The British Library hasn’t had the best of months, what with The Times revealing that a 300 year old diary entrusted into the libraries care had suffered severe damage.

The diary of a prominent Jacobite rebel, Thomas Tyldesley, was given to the British Library for safekeeping in 1994. But since then, someone had spilt oil across the pages and cut off its original leather front cover. It emerged later the diary had taken additional damage from damp, mould and mildew.

When initially questioned by the newspaper, the British Library told them “the diary had “suffered accidental damage” insisting it was an “isolated incident”. Helen Shenton, the library’s head of collection care, also told The Times, “The book had been kept in safe storage in a protective box and it was not until the book was opened that the stains were discovered.” Furthermore they said the diary’s cover had been removed as part of a rebinding service offered by the library, up until 2000.

However, anomalies into the libraries account began to emerge. To start with, only British Library staff had access to the book, the oil itself was found on the inside pages only, suggesting that the diary must have been opened at the time of the spillage. Even more damning is that it was later revealed the damage happened after 2002, so the diary cover couldn’t have been removed for rebinding, as the service had not been available for two years. If the book had been kept in a protective box, where did the mould and damp come from?

Distraught owner and descendent of the diarist, Peter J. Tyldesley told the newspaper “there are sections which are completely destroyed, sections where the entire text block has disappeared into a smeary mess’ ‘I thought the British Library was the safest place for it. How wrong I was.”

The diary itself contained almost daily entries for three years, beginning in 1712. Thomas Tyldesley wrote about the Jacobite cause his family were engaged in and the run up to a rebellion in 1715.

Since the original article and press release, the library have reissued their official statement recognising that not quite all of the facts were in place and have since met with Peter J. Tyldesley to reaffirm expenses will be met, and an attempt to restore the damage to the diary will be taken on by the library.

As far as ascertaining what actually happened, investigations are ongoing but it will leave library staff with a nasty taste in the mouth, especially if it emerges that a deliberate act of vandalism occurred, the implication for the safety of items in other collections will prove worrying.