18 JUNE 1983, Page 4

Notebook

The Times made an extraordinary

1 announcement on Monday. This was that Mrs Thatcher, after giving Mr Whitelaw his hereditary viscountcy, `intends to ennoble two or three more peo- ple without heirs before extending the honour to those with offspring to benefit'. What a peculiar policy! After hesitating for years to bring back hereditary peerages, the Prime Minister finally plucks up the courage to do so, but only on the understanding that there is no one to inherit them. The former Speaker, George Thomas, a bachelor, is mentioned as the next likely candidate. Perhaps there is hope too for Mr Edward Heath and Mr Norman St John Stevas. Whatever the reasons for Mrs Thatcher's reported diffidence (perhaps she wants to test public reaction to the idea of hereditary peerages before going the whole hog), it strikes. me as potentially unsettling for the recipients of these new honours. If Mr Whitelaw were not a man of the highest morality, if he were not so devoted to Mrs Whitelaw and their four daughters, he might even now, at the age of 65, be tempted to take the necessary steps to establish a dynasty. As for Mr Heath or Mr St John Stevas, the dilemma would be an agonising one.

Talking of titles, I think that Dr David Owen should discard his. So greatly in- creased is his political stature that he now seems to me to have an excellent chance of becoming Prime Minister if anything ever happens to Mrs Thatcher. It is only the fact that he is a doctor which might hold him back. David Owen may perhaps be en- couraged by the political achievements of `doctors' in other countries — Dr Goeb- bels, Dr Salazar, Dr Duvalier, and Dr Hastings Banda, to name but a few. But in Britain people are suspicious of such titles and are particularly suspicious of the medical profession to which Dr Owen belongs. In his case the problem is exacer- bated by the fact that he looks like a doctor.

As the Spectator's offices are situated in the People's Republic of Camden, we are kept up to date with developments in the Borough by the Camden New Journal which is regularly pushed through our letter box. The great issue which is currently exer- cising our leaders in the Town Hall is a pro- posal to rename Selous Street, a dingy little back street in Camden Town, in honour of the South African anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela. The British Anti- Apartheid Movement recently moved its headquarters into the street and immediate- ly assumed that it was named after Frederick Selous, the African hunter and explorer whose name was adopted by the Rhodesian `Selous Scouts', Mr Ian Smith's paramilitary force. This clearly would not do, so they proposed to a sympathetic council that it should be changed to Mandela Street. It soon emerged, however, that the street was not named after Cecil Rhodes's friend at all, but after an in- nocuous Victorian painter called Henry Selous. The Selous family has had associa- tions with Camden for over 150 years, and Henry Selous was one of three brothers who built houses side by side in the borough. But this discovery has not daunted the Council. In a letter to the Camden New Journal, Councillor Hugh Bayley declares: `Concerning the proposal to rename the street, I would like to make clear that the Council's decision was a positive one to identify the borough with Nelson Mandela's courageous leadership of the South African multi-racial opposition to apartheid, rather than a negative act to try to "hide" the Selous family's contribu- tion to the Borough.' He adds, however, that the thousands of people who are in contact with the Anti-Apartheid Movement are more likely to associate the street name with Frederick Selous than with the painter, and that 'I, for one, would not like them to think that Camden still honours a man whose part in British history most of us would now wish to try to live down.' Grow- ing in arrogance by the minute, Councillor Bayley says: 'I do not personally care for what I have seen of Henry Selous's paintings extolling the "Victorian virtues" of un- bridled commerce, industry and empire, but I would not seek to impose my taste in art on others in the Borough.' Nevertheless, he still concludes that the street name should be changed. His letter is followed by another one from a representative of the only family actually resident in Selous Street, all the other houses being occupied by businesses. Pointing out the inconve- nience that a change of name would cause, Mrs Susan McIntyre says irrefutably: 'The Anti-Apartheid Movement have been here but a few months. They must have known the name of the street before they moved.' It was to counter the overbearing behaviour of bodies like Camden Council that the people re-elected Mrs Thather last

week. They should have learnt their lesson, but they haven't. Councils have no business changing street names for political reasons.

Godwin Matatu, a Zimbabwean journal- ist, is best remembered in this office as the man who reprinted in Africa magazine under his own byline an article by someone else that had already been published in the Spectator. The article by Rowlinson Carter was on the subject of Equatorial Guinea. Now Mr Matatu, a London-based jour nalist who has light-heartedly described himself as 'the smartest kaffir in town', is the focus of serious disquiet among the journalists of the Observer. On the recom- mendation of the paper's proprietor, Mr `Tiny' Rowland, Matatu has been engaged by the editor, Mr Donald Trelford, on a trial basis as a roving African correspon- dent. The journalists see a dark plot here. Mr Rowland's company, Lonrho, has Mill- ing, agricultural and commercial interests in Zimbabwe. His recommendation of Mr Matatu is said to have been made at the in- stigation of a Zimbabwean Government minister to whom the journalist is related. Mr Rowland is charged with breaking his own undertaking that he would not in- terfere with the Observer's editorial Policy: The row raises the old question of what qualifies as proprietorial interference. Mr Rowland knows a lot about Africa. He makes a suggestion to his editor, who deck'"

!

es to take it up. Is there anything wrong lt! that? The common sense answer is No. Btli on the other hand Africa is probably the one area in which Mr Rowland, if he wishes to preserve harmony on his paper, would be best advised to keep his opinions to himself.

• Until I read Carol Thatcher's Diary of an Election, published this week with spectacular speed by Sidgwick and Jackson I had not realised quite how historic the 0

Prime Minister's election victory had be% Her return to Downing Street last FridnY

a morning after her landslide victory was historic entrance into a house of history. ,s writes Carol. Mrs Thatcher goes past 'the portraits of past Prime Ministers, in whose ranks Mum has earned hers such a special place.' Carol co

She about her mother: 'As she got ready to bed, I carried on: "It's history. thoughtfully interposed.

eern like ' must have

history."' Well,

when you're making it, doe51 t s upstairs n t i tnou eg so, been history. But what isn't?"

I suppose it

But hiss like

nce Alexander Challor nce