An open letter from 90 academics: don't divide the Catholic archives

The amazement is simply told.  As Chair of the Society, Dr Jenny Wormald wrote on 4 May 2012 to Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien, with copies to the Scottish hierarchy and the Apostolic Nuncio, to express the serious disquiet felt by members of the academic community about the proposed division of the Scottish Catholic Archives, and their removal from Columba House, Edinburgh, to the University of Aberdeen and a house owned by the Catholic Church in the south side of Glasgow.

On 11 May 2012 she received a very courteous and reassuring letter from the Cardinal dated 7 May, which said that the concerns of the Society would be given "every consideration" by the Bishops' Conference.  Four days later we read the press release:  no consideration, just a pre-emptive strike.

The text of the press release itself has its amazing moments.  Its final sentence trumpets that "the whole Catholic community is indebted to Aberdeen University Library".

But Archbishop Mario Conti and any other bishop who had a part in writing this release know perfectly well that they are not entitled to speak for the whole Catholic community like this. They have all been the recipients, from Catholics as well as non-Catholics, of letters objecting to the proposed move and division of the archives, and explaining why.

Then we are told of the advantage to researchers of having the Archives close to Blairs Museum, where they can see the "extensive collection of paintings, vestments, church plate and other historic objects".

While these are indeed of interest, no serious researcher who has used the Archives in Columba House will agree that this outweighs the value of being close to the NRS and NLS, as well as the National Gallery and Portrait Gallery, the National Museum, RCHAMS, all in central Edinburgh within easy distance of one another (how many other cities can boast that for researchers?);  and as Blairs Museum is open only on Saturday, Sunday and local Monday holiday afternoons – or by appointment – the argument for moving the Archives to Aberdeen on the grounds of proximity to the Museum looks very tenuous indeed.  Perhaps, as has been suggested, even faintly ridiculous?

Certainly it raises a question about the claim in the release that the reason for this action has been "carefully considered".  In fact, despite the Cardinal's letter, absolutely no consideration has been given to representations made by the academic community, or to suggestions that it would be useful to consult archivists who would be experts in the field.

Thus the appeals that the Archives should not be divided have been ignored. The plan at the moment seems to be to divide the archives between Aberdeen and Edinburgh;  the press release says that Columba House will remain open.  But this is very odd.

In a press release dated 2 May 2008, Archbishop Conti was quoted as saying that "unfortunately the current location of our archive in a converted building in central Edinburgh does not meet modern storage standards and the Church is concerned to secure the long term security and accessibility of the collection".

The Archives, like so many others – the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the British Library and so on – was indeed the victim of attempted destruction, in this case by a reader who mutilated manuscripts here and in other repositories – and was caught.

And those who use the Archives have certainly not complained about lack of accessibility;  rather, the pleasure of using the Archives and the helpfulness of the staff have been very enthusiastically praised.

The substantive point is that the Church has never spent money on Columba House.  It would be interesting to know whether bringing it up to standard would be more expensive than moving part of the archives to Aberdeen, and fulfilling the other part of the plan, to send the rest of the archives to the house in Glasgow which we understand requires extensive work.

In any event, it seems a little disingenuous to say that Columba House will remain open, as if this might meet part of the objections raised by researchers.  The obvious question is, for how long?

These are among the points immediately raised by the press release.  More generally, we would urge, even at this late stage, that the Bishops' Conference thinks again.

In 1958, the archives which had been very difficult of access in Blairs, came to Edinburgh.  The bishops of Scotland opened up, to Catholics and to the wider scholarly world, a magnificent source, now housed in Edinburgh where it could be used alongside the NAS and the NLS.

In 1974, when the Historic Collection came to the NLS, the process was complete. The effect was remarkable and inspiring.

These archives put the history of the Scottish Catholic Church on the map, with magnificent results;  a series of distinguished archivists, and Catholic scholars in general, now had a respected place within the academic world.  The bishops of 1958 had recognized that these archives were of national importance.

The bishops of 2012 seem to have lost that vision.  If the move and the division go ahead, the Church will once again be seen as parochial and blinkered.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the University of Aberdeen is a major centre for scholarship, as everyone knows.

But arguments that opposition to the Bishops' plan is somehow a slight to Aberdeen entirely miss the point, which is that the study of the Catholic Church and its place in Scottish history is bound to be impoverished, because the new arrangements will mean that researchers have to go to two, and probably three places, where at the moment they go to one.

This will involve extra expense, on travel and accommodation, and extra time.  Research students, retired scholars, busy scholars, scholars from abroad, will all be adversely affected.

Yes, people do have to travel – between Oxford and London, to take a very obvious example, and one which a spokesman for the Church has adduced. He did not say that the distance is very distinctly less, and the fare distinctly smaller.

And in any case, what we are talking about here is the creation of a more difficult situation, at the expense of a very successful one.  And scholars have already begun to say that they will be very much less inclined to undertake research on the Catholic Church if the plan goes ahead.

Our final question is why. Archbishop Conti, who as is widely known is the driving force behind this scheme, along with that mysterious body the Catholic Heritage Commission of which he is chair, and whose membership and business are kept very secret (shades of the bad old days), and the Bishops' Conference, have come up with a plan which has run into widespread opposition from those who will be so adversely affected by it.

