Letters to the Editor

Royal commoners

Sir: In your interesting editorial today on the Royal marriage you state that the Queen's younger children are 'born commoners.' I cannot myself see how this description can reasonably be applied to a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom. It is certainly true that children of the English monarch before the union of the Crowns, apart from the Prince of Wales, were not styled ' Prince' or ' Princess,' at least officially, but after the Union the Scottish practice, which followed that of the Continent, of so styling all the children of the monarch, appears to have been invariably used. Thus in the reign of Phillip and Mary the later Queen Elizabeth I was styled 'The Ladye Elizabeth,' whilst in the reign of James I and VI the latter's daughter Elizabeth, afterwards Queen of Bohemia, was styled 'The Princess Elizabeth.'

These titles are. I believe, no mere empty courtesy, as in the case of 'The Honourable' or a second territorial title adopted by a peer's son or daughter. Rather, they represent an engrafting of the continental doctrine of noblesse onto our English system following upon the Stewart succession to the throne of England. They are an inescapable reminder of continental links far deeper and more enduring than any Common Market.

With the tone and logic of your final paragraph, sir, I agree entirely, although the Editor of Debrett's suggestion is open to objection in that by allowing the monarch to confer even a limited number of hereditary peerages at will the risk would be run of involving the Sovereign in party politics. Knights of the Garter or bearers of the Order of Merit do not have seats in the legislature, and unless hereditary peers are to be debarred from sitting and voting in Parliament (which God forbid) they 'must, I submit, continue to be at least approved and agreed to by the Prime Minister of the day. All this in no way excuses Mr Heath's reported refusal to agree to the conferment of such an honour on Captain Phillips'. George Chowdharay-Best 174 Clay Hill Road, Basildon, Essex.

Vivisection

Sir: That Dr Linklater's closely reasoned, well informed and movingly humane article ' Poor Vivisected Doggy' (November 3) should evoke the usual inane psittacine fury of the " diehards and unconvincibles" was, regrettably, only to be expected. Mrs Dorothy Cooke's and Mr Colin Smith's thinly veiled fanaticism (Letters, November 10), can, therefore, properly be ignored. Ms Brophy, whose letter leads this correspondence, cannot be so lightly dismissed; certainly not because she is any less bigoted or ignorant, words like " torture-rights ' etc, stridently assert the contrary but, as one highly esteemed in letters her hobby-horse is that most likely to attract the bets of the posher ignoramuses. This nag, therefore, must be the subject of metaphorical vivisection adequate to the exposure of the invalidity of the odds. In terms of fact, if fact be the mot juste, Ms Brophy can find but one to castigate in Dr Linklater's masterly analysis: a " bizarre grammatical trans-sexualism." Brzarre? Really, when one discovers that Ms Brophy herself follows this trivial observation up with a simple alternative in apposition to a brace of superlatives?

It is, by contrast, deplorable, as well as being in poor taste, to draw attention to the pathetic agonal blatherings of the late Lord Dowding. His job in life was, after all, to organise the shooting and burning, without anaesthesia, of human beings; a duty which, by all accounts, he discharged with conspicuous dedication and skill at a time when, confronted overwhelmingly by the monstrous engines of a malignant tyranny, we in this land were in mortal peril. That he success. fully did so I. as one of the "indebted many," am truly thankful. The Luftwaffe is not a menace now Ms Brophy. Disease is! The defeat and/or amelioration of illness and injury demands devotion and sacrifice no less exacting than war, albeit much longer in term and usually less spectacular in kind. Thanks to the unremitting labours of sensitive, highly trained and exceptionally intelligent men and women (they often combine these amiable qualities with political naivete and commercial ineptitude, so are not only ill-rewarded but also spitefully abused by the Brigid Brophys of this world) the sacrifice of innocent life, whilst sad, is slight, minutely selective, ineluctably beneficial overall and incomparably less horrendous than that deemed acceptable by Lord Dowding; eccentric herbivore annd blind antivivisectonist, yes: humanitarian?

