teacher; the latter an ex-Civil Servant, dismissed after the
War for collaboration with the Japanese during internment
in Hong Kong. They represent few but themselves.
4.
The letter received by Mr. Bottomley is in an abusive and
hectoring style characteristic of its authors and we are inclined
to think that it is intended to provoke Mr. Bottomley into
a reply. We do not feel that there are any compelling 'doctrinal"
arguments to urge why Er. Bottomley should not answer their
insinuations (e.g. that he would be moving in a matter outside
his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Commonwealth
Relations), although in general it would of course be inappropriate
for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to engage
in direct correspondence with a Colonial political party on
constitutional issues. This is in the nature of a personal
confrontation.
5.
But if Mr. Bottomley does reply, we foresee certain
unfortunate consequences that could be involved and of which he should be
aware, It is unlikely that his correspondents will let the
matter drop with his reply; our Hong Kong correspondents
(and these persons in particular) have a habit of never
loosening their teeth once they become engaged in combat.
It is almost certain that they will cause the reply to be
published in circumstances which will attract unfavourable
and press comment which they themselves will have arrnged to
Would
stimulate. In either case we will have to advise that
Mr. Bottomley should allow the reply to stand for the record
and that any further developments should be ignored.
6. On balance therefore we feel that we should advise
that the letter be ignored. But if Mr. Bottomley feels his
personal position requires that he should make some answer
we enclose a draft letter based on the transcript of his
Press conference that he may wish to consider.
6.
I return the Labour Party's letter and enclosures and
shall be grateful if we could have two copies of Mr. Bottomley's replyPagea§§ 26344.
Page 86
Page 86
(
: