Surrey Advertiser, 21st August, 1869
The Castle Caves
To the Editor of ?The Surrey Advertiser and County Times?
Sir, The letter which appeared in you publication of Saturday last under the signature of ?Robert Macdonald? calls for some observations from me in reply thereto.
In the first place I must deny that my letter of the 31st instant was intended as a ?personal attack? upon your correspondent. My object was clearly stated and explained, being simply to prevent any erroneous impression the public might form from the paragraph contained in your paper of the previous week; certainly not to invite personal controversy with Mr. Macdonald. I having had quite sufficient discussion with him before, more than enough to satisfy any desire of that kind. His charging me therefore with having made a ?lengthy and personal attack upon him,? ?dragging him before the public,? ?exhibiting him as an imposter,? or questioning his ?motives in connection with opening the Castle Caves;? ? all this is mere vapouring and idle nonsense, and what no fair and candid person would impute to me on account of anything contained in my letter.
If there be any ground for the complaint that he has been dragged before the public it should surely be laid at the door of the Surrey Advertiser and County Times, not at mine; and as to his gratuitous inference that I consider him an ?imposter? because I refused to concede to him the credit of discovering the Castle Caves, all I can say is that the inference is entirely his own, and if true (of which he is the best judge), it must be drawn from other premises than what are contained in my letter.
Having said this much in reply to Mr. Macdonald?s general remarks, I will now shortly refer to his version of the facts, so far as they affect Lord Grantley, the Honourable G.C. Norton, and myself in relation to the matter.
Mr. Macdonald is correct in his statement that he first effected an entrance to the Caverns from Rack Close, and not on Lord Grantley?s land, and also in admitting that when he was ?within the Caverns some 20 feet from the entrance? he was aware he was ?trespassing on someone?s property.? This is candid enough certainly, and if the rest of his statements were equally accurate, there would be no need for myself to trouble you with any remarks in reply. But when he had made this ?discovery? ? that he was committing a trespass - what did he do? Endeavour to ascertain to whom the property belonged on which he was trespassing, and get the proprietor?s consent? Nothing of the kind. He was careful only to obtain Mr. Boxall?s leave to effect an entrance into the Caves, which of course he was obliged to do, but afterwards, and once inside the Caves, he takes his own or ?French leave?, and ?in this doubtful state of affairs? with regard to the proprietorship commences his ?operations? and, as he says, ?waits to be interfered with.? This is his own account of the matter, and apparently what he expects will meet with public approval!
So then in pursuit of antiquities Mr. Macdonald considers himself entitled to enter upon private property and commence a lot of underground excavations without so much as speaking a word to the proprietor, and justifies himself by publishing a letter from Captain James of the Ordnance Department, who, being fully cognizant of the trespass which has been committed, cooly informs the public that ?the initiative in the inquiries which led to the re-discovery of the rock hewn Chambers under Guildford Castle? was taken by him. So after all it is not Mr Macdonald, but Captain James who first thought of opening the Caverns. But however this may be, it is time these courageous gentlemen of the Ordnance Survey were better instructed as to the rights of private property, and that if they ?initiate? excavations under other people?s land of their own accord, without condescending to obtain the owner?s consent they are amenable to the law for so doing. Captain James may wish to shelter Mr. Macdonald under the agis of his name as an officer of the Ordnance Survey Staff, but it is not broad enough to cover the trespass committed by Mr. Macdonald.
But this assumption of ignorance of the ownership of Guildford Castle cannot be accepted as a correct statement. Mr. Macdonald must have known perfectly well to whom the Castle belonged, or if not, he might very soon have known it, if so disposed, which is virtually the same thing. And having confessed to a most unwarrantable trespass upon Lord Grantley?s property, the weak defence he has given of his conduct is attempted to be covered by angry complaints respecting myself as Lord Grantley?s Agent. This bit of ordnance strategy however will not avail him.
