Title: POLITICIANS AND ARCHIVES

Author(s): Cobb, H. S
Source: Journal of the Society of Archivists, 1994, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, p. 141-149
Language: English
Abstract: Outlines British politicians' attitudes toward archives since the
beginning of the 18th century, with particular reference to the work
of parliamentary committees set up to consider the keeping of
records. The role of individual Members of Parliament is also
considered. [Entry ©2002 ABC-Clio Inc.].
Time Period: 18c-20c
Subjects: Archives; Attitudes; Great Britain; Politicians
Publication Type: Article
ISSN: 0037-9816
Accession Number: 003798161994152141Co

Database: World History FullTEXT

POLITICIANS AND ARCHIVES

I expect you all are familiar with Harold Wilson's often quoted dictum that 'a week is a long
time in politics'. This seems to me to express two truths about politics. Firstly, that an
unexpected event may suddenly change the current political agenda and secondly that the
thinking of most politicians is short-term--in many cases not extending beyond making an
impact on tomorrow's headlines. If the latter is true, then how can we expect the politician
to show concern for the preservation of archives as 'the nation's memory', especially when
one has the impression that many politicians and indeed governments, would prefer the
nation to have as short a memory as possible! My intention is to make a brief survey of
politicians' attitudes towards archives over the last three centuries. I shall confine myself to
national politicians. This survey may not provide any solutions to our present problems, but
will, I hope, help to put them in perspective.

As in other fields (if I may say so without being accused of bias), it was the House of Lords
which took the lead in modern times with regard to archives when, in 1703, it set up a
Committee 'to consider of the methods of keeping records in offices, and . . . of ways to
remedy what shall be found to be amiss'.[1] In the words of David Douglas, 'it was left once
again to the aristocracy to come to the rescue of the scholar. The same group among the
nobility who maintained in their own libraries such a very different state, strove also to
effect among the Public Records a reform in the interests of learning'.[2] Charles Montagu,
Earl of Halifax, chaired the Committee until his death in 1715, but the Committee
continued its investigations until 1728. Halifax himself and his fellow committee members,
Lord Somers and the Earl of Sunderland, possessed notable collections of manuscripts and
books.[3]

The Committee made a fairly thorough survey of the records of central government,
principally those in the Tower, the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, the Rolls Chapel
and in the various courts in and around Westminster, taking evidence from their keepers. A
number of horrors were uncovered, as in 1709 when it was found that whilst the records of
the Court of Queen's Bench from Henry VI to within 10 years of the present time were kept
in 'a large spacious room where the records lie in good order, with labels and endorsements
upon them distinguishing the times', the records of the last 10 years were kept in a room
which was 'formerly a Cook's Shop and is now partly a Wash-House and partly a Stable;
which is a very improper situation for records of so much consequence'.[4] We lack
accounts of any debates there may have been on the Committee's reports but some
indication of their reception is provided in an Address of the Lords to Queen Anne in 1706,
asking for the repair of the Chapter House, better preservation of the State Papers and
additional allowances for men to sort, digest and bind the papers into volumes and stating
that 'the safe and orderly keeping of the Records and Public Papers is much for Your
Majesty's Honour and of great importance to Your subjects'.[5] Of course peers, like their
fellow commoners were interested in the records as litigants, landowners and taxpayers as
much as, if not more than, students of history.

After 1728, the initiative for investigating and remedying the state of the public records
passed to the House of Commons. The Commons Committee appointed in 1732 to view the
post-fire Cottonian Library and 'such of the publick Records of this Kingdom as they think
proper' summarized in its Report the achievements and shortcomings of the earlier Lords'
Committee.[6] Considerable improvements were found in the Tower and Exchequer
repositories but otherwise public records were still scattered among a great number of
repositories in different parts of London, and searches were uncertain, expensive and often
fruitless. The vaults under the Chapter House were said to be filled with 'spirituous liquors'
and gunpowder was stored under Caesar's Chapel in the Tower. I particularly like the
remark about the Rolls Chapel where some of the Patent Rolls were stored in such dark
places that 'they can be removed . . . only by guess matured into habit'.[7] The 1732
Committee's main proposals were for a 'general index of all public records' and for a greater
concentration of the records in the main repositories of the Tower and the Abbey to
improve conditions of storage and accessibility.

