The Liddle Collection - 'interesting' story/scandal?

[Main Body]

This article appeared in New Zealand today: the thorny issue of " gifted " memorabilia and the resulting backlash. Peter Liddle is certainly copping it here, although many NZers are largely unaware of the priceless archival work he did regarding New Zealand's participation at Gallipoli. 

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/last-post-first-light/90626282/nelson-womans-42year-battle-for-return-of-fathers-lost-gallipoli-diary

[Guest]

 I would welcome any posting of Dr. Liddle's views in this-or hard and fast records of what has happened in past years.

Edited 22 March , 2017 by Guest
Caution

[Moonraker]

The linked article doesn't give Peter Liddle's viewpoint. A Google suggests other articles on this topic, but I don't have time today to search through them to see if he's made any statement. However
 

this Wikipedia entry

[Readers should note that the text referring to alleged unethical conduct was only added on 21 March 2017. GWF Admin Team]

 

suggests there have been other instances.

 

Moonraker

Edited 22 March , 2017 by GWF TEAM
Added note about Wikipedia entry

[Guest]

  

   We have on this Forum several threads relating to various issues about the evidences of the Great War. A recent thread (on a recurrent theme) is that of relatives seeking to recover family medals legitimately sold off years ago- .one even asking if there is a law that gives them a "right" to repossess them (NO). Questions about documents come up all the time ,which is why archives nowadays tend to be very careful about accepting materials other than on fully clear legally agreed terms-the most important of which is that the donor or depositor has the legal ability to give. But archives also fight the morals and standards of yesterday as well. Hence the headaches.

     A poser of this theme is the treatment of Bateman- the Dambusters convicted thief and Churchill.  Bateman had clearly nicked stuff from The National Archives, only some of which has been recovered. But the Churchill Archives at Cambridge contain large amounts of "public records" materials which Sir Winston kept. The purchase price -some £12 million or so was ,I suspect, partly a resolution of this grey area-the materials ended up in the public domain and accessible-and the Churchill family went off a little better endowed than Sir Winston had left them.- Their claim was effectively "bought out".

   If you think about it, many documents used by Great War researchers that are in private hands could still be classed as being public property.  eg-There was a block of papers-clearly from an old filing cabinet-at auction recently relating to the gas school at Otley- I would not question as a legal matter that the "owner" had the right to sell the stuff. BUt if the officer whose papers they were had flogged them off while he was serving,it would be a court martial offence. If he was meant to destroy the stuff at the end of the war-then to whom would the stuff belong?? They are a number of cases relating to stuff chucked out of houses and "skip-dipped" by the dustmen-where local councils have demonstrated their ownership.

     This is a matter that needs an airing- Not to point accusatory fingers but to get the matter better understood and let goodwill and sense prevail-rather as with Keith Roberts and the posts about "fair use" of images

 

Edited 22 March , 2017 by Guest
Circumspection

[Main Body]

Yes this is all very disappointing really; it seems that Liddle rejected requests from the veteran for the diary's return and now the issue has resurfaced. However, as Moonraker says, Liddle is thus far silent and his point of view/defence would be welcomed, if only to perhaps present a fuller picture. I especially find this situation disappointing because Peter Liddle did some fantastic work in recording the reminiscences of veterans, through audio interviews, question and answer sheets and ongoing correspondence in some cases. A search through the sources of his book "Men of Gallipoli" clearly shows the amount of work he did, particularly at a time(1974) when there was very little interest in the subject in New Zealand.

Chris Pugsley, probably New Zealand's pre-eminent military historian, actually mounts a defence of Liddle's overall material collecting. According to Pugsley in "Remembering Gallipoli" (interviews with NZ Gallipoli veterans, 2016), much of the criticism is "ill-founded" and New Zealand owe Liddle a "debt of gratitude" for creating a body of research material that would never had existed but for his enthusiasm for the subject. He states that Liddle came into contact with the veterans 8 years before Pugsley & NZ author Maurice Shadbolt embarked upon the same journey, and that Liddle met, talked & recorded these men when they were far more lucid and detailed in their memory of the campaign. Much of the primary material was donated by veterans to Liddle because again, there was little interest in the subject of Gallipoli in New Zealand. 

Edited 22 March , 2017 by Main Body

[GWF TEAM]

I have edited the title and added a note to the Wikipedia link in Moonraker's post. While the topic can be discussed, GWF is not the place to make or repost accusations of theft.

 

Regards

GWF Admin Team

[John_Hartley]

On a number of occasions, I've accessed Liddle Collection documents at Leeds. It's a fine UK resource of primary accounts, probably second only to IWM's. It is disapppointing to read this story.

