CAB129-45 — Page 336

990 belaisrau

bunol a fagmeadth and are w

31

Copy No.

CONFIDENTIAL

by Twefelig monoa: tudi hatia y gave dugo sow what Arbador de bon C.P. (51) 1172pnopse of father www d C.P. (51) 117ad to vents off or Vermat to puderson at de ventning 26th April, 19510 baldmeday driven to gaton ndo mubellag and gevouron

CABINET

;

THE STONE OF SCONE

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND

I have been considering, in the light of the discussion at our meeting on 19th April (C.M. (51) 29th Conclusions, Minute 4), and of Scottish opinion so far as I can assess it, whether it would be right to tender any advice to His Majesty in regard to the arrangements for the future custody of the Coronation Stone.

It may be useful as a background to our discussion if I append to this Memorandum a copy of a note which was furnished to me by the Historiographer Royal for Scotland dealing with the history of the Stone.

There are, I think, three possibilities which we ought carefully to consider :—

(1) TO LEAVE THE STONE IN THE ABBEY

·

The Stone has been in Westminster Abbey for over 650 years a longer period than it can be shown to have been in use at the Coronation of Scottish or Pictish Kings. Since 1707 it has been used at the Coronation of Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom and has thus acquired an imperial as distinct from a Scottish significance. I assume that it will be the general wish, both in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, that the Stone should continue to be used at Coronation ceremonies and it can therefore be represented as natural and proper that it should remain with the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, where these Coronations will no doubt take place.

There has been no significant demand until the Stone was brought into prominence by its removal from the Abbey last Christmas for its return to Scotland. No reference is made to it in the Treaty of Union, which deals at some length with heraldic and ceremonial matters and with the custody of Scottish records. Mr. Kirkwood in 1924 was given leave to bring in a Bill providing for the transfer of the Stone to the Palace of Holyroodhouse but the Bill appears to have been treated lightly. Since that date the Scottish Office has received practically no representations on the subject of the Stone at all.

.

It has also to be noted that in present circumstances there is no obvious and generally accepted home for the Stone in Scotland. Dunstaffnage, Iona and Scone all have some sort of claim; and claims might also be made on behalf of St. Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh Castle, Stirling Castle and other places of importance in Scottish history. Some of these places, such as Dunstaffnage, Scone and Jona, seem to me to be out of the question. St. Giles Cathedral, which might have con- siderable support, does not have the national or imperial significance of Westminster Abbey and I do not myself consider it a proper place for the permanent accommoda- tion of the Stone. The Stone must, I think, if it is removed to Scotland, be placed in a consecrated building, and I am disposed to regard the choice as narrowed to St. Margaret's Chapel in Edinburgh Castle or the Chapel Royal in Stirling Castle. I could not claim, however, that either of these places would be universally accepted in Scotland as appropriate.

Finally, I do not think that we can overlook the fact that if the Stone is returned to Scotland it would tend either to be looked upon as a dead symbol of an extinct

Scottish monarchy like the Scottish Regalia now displayed in Edin

Edinburgh Castle 587 or as a symbol of Scottish political aspirations.

40498