A Spectator's Notebook

MR HEATH may not have been overjoyed by the faintly Butlerian language with which Mr St John-Stevas sprang to his defence on Monday. ('The attacks on Mr Heath have gone quite far enough, and now it is time to call a halt.') All the same, the grumblings within the Conservative party about the leadership were bound to prompt someone to make a public response. And it must be admitted that the Tories are in a peculiarly maddening politi- cal predicament, when backbiting about their leader seems almost the only available outlet for their accumulating frustrations. It is asking a lot for a party to retain patience and poise when the public persists in treating it with bored indifference. Perhaps a taste of success at one of the forthcoming by-elections will ease the strain—or even (although it seems less probable) a victory in the London elections. But until something concrete happens to make their future seem brighter, the Tories are hardly likely to grow less cantankerous or more con- tented.

The hardest task for any opposition is to face a government which can apparently get away with murder unscathed. The handling of the Malta affair, for example, has been an absolute shambles. Yet such is the state of the political dialogue at present that it is very doubtful whether the Government has suffered as much from it as Mr Heath suffered from a few denigratory words uttered by Mr George Brown in the David Frost television programme.

He Had to Go The Marples affair has its place in the Oppo- sition's catalogue of frustrations. Of course, it is comical when a flirtation with up-to-date systems of efficiency ends in an embarrassing tiff. Such mishaps are not likely to bring smiles to many Tory faces, however: they are far more likely to remove grins prompted by the Government's vari- ous little difficulties. The pertinent question is how this particular mess was allowed to happen. As I understand things, poor Mr Marples conceived his task to be something wholly different from Ast envisaged by the party hierarchy. He thought he was going to release a great modernising gale through the entire Tory organisation. They thought he was being given harmless employ- ment by way of compensation for having been dropped from the Shadow Cabinet. The techno- logical gap, so to speak, was too wide to be bridged.

It's a pity—not least because all party machines tend to be behind the times and in need of fresh ideas. Mr Marples, in addition, is an engaging original whose great need is scope for action. He would have proved too original altogether to be a successful party chairman, a post which it is or was his ambition to fill. All the same, it is sad to see all that energy and application being cold- shouldered.

Trust-busting

My firm rule on Saturdays is to stay out of the swinging city. I shall be breaking it this weekend, however, to attend the extraordinary general meeting of the National Trust. Judging by the embittered exchanges which have led up to it, this will be an angry affair. I suspect that Commander Conrad Rawnsley has already done the Trust a good deal of damage by the sheer ferocity of his assault upon the people who run it. Quite probably further harm will be done at this meeting. A slanging-match can never be helpful to an institution dependent upon public good will.

However, such damage is trifling compared with what might follow if the ideas implicit and explicit in the case for 'reform' came to be adopted. What Commander Rawnsley and his supporters demand is 'a new and more forward- looking policy.' Yet in the memorandum which they have circulated to members they appear to disregard the main value of the Trust. They argue again and again for easier access to the Trust's properties. They are all for picnic places for motorists and car parks and caravan sites and public lavatories. They want, in fact, to change the whole style of this (to me) excellent insti- tution.

I don't doubt that the present direction of the

Trust is less than perfect, and its structure cer- tainly looks rather old-fashioned. The important point, however, is that it functions remarkably well: and, in the chairman's words, 'Where the countryside is concerned, the Trust's first duty is conservation for all time for the benefit of the nation. To the extent in which it fails in this, it betrays its true purpose, its donors and its members as trustees.' My italics. Car parks, etc., are secondary.

Unstoppable Although Commander Rawnsley has in part turned the quarrel into a conflict of personalities, with a whiff of the class war hanging over it, I suppose some such controversy was inevitable before long. The unstoppable process of the urbanisation of the countryside was bound to produce it. Within quite a few years, most of England is due to be engulfed by new built-up regions, new roads, and new motorways. I doubt if many people realise even yet the extent of the changes being brought about by the massive in- crease in the population and the swelling cataract of motor-cars.

It ought to be universally seen as a great stroke of luck that we have inherited the National Trust, equipped to preserve some oases in this changing scene. But it is always tempting to pretend that we can have our cake and eat it as well. It would be nice for many people, no doubt, if secluded and beautiful seashores or mountains could all be made as easily accessible and as plentifully serviced with ice-cream as populous holiday resorts. But they can't—not without changing them into utterly different places. This is in no sense an argument against better leisure opportunities in general; but the National Trust's obligation is to protect and eventually hand on to posterity a fragment of 'undeveloped' countryside—as Lord Antrim says, 'a bit of what England was once like.' Whether posterity will thank us for the reminder of what they missed is possibly arguable, but they ought to be given the chance. So, for that matter, ought we.

Cloud Scene

It must have been very satisfying for the Guardian, so soon after Lord Thomson had publicly advised them to pack up and go home to Manchester, to be able to announce their agreement with the printing unions, thus bringing the paper's total savings on production costs 'within reach of the target figure of £500,000. This is an important achievement. Others besides myself must have thought the rest of the press rather niggardly in their presentation of it: after devoting so much of their space in recent months to the Guardian's troubles, they might have found room for a small editorial cheer for this big step towards a solution. If the management are to be believed, at any rate, 'this lifts the cloud that has been hanging over the Guardian.' I hope it does. Perhaps it was received rather guardedly by Fleet Street because there are so many clouds over that thoroughfare at present that people tend to be sceptical of such cheerful assurances. In its new hands, too, The Times is visibly flexing its muscles to provide tougher competition. If it no longer exercises its old (and rather weird) in- stitutional spell, it is steadily turning itself into a newspaper.

Make Me an Offer?

`Mr Edward du Cann, chairman of the Con- servative party, addresses the Society of Auc- tioneers banquet on February 9.'—News item this week.

J. W. M. THOMPSON