A Spectator's Notebook

Tm prospect of women priests in the Church of England is enough to shake the apathy even of those one-day-a-year Christians who will be crowding the hospitable Anglican churches in search of a little pre-turkey uplift this coming Sunday. For my part, uneasy as I am at assum- ing the role of blinkered reactionary, I admit to hoping that the cassock remains an exclusively male garment, with women retaining sole right in the mini-skirt by way of recompense. Nevertheless, I believe there may be women priests in Anglican churches one day, and for a reason which has been surprisingly neglected in the discussion of this week's report by the Archbishops' Commission on 'Women and Holy Orders': namely, the falling-off in the number of male recruits to the clergy. This considera- tion may have little bearing on the theological and other objections to the ordination of women, but in ten or twenty years' time it could be strong enough to change the collective mind of the Church. The fact is that the annual intake of new candidates for ordination has dropped by a quarter in a mere two years, and if this trend persists women may well get their chance.

If things reach that stage (they may not, of course) then the experience of the church in Sweden might serve as a helpful warning. Women have been eligible for ordination there since 1960. In the first five years after that date, the church gained only eleven women priests and lost a much larger number of men—either clergy who gave up their ministry in protest against the invasion of John Knox's Monstrous Regiment, or candidates for ordination who re- signed for the same reason. This was not fore- seen: but any argument involving sex, religion, and politics is likely to develop unexpectedly. I read once of a famous English suffragette who used to say, 'We must ask God for Her help.'

Unmerry Christmas One man whom we ought to think of with some discomfort this Christmas is Gerald Brooke, the London lecturer who is serving a five-year sentence in a Soviet labour camp for the heinous crime of takine a few pieces of pathetic anti-Communist propaganda into the Soviet Union while visiting friends in Moscow. That such an act of political naiveté should be punished so savagely is shocking enough: but so, too, is the total ineffectiveness of Britain's pro- tests and attempts to secure at least a more humane regime for him. The most that Mr George Brown could achieve in Moscow was the 'concession' of a belated interview with the British Consul. It is, moreover, a fact that Brooke's right to do as he is supposed to have done is specifically provided for in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (as Robert Conquest pointed out in a notable Third Programme talk the other evening); and in view of this fact it will be interesting to see how strenuously the protesters who are always in- voking the UN in other contexts demonstrate their disapproval when Mr Kosygin visits Lon- don in February.

Brooke is imprisoned at Potyemlag, a labour camp some 400 miles east of Moscow. A friend with some experience as an inmate of Russian camps and jails tells me that Potyemlag is not among the most dreaded of such places, its principal advantage being that the work (car- pentry and woodwork) is done indoors, a great gain in the Russian winter. The conditions are pretty grim for all that, and the food deplorable. It has been much used for political prisoners— that category which, so Mr Khrushchev was fond of saying, has not existed in the Soviet Union since 1917. My ex-prisoner informant adds that Christmas will go wholly unobserved in the labour camp, both this weekend and when the Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas early in January. Neither as Christian festival nor as materialist revel does Christmas occupy any official place in the Soviet calendar.

Blue Pencils It is curious that Mr Robert Maxwell's attempt to impose a new system of censorship on his fellow-publishers should coincide with a fresh campaign to abolish the system of theatre cen- sorship enshrined in the Theatres Act of 1843. Happily, I don't see much chance of success for Mr Maxwell's reactionary scheme (which seems to hark back to the famous Hays Office by which Hollywood voluntarily emasculated itself for many years), but the outcome of the joint parliamentary committee's present inquiry into theatre censorship is less predictable. At least it is producing some useful statements of opinion, the latest being a memorandum from the Bow Group (which, incidentally, illustrates admirably how a taste of opposition encourages political groups to question accepted institutions and attitudes).

Briefly, the Bow Group's memorandum (whose author is Peter Lloyd) recommends the com- plete abolition of censorship in the theatre, leaving theatre managements to answer in the courts for what they do, as publishers already have to. Coming on the heels of a successful private prosecution of the allegedly obscene novel Last Exit to Brooklyn, this may seem to threaten an unpleasant measure of insecurity for the theatre, but I doubt if in practice it would be anything but a liberating reform.

A second proposal, for improving the opera-

tion of the present censorship if abolition is thought too radical, is very sensible. It is that after any exchange over the censoring of a play the correspondence should be made available to the press; and that the censor should publish an annual report explaining and justifying his year's work. This would at least remove thc odious element of secrecy from the censor's operations—no one in a theatre audience now knows what, or how much, of the play he is watching has been suppressed—and would sub- ject the whole business to public scrutiny. It would also demonstrate clearly how much of what is censored is thought to be perfectly printable outside the theatre. This, it should be remembered, goes far beyond questions of what is or is not obscene. Any play dealing with current affairs is likely to incur disfavour.

Spokesman

The new German government has made a shrewd choice for its press spokesman in Bonn. However, it is not one we of the SPECTATOR can unreservedly applaud, since it means the tem- porary departure from journalism of Conrad Ahlers, whose excellent analyses of the recent German political crisis have appeared in this journal.

Ahlers's appointment is striking, because he was at the centre of the notorious 'Spiegel Affair' which four years ago led to Franz Josef Strauss's resignation. He spent two months in jail at Strauss's instigation; and Strauss, of course, is now a member of the coalition Cabinet whose spokesman Ahlers will be. But things have been changing fast in Bonn lately; and Ahlers tells me he lunched with Herr Strauss the other day and left him 'satisfied' with the minister's explanation of the Affair.

Card Vote I have seen it predicted by the Christmas card trade that the sale of their wares will rise this year, as it always seems to: but if the forecast proves to be true it will be more surprising than usual. From what I have heard, the flow of 'greetings' inspired by strictly commercial motives has lessened this year; and without wishing any harm to those whose livelihood depends upon this strange ritual of business life, I find the change a welcome one. Presumably the squeeze is part of the explanation, but perhaps also there is a dawning sense of the absurdity of commercial or industrial organi- sations mechanically issuing 'Christmas greetings' to each other, usually with someone's thought of favours to come as the only motive.

My guess is that charity cards will do better than ever this year, and I hope l am right. It is nonsense to object that by sending these cards one is making an ostentatious display of one's donation to charity; I don't suppose anyone who buys them thinks he has made a 'donation' to anything. But the objection is valid against those cards which read: 'Instead of giving presents this year, a donation has been sent to Oxfam. This card comes in thanks for your part in making that gift . . .' And although it may be an unseasonable thought, there isn't even any guarantee that the statement is true.

A Christmas Warning `There are few subjects more likely to cause high blood pressure than that of overseas in- vestment.'—From a leading article in Monday's Financial Times.

Very true, I dare say: but I mean to keep pretty calm about it for the next few days at least.

J. W. M. THOMPSON