Mr. Macdonald has given a most incorrect account of his negociations with myself and the Honourable G.C. Norton. The object of this letter is to controvert those statements, and having done that, I shall leave Mr. Macdonald to rush into print again as often as he may choose. He states that after Mr. Norton had inspected the caverns he received ?a verbal message to the effect that he (Mr. Macdonald) was permitted free access to the caverns, and the right of exploration at a nominal rent,? &c. This is not only untrue, but nothing like the fact. Mr. Norton, on this occasion merely inspected the caves on Lord Grantley?s behalf, and stated to Mr. Macdonald that he should report the case to Lord Grantley, who would not, however, enter into any negociation with Mr. Macdonald until the latter had apologised for the trespass which had been committed. The apology was afterwards made by letter, and I was then instructed, and not before, to inform Mr. Macdonald that Lord Grantley was willing to let the caves to him at a nominal rent, but only on his entering into a proper written agreement on the subject, the terms and conditions of which were to be settled between him and Lord Grantley. This was the message which was communicated to him, and none other.
Some time afterwards the Honourable G.C. Norton (on Lord Grantley?s behalf), met Mr. Macdonald at my office to discuss the agreement. Shortly before this interview I had been instructed by Lord Grantley to inform Mr. Macdonald that he would be required to do a stipulated quantity of work under the superintendence of a surveyor, which quantity Mr. Macdonald promised to consider, and meanwhile the key was to remain at my office until the agreement was signed, as I have before explained. Mr. Macdonald may deny this if he pleases, but it can be easily proved and confirmed by Mr. Norton. It is therefore not true that Mr. Macdonald called at my office a fortnight afterwards and was told that ?Lord Grantley required a second arrangement.? There was only one arrangement, viz., that the caves would be let to Mr. Macdonald on certain conditions, which conditions had not then been settled and agreed to, Mr. Macdonald having declined or delayed to state the number of men he would employ, two men being the minimum number then proposed on behalf of Lord Grantley.
In this way the matter stood at the time of the last Guildford Sessions, when Mr. Norton was requested to meet Mr. Macdonald, which he agreed to do at my office. Mr. Norton came accordingly, desiring to meet Mr. Macdonald and to go into the matter with him. When, however, Mr. Norton learnt that Mr. Macdonald had withheld the key, I was instructed to insist upon it being returned, according to the agreement, before Mr. Norton would consent to the interview. I thereupon saw Mr. Macdonald, who informed me the key was at his house, and he agreed at once to go back and fetch it. He went, but on bringing back the key he put it on the table, at which one of my clerks was sitting, and left the room without saying a word. It is not true, therefore, that he asked to see Mr. Norton and was refused; on the contrary, he was requested to wait and see Mr. Norton, but would not avail himself of the opportunity.
As to Mr. Macdonald?s complaints of any uncourteous ?treatment and language? on my part, I can most emphatically state that they are totally devoid of foundation. He has received no discourtesy at my office, on the contrary, every facility has been afforded to him short of allowing him to retain the key, which is ?head and front of my offending?. His statements on this point are on a level with the doubt he has impertinently expressed, that my previous letter was written without Lord Grantley?s sanction, on whose behalf, as the proprietor of the caves, I was induced to notice the paragraph which originated my letter, and not to give Mr. Macdonald the opportunity of venting his spleen and disappointment upon myself.
Having thus contradicted the incorrect statements above referred to, I will merely add, for the satisfaction of the public and those interested in the caves, that notwithstanding the behaviour of Mr. Macdonald in this matter, every opportunity will be afforded by Lord Grantley for the inspection of the caves, which have been viewed by several parties during the last few weeks, and the same privilege will be accorded to any respectable persons on their applying at my office.
But after what has transpired, Lord Grantley, as the sole proprietor of the Castle property, reserves to himself the right of making such regulations and conditions as he may deem necessary and proper, with reference to the caves.
I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
Thomas Russell.
Guildford, 20th August, 1869