THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I rise to ask, with reference to the correspondence about the Island of Vatersay recently circulated, why Sir Reginald MacLeod's letter of June 25, 1908, which commenced the correspondence, and why Lady Cathcart's letter of July 4, which stipulated that if their semi-private letters were treated as official, Sir Reginald's letter of June 25 should be included, have been omitted. The Vatersay Correspondence which I moved for in your Lordships' House has recently been laid on the Table. That correspondence began with a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to Lady Cathcart, and I must say I was rather surprised to find that that letter did not appear in the correspondence. Perhaps I had better read it. It is as follows:— 807
Dover House, Whitehall,Thursday, June 25, 1908.
MY DEAR LADY CATHCART,A seven hours' debate has just concluded on Vatersay. Mr. Sinclair definitely invited negotiations on the basis of arranging compensation, and I think from private conversations as well the Government are prepared to meet you some distance with a view to getting the settlement of Vatersay arranged on fair terms, with release, on your motion, of the prisoners. Could I see you? I would come down early Saturday. The matter is urgent. Please send me a wire to Dover House,Yours very sincerely,
REGINALD MACLEOD.I do not understand why that letter was omitted. It gives the reason of the noble Lord for commencing this correspondence, and it seems to me rather surprising that, in the circumstances, the correspondence should profess to begin with a letter from Lady Cathcart. While I say this letter ought to have been given in the ordinary way, there is a much stronger reason why it should have been given, because there was an implied arrangement with Lady Cathcart that her letter of the 30th should not be published without it. I must again trouble your Lordships. This is from a letter from Sir Reginald MacLeod to Lady Cathcart, dated July 4—
I at once placed your letter of the 30th ultimo, in Mr. Sinclair's hands and he has given it his most careful consideration. He appreciates the desirability of bringing this matter to a conclusion on all grounds, especially in view of the fact that ten of the cottars are now serving a sentence of imprisonment, and that the court might, on such a conclusion being reached, be willing, at your instance, to order their release.The letter concludes in this way—I trust with your permission, to treat your letter of June 30 and this reply, though unofficial in form, as forming part of the correspondence available for official reference.To that Lady Cathcart replied on July 7—I see you say that you propose to treat my letter of June 30 and yours of July 4, though unofficial in form, as forming part of the correspondence available for official reference, and I presume you intend your note of June 25 also to be included.There was no further reference made to that, and therefore the understanding, of course, was that if this letter of June 30 of Lady Cathcart was published the other letters would be published too. Neither of the two last letters that I have read to your Lordships appears in the correspondence. Therefore I merely say that it seems to me the noble Lord had no right, under the 808 circumstances, to publish Lady Cathcart's letter of 30 June without publishing his own letter of the 25th, which was stipulated should be published also. Why should that letter have been omitted? The noble Lord has taken this short correspondence between the Under-Secretary and Lady Cathcart; he has made a selection and has selected Lady Cathcart's letter as a letter to be published, leaving out his own. I am not going to comment on that first letter now. I may have another opportunity. But what I would say is that the effect of the selection which the noble Lord has made has been to put his own part in this transaction as far backward as possible from the view of the public. I think we ought to have some explanation as to why he omitted to publish that letter.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND OF LYTH)My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity afforded me by the noble Lord for offering him such explanation as I am able to give. The noble Lord has the advantage of me in that he has in his hands a copy of the correspondence with which I have not been favoured, but which, I understand, has been printed for private information. It contains letters which are not contained in this printed correspondence. First of all, let me give the best of all reasons why I could not publish the first letter. It was written by Sir Reginald MacLeod to Lady Cathcart. I have not got it. I made every search in the Scottish Office for the letter. It could not be found. It was a private note, as the contents which the noble Lord has just read show. It was a mere note asking Lady Cathcart to see Sir Reginald MacLeod.
§ LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI cannot for my own part conceive how any sinister motive could possibly be imagined for withholding the letter from the correspondence. Further than that, if the noble Lord will be good enough to look at the explanatory note to the correspondence he will see on the first page, in the second paragraph, a reference to this very note, which I think should assure him that I had no possible desire or reason or purpose in concealing or omitting the publication 809 of this note from the correspondence. Then I come to the second letter mentioned by the noble Earl—the letter from Lady Cathcart of July 4.
§ LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI quite accept the correction, but I have not got that letter. Therefore it was not in my power to publish either of the two letters which the noble Earl mentioned. That is the only explanation I can give. I have searched for these letters. In regard to the letter from Sir Reginald MacLeod to Lady Cathcart, dated July 4, the noble Earl has omitted the really practical part of the letter, which was to arrange an interview between the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was then going to Edinburgh, and Lady Cathcart's agent in Edinburgh. That was the real purport of that letter, and I am very glad to think that the noble Earl has read it to the House, because I am sure the House will agree there is no sinister purport in that letter either. There is one other point which the noble Earl has mentioned—that there was an understanding expressed by Sir Reginald in the letter which he has read that two letters should be regarded as semi-official and added to the correspondence. Those are the two letters I never had in my possession. I shall be very glad, if Lady Cathcart conceives her interests injured in any way by the non-publication of these letters to which reference is made, to consider whether there is any objection whatever to their publication.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIt appears to me that the confusion of the Scottish Office at the present time is even greater than I had supposed. Sir Reginald's letter is an official letter, because he himself says he wished it to be made official. Then there is another letter in which Lady Cathcart tells him that if he publishes her letter of the 30th, he is to publish his own letter of the 25th of June. That letter, again, is lost. I do not understand what the archives of the Scottish Office are like. My object is attained. When we discuss this—and I certainly shall raise it on some future occasion—I shall deal with those letters. But in the meantime I can only express my great surprise. Did the noble Lord, when he found this letter was not in the office, apply to Sir Reginald to ascertain where it was?
§ LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHI can only repeat what I have already said. These letters were not official letters.
§ LORD PENTLAND OF LYTHThe note to which the noble Earl referred was written by Sir Reginald MacLeod in my room in the House of Commons on a sheet of notepaper as a private note to Lady Cathcart, after the debate, asking if he could see her in my behalf. In considering what papers should be published so as to present to the public a full case I referred to this letter. Having no copy of it, and knowing that it could add nothing to the information which was freely given to Parliament in the published correspondence, I took no further steps in the matter. If the noble Earl wishes to make any attack on the Office over which I have the honour to preside I shall be very glad to answer him on the proper occasion.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, it seems to me that it would have been perfectly easy for the Secretary for Scotland to have obtained a copy of these particular letters by applying for them to Lady Cathcart. Another thing is that Lady Cathcart's letter expressly desired that her letters should be published with the correspondence. That was the condition of publishing the whole correspondence, and it made it still more incumbent upon the noble Lord to have taken some trouble to have found these letters.