§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the communication in which the Italian Government requested Her Majesty's Government to assist them against the Dervishes by military advance into the Northern Provinces of the Soudan; and, by whom the communication was made?
MR. CURZONThe communications in question were received from the Italian Ambassador in London. Their substance has already appeared in telegrams, between the Ambassador and his Government, that were published in the Italian Green-Look of last year, and were read out in this House by the hon. Member for Northampton in the Debate on June 5 1896.
§ MR. MACNEILLI now ask the right hon. Gentleman again, will he lay these communications in extenso on the Table?
MR. CURZONNo, Sir; there is no necessity to lay communications between the Italian Ambassador and his own Government on the Table of this House. They have been published by the Italian Government and have appeared in the reports of the proceedings of this House, as the hon. Member will see if he refers to "Hansard."
§ MR. MACNEILLI desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question on the rules of procedure governing Debates in this House. I wish to know from you whether, when a document is referred to in deflate by a Minister of the Crown, or a gentleman representing a Minister of the Crown, it is not imperative upon him to lay that document on the 1558 Table? In reference to this matter I would cite a precedent which occurred in this House on July 17 1857. On that occasion Sir Charles Wood, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, did not quote from but referred to a letter he had received. He was asked to produce that letter in its entirety, and Mr. Disraeli made the following observations in the Debate and laid down this rule:—
There should be no reference to any Papers that were not laid on the Table or that were not meant to be laid on the Table afterwards. The moment a Minister referred even to a private letter, it became a State document. That was a salutary principle which always prevailed in their Debates. Were it otherwise, the opponents of the Minister could have no chance in Debate. He could always be referring to private matter in his portfolio to support his case.Mr. Disraeli called it a private letter, and he was corrected by some Gentleman calling out "It is a public letter."To that Mr. Disraeli replied:—
What! a public letter. That is a worse ease still. It is even a more flagrant case when a public document is kept secret from the House.I say this case which I have cited is on all fours with what occurred on Friday evening in this House.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf a Minister refers to a particular document by quoting part of it or stating what the effect of the contents of that particular document is, then the House is entitled to see the document itself. But I do not understand that any question of that kind arises here. A Minister is not bound, having stated in answer to a question or other wise that there have been communications generally to such and such an effect with a foreign Government, to produce the document which would bear out his statement. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. MACNEILLWith great respect Sir, the right hon. Gentleman specifically referred on Friday night to communications. At that time the point of order was not taken either before the Chairman of Committees or yourself; but is there not a clear distinction when a Minister specifically refers to a certain document which he refuses to produce?
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is a great difference between specifically referring to communications generally and specifically referring to the contents of a particular document. Nothing of the latter kind seems to have taken place here, [Cheers.]