A further Commons Committee was set up in 1772 to examine the state of the records in
the Rolls Chapel, after the House had been informed 'by several Members in their Places,
that they had, during the last Recess of Parliament, examined (together with Mr Speaker)
the State of the Public Records of this Kingdom and the Repositories in which the same are
now kept'.[8]

Probably, the most remarkable initiative ever to have been undertaken by a back-bench MP
in the field of archives was that of Charles Abbot in 1800 when he moved for the setting up
of a 'Committee to enquire into the State of the Public Records . . . to report to the House
the Nature and Condition thereof, together with what they shall judge fit to be done for the
better Arrangement, Preservation and more convenient Use of the same'.[9] This was an
age when private members had much greater control of the business of the House, which
was not yet subject to a rigid governmental timetable. Pitt readily agreed to the enquiry and,
as has been pointed out, 'a generation of men who could interest themselves in the public
records, when faced with competing problems of such magnitude (as the outbreak of the
Napoleonic Wars and Union with Ireland) must have been large-minded indeed'.[10]

Abbot, later Speaker and the first Lord Colchester, seems to have been motivated both by a
zeal for administrative reform and by a genuine interest in preserving records for scholarly,
governmental and legal purposes. He prepared for the enquiry in a most thorough manner,
discussing with various record keepers the nature of their holdings, sending out circulars of
enquiry and visiting record offices. Abbot's investigations extended to records of the
Church, of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, of learned societies, of the senior
common law courts and of Scotland. To be as sure as possible of the outcome, Abbot, in his
speech on the Motion for a Committee, outlined the measures which he recommended for
remedying the defects in public record keeping and, not surprisingly, the Committee's
actual recommendations followed fairly closely the lines of Abbot's speech. This was after
the Committee had enquired into 300-400 repositories, chiefly by questionnaire, including
the offices of Clerks of the Peace, with a passing reference to parish chests. The result was
the first large-scale investigation into the public records and other groups of archives, not
strictly, if at all, public records. Abbot even promoted research into the materials and make-
up of records.

The Committee's Report dealt first with the bewildering variety of buildings in which the
records were housed and recommended extensive repairs and, in some cases, rebuilding. It
attempted to prescribe certain standards for archive preservation but special reports
submitted by the record keepers showed differences of opinion on the best ways of storing
records, on the need for air-circulation and on materials and formats for documents. Other
recommendations including the setting up of a central repository on the lines of the General
Register House in Edinburgh and of a general registry of deeds, the regulation of the
staffing requirements of various repositories and payment partly by salary and partly by
fees in order to reduce the general level of the latter and thus make records more easily and
cheaply available to the public. A 'most essential measure' was to be the printing of some of
the principal calendars and indexes and such unpublished records 'as are the most important
in their Nature and the most perfect of their kind'. The Committee proposed the
appointment of a Royal Commission to carry out its recommendations and it was here that
the weakness lay, for the Commission only functioned satisfactorily whilst Abbot presided
over it, that is until 1819. Its achievements were chiefly in the field of publications such as
the Statutes of the Realm and calendars of Chancery enrollments, proceedings and
inquisitions.

Politics again came into play with the appointment in 1836 of the Commons Select
Committee to enquire into the work of the sixth Record Commission since 1831 and the
state of the public records. The Committee's Chairman, the radical MP Charles Bullet, was
briefed by Henry Cole, a bitter opponent of C. P. Cooper, the Secretary to the Commission
and, in consequence, the Committee's Report was highly critical of the Commission's work.
The Committee found some repositories, such as the Rolls Chapel, in a chaotic condition.
The Commission had achieved only minor reforms in the fees charged for the inspection of
records, which were generally too high and not uniform. Even the Commission's
publications programme, to which it had devoted a considerable part of its energies and its
parliamentary grant, was found wanting in its selection of records for publication.
The Select Committee was deeply concerned at the way in which the public records were
scattered over a large number of unsafe and unsuitable buildings, under what was described
as 'a multitude of imperfectly responsible keepers'. Consequently it recommended the
building of a new general Record Office as a matter of first importance. The Committee
wanted a smaller professional body of full-time salaried record commissioners. It suggested
the transfer to the Commission of older material from the State Paper Office which could
only be seen under permit from the Secretaries of State. The Committee also thought that
steps should be taken to destroy 'worthless material', with proper safeguards.[11]

