Another voice

Per evitare it baby boom

Auberon Waugh

In the week preceding President Pertini's istate visit to Britain, Rome managed to place itself in the international news for a number of reasons, but only one news item from Britain attracted attention in the Italian newspapers. First, an American gen- eral was murdered and the Red Brigades, previously thought moribund, immediately claimed responsibility, although Romans debated whether their claim was true; the unfortunate man might easily have been murdered by Libyans or some new group, like our own animal welfare and anti- smoking factions. Of course, the murder of prominent foreigners is always a cheap and easy way for countries to draw attention to themselves.

Next, we had a 'historic Concordat' bet- ween Cardinal Casaroli, the sinister old sheep-goat of Vatican foreign policy, and Signor Bettino Craxi, the unememorable Socialist Prime Minister of Italy. Rome is no longer to be seen as a Holy City, but clergymen will still be excused military ser- vice. Looking at some of the new priests, I should think a spell of military service would have done them a power of good. Everything about the new Concordat seems fatuous and anti-historical, concerned more to rub our noses once again in the Sixties and Seventies than to confront the new realities of Italy, where a religious revival of alarming proportions seems to be under way. It is hard to visit a church at any hour of the day now without finding some religious business going on — an irritating state of affairs for the visitor who does not happen to be a religious fanatic.

Then, in apparent contradiction of Casaroli's achievement in secularising the Italian state, the Pope decided to beatify 99 martyrs of the French Revolution. Most of them died at the 1793 mass executions in a field near Angers for refusing to accept a law which subjected the Church to the State. Rome has the advantage over other European capitals, so far as attracting world attention to itself is concerned, that it can always beatify or canonise prominent foreigners, as well as murdering them.

Finally, they packed off their aged but much loved President to London almost as soon as he had come back from the 'his- toric' funeral of Russia's last mass- murderer. One hopes the old boy will sur- vive this treatment. Although a life-long socialist and atheist, Pertini has a passion for Mrs Thatcher which borders on the in- decent. He tells all who will listen to him that she is not only a great prime minister but also a very attractive woman. Some of the old goat's remarks have been so fulsome that the Italian Foreign Office beg-

ged at least one respected correspondent to exercise his discretion in reporting them.

But only one item from England caught the attention of Italians throughout this time, at any rate to the extent of inspiring comment in the more responsible news- papers. This was the suggestion by a Liver- pool gynaecologist, Professor Harold Fran- cis, that the Princess of Wales should be sterilised after giving birth to her second baby. The reason for this bizarre and rather monstrous suggestion, according to the Italian newspapers — I have not seen the Professor's original statement — was not so much to save British taxpayers from further depredations on the Civil List, nor to spare us the risk of such future embarrassments as we now suffer from Princess Michael of Kent. It was because the Professor had discovered that every time a member of the Royal family has a baby the birthrate,umps by 50 per cent, By having a third baby, the Princess would be setting us a bad example, he claimed, if I have understood the Italian correctly:

`Per evitare it baby boom, bisognera sterilizzare lady Diana' (La Repubblica) `Aspetta it secondo figlio: un terzo sarebbe di pessimo esempio: Povera Diana, anche sterilizzata' (Ii Giornale)

Comment, I should say, was mildly derisive. No doubt many people in England will take it as a further sign of Latin ir- responsibility that this news item should have been singled out as the only thing wor- thy of attention in a week when the English newspapers found so many other things to occupy them. Looking at the week's English newspapers, I cannot honestly say that the Italians were wrong.

In fact the Italian newspapers seem altogether more serious and responsible than their English counterparts. Con- siderable resentment was caused over here by press and television coverage in Britain of the trial of a Scottish nanny for alleged arson and homicide, To read the English newspapers one would have supposed she was on trial for witchcraft. Many of them stated as much, citing various mediaeval religious laws against the practice, and expressing sympathy for the poor Scottish girl who was being made the victim of such ignorant superstition. None of them reveal- ed that the witchcraft suggestion was put forward originally by a foolish defence counsel, that it formed no part of the charges against the woman, or that it was withdrawn by the defence almost as soon as it .had been suggested.

None of which has much bearing on the central question of whether the girl was or was not a witch. Personally, I kept an open

mind. We once had a young nanny of great ugliness who insisted on sitting in the drawing-room of our London house. One day when she was sitting there with US, a Complete Shakespeare jumped out of the bookcase and landed in the middle of th room. Some said that the woman's sexua' problems had conjured a poltergeist, but my theory remains that it was the resent' ment excited by her presence. Thank God, at least, that we have no further need 01 nannies.

Which is not the case with the Princess of Wales. Politicians are always deeply shack'

ed to see anything in the newspapers which is not about themselves or their piffling preoccupations, but, very few people, 111, fact, are remotely interested in either. I fee'

the Italian newspapers were right to settle on this as the most significant news out of England last week. It says much about ttUs country that its people suppose any rise In the birthrate must be a bad thing.

From Liverpool, where the Professor lives, I can quite understand any point 01

view which sees the English in these terrus.

They not only require free education and social supervision throughout their demented childhoods but when grown III/ they will expect to be given 'jobs' which, as we all know, is more than the country can possibly afford. The weakness in Professor Francis's atti" tude — which is widely shared throughout the entire state system of caring professions

— is surely to suppose that the country is already one great Merseyside. In point of fact there are other parts of the country

where people still have to work in order t.° pay for all the caring which goes on 11/ Liverpool. Perhaps the thing to do is to Pr!. vent any news of subsequent Royal bahles being published north of the Trent. This seems less dramatic than sterilising , the

Princess of Wales, and is the only contrihtl•

tion I can make to the Great Debate. r But the worst mistake any newspaper publisher can make is to suppose that anyone is interested in politics. That W the greatest, probably the only lesson learned in five years as a political Or; respondent, first for the Spectator, then° f Private Eye. Politicians are interested,. course, but very few of them read anYthuii" unless it is about themselves. When the new 22-year-old editor of the Sunday times whose name for the moment escapes me aPt nounced it as his intention to make th8ci newspaper required political reading, aria demoted its Atticus gossip column to Cross-bencher political feature, I rejo!Ceua;

help. politiceir There is no such thing as required

reading. It is a contradiction in terms. Aft the recent Commons Report on expenditUng in the diplomatic service, reconunend.i „, that ambassadors should be require to bier, cle to work from their bed-sitting rooms was not surprised to learn that oUr 8.Ding bassador to Italy is now reduced to growl cc tomatoes in his bathroom. But I do not sill that sterilising the Princess of Wales w