No, sir, the inescapable fact remains that animal and human welfare (the order is important) demands that we humans being possessed of authority and capability contemptuously reject Ms Brophy's thesis. From behind a sprightly talent in a sublime but, in this context, totally irrelevant discipline, she has chosen, ignobly in my view, to lend her influential support to a dangerously misguided crusade which, shamelessly relying for its main sustenance upon puerile (or should 1 say, puellak?), lachrymose appeals to craven sentimental hypocrisy, promotes its propaganda incessantly with data themselves fraudulently compiled and wilfully misleading in presentation.

You, Sir, by this publication have done truth and sanity a signal service in drawing uncompromising attention to the ultimate indispensability of properly designed and precisely conducted experiments upon living animals under good husbandry and within the framework of enlightened statute prudently enforced. A distasteful conclusion none denies, but the results accruing therefrom benefit unequivocally the doggies, pussy-cats, gee-gees at al as much as, if not more than, Homo, so called sapiens. Were our dumb friends able to speak with wisdom they too would, I do not for one moment doubt, acclaim with enthusiasm an article, which by its very moderation, eloquent prose and authoritative dialectic is specifically irrefutable and morally impeccable. Judged by the parameters of scientific integrity, unassailable humanism and, dare I say it, Christian love, Dr Linklater's essay is in the finest traditions permanently enshrined amongst the best of the Paget Lectures (Memorial Lectures sponsored by the Research Defence Society, 11 Chandos Street, London W1).

John A. H. Wylie 9a Portland Place, Kemp Town, Brighton. Sir: In your issue of November 3, you have an article by John Linklater, which he opens with the words: "Vivisection is the act of cutting open a living animal."

Yes it is, in the true dictionary sense of the word. As a matter of fact. however, all experiments on animals, whether cutting or not, 'can only be performed by those ' licensed to vivisect ' and in establishments 'licensed for vivisection.' Therefore. the 'legal ' definition of the word ' vivisect' is really altogether different from the dictionary definition, and it is correct therefore to refer to experiments on animals as ' vivisections.'

want to make that clear, as folks tend to blame us anti-vivisectionists for referring to all experiments on animals as' vivisections' implying that we are referring to the practice as being worse than it is. I also want to make it clear that the experiments which are not cutting ones often are worse — a terrific lot worse — than many which are. About 80 per cent of all experiments on animals are not cutting ones, and are carried out without anaesthetics. They are 'feeding experiments.' 'inoculations.' and the like. They sound to be nothing. The reader probably thinks of feeding experiments as just some sorts of foods instead of others; and inoculations as similar to the inoculations we humans have when we are vaccinated or inoculated.

In fact, however. the feeding experiments may be feeding with some chemical or other, and the inoculations, again, inoculating with something harmful. The point is that these harmless-sounding experiments really consist, as a rule, of creating some disease so as to study that disease. Animals are given cancer, for instance, and that must cause terrible suffering. Guile Houghton President, Birmingham Branch. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. 96 Acheson Road, Hall Green. Birmingham.

Medicine and morality

Sir: John Linklater, when he writes about matters of which he may have some small knowledge (such as the duties of general practitioners) is merely an opinionated bore. When he writes about matters of which he patently knows nothing whatsoever, he is a downright pest. His November 17 diatribe against sex education makes him sound more like a latterday John Knox than the intelligent practitioner of a caring profession which he claims to be. The only care he appears to exhibit is for. his own position as a moral arbiter,• He appears to care for patients only as objects to be lectured. Heaven help those of his patients who are normal human beings and do not subscribe to his distorted view of life-as-it-should-be-lived. The burden of guilt, deep anxiety — and very inferior medical care — which they carry must indeed be formidable.

Claire Rayner, SRN 7 Pasture Road, North Wembley, Middlesex.

Abortion

Sir: Your correspondent, Mr Alan Smith (Letters. November 10), seems to think that abortion law reformers and Nazis have much in common. This view is also frequently expressed by Mr Leo Abse, MP.

