§ 40 and 41. Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why access to the official correspondence in his Department relating to the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde continues to be restricted; and whether he will now deposit these papers in the Public Record Office;
(2) why he has refused to allow the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, North to see the papers relating to the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde, which are in his official custody.
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfePapers relating to ex-prisoners are withheld from public inspection until sufficient time has elapsed to diminish the possibility of their disclosure giving pain to living persons. I do not think I would be justified in making an exception to this practice in the case of Oscar Wilde.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HydeIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this correspondence is of considerable interest to students of English penal history and prison conditions in the last century? It concerns a matter which occurred almost 60 years ago, and should it not conform to the declared policy of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in office, that departmental papers down to 1900 should be made available for public inspection?
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeI cannot think that the aspect mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend in his first sentence would be the primary motive for the disclosure of these documents. With regard to the rest of his supplementary question, I must maintain the position as I have stated it.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the hon. and gallant Member who asked this Question is a prolific writer of articles and books on this subject and is only anxious to augment his own income?
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeI think it goes far beyond the Question to discuss the merits and the interests of my hon. and gallant Friend.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HydeIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my request 587 was made for the purpose of conducting a genuine piece of historical research and, further, that access to such papers much later than the year 1897 has been granted to other applicants? Why should an exception be made in this case?
§ Captain OrrOn a point of order. Is not the imputation made by the right hon. Gentleman against my hon. and gallant Friend a thoroughly improper and quite unwarrantable one?
§ Mr. ShinwellDo you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I was only anxious to point out that hon. Members are frequently in the position of having to augment their incomes?
§ Mr. F. HarrisAm I not right in thinking that it is the desire of hon. Members opposite to augment their incomes at the present time?
§ Mr. WyattIs not the Home Secretary aware that he is creating a precedent in refusing his hon. and gallant Friend or anybody else access to the documents in question? In the ordinary way, would they not already have gone to the Public Record Office? Surely, he must give the House some explanation why he is for ever going to deny people research into this very interesting historical event?
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeI gave the House what I think is a perfectly reasonable explanation, namely, that I must consider the possibility of disclosure giving pain to living persons. By that I must stand.
§ Mr. StokesHow does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile the attitude he is now adopting to the attitude taken in connection with another matter, where the persons are living and were caused great inconvenience?
§ Sir D. Maxwell FyfeThat was a different matter. That was concerned with trials that were held in camera for reasons of security. The late Government agreed to relax those conditions when the security requirements disappeared, and I have followed their procedure.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HydeIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
§ Captain OrrOn a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would give a Ruling on my point of order in view of the imputation?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not proper for an hon. Member to make an imputation against another, or to state that a motive that has not been avowed by a Member has actuated him. It is in order for hon. Members to ask questions about matters in which they are personally interested, and, therefore, I do not think that in this case a point of order arises.
§ Mr. ShinwellYou do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there was no question of an imputation against the hon. and gallant Member? In such cases as this, is it not the practice to disclose one's interest?
§ Mr. SpeakerNot at Question time. I have ruled on this before. I found nothing wrong with putting down the Question, and I found nothing wrong in the remark.