 

By the by, the two archives take differing views about copyright ownership. On the one hand, if you are using the material for publication, IWM requires that you write to the copyright holders via IWM asking for permission (although IWM will tell you if they have lost contact with the copyright holder). On the other hand, Leeds University gives a blanket approval. I prefer the former method. It's resulted in lovely letters from families expressing pleasure that grandad was going to be in a book. And, on occasions, the contact has resulted in a extra snippets of information being supplied.

[Derek Black]

An article from 2015 on Mr Liddle and ownership of original documents.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11541304

Edited 22 March , 2017 by Derek Black

[Guest]

     JH-  I think the difference in outlook between IWM and Brotherton/U.Leeds may simply be a matter of changing times. In this week of the centenary of IWM, we have had the images of  it's original appeal for letters,etc-the film images of huge bundles of post coming into the new museum. But there was no concern then for absolute clarity about who had copyright. Liddle is a newer collection done to modern archive standards-which are pretty rigorous. This usually includes whether the copyright is given with the material or whether it is retained by the donor.

     My local Local Studies requires a fully completed standard form for gift -that meets all archive "British Standards". I have not long since given a oollection of letters from a tyro pilot in 1918 that turned up in a local house clearer's junk shop years ago. But again, the same archive has recently obtained a copy of a very well written book in manuscript of a local man serving with 4th Essex in Palestine and a POW of the Turks-It is fully typed up from the 1930s and is substantial. The depositor, a family member, has kept ownership and copyright,with a view to having a crack at editing and publishing himself-which puts the kybosh on others doing it. 

    Personally, I have never heard a word of reproach concerning Dr. Liddle. My experience as a bookseller suggests that whatever Dr Liddle assembled would be overwhelmed by the amount of stuff that went quietly and anonymously into the bin in the decades when the veterans were coming to their ends-All my experience suggests that the most dangerous time for the survival of any documents is straight after the death of their owner.

    I think some discussion of best practice and practicalities would be good. Most families are pretty good about the records of their forebears involved in the war-and,as you say, often both parties-researcher and relatives-gain from the exchanges of info. Of course, occasionally the old adage "Man chooses his friends but God chooses his relatives" comes into play - a descendant may from time to time be more beligerent about archive materials than the original creator/veteran.

[Gallipoli Trench Rat]

http://ketewestcoast.peoplesnetworknz.info/documents/0000/0000/0510/img-828165258.pdf

[barkalotloudly]

I purchased from a New Zealand auction house several years a book containing a series of letters from a New Zealand machine gunner, I sent a letter to the Christchurch newspaper searching for living relatives,  a very quick reply followed and i sent copies of this typed record to the relatives and just recently sent copies of the photographs {kindly supplied by members of this forum} they express extreme gratitude, as they were completely unaware of this record compiled by their relative,

I always find it a little strange that nobody else in N Z wanted this book, upon my demise i shall leave instructions for my daughter to send the original to New Zealand.       

So much important written /photographic material has been destroyed as the veterans died i am very grateful to those who do their best to ensure it is kept for future generations [ i recently purchased a large collection of letters written by a local officer in the "Norsets" a large photograph album was mentioned but apparently this had been burnt!} 

I always find it very sad when all sorts of records/ photograph albums/medals are advertised for sale "these were my grandads" etc included in the sale blurb

 

.

 

[David Filsell]

 It should be noted that this is not the first time such 'accusations' have been - rightly or wrongly - and I do not know which - about the collection in the past.

Edited 24 May , 2018 by David Filsell

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, David Filsell said:

 It should be noted that this is not the first time such 'accusations' have been - rightly or wrongly - and I do not know which - about the collection in the past. past.

 

     Given GTR's  newspaper clipping from 1984- with words from the mouth of the compiler,while alive- well, makes the matter problematic. To say the least. I would still like to see what Dr. Liddle has had to say on this-and also what the Brotherton/Leeds stance is. I suspect that the latter's stance is that the paperwork for donation/placement is pukka in legal terms and it would need something of equal or greater legal "pukka" to make them hand the materials over.

       Retrieving items from archives is a matter that has caused major headaches for archives for the past couple of decades. Many items were placed by families into major collections decades and even centuries ago.-BUT on "permanent loan" Now if a legitimate descendant/heir asks for the stuff back as their own property, then the words "permanent" and "loan" become contradictory. It has been a headache for the major archives.

