by students and in use in classes. Many were drawn on ordinary manilla paper, a few on bleached muslin, and others on printed outline maps; he preferred permanent colored maps to those drawn upon black-boards. The colors were usually ordinary water-colors, and he found inexperienced students quite equal to draughting and coloring them. He suggested, also, convenient ways of displaying and storing large maps. The application of the system was shown by the exhibition of sample maps and charts illustrating various subjects connected with American or other history; among them were, the territorial growth of the country, the distribution of votes in successive tariff and other important measures, maps of campaigns, and local maps, and co-ordinate charts illustrating social and economic facts. He showed that such diagrams often bring out unsuspected truths; and ended with a plan for a systematic atlas of large maps to be made by each teacher and lecturer for his

own use.

Abstract of Professor Tyler's Paper.

Professor Moses Coit Tyler, of Cornell University, then read a timely and suggestive paper on "The Neglect and Destruction of Historical Materials in this Country." The following is a brief abstract: By historical materials I mean written or even printed documents of every sort, which are of value as bearing testimony concerning our past,―letters, diaries, personal memoranda, speeches, pamphlets, newspapers, and all other verbal records, particularly such as are unique or nearly so, the extinction of which would be the extinction of so much evidence as to men and things in our history. Is it not true that with us there is rather more danger than is the case, for example, in Central and Western Europe, that the private papers left by men in public life, which would in after times become of confidential, delicate, and priceless value in the study of the events touched by these men's careers, should be negligently kept by their descendants or heirs, or as negligently dispersed, or left to destruction through the assaults of accident? American so

ciety is composed of more movable elements than was the case even in the colonial time. We have few examples of families maintained through several generations in the same homes; our houses are of combustible material; and our habits are those of recklessness as to fires. The result of our present social conditions is that the kinds of historical documents now referred to, if retained in private custody, are peculiarly liable to neglect, and even to destruction.

Examples were then given showing how important historical materials have perished in the various ways described. Particular accounts were given of the neglect and partial destruction of the papers of Theodoric Bland, of Samuel Adams, and of a later statesman whose name was withheld.

On the basis of these facts, the writer asked whether it would not be timely for this National Association of historical students to make use of its continental position to suggest to our fellow-countrymen, and particularly to our brethren and associates in historical study, in all parts of the land, two or three measures for correcting present defects in our treatment of historical materials.

(1) In the frequent lack among us of the continuity of families, in circumstances favorable to the preservation of important historical materials, attention is directed to the continuity of learned corporations, such as colleges and historical societies, and to the possible use of these as the safest custodians of all historical materials now in private hands.

(2) The attention of such learned corporations, particularly of State, County, and Town Historical Societies, is earnestly directed to the importance of their attracting to themselves the custody of important historical materials, by providing themselves with buildings, or at least portions of buildings, which are really proof against fire.

(3) This Association urges upon all persons interested in historical studies, in all parts of the country, to take some pains to ascertain the existence and the present condition of historical materials that may now be in private hands in their respective neighborhoods, and wherever possible to induce the possessors of such materials to place them, either as a

gift or as a trust, in the custody of permanent public societies.

Professor Tyler's paper called forth from Mr. Bancroft the remark that he had once been asked by a lady to write the biography of her husband, a man of distinction. When he asked for his papers, she replied that there were none. She had thought it her duty to her husband to burn every paper which he had left. Judge Mellen Chamberlain, of the Boston Public Library, emphasized the points made by Professor Tyler, and said he thought that autograph hunters had sometimes unconsciously rendered great service to historical literature by preserving letters that would have been destroyed but for interest in the signatures.

EVENING SESSION.

TUESDAY, April 27, 1886.

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Justin Winsor, the First Vice-President of the Association. The attendance was even larger than in the morning. The presence of well-known public men, both senators and representatives, was noted, in addition to many residents of Washington. The first paper of the evening, by Alexander Brown, Esq., of Nelson County, Virginia, was presented by Dr. Charles Deane, Vice-President of the Massachusetts Historical Society. The following is an abstract of Mr. Brown's article, which was entitled, "New Views of Early Virginia History, 1606-1619." It has been privately printed for the author.

Abstract of Mr. Brown's Paper.

A full and fair history of the founding and founders of Virginia has never been published. It was against the interest of the colony and of the company, in the beginning, to make public their affairs, and therefore the council of Virginia neither published a full history of their colony themselves, nor were their early records ever used by others for that purpose.

In 1624 the company was dissolved, since which time none of their original manuscript records of transactions prior to

1619 have been available to the historian. Hence we have been forced, by the lack of other evidence, to rely almost entirely on the partisan work of Captain John Smith and his associates for "our knowledge of the infancy of our State," and on the materials used by Stith-materials evidently partisan when referring to dates prior to 1619. I think it is certainly very unjust to the early leaders in the colony and company who founded Virginia, that our ideas of them and of their work should be derived almost entirely from unfriendly evidence. I doubt if correct history can be written from controversial data, even when we have all the evidence of both sides before us, and I am sure that it is impossible to do so on ex parte evidence alone. I have been, and am, trying to gather together copies of every remaining cotemporary reference to Virginia during the foundation period, from 1606 to 1619, whether in manuscript or in print, in English, Spanish, French, or any other language. Under this heading my collection is now very complete. I have made a careful study of the whole subject, and I am convinced that the planting of the colony of Virginia was one of the broadest, most far-seeing, and noblest enterprises ever undertaken. The paper then treated in detail the subject of the Virginia Company of London, its organization, officers, members, meetings, and its objects in planting Virginia. A brief historical summary, from 1606 to 1614, was then given, showing some of the difficulties that had to be overcome.

Hon. William Wirt Henry's Paper.

The next paper was upon "The Part Taken by Virginia, under the Leadership of Patrick Henry, in Establishing Religious Liberty as a Foundation of American Government," by the Hon. William Wirt Henry, of Richmond, Virginia. The following extracts are taken from the address:

At the date of the American Revolution, although more than one sect had claimed religious freedom, and an absolute divorce of Church and State, it may be safely asserted that no civil government which had ever existed had allowed the

claim. It fell to the lot of Virginia to lead the way in forming new governments when independence had been determined on. Her Convention, on 15th May, 1776, ordered her delegates to move independence in the Continental Congress, and on the same day a committee was appointed to frame a Bill of Rights and Constitution, both of which were reported and adopted before Congress had acted on her motion. The Convention was duly impressed with the importance of their task, for not only were they to frame a plan of government for Virginia as an independent State, but they were reminded by letters that the other colonies were looking to Virginia for guidance as to a trusted leader. If great things were expected of this body, greater things were accomplished by it. On 12th June, 1776, was adopted by a unanimous vote "a declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government," which has immortalized the body, and has been adopted as the foundation of all American governments. Such a statement of political rights had never been approached before, and has never been surpassed since, nor is it easy to believe it ever will be. It far surpasses Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights of 1688, both of which are included in it, and is in truth an epitome of all history relating to the struggles of the human race for civil and religious liberty, and a prophecy of the future of free government. Its sixteen sections, like the sixteen faces of a magnificent diamond, give forth a blended and wondrous light, caught from the very portals of heaven, constituting it the Koh-inoor of political jewels.

To George Mason, a Virginia planter and a statesman of the highest order, we are indebted for the original draft of this immortal paper; but it appears by evidence which cannot be gainsaid, that two of the most important sections were the work of Patrick Henry. Edmund Randolph was a member of the committee that drafted the paper, and in after life differed widely with Mr. Henry upon the question