John Cantwell, in his fascinating insider's history of the Public Record Office, warns
against the received version that the office emerged almost inevitably from the Select
Committee's Report. He considers that the vision and sense of purpose needed for the
creation of the Public Record Office was almost entirely lacking in political circles and
instead was to be found in the minds of three or four people actively engaged in record
affairs, foremost amongst whom was Henry Cole. Although Charles Buller did introduce in
1837 a Public Records Bill it got no further than the Committee stage. It was eventually a
government Bill, drafted by the parliamentary counsel to the Home Office, which became
the Public Records Act of 1838. The fact that the government did agree to legislate appears
to have been due to pressure from the Benthamite Master of the Rolls, Lord Langdale, who
threatened to give up the record responsibilities temporarily placed upon him by the Home
Secretary unless a Public Record Office was set up to unite the variety of existing
repositories.[12]

The Act created the post of deputy keeper of the records who could, if he were so minded
(as was the first incumbent Sir Francis Palgrave), act as an advocate for the public records
and to some extent for archives in general. This, I suppose, meant that there was less scope
in future for initiatives in the archive field by back-bench MPs. Certain MPs such as Buller,
Edward Prothero and Richard Monckton Milnes kept up pressure through parliamentary
questions in the 1840s for a new Public Record Office building. Then in 1851 the Treasury
reluctantly honoured the commitment in the Act to provide suitable accommodation for the
records.[13]

The Public Record Office Acts of 1877 and 1898 authorizing the destruction of 'valueless
documents', firstly back to 1715 and then to 1660, were both government measures drafted
initially under the supervision of the deputy keeper. The laying before Parliament of
schedules of documents proposed for destruction proved to be little more than a
formality.[14]

Printing the most important Public Records, primarily for official use, had been the concern
of both Houses from the initial project of Rymer's Foedera in the early eighteenth century.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the majority of MPs' archival questions in
Parliament appear to have related to record publications rather than to more general record
matters. Thus in 1887 Mr Lyell, the Member for Orkney and Shetland, asked the Secretary
of the Treasury why publication of the Rolls edition of the Icelandic Sagas had been
delayed. The Minister blamed the delay on the editor, Sir George Dasent, but in mitigation
one has to remember that 10 years previously Sir George had the first volume set in type
only to be told by Robert Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and an Icelandic scholar,
that a much better manuscript of the sagas existed at Copenhagen.[15]
Irish, Welsh and Scottish MPs were responsible for most of the questions and motions on
record matters not only in the nineteenth but well into this century. One has the feeling that
these enquiries often had more to do with the nationalist cause than with genuine scholarly
concern. In 1899, Irish Nationalist MPs were even claiming that they were being
discriminated against in securing access to the State Papers in Dublin compared to the
access granted to opponents of Home Rule, such as the historian Lecky.[16]

Welsh members frequently complained of the alleged neglect of the records of their country
which were in the custody of the Public Record Office. It was a Welsh member W.
Llewellyn Williams, Liberal MP for Carmarthen, who introduced a Motion in the
Commons in April 1910 for an enquiry by Royal Commission into the state of the public
records. In his speech, Llewellyn Williams claimed that every other country in Europe was
ahead of Britain in record matters but he admitted that his main interest was in Welsh
history and said that many Welsh documents in the PRO were uncatalogued and
uncalendared. In reply, Lloyd George (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) was only too
anxious to conciliate his fellow countryman and in agreeing to an enquiry, spoke vaguely of
'very valuable documents which have not been unearthed and which contain material which
should be a very important contribution to the history, not merely of Wales, but of other
parts of the country'.[17] As we know, this resulted in the most substantial official enquiry
ever undertaken into our national archives. The Royal Commission on Public Records had
wide terms of reference covering not only public records in the PRO and in central
departments, but also local records of a public nature. The recommendations (which
included the establishment of a record office in Wales) could have provided the basis for
genuine national archives legislation. However, unlike Abbot, Llewellyn Williams was not
in control of the enquiry and little notice was taken of the main findings.[18] I have found
only two parliamentary questions concerning the Commission's findings. One in 1913
elicited the reply that the Master of the Rolls had appointed a Committee of historical
experts to advise him on publications and other matters. The other in 1925 was from a
Welsh MP asking when the proposed transfer of Welsh records from the PRO to a record
office in Wales was to take place.[19] In 1913 and 1914, Llewellyn Williams introduced a
Bill 'to provide for the better custody of the Records of Wales' but it was talked out on both
occasions.[20]

