Notebook
Lord Kennet has come forward with an explanation of hiswife's action in slapping Mr Peter Walker on the face, an incident first recorded in this Notebook a week ago. This is what he tells us:
'Mr Walker and I were both to speak at the launching of Earthscan, as you report. I was prevented by illness; the speech he made was definitely on the party political Side. Afterwards my wife approached him and said: 'That was a bit of a party political broadcast.' He said: 'What has Wayland' (that is, me) 'ever done for the environment?' She replied: 'Well, he invented your Slot for one thing.' This was a reference to the fact, well known in Whitehall, that the Department of the Environment, with its Secretary of State, was planned and readied to go by the last Labour Government in 1969-70, and that I had a good deal to do With this work. When the Conservatives Won the 1970 election, they simply put this Plan into effect, after a decent delay. To this, Mr Walker replied: 'Dear girl, you thust be drunk,' My wife then slapped his face; who would not have?
'I hope you will publish this and that everyone will then forget the matter. There are many more interesting things to write about Mr Walker, about my wife, and above all about Earthscan.'
Mrs Anne Westover will not quickly forget the day she was Queen. Mrs Westover has been Queen twice, in fact. Once on Monday and once on Wednesday. When she is not being the Queen, with whom she shares qualities of dignity and radiance, Mrs Westover is secretary to Sir Max Aitken, Chairman of Beaverbrook Newspapers. Her elevation this week to the rank of royalty was part of the feverish preparations which Fleet Street made for the real Queen's visit there on Thursday. Loyal to the last—which may not be a million light Years away—the Daily Express was deterMined to get everything right. At a briefing in the Beaverbrook boardroom last Monday, the production manager poked at a chart in an attempt to explain the technological marvels of the Express printing machinery to his monarch, made flesh on the occasion in Mrs Westover. Members of the staff were then instructed to shake the lady's royal hhnd and incline gently from the waist. The dignity of these memorable proceedings was further enhanced by the lovely Miss Jean Rook, who confronted Mrs Westover with a deep curtsey. Mrs Westover also had the Privilege of being formally introduced by the Express's outgoing Editor, Mr Alastair Rurnett, to its new Editor, Mr Roy Wright. Meanwhile, the Express was not to be outdone by the Daily Telegraph. Lord Hartwell, having failed to persuade his Editor, Mr William Deedes, to we-morning suit for the Queen's visit, madt... for it by spending £500 on the purchase of a red carpet.
The odd thing is that, despite all this sycophancy, Fleet Street has chosen the past few days to be particularly offensive to the Royal Family. The Editor of the Sunday Express, Mr John Junor, wrote of Prince Philip last Sunday that he had 'even less between his royal ears than I thought he had'. And the News of the World devoted much of its front page to a snide account of Princess Margaret's West Indian holiday. Perhaps these are examples of a rather pathetic attempt to redress the balance.
The Times last week devoted an enormous amount of its space to the news that Dom Basil Hume, Abbot of Ampleforth had been appointed the new Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. But it failed to report the important role which its Editor, Mr William Rees-Mogg, had played in securing the nomination. Cardinal Heenan had not been long in his grave before Mr Rees-Mogg made clear to various people that he would like Abbot Hume to succeed the Archbishop. The Abbot was by no means an obvious choice, and it seems that the Vatican itself did not immediately regard him as a leading candidate. But the Editor of the Times is fortunate in possessing a correspondent in Rome, Mr Peter Nichols, who is highly regarded in the Vatican. Mr Nichols (who is incidentally the author of a piece in this week's Spectator about the current state of Italy) has frequent access to the highest Vatican officials. With his Editor behind him, he was soon pressing Abbot Hume's case in the most exalted circles. It may also be, though we have no evidence of this, that Mr Rees-Mogg influenced the Vatican's representative in London, Archbishop Bruno Heim, who under the new and more democratic procedures for nominating bishops, is obliged to seek the views of prominent figures in the local Catholic community. The Vatican seems to have recognised the contribution made by the Times to the search for a new Archbishop of Westminster, for shortly after Hume's appointment, Mr Nichols was thanked by an august official for the service he had rendered the Church. Abbot Hume, who never really wanted the job, is now off to Rome, presumably to begin his education in high church politics. Lawyers are not supposed to advertise. There are codes governing their conduct in this respect, applicable to both solicitor and barrister.
But there is no need to advertise if only they have friends like Mrs Kenneth Tynan. She has just written an article in the Sunday Times Magazine about her own solicitor, Mr Oscar Beuselinck. It is probably the most fulsome, brazen puff for any lawyer ever published.
Leaving aside any observation about Mr Beuselinck's character as depicted by his client (from her account he seems the most awful vulgarian), the article is scarcely in accord with the rules of his own professional body, the Law Society, which specify (among other things) that nothing should be published identifying individuals for whom his firm acts or has acted.
Whatever may be said about Mr Justice Melford Stevenson—and there is very little of substance against him—the criticism that he put undue pressure on a defendant to plead guilty appears misplaced.
The Times Law Report of the Court of Appeal judgment—one of three which went against the judge on the same day—makes it clear that the Lord Chief Justice held it to be 'wrong for counsel to tell what judge said'. The Court, according to the report, approved the 'accepted practice for a judge to give counsel, in confidence, an indication that sentencing would be less severe should a defendant plead guilty'. But in this case defence counsel had disclosed to his client what the judge had told him, and therefore the change of plea to guilty was a nullity. In Lord Widgery's reported judgment, it could be said that if the accused had never had any reason to think that it was the judge who was producing the advice, the answer might be different'.
Having put in a word in Mr Justice Stevenson's defence—to add to his own injudicious comments to the press, now mitigated by an expression of regret—it should be said that the practice of giving such advice to counsel during a trial has little merit, is bound to cause similar confusion again, and should be abolished. It is widely known that a guilty plea will generally attract a lesser sentence than a plea of not guilty followed by a long contested case and conviction, and for the judge to tell counsel so is otiose.
Anthony King, Professor of Government at the University of Essex, is to be congratulated on the splendid lucidity with which he analyses the political crisis of this country on television. With the utmost simplicity, he explains that there are two factors at work. One is the greatly increased tendency of people to expect Governments to resolve all problems, even those of a personal nature. The other is the growing inability of Governments to get their wishes implemented, because of their hopeless dependence on other people and institutions. He is, of course, absolutely right.
Previous page
