Sir Robin Butler GCB CVO
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS
Ref:A093/1728
Dicer Rolein,
one
303, Richmond Road,
Twickenham,
Middlesex TW1 2NP
20 July 1993
нко
Mr Ricketts HKD
cc Ps/pus
Si J Colos}
W Huim
wlour.
Jackin Beckeiz
Ap://en
21/7/93.
In our discussion on 2 July on the subject of my book there was
point you made on which I should be grateful for
clarification.
When I suggested a change of language in the two offending chapters as a way out of our difficulties, you said, if I understood you correctly, that changes of language would not overcome your fundamental objections. If I decided to publish regardless, you might consider textual revisions; but these would be only a
palliative, not a solution.
On reflection, I am puzzled by this, on two main grounds. First, it seems a recipe for extreme situations. It offers the author little inducement to amend his text: why should he submit to painful changes if the book is to be condemned in any event? In that kind of situation I myself would be disinclined to make alterations.
Second, I find it hard to believe that language has so little relevance. After all, our disagreement turns on language, on words in a book. If, to take an extreme case, I were to submit a revision in
which I complimented the Governor on a flawless handling of the Hong Kong issue, the objections would presumably fall away. Or, to take a less improbable case, if the revision were to omit reference of any kind to the Patten reforms. Language then does matter, before as well as after defiance. Presumably your proposition is that you doubt whether any new language I would be likely to offer would make much
difference.
But this is an assumption that needs testing. And to test it I
enclose with this letter a revised text for the two chapters,
67
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.