As Alfred Knightbridge has pointed out, since the failure of the Royal Commission official
investigations into archives, such as the Grigg and Wilson Committees, have become
increasingly restricted in scope.[21] Similarly, between the Wars, the interest of MPs in
archives seems to have been at a low level; only a few such as Colonel Josiah Wedgwood
(founder of the History of Parliament) were sufficiently interested to ask questions about,
for example, search facilities at the PRO. A Scottish MP asking in 1932 for steps to be
taken for the better preservation of the records of Scotland, produced the memorable reply
from the Secretary of State that broadly speaking the very old records were 'only in need of
cleaning and airing'.[22] Pressure from Scottish Members resulted in the Public Records
(Scotland) Act 1937 under which a small number of ancient records brought to London
from Scotland during the reign of Edward I were returned in fulfillment of the Treaty of
Northampton of 1328.[23]

In the years immediately following the Second World War it was the Ulster Nationalist
MP, H. Montgomery Hyde, a prolific author of works on modern history and literature,
who most frequently raised record matters in the Commons, asking questions about cuts in
PRO staffing, departmental records and The Grigg Committee. He was also one of the
principal speakers in the second reading debate on the 1958 Public Records Bills.[24] The
Grigg Committee and resultant Act of 1958 seem to have originated not from parliamentary
pressure but from the anxiety of the Treasury to deal with the problem of the rapid
expansion of modern departmental records.[25] Cantwell speaks of 'the indifference of
those who allowed it (the 1838 Act) to remain on the statute book for no less than 120
years'. It is easy to guess that the culprits he has in mind are the politicians.

Apart from Montgomery Hyde, speakers in the second reading debate on the 1958 Bill
included Eric Fletcher, something of a medieval scholar, and Joseph Sparks, both users of
the PRO searchroom. In the Lords, the Earl of Harrowby, one of the principal speakers, was
one of the few remaining peers who had not only their own archives but also their own
archivist.[26]

In the 1958 Commons debates the question of the diaries of Sir Roger Casement was raised
both on second reading and at committee stage. A group of Labour members led by Emrys
Hughes tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain a reduction in the closed period for public access
from 50 to 40 years so that the diaries, unless further restricted, would then be available for
inspection. The Casement Diaries are, I think, the prime example of an apparent record
matter pursued in parliament almost entirely for non-record reasons. The controversy over
the existence and authenticity of the diaries, which were alleged to have been circulated at
the time of Casement's trial and execution in 1916 in order to discredit him, especially in
the USA, provided great opportunities for nationalists and conspiracy theorists to launch
attacks on the government. Starting with questions in the Commons in 1956, through the
1958 debates, the topic was even pursued at the committee stage of the Public Records Bill
of 1967. Statements were provoked from R. A. Butler as Home Secretary in 1959 and
Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in 1965 regarding the authenticity and accessibility of the
diaries.[27] Was ever such a fuss made over any other comparatively minor group of
records? I was interested to read recently that the diaries have now been opened to public
inspection at Kew.

After the passing of the 1967 Act the provision of further accommodation for searchers
became the subject of Commons' questions as increased access under the 30-year role
caused over-crowding at Chancery Lane. Similarly, proposals for a new Public Record
Office building at Kew and the closure of Chancery Lane provoked a number of
parliamentary questions.[28] The overwhelming number of questions asked in the
Commons over the last two decades have concerned documents withheld beyond the 30-
year closure period--as though nothing mattered as much as access to modem records.[29] I
suppose this is on a par. with the annual fuss in the press at the New Year over records
newly released from the closure period. Discussion of wider questions relating to the future
of the PRO in the light of the Wilson Report, the Efficiency Scrutiny, the move to Agency
Status and the White Paper on 'Open Government' has been left to the House of Lords,
mostly on the initiative of Lord Teviot.[30]

As we all know, politicians have had even less inclination and time to discuss local and
specialist records, in parliament, than they have had for the records of central government.
The first Bill specifically relating to archives other than public records would appear to be
that of 1904 'to make better provision for the custody and preservation of local records'.
The Bill, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Local Records
which preceded it, was purely of a 'permissive and enabling character'. The 4th Marquess of
Salisbury, then Lord Privy Seal, introduced the Bill in the House of Lords on 12th August
1904--the 'Glorious Twelfth' when many of their Lordships would have been on the grouse
moors.[31] Needless to say, the Bill got no further than a first reading; one wonders
whether anything more was seriously intended.