    The leading example: The Fairfax Collection.  A massive collection of English Civil War materials assembled by an American called Fairfax at the beginning of the Twentieth Century- He was a descendant of Thomas Fairfax, the general-and I think ,among other things, owned a fair chunk of Fairfax County,Virginia-on the outskirts of Washington. He bought extensively when large quantities of contemporary materials came on the market at lowish prices in the late 1800s. Notably, he purchased the collection of news pamphlets formed by Henry Elsynge,the Clerk of Parliament, an second only to the Thomason Collection in the BL, again formed at the time by a London bookseller of that name. The latter-day Fairfax placed the collection on permanent loan with Bodley in the early Twentieth Century. Then along comes a very enterprising auctioneer, one Roy Davids of Sothebys- a first class historical researcher in his own right, a very scholarly man (and a pleasant person to speak with when I have met him). Davids did the legwork to track down "permanent loan" deposits, especially in BL and Bodley. Then work out who the current owners would be and approach them to retrieve the materials and have them flogged at Sothebys. It was just like "Heir Hunters"- a bolt from the blue offering riches. On most occasions the institution would buy the item against the hammer or by private treaty, to maintain the integrity of its collections and usually its printed archive catalogues as well. Fairfax went this way an was dispersed- most of the Civil War stuff went to the Beinecke Library at Yale. 

    What slowed this practice down was 2 things-1) Fairfax actually lost Sothebys money-they advanced to the descendants against the expected proceeds (a common practice by the auction majors) which then did not happen. A leading London bookseller quite legally "ringed" the sales by organising it's host of major institutional clients not to bid against each other No breach of the Auction Bidding Agreements Acts of 1927-Lord Darling's Act-and 1969. -The Acts only apply to "dealers"-gentlemen are exempt. Then BL dug its heels in- a Tudor item was retrieved and BL pointedly refused to bid for it,nor negotiate to the level Sothebys expected. The bluff was called and prices fell.

     Now the moral of this story is twofold- Archives became a lot more sharp and focused on the paperwork of deposits- ownership and copyright, which anyone who uses archives nowadays will know. Correspondingly, if the archive thinks its paperwork is right, then it will stand firm to defend the integrity of the archive against any old Tom,Dick or Harry who puts in a claim. Retrieval of archive items to flog them by descendants is not uncommon. 

    It looks like the NZ Diary is in a legal No Man's Land- Brotherton cannot give back unless a high standard of proof is met- and the integrity of the the archive against all-comers is an important consideration. I have no doubts at all that Brotherton is honest and acting on the best possible legal advice. Likewise, I have no doubts about the integrity of the new Zealand veteran or his version. Truth is clashing against truth- terms of "borrowing" or " giving" were,by today's standards, very sloppy when Dr Liddle was going round. 

      Having had dealings with it as a researcher decades ago, I just wish that the Australian Joint Copying project was till around-diligently collecting and microfilming Oz and Kiwi materials (despite its name) and based at Oz Hosue in the Aldwych. A swift grant from somewhere, the microfilming of all the Anzac materials in Liddle/Brotherton and copies in different institutions down under and here- still seems the way forward

[David Filsell]

I understand that the questions - right or wrong - were very specific in regard to acquisitions. While I have my own opinions, I am in no position to judge their accuracy obviously.

[Guest]

   The online NZ newspaper "Stuff" posted a report last week that the long-running dispute concerning ownership of Kiwi Anzac diaries may be near to a working resolution. It announced that the NZ Department of Culture had announced on 21st April that an announcement may be made in June.  It refers also to a report on the matters, supposedly ready by the end of March 2018 which should now be "under consideration".

     It's a bit short on details but any further information on this regrettable situation from our Kiwi colleagues would be most welcome.

[Terry_Reeves]

This is the background to the story:

 

http://tinyurl.com/yalzqky3

 

TR

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

This is the background to the story:

 

http://tinyurl.com/yalzqky3

 

TR

 

  Terry-thanks for that. Plenty of stuff out there on the story- about Dr. Liddle's visits to New Zealand and the differing accounts of who took what from whom and for waht purpose. I cannot track any NZ announcement from the last week or so- but ask that our Kiwi colleagues keep a watching eye for announcements at their end- and,of course, over here in the UK, a watching eye by us for announcements from the University of Leeds.

[Bernard_Lewis]

A link to a story from New Zealand. I'm not sure what to make of it... any views?

 

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/358065/family-s-40-year-campaign-to-retrieve-a-war-diary

 

Bernard

[michaeldr]

Bernard,

 

Thanks for posting the link.