Yet the Archbishop seems to be determined that his vision of what should happen to these wonderful archives completely overrides the reasoned opinions and knowledge of those who work in archives;  his proposed division of the archives by a single date, for example, which looks very neat, is wholly against good archival practice, and is disastrous. He has been told this.  He does not listen.

He has never in fact provided serious academic justification for what he is doing.  So let us speculate a little – and make an appeal.

Down the centuries, bishops have sought to make their names ring for eternity by leaving their mark on their diocese, normally by building or enhancing their cathedrals.

Is this what the archbishop of Glasgow and former bishop of Aberdeen has in his mind?  Well, as the Archives are not his personal fief, perhaps his personal name should not be associated with the arrangement with Aberdeen.

And as for Glasgow?  Archbishop Conti, the beautification of your cathedral is a wonderful achievement, and one for which you will be rightly thanked and remembered. Do you really need the archives also?

And would it not be better to stick to a great achievement, recognised by all, and not tarnish it with another effort, which will have no effect on those who are not engaged in research and do not care about archives, while ensuring that your name is remembered not with praise but with fury and hostility by those who are engaged in the research which you are so determinedly damaging and who object so vehemently to what you are doing?

In April, the holdings in the NLS were already being packed up for removal.  Apparently there was no announcement of this;  scholars were just left to find out.  This is frankly outrageous;  the extent to which we are being treated with contempt by the hierarchy of the Scottish Catholic Church beggars belief.

We would strongly suggest that this and any other moves to transfer the archives currently taking place are suspended, and an open meeting is convened in which the issue can be properly discussed by the bishops and the academic community.

Richard Oram, University of Stirling

Elizabeth Ewan, University of Guelph, Canada

Lorna Barrow, University of Sydney, Australia

Arkady Hodge, Edinburgh

Dauvit Broun, University of Glasgow

Amy Blakeway, Westminster College, Missouri

Katherine McClune, Balliol and Wadham Colleges, Oxford

Amanda Beam, University of Glasgow

Margaret Mackay, University of Edinburgh

Mark Godfrey, University of Glasgow

Charles McKean, University of Dundee

Hector MacQueen, University of Edinburgh

Christine McGladdery, St Andrews

Peter Anderson, Linlithgow, former deputy keeper of the records of Scotland

Tom Devine, University of Edinburgh

Elizabeth Tapscott, University of St Andrews

Iain MacDonald, University of Glasgow

Isla Woodman, University of St Andrews

Steve Boardman, University of Edinburgh

Janet MacDonald, Glasgow

Rhiannon Purdie, University of St Andrews

John Davies, University of Glasgow

Alan MacDonald, University of Dundee

Jane Dawson, University of Edinburgh

Tom Davidson Kelly, Kilmarnock

Katie Stevenson, University of St Andrews

Anna Groundwater, University of Edinburgh

Roger Mason, University of St Andrews

Fiona Watson, Canberra, Australia

Matthew Hammond, Edinburgh

Theo van Heijnsbergen, University of Glasgow

Thomas Clancy, University of Glasgow

Iain Flett, Aberdeen

Alice Taylor, King’s College, London

Abigail Burnyeat, University of Edinburgh

Alasdair Ross, University of Stirling

Keith Williamson, University of Edinburgh

Andrea Thomas, Reigate

Cynthia Neville, Dalhousie University, Canada

Steven Reid, University of Glasgow

Evelyn Stell, University of Edinburgh

Nicola Royan, University of Nottingham

S. Karly Kehoe, Glasgow Caledonian University

Stuart McCulloch, Dalbeattie

Domhnall Uilleam Stiubhart, University of Edinburgh

John Stewart, Glasgow Caledonian University

Simon Innes, Harvard University, USA

Sandy Grant, University of Lancaster

Sharon Adams, University of Freiburg, Germany

Janet Greenlees, Glasgow Caledonian University

Cathryn Spence, University of Keele

Jamie Reid Baxter, Luxembourg

Jenny Wormald, University of Edinburgh

Alison Cathcart, University of Strathclyde

Ben Shepherd, Glasgow Caledonian University

Elsa Hamilton, Glasgow

Pat Dennison, University of Edinburgh

Moray Tod, Epsom College

Simon Taylor, University of Glasgow

Kylie Murray, Lincoln College, Oxford

SheridanGilley, University of Durham

Harriet Cornell, University of Edinburgh

Eila Williamson, University of Glasgow

Daniel Szechi, University of Manchester

John Baldwin, University of Edinburgh

Vicky Long, Glasgow Caledonian University

Gilbert Marcus, University of Glasgow

Charles Kelham, Doncaster Archives

Aonghus MacKechnie, Edinburgh

Allen Simpson,  Edinburgh

John Tuckwell, East Linton

Val Tuckwell, East Linton

Hugh Andrew, Edinburgh

Henry Steuart Fotheringham, Aberfeldy

Alastair Mann, University of Stirling

Laura Stewart, Birkbeck College, London

Tom Gallagher, University of Bradford

Kimm Curran, Institute of Historical Research, London

Peter McNiven, University of Glasgow

Mairi Robinson, Edinburgh

Annie Tindley, Glasgow Caledonian University

Katherine Terrell, Hamilton College, Clinton, USA

Elizabeth Rhodes, University of St Andrews

Amy Juhala, Bismarck State University, USA

Stephen Holmes, University of Edinburgh

Stephen Driscoll, University of Glasgow

Graeme Morton, University of Guelph