Significantly, the one such Bill to pass into law, the Local Government (Records) Bill of
1962 was a Private Member's Bill which was permissive not mandatory in its provisions.
As Nicholas Ridley, who sponsored the Bill, explained, in order to obtain one's objective
through a Private Member's Bill, it is necessary to find a Member who has come high in the
Ballot for Bills and is willing to take on your Bill. The Bill should preferably be non-
controversial, as was that of 1962.[32] Lacking sanctions to enforce its provisions, that Act
proved to be, in Felix Hull's words 'a poor thing'.[33]

Non-governmental archives have been more affected by provisions in general Acts than by
specific archive legislation. Examples of this are the Law of Property Acts of 1922 and
1924, the Tithe Act of 1936 and the Local Government Act of 1972. Often the greatest
danger is presented by general legislation which fails to provide for archival needs.
Fortunately, the Society is now prepared to meet such dangers with its Legislation Panel
keeping a watchful eye on legislative developments.

Although the Society has a long history of making representations to central or local
government on archive matters, probably the first occasion it undertook full-scale lobbying
of Parliament was for the Local Government Bill of 1985 abolishing the GLC and the six
Metropolitan Counties. Elizabeth Berry, who led the joint working group of the Society and
the Association of County Archivists, has described the large amount of time and persistent
effort required for effective lobbying.[34] In 1985, this involved preliminary meetings with
the PRO, HMC, BRA and BAC; letters to, and meetings with, selected NIPs and Peers of
all parties who might be willing to put the archival case to Ministers and in debates in either
House; corresponding with, and arranging meetings between, Ministers and the Society's
representatives and seeking wider support from academics and from national and local
historical and specialist societies. In the event, in 1985, the government was prepared to
make only small concessions in the Bill itself but Lord Elton, the Minister in the Lords
most directly involved, had been persuaded to give considerable thought to the needs of
local archive services, in contrast with the indifference shown by other Ministers at an
earlier stage of the Bill.

As though to give the lie to the generally pessimistic tone of this survey, I understand that
recently there have been two encouraging developments in the legislative field. Firstly,
thanks to the influence of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, the inclusion of two
archive clauses in the present Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which is now in the House
of Commons and secondly, the amendments moved by Lord Cledwyn at the Committee,
Report and Third Reading stages of the Local Government (Wales) Bill entrusting the new
principal councils with responsibility for making proper arrangements for the preservation
and management of any records transferred to them, or which they create; such
arrangements being made in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. One notes
that Lord Elton supported the amendments. Following upon the rejection of the amendment
at the Report Stage, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Prys-Davies met the Secretary of State, with
Elizabeth Shepherd present as an expert adviser, and the Minister agreed to bring forward a
proposal embodying the principle of the amendment at the Committee stage in the
Commons.[35] This represents a considerable success for the Society's lobbying efforts and
will, one hopes, be a precedent for archive provisions in any English local government
reorganization.

It seems to me that certain ideas which currently prevail generally in political circles may
represent an even greater threat to archive services than that from ill-considered legislation.
In a recent article in the Journal, 'The Root of All Evil: income generation by the PRO and
local authority archive services', Simon Fowler surveys the efforts of central and local
archivists, under pressure from their political masters, to generate income from record
office services.[36] Is it by accident or design, that there is no question mark after the title:
'The Root of All Evil'? However, by Fowler's estimation, the revenue raised from sources
such as the aggressive marketing of publications, search room charges, archive shops
selling books, cards and souvenirs, charges for genealogical research, for records
management services and from external sponsorship, is unlikely to amount to more than
10% of income, without damaging the core work of the archive. Are these really activities
to which professional archivists should be obliged to devote a considerable part of their
working life? Perhaps the pressure for market-testing, contracting out services, income-
generation and other current shibboleths, is irresistible but if we, as a Society, oppose any
of these developments on professional grounds, should we not voice our disapproval
publicly?

One hopes there will always be, as in the past, certain politicians who take a particular
interest in archives but I think, as Elizabeth Berry suggested, there is a need for the Society
constantly to promote the cause of archives in political circles. Perhaps we should retain an
MP as a 'political adviser' as do other professional bodies, to be our spokesman in
Parliament when archival interests are involved. Without such efforts, the core archival
functions of the proper selection, care and provision of access to records are in danger of
being sacrificed in favour of every fashionable political fad and cut-back of the moment.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

This is an amended version of the Presidential address to the Society, given at its annual
general meeting on 21 April 1994.

1. House of Lords Journal, vol xvii, p 341; Elizabeth M. Hallam, 'Problems with record
keeping in early eighteenth century London . . .', JSA, vol 6 (1979), pp 219-226.

2. David C. Douglas, English Scholars 1660-1730 (2nd edn, 1951), p 269.

3. Bishop Burnet said that Halifax encouraged scholars with 'good words and good dinners'
but Lord Egmont called him 'a fine scholar' in his own right (G.E.C., Complete Peerage,
s.v. Halifax).

4. House of Lords Journal, vol xviii, p 717.

5. House of Lords Journal, vol xviii, p 135.

6. Reports from the Committees of the House of Commons, vol 1 (1715-1735), pp 445-448.
7. As reported by the Record Commissioners in 1833--R. B. Wernham, 'The public records
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries', in Levi Fox (ed.), English Historical Scholarship
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Dugdale Society, 1956), p 27.

8. House of Commons Journal, vol xxxiii, p 975.

9. R.B. Pugh, 'Charles Abbot and the public records: the first phase', Bulletin of the
Institute of Historical Research, vol xxxix (1966), pp 69-85; Peter Walne, 'The record
commissioners, 1800-37', JSA, vol 2 (1960), pp 8-16.

10. Pugh, 'Charles Abbot', p 73.

11. John Cantwell, 'The 1838 Public Record Office Act and its aftermath; a new
perspective', JSA, vol 7 (1984), p 277.

12. John D. Cantwell, The Public Record Office 1838-1958 (1991), pp 1-12.

13. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 120, 128; Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser, vol 65, cc
184-5; vol 68, c 1335; vol 87, cc 907-9; vol 91 c 20; vol 92, cc 1273-4.

14. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 277-280, 346-347, 356.

15. Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser, vol 314, c 243; David Knowles, Great Historical
Enterprises (1962), p 120.

16. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 344-345.

17. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 17, cc 733-7.

18. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 362-365; A. A. H. Knightbridge, 'National archives policy',

JSA, vol 7 (1983), p 223.

19. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 47, c 2198; vol 182, c 2058.

20. Cantwell, The PRO, p 375.

21. Knightbridge, 'National archives policy', pp 215-216.

22. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 272, c 299.

23. 1 Edw. VIII & 1 Geo. VI, cap. 43. The Act also provided for the transfer of legal,
departmental and local records to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland.

24. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 474, cc 1874-5; vol 536, c
2045; vol 543, cc 954-8; vol 545, c 1477; Cantwell, The PRO, pp 460, 496.

25. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 12, 470.

26. Cantwell, The PRO, pp 493-496.

27. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 571, cc 211-12; vol 572, cc
1290-1; vol 581, c 99; vol 609, cc 1523-7, 1685; vol 610, cc 263-73; vol 702, cc 611-123
vol 707, cc 231-3; vol 708, c 249; vol 712, cc 1643-4; vol 749, cc 1184-1221.

28. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 758, cc 7-8; vol 761, c 42; vol
783, cc 1631-4; vol. 813, c 310; vol 822, c 200; vol 983, cc 275-6; vol 991, cc 401-2.

29. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Commons, vol 872, cc 195, 215-17; vol 907,
cc 23-4, 55-6; vol 942, cc 229-30; vol 959, c 320; vol 965, c 171.

30. Parliamentary Debates, 5th ser, House of Lords, vol 415, cc 587-90; vol 430, cc 224-49;
vol 528, cc 827-30; vol 549, cc 752-64.

31. House of Lords Journal, vol cxxxvi, p 347; House of Lords Sessional Papers, 1904, vol
v, pp 383-388.

32. Nicholas Ridley, 'The Local Government (Records) Act, 1962; its passage to the Statute
Book', JSA, vol 2 (1963), pp 288-292.

33. Felix Hull, 'Towards a national archives policy--the local scene', JSA, vol 7 (1983), pp
225-226.

34. E. K. Berry, 'The Local Government Act 1985 and the Archive Services of the Greater
London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils', JSA, vol 9 (1988), pp 119-147.

35. Parliamentary Debates (House of Lords), 10 February 1994, cc 1790-7; 7 March 1994,
cc 1245-50.

36. JSA, vol 14 (1993), pp 141-154. Fowler sees some merit in income generation as 'part
of a wider programme to reach out to current and potential users of a record office'.

~~~~~~~~

By H. S. COBB, President of the Society of Archivists

This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied
without the copyright holder's express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the
retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: Journal of the Society of Archivists, 1994, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, p. 141-149
Accession Number: 003798161994152141Co