called the 'domestic, everyday life' of our village forefathers, but also as to the nature of their economic and social environment as a whole. It is not enough to be able to reconstruct castles, churches, halls, or chambers with their decoration; we need also to reconstruct the extensive domestic offices which were a special feature of the household economy of the baronage, religious orders, and lesser gentry alike, and which were annexed also to their urban residences as well as to those of merchants and traders of any substance. Then there were the farm-buildings within the great courtyard connected with various departments, their respective contents representing the live and dead stock of the demesne or home farm. Probably few students of Economic History know how the crops were disposed of in the grange and granary, although tithe and other ancient barns are familiar and cherished survivals of

the Tudor farmyard. Fewer still could explain the mediæval theory of the yield of crops, or trace the economic progress of the grain sack from farm to market and thence, through bakehouse or oasthouse, into household use.

The original sources of History available for study in this country include, as we know, manuscript documents of many forms and divers styles of writing, couched in several languages, and now preserved in collections which have contributed towards a general 'proprietary' classification of archives, whether as the property of the State, in its administrative or judicial departments, or of local authorities, corporate bodies, literary institutions and private owners. It will be evident that some of these collections may have proved more fruitful than others; also that the same or some other archive may still be safely guarding treasures which have escaped the vicissitudes of things terrestrial, guarding them also unconsciously against the hot pursuit of hundreds of historical researchers until the day when they will be thrown into the 'hotch-pot' of an official catalogue. The method of piece-meal discovery and description of the

archives has led to the neglect of some potential sources for which the student would wish to account. This he cannot do without the help of complete instruments of bibliographical and archivistic research among which subject indexes are essential. Until these desiderata are supplied students must rely upon their own enterprise, aided by the experience and knowledge of the custodians of historical books and documents or by the generosity of private owners.

The original muniments, like many other records of the 'domestic, everyday life' of our ancestors, have remained unsearched, and so have often disappeared or perished. At the same time information on certain points might not be revealed by the most careful search, while in other cases superfluous details would abound. In a study of the Archives few facts are more impressive than their vicissitudes. Some which were interrupted by political or by social and economic changes either end abruptly or are replaced by new series. Thus, for example, the elaborate organisation of the monastic obedientiaries is represented only by documentary relics which are fortunately more substantial than the ruinous cloisters which they commemorate. Again, although the most copious and instructive source of manorial history disappears with the letting of the demesne, it is fitfully represented by estate accounts until the cult of the 'home-farm' reminds us that the manor was the strongest force in agriculture long after its franchise had decayed. On the other hand, official proceedings of the ecclesiastical, academic and urban communities have been continuously preserved, like those of the State itself, in records which have been elaborated in consequence of the economic and social expansion of the last century. It would seem, therefore, that the student of Economic and Social History is confronted at the outset of his researches by a threefold problem of the original sources, namely, which of them have survived, which again have perished, and which have been utilised wholly or in part? It might be added that his adequate equipment will largely depend on the solution of this problem.

The familiar though elusive processes above referred to would supply important data for the study of manorial and civic institutions, but they touch only one, and that

not the most difficult, aspect of the early agrarian economy. Agriculture as we are frequently reminded in the present day is inseparably connected with the general processes of industry and commerce, and it has in fact been always associated, through the old jingle of the wheat grain and the barley corn in arithmetic tables, with the national usage and local custom of buying and selling by weight or measure. Now, although an immense quantity of information is available to students on this subject, little use has hitherto been made of it, and we have a very imperfect knowledge of the routine of trade before the industrial revolution. We ought to know more about manorial institutions as business propositions: How the mill was worked; the system of coastal and river traffic; transport by horse, cart, wain, sledge, and pack; posting as an accessory of culture as well as of commerce. There is an extensive literature of housekeeping through the centuries; but we are only beginning to understand the system of the monastic obedientiaries. Even the compilers of College histories have been apt to ignore the value and interest of the bursary records. Doubtless the progress of individual researches from book to book must continue to be slow, though it has its fascination; but vexatious restrictions may be removed by the expiration of time limits, or by the retirement of antiquated custodians, or, still more frequently, by the dispersal of hitherto inaccessible collections and their acquisition by public libraries or literate collectors. In some such way new sources may become available, providing a welcome stock of supplementary material for many expectant students -and the prospect of such an event has suggested the subject of this article.

Ex archivis Cancellariæ semper aliquid novi!' In this country (as in other States of Western Europe) one of the most prolific repositories of historical materials has been the Chancery, in its administrative capacity. With us, however, the Chancery must be regarded not only as the foremost archive of the State, for mediæval sources, but in respect of its later judicial activities it has preserved other collections of important documents, the extent of which is not yet fully known to us. In connexion with earlier administrative functions