However, this appears to be only one side of the story

Where is the evidence which explains exactly under which terms the diaries originally went to the UK in 1974?

quote - "An article in the Nelson Evening Mail in October 1984 quoted Mr Liddle as being "unequivocal" that the items belonged to him and no intervention would affect his stand."

What was the basis for Liddle's unequivocal insistence that ownership had been passed to him?

 

regards

Michael

[David Filsell]

As background,  it must be said,at the time of Peter Liddle's collecting a Great War records many stories - true or false - I have no idea - about his methods of collecting material which certainly did not  reflect well on the man or the methods under which some said he obtained the material for hat becs who the Lidle Collection.

[Bernard_Lewis]

Thanks. I was hoping someone might know the background. 

 

Bernard

[Hyacinth1326]

There are two sides to every story.  I hope the issue is down to a misunderstanding.  I used to be a Friend of the Liddle Collection and you could not find a more enthusiastic or friendly bunch of volunteers. I never encountered any relatives of deceased men or contributors asking for their material back.  Accessing Liddle Collection material in the Brotherton Library was often difficult with strict rules laid down. Sometimes it felt that these rules were introduced just to make life difficult for the student.  Researchers were not always welcomed by the Keeper.   Back in the '70s I think it is fair to observe that there was no great interest in the passing of First World war veterans.  Much material came into the Collection from relatives who did not recognise its historical value. The material was held in safe keeping but I suspect the question of subsequent ownership was never discussed.   Initially PL collected material on men from the NE.  I believe he was teaching at Sunderland at the time.  Gradually he broadened his interests beyond Gallipoli to the Western Front.  Whatever one thinks about Peter Liddle (and many will have trenchant views) at least he played a role in preserving this treasure for posterity

Edited 23 May , 2018 by Hyacinth1326

[David Filsell]

The matters to which I refered were pre Brotherton Library, with whom it was said Liddle finally fell out (according  to speculative comment at he time)

[spof]

I have merged 2 earlier threads into this one which may add extra information.

 

Glen

GWF Admin Team

[Guest]

   The actual Press release from the NZ Culture Ministry is a little more neutral.  It suggests that 3 diaries are coming to NZ after the provenance of all NZ items in Liddle was looked at. I think that of interest to GWF members is that the NZ items in Liddle have been digitised for the Turnbull Library-which begs the questions as to whether the NZ parts of Liddle will be made available generally-let alone whether any other items will/have been digitised as part of the deal- I cannot see that that Leeds University would not keep digital copies of the items being returned as part of the deal.

   I don't see any real mileage in recrimination against Liddle-nor do I expect any "admissions" from either him or Leeds-save that the deal can be read as one wants to. What I hope is that there may now be some general scheme of digitisation-along the lines of the IWM Diaries package,which seems little used. Various people have commented that Liddle was awkward to use-Perhaps now is the time to campaign for-or expect- much more liberal access to it.  Let's keep a watching eye out for a similar Press release from the University of  Leeds.    I would expect some Australian families to kick off in the near future on the same theme.   NZ Press release below

 

Three original First World War diaries currently held in Leeds University’s Liddle collection will be returned to New Zealand as a result of an agreement with the University, Neill Atkinson, Chief Historian Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage, said today.

“Manatū Taonga and National Library representatives have been working with Leeds University since the middle of last year to advance the digitisation of its New Zealand material and consider the possible repatriation of some of the items,” Neill Atkinson said.

“Peter Liddle visited New Zealand in 1974 to interview veterans and add to his First and Second World War collection which is now held by the university.

“The collection includes original documents (diaries and letters) from 15 New Zealand First World War veterans, as well as photocopied material and more than 70 oral history recordings.

“While the removal of this material did not breach any cultural heritage legislation at the time, some veterans and their family members have subsequently questioned how Peter Liddle obtained it.

“As a result the provenance of all the New Zealand items in the collection has now been investigated and three 1915 diaries, those of Cyril James Claridge, Hartley Valentine Palmer and Clifford James Walsh, will be returning.

“They will be placed into the National Library’s Alexander Turnbull Library collection for safe-keeping,” Neill Atkinson said.

We are looking forward to receiving them into the Library’s collection later in the year says Mark Crookston, Associate Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library.

“Most importantly, digitised copies of all original material of New Zealanders in the Liddle collection will be made available to the Turnbull Library, significantly adding to our existing First World War collection.

“We acknowledge and thank our colleagues at University of Leeds Library for the constructive relationship we have established,” Mark Crookston said.

Both agree the four-year centenary of the First World War has drawn focus to the value of New Zealand’s documentary heritage. Having the diaries back here is a tangible reminder of the importance of this event in our country’s history.