HC Deb 19 April 1956 vol 551 cc1163-4
30. Mr. Hyde

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he continues the policy of his predecessors in withholding from historians and students information concerning the papers of Sir Roger Casement, which were seized at the time of his trial; and whether he will now deposit these papers in the Public Record Office.

Mr. Deedes

The normal practice, which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Departmental Records, is to transfer papers to the Public Record Office when they are fifty years old; but papers of certain classes, which include those about capital cases, remain closed to the public even after transfer. My right hon. and gallant Friend is satisfied that no public interest would be served by departure from the normal practice in respect of the papers relating to Sir Roger Casement.

Mr. Hyde

Is my hon. Friend aware that these papers include several diaries in Casement's handwriting, that according to one school of thought they are Casement's own personal diaries and that according to another school of thought they are copies made by Casement of diaries belonging to someone else whom he met in the course of his official duties in South America? If my hon. Friend will not deposit them in the Public Record Office, would he allow them to be subjected to expert outside examination to determine the authenticity or otherwise of the diaries, in the interests of historical truth?

Mr. Deedes

It has been the practice at least since 1930 to decline to disclose the information which my hon. Friend is seeking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is a matter of passionate interest to a faction in Ireland, and any inquiry into the authenticity of the diaries or the use made of them in 1916 could only stir up fresh controversy and ill-feeling.

Mr. Younger

Can the hon. Gentleman say how recently Government policy on this matter has been reviewed? Is he aware that I remember one case when I was at the Home Office in which serious historians were still unable to obtain a sight of the naturalisation papers of Karl Marx, the date of which was about 1860, if I remember correctly? They had been refused on successive occasions right up to the date when I was at the Home Office. It seems to suggest that the rule about the fifty-year period for the normal case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is extended in many cases. Ought there not to be a further review?

Mr. Deedes

It is reviewed from time to time because it is the subject of Questions such as that put by my hon. Friend. I am not familiar with the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but the policy that I have announced is identical with the policy prevailing when he was at the Home Office.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the Minister aware that many reputable people, including well-known Quakers in this country, believe that the diary was not Casement's at all but a copy of a diary of a pervert which was translated by Casement in the course of his investigations in South America? Is he aware that the only evidence that this is a real diary rests upon the evidence of Sir Basil Thompson, who was himself later sentenced for sexual offences? Is it not time that in the interests of truth and decency the whole sorry business was cleared up?

Mr. Deedes

What the hon. Gentleman says may well be so, but it does not alter the view which I expressed just now.

Mr. Hyde

In view of my hon. Friend's unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.