Evening Post. SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1935. HALF-TRUTHS IN HISTORY

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 12, 13 July 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1935. HALF-TRUTHS IN HISTORY

The material for history is multifarious in the extreme, and if the historian is to tell the truth, he must have before him all available relevant evidence on which to base his judgment. He must be allowed to approach his task "without fear or favour," to exercise his own discretion in the assessment of values and to come to a decision untrammelled by any overriding external authoi"jty. That at any rate is the ideal. No wonder, then, that, according to a recent cable message from London, "surprise has been caused by the action of the Foreign Office in suddenly banning the sale of historical documents belonging to Lord Abingdon and announcing that they are liable to confiscation if purchased." The cable adds:

Astonishment was increased when the nature of the documents was made known. They consist mainly of letters of famous people written between 1808 and 1841, including 52 from the Duke of Wellington to Lord Stuart. One was written on the eve of Waterloo. The biggest lot was one of 1200 letters to Lord Stuart from William IV, Lords Castlereagh, Aberdeen; and Palmerston, and other celebrities.

No official reason is given for the Foreign Office intervention, and the remainder of the cable message contained mainly surmise:

A representative of Lord Abingdon's lawyers said that the Foreign Office demanded that the letters be sent to it so that it can inspect them and select those claimed as Government.property. The claim is apparently based on the fact that Lord Stuart was a servant of the Crown when he acquired the documents. The "Daily Telegraph" says that it is believed that espionage secrets relating to Waterloo are the cause of the stopping of the sale of the papers. The Record Office withholds from students documents containing references to the British intelligence system giving the names "of spies, even if the persons concerned have been dead more th_an a century.

.Further elucidation of this extremely interesting item of news has not been forthcoming from its source, but the issue is too serious to be left in the air without discussion. In the .first place, the period of history mentioned, 1808-41, is of transcendent importance in the evolution of Britain and the British Empire, and in many respects has parallels to the times through which the world is now passing. It begins with the last stages of the great Napoleonic War which left Britain with domestic and foreign problems comparable with those she is facing today. Relatively to the rest ;of the world Britain was never greater than during these years. At home, however, the condition of the country and its people was never worse. Representation in Parliament was mainly based on "rotten boroughs," bought and sold like any other commodity. Jobbery and corruption were rife, and sinecures swallowed up millions of money. Of the common people few could read 'or write. Little children worked clay and night in factories or climbed up flues as chimney sweeps. The years covered by the Abingdon papers are those in which progress was made through social, political, and industrial turmoil to the Victorian Age of better things. On all this supremely vital era the letters written by the leading men of the time to Lord Stuart should throw much new light. But who was Lord Stuart? He was the grandson of lhat Earl of Bute who came down from Scotland and by one of those mere accidents that often, alter history made the acquaintance of Frederick, Prince of Wales, the father of George 111. It was at the Egham races in 1747. A shower of rain delayed the Prince's return to Cliefden and Bute was summoned to the Royal tent to make up a hand of whist until the weather cleared. From that he rose to a paramount influence at the Court, and he it was who instructed the future George 111 in the principle that a King should "not only reign, but govern," a principle which played a part in the American Revolution and War of Independence. The Lord Stuart ,of the present instance was the eldest son of General Sir Charles Stuart, who was the fourth son of the Earl of Bule. His connection through his uncles and aunts with several brandies of tho ruling oligarchy of aristocratic families adds to Oie importance of the letters written to him during the years he represented Britain in the } Diplomatic Service. He was joint Charge d'Affaires at Madrid in 1808, and in 1810 was sent as envoy to Portugal. It was in the Peninsula he would first have to, do with the Duke of Wellington. He was Minister at The Hague in 1815, Ambassador to Paris, 1815-30, and Ambassador to St. Petersburg, 1841-45. This will explain why the Foreign Office advances a claim to documents acquired when Stuart was a "servant of the Crown."

It will now be clear that these Stuart papers, in the possession of Lord Abingdon, must contain historical matter of the very first importance to an understanding of a most eventful epoch. Presumably

they have not yet been published, and, if Lord Abingdon is willing to sell them, presumably, again, he has no objection to their publication. Why does the Foreign Office object? It strains credulity to attach much weight to the "Daily Telegraph's" theory about espionage in Napoleonic times. A trained historian could be trusted to deal discreetly with information of that kind. We cannot enter here into alternative theories, but, in view of what has happened since the late War to "historic documents," a passage in a recently-published book, "Russia Then and Now," by BrigadierGeneral W. H. H. Waters, C.M.G., C.V.0., is interesting. General Waters, a veteran of 79, who spent many years in Russia before the War and knew well the late Tsar and the leading Russian statesmen and soldiers, revisited Russia last year and was allowed to examine documents relating to the War in the archives at Moscow in order to settle a certain doubt in his own mind as to the correctness of the published versions. He says:

I Although our statesmen had the least dirty political hands, our Foreign Office, that is to say, the great heads of Departments who are in power behind the Throne, had always prevented publication of important documents until after the deaths of those primarily engaged in negotiations. In the year 1924, however, the first Labour Government came into office, and to-Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald's lasting credit, in this one respect at leasf, he ordered the publication of our documents. The German Social Democratic Government had commenced their series at a date much further removed than ours. Other Powers gradually followed suit. But there is a reservation to be made. With the exception of the Bolshevik and German State papers those of great Powers have been "edited," our own less so than others, but the British documents do not contain what those who know of them consider to be some papers of great importance. I am inclined to think that these were not shown to the editors, for in at least one instance Dr. Gooch and Professor Temperley threatened resignation from the editorship,1 I understand, unless they should have absolute freedom of choice in selecting documents for publication.

"Freedom of choice" to the historian, that is die whole point. History emasculated by officialdom is only a negative form-of propaganda, possibly expedient in the emergency of war, but never to be accepted as a permanent record. The British race has shown itself able to face facts, however unpalatable, but it hate 3 half-truths and humbug. Nothing great can ever be built on a false foundation. Fascism may flourish on fiction, but a free people must have the truth. For .that reason it is to be hoped that the mystery of the Foreign Office and the Abingdon papers will be thoroughly elucidated.