PUBLIC RECORDS. (Hansard, 24 March 1840)

§ Mr. Protheroe
, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, moved for "A return of all the expenditure in detail of the late record commission, and the date of the last returns; together with a return of the various sums otherwise expended within the last year on the custody or repairs of the public records." The hon. Gentleman said, he did not believe there would be any objection to his motion; but he wished to avail himself of that opportunity to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, as to when they were to have the report of the keeper and deputy-keeper of the public records laid upon the table of that House? He had been a member of the commission on public records, and, although it gave him great satisfaction to know that that commission was at an end, he felt a corresponding regret to think that no report had been received from the parties in whose custody the public records now were for the last two years. When the question of the destruction of some records—records of the customs of former years, and which he believed were really of no use—came under discussion by the commissioners, he strenuously resisted their destruction. He thought that it was wrong to destroy records of any kind, and he should be glad to know that means had been taken by which the safety of the whole of the public records, whether considered useless or otherwise, could be secured. The Act of Parliament under which the keeper and deputy-keeper of the records were appointed required that they should report on the state of the public records annually. This, however, they had not condescended to do, and unless the report were laid upon the table of the House before the miscellaneous estimates were brought forward, so that he could see how the matter was now managed, he certainly should oppose the vote on the subject. The question which he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman was, when the report of the keeper and deputy- 24 keeper of records for the years 1839 and 1840 was intended to be laid upon the table of that House?

§ Mr. Fox Maule
in reply, said, that he had received a communication from the deputy-keeper of records, in which he stated that the reason no report had been made during the last two years was, because a difficulty had sprung up which had prevented it. He said, however, that it was hoped in a very short time to make a report embracing both years.

§ Colonel Sibthorp
was not aware that this commission had expired, but he was most happy to hear it. He thought it high time that a select committee had been appointed to inquire with respect to the expense of the multifarious commissions which had been appointed by the present Government. When the returns for which he had moved were laid before the House he was convinced that the country would be astonished at the enormous sums which had been absorbed by those commissions; and as soon as he obtained those returns it was his intention to move for the appointment of a select committee, on which occasion he hoped to have the support of the hon. Member opposite.

§ Sir R. Peel
said—Sir, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department whether the criminal law commission is still in existence, and, if so, whether any private report has been received from that commission? There was such a commission, and it was to report as to the expediency of establishing a code embracing the unwritten as well as the statute criminal law. If this commission still exists, what I wish to know from the hon. Gentleman is, when the commissioners are expected to make a final report? With respect to the destruction of records, alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I must say, that I think it would be highly satisfactory if a public inquiry on the subject were to take place. There may be much exaggeration in the notions formed of the value of the records which are said to have been destroyed. It is very possible that no record of any value has been destroyed, but still I think that a select committee should be appointed for the satisfaction of the public, to ascertain by what authority any portion of the public records have been destroyed, and what the records were which were so destroyed, For my own part, I think it 25 very unadvisable to destroy any portion of the public records which may tend to throw light on the antiquities of the country: and as the appointment of a select committee is the only way to satisfy the public mind on the subject, I should hope that some hon. Member, who was a member of the commission, will submit such a motion to the House.

§ Mr. Protheroe
perfectly concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and he must say, that the reason given by the hon. Gentleman for the non-production of this report, was the worst he had ever heard in his life. If there were any difficulty in the case, it was a difficulty which had arisen in consequence of the keeper and deputy-keeper of the records doing nothing instead of attending to the preservation of the records. He should not neglect the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He begged to remark, that the record commission was extinct. The hon. Member then moved for a return of all the expenditure in detail of the late record commission since the date of the last returns, together with a return of the various sums otherwise expended within the last year on the custody or repairs of the public records.

§ Lord John Russell
said, it might be supposed, from what had been said, that the Record Commission was now in existence, and were answerable for those records that had been destroyed. But, on a former occasion, he had himself observed, whatever might have been the merits or faults of the Record Commission, that when that commission expired at the demise of the Crown, he did not think it necessary to advise the Crown to re-appoint it. Therefore no commission had existed from that period. The Parliament agreed that there should be a keeper and a deputy keeper of the records. The present keeper, as arranged by act of Parliament, was the Master of the Rolls, and he had the power, with the consent and approbation of the Secretary of State, to appoint a deputy-keeper. The person appointed deputy was Sir Francis Palsgrave. He did not think that any one would say, that those persons were not extremely competent to exercise a sound judgment upon matters under their superintendence. But with regard to the destruction of the records, he believed that those documents were not in the keeping of the Master of 26 the Rolls or the deputy-keeper, nor under their control. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that it was a fit subject of inquiry as to what were the reasons why any historical documents should have been allowed to be destroyed, and not placed in the custody of the commissioners, or in the Museum, or in some other public establishment, where there would be no risk of the, destruction of anything really valuable. With respect to the question of the right hon. Baronet in regard to the commission on criminal law, these commissioners had gone through a great many heads of the criminal law, and had made a digest of them; and when he was referred to, his recommendation was, that the commissioners should continue their labours until they had gone through the whole subject. But with regard to the other question, namely, whether the commissioners were to reduce into a code of statute all the unwritten law of this country, he owned that he did consider that that was a question of such complexity that the commission ought not to be continued for that purpose. At the same time he ought to state that these commissioners did not receive annual pay. When they had formed a digest of the statutes, and produced a report, they then received payment for the report thus given to the Crown. The public, therefore, had no annual salaries to pay. He expected before long that one or two more reports would be made, and then the labours of the commission would be concluded.