SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2001-07 > 0994590555


From: Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake <>
Subject: Re: [SoG] Access to historical records in England and Wales
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:09:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <636196964a.tim@southfrm.demon.co.uk>


In message <>, Tim Powys-Lybbe
<> writes
>It follows
>> that all documents produced on or before the year 1926 are historical
>> documents in the year 2001.
>
>There is something logically funny about this last sentence. Either a
>document is historical or it isn't. I don't think it suddenly becomes
>historical when a number of years have passed.
>
>I detect a reasoning whose purpose is to dispose of any concept of
>privacy. I think the debate here should be on privacy not on
>historicality.
>
You are reading something here that I did not intend. I accept that the
passage of time is but one determinant on whether or not a document is
historical. The only reason I seized on it is because it is so easy to
measure. And we (family historians) need to keep things simple for
politicians to understand.
>>
>> 2. What is the best archive for any historical record?
>>
>> The primary purpose of any archive has to be the care and conservation
>> of all documents and artefacts deposited in it. The secondary purpose is
>> to provide public access to all its holdings. It follows that where a
>> document is of national importance it should be deposited in the
>> National Archives. For England and Wales this means the Public Record
>> Office. Where a document is of local, regional or personal significance
>> the ideal archive is the relevant County Record Office.
>>
>> 3. What should public access to these archives be?
>>
>> Public access to both national and regional archives should be free and
>> include evenings and weekends, as is largely the case today.
>> Increasingly these archives can be expected to make facsimiles and
>> indexes of their holdings available on the Internet to provide global
>> access.
>
>Yes these indexes must be a good objective. But it needs to be
>determined whether it is public policy that it should be done for all
>archives, what time limits would be expected for completion and who is
>to fund this extra work. This is a major topic in its own right.
>
Traditionally indexing has been done by voluntary groups such as FHSs'
members who donate their time. I see no reason for this to change apart
from broadening the franchise to include those who can download image
files over the Internet then upload index data files once they have made
a transcription or an index with appropriate software.
>>
>> 4. How much should we pay for this access?
>>
>> The present situation is that British citizens pay for these archive
>> facilities through their national and local taxes. In addition they pay
>> for all costs of document duplication. I believe this is correct and
>> should be continued. Family historians should not expect to be
>> subsidised by other members of the British population.
>>
>> The 1901 census
>>
>> The present position on the 1901 census is:
>>
>> 1. It is an historical document.
>> 2. It is archived at the PRO.
>
>From the above this is wrong, it should be at the County Record Offices
>as it is "personal" and "local". Yet I believe it must be wrong to
>split up the census collections to the various offices. So we have to
>review more closely the division of storage of documents between
>national and county archives.
>
Many registration districts straddled county boundaries and since the
entire census was carried out nationally on one night in the year, I
think the argument can be made for the original CEBs (Census Enumeration
Books)to be archived nationally as a single collection. The present
situation is that almost all CROs (County Record Offices) do have
facsimile microform copies of their own and neighbouring areas.
>
>> 3. It is open to free access in the UK from January 2002.
>
>Open to access, yes, not sure about the "free access" bit, unless you
>mean "free from restraint" as opposed to "free from cost". Please
>clarify.
>
Yes free from restraint, and also free from cost if you want to view the
microfiche at Kew in the PRO (Public Record Office). The only cost is
for fiche printing if you want a paper hard copy.

>> 4. It costs 80 pence to download a page of a census enumeration book
>> (which roughly equates to the cost of photoduplication).
>>
>> I therefore believe that a satisfactory position mostly exists for the
>> 1901 census, although the PRO needs to do much more to ensure that
>> microfiche copies for all the country are easily accessible across
>> England and Wales for those who do not have Internet access.
>
>Microfiche copies of the enumerators books? Or of the indexes to those
>books?
The CEBs of course.
>And, by and large (a) most libraries provide internet access and

But it is not free and many recent surveys have shown a majority of the
British public cannot or will not undertake commercial transactions over
the Internet yet. Sad but true.

>(b) microfiche would be stored at the libraries so there is no need for
>the microfiche.
>
Eh?
>>
>> Birth, marriage and death registrations
>>
>> Although we await the government’s ‘Options paper’ on the future of
>> access to historical GRO records, I am not optimistic that they will get
>> it right. The present position on the pre-1926 BMD records is:
>>
>> 1. They are historical documents of regional/personal significance
>> rather than a national one.
>
>Just like the census?
No, see above.
>
>> 2. They are archived in a series of local Registry offices in physical
>> registers.
>> 3. There is limited public access to these historical documents.
>
>Should there be unlimited access? Would this be a good way of
>preserving those registers?
>
No, same position as their immediate antecedents, the parish registers.
They would be produced in either analogue or digital facsimile and that
facsimile would be used for day to day access.

>> 4. It costs 6.50 pounds to obtain a copy of such an historical document
>> which is vastly more than the cost of photoduplication.
>
>The trouble here is the confusion between legal and genealogical
>purposes. Legal purposes require a fully certified document which is
>indeed expensive. For my money, most genealogists do not need this and
>a photocopy would do.
>
>> The answer is obvious. All pre-1926 BMD registers should be transferred
>> from local Registry offices to the relevant County Record Office.
>
>Would the lawyers be satisfied by this? Are the Archivists accepted as
>appropriate people to certify documents? I think a little debate is
>needed here.
If you need a certified copy for legal purposes at present you pay your
money and get it from Smedley Hydro near Southport. There is no reason
why this should not continue for lawyers, but the less
genealogists/historians and lawyers have to do with each other the
better. I feel another quote from Horace Round coming on...
--
Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake

This thread: