The research concerns ProQuest’s “Public Petitions to Parliament, 1833–1918” module, described as covering records of the Select Committee on Public Petitions. The proposed request is for the machine-readable OCR/text layer only—not microform, scans, images, the ProQuest interface or search software.

The source discussion proposes a compressed text archive because it should be substantially smaller and easier to transfer than image files. It suggests asking for a clear format, relevant metadata and a reasonable charge for extraction, media and delivery. The discussion’s estimate of roughly 100–130 MB is only an estimate and has not been confirmed by the provider or archive.

The supplied research distinguishes a sworn affidavit from an ordinary witness statement. Form N285 is discussed as an affidavit form that may be sworn or affirmed before an authorised person. A witness statement will often use a Statement of Truth instead of a jurat, depending on the applicable procedure.

A sworn document can record the requester’s purpose and evidence, but it is not itself a court order, witness summons, parliamentary order or automatic command to a private company.

The research identifies Form N20 as a coercive witness summons connected to a court hearing. It is not a pre-action disclosure order and cannot be issued or validated by a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths in place of the court. An unsealed draft should not be presented as though it were an official order or used as an amicable request.

The supplied discussion refers to CPR Part 31.16 and describes pre-action disclosure as a separate court process. It suggests a focused voluntary request first, followed—where the legal tests and jurisdiction are satisfied—by the applicable application notice and evidence. The research also distinguishes a later third-party disclosure route from a request to a commercial database provider before proceedings.

The current CPR, practice directions, court fees, jurisdiction and costs consequences must be checked. Pre-action disclosure is not a general-purpose information-gathering mechanism and an affidavit alone does not create the court’s jurisdiction.

The source material discusses the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, CDPA 1988 Sections 45, 47 and 49, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, public records, public inspection and the use of documents in judicial or parliamentary proceedings.

The research lead recorded in the supplied material is:

“Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings.”

The supplied research identifies this as a statutory basis for the proposed use. The exact quotation, section, exceptions and factual application should be checked against the official legislation. A copying exception or parliamentary privilege may support a particular use, while the separate question of whether a commercial provider must create or supply a new digital extract depends on the applicable rights, contract and procedure.

The source discussion asks for the treatment of obstruction affecting petitioners and others soliciting business before either House, with references to the 15th and 21st editions of Erskine May.

“Those having business before either House or its committees, as petitioners, counsel, agents and solicitors, are considered as under the protection of the High Court of Parliament, and obstruction of, or interference with such persons in the exercise of their rights or the discharge of their duties, or conduct calculated to deter them or other persons from preferring or prosecuting petitions or bills or from discharging their duties may be treated as a contempt.”

The supplied research presents this as the relevant Erskine May basis for protection of petitioners and persons conducting parliamentary business. The exact quotation, edition, page and historical context should be checked against an authorised copy. Any contempt question belongs to the House and depends on the facts and parliamentary procedure.

The research compares official public records, National Archives access, local archives, Parliament and government portals, commercial digitisation partnerships and institutional subscriptions. It sets out a basis for requesting a text-only extract at reasonable marginal cost while distinguishing public records from commercial digitisation, OCR and database rights.

It also refers to the Public Records Act 1958, Local Government (Records) Act 1962 and FOIA 2000, including Section 21. Those provisions, access terms and any charge must be checked in the context of the specific record-holder and requested output.

The supplied fee note relies on FOIA 2000 Sections 9, 12, 13 and 34, and Local Government Act 1972 Section 228, as provisions relevant to fees, cost limits, parliamentary privilege and free inspection of specified local-government documents.

The note records that Section 9(4)(a) allows regulations to prescribe cases where no fee is payable; Section 12 concerns the appropriate cost limit; Section 13 concerns charging where disclosure is not required because the cost limit is exceeded; and Section 34 concerns information whose exemption is required to avoid infringing parliamentary privilege. Section 228(6) is quoted as requiring documents to be open at reasonable hours, without payment unless otherwise provided.

The exact regulations, current limits, record category, authority and charge must be checked before relying on any exemption. These provisions do not automatically establish a right to a commercial database export.

The source material considers asking an MP to write to ProQuest or raise the matter with a parliamentary office or committee. An MP may make representations or use House procedures where appropriate, but an MP is not automatically a Commissioner for Oaths and an MP’s letter is not automatically a court order or a parliamentary order.

Correspondence should accurately describe whether evidence has merely been sent to an MP or has actually been accepted into formal parliamentary business.

• Define the dates, records, text format and metadata requested.
• Request OCR/text only and avoid images or microform.
• Use official access, valid subscriptions or a direct lawful request.
• Do not use leaked credentials or bypass technical controls.
• Ask for the legal and contractual basis of any refusal or charge.
• Keep the request, delivery record, response, quotation and permissions.
• Verify statutes, Standing Orders, Erskine May references and current CPR rules before relying on them.