I recommend them both to read Women in Nazi Germany by Clifford Kirkpatrick (Jarrolds), in which Professor Kirkpatrick points out that almost the first law the Nazis passed when they came to power in 1933 was one increasing the penalties against abortion. The Nazis also created a new

offence of aiding and abetting abortion. Since they regarded women largely as breeding animals, this was logical. At the same time they closed down birth control clinics, It sounds just the sort of legislation that anti' reformers dream about. Fortunately we do not live in a Nazi society. sp anti-reformers are unlikely to get their way.

W. K. Ritter Hinton House, Finchley Road, London NW8.

Sir: Doubtless as Mr Smith (Letters. November 10), reflects. pro-abortionists do not regard human foetuses as persons. However in referring to human foetuses as " babies in the womb," does he imply that anti-abortionists regard human foetuses, from the moment of conception, as persons?

If so, perhaps he or others would explain what they mean by a person, and in what sense a fertilised human egg-cell can be described as a person: that is, an actual person, as distinct from a potential person; alternatively: when a human foetus becomes a person, and on what basis one decides.

_ • Philip Kestelman 10 Carston Close, London SEI2.

Anagram

Sir: Some people I joined on the train last week were reading Benn.y Green's 'review in last week's Spectator Of Howard Bergerson's Palindromes and Anagrams. I left the table when they kept sniggering 'Spiro Agnew and calling 'Four, one, five.'

Perhaps Benny Green will help as 1 find it difficult to make friends with either sex. '

A. Plantagenet Guerre Ghetteau Fleurie, Widdicombe. Somerset.

Dame Ethel Smyth

Sir: Mr Richard Luckett, "Director ol English Studies at St Catharine's College, Cambridge," should verify his references when straying outside his own subject into the world of music.

I. Dame Ethel Smyth did mit spell her name with an 'e.

2. She may not have been a pro' fessional singer in public, but in her younger days in society she certainlY sang and accompanied herself at the piano. In her book, Maurice Baring. there is a photograph of her so doing with Baring himself listening. The photograph was " reproduced bY M.B.'s special desire." In his Lost Lee. turei Baring says that hearing Ethel Smyth sing was one of his most memorable musical experiences and names some of the songs she ■ sang to him.

23 Redcliffe Square, LonSdtaonnlesywBiaoyliss

Party prospects

Sir: Reversals of fortune are ilwaYS possible, but it looks as though the four recent by-elections have settled the fate of the Tory Government and the Labour Opposition alike. The next general election will almost certainlY end in a draw, with the Tories ahead of Labour but no clear majority for either.

In the normal course of events, the trend towards polarisation should now begin to emerge. It has done so, except in Edinburgh North, but not between Left and Right as such: instead people have supported the party which regularly holds the seat, or the one with the best chance of beating it. This would also have happened in Edinburgh if the SNP had put in the necessary groundwork for a year or two before, when it already appeared that a by-election could occur at any time.

To begin with Hove: there Des Wit°i Presented the unacceptable face of Liberalism — too recent a convert and too obvious a do-gooding careerist — .rsnmeone like Alan Beith or Graham 'oPe would probably have got much nearer to taking the seat. The Tories cannot count on doing equally well in other 'safe' constituencies.

Berwick seems a fair indication of What is likely to happen in other moderately 'safe seats with a relatively strong third party, whether Liberal or Nationalist, and there are enough seats of this type to decide the next general election. At Govan Labour has suffered the Most humiliating defeat ever recorded 12), the major Opposition party. At Hamilton they had the excuse of being in office and only lost one-third of their vote, mainly through abstentions: at .at.ton they could not win. This time 5 Per cent of their support has melted a Way, and it is no use invoking r,ePopulation and rehousing as an alibi; Nationalists are also rehoused. but they showed up on polling day. They Ilave avoided the ultimate disgrace of osing the deposit in one of their own teats (this nearly 'happened to the ,ories, when in office, at Rochdale some years ago) but they have ceased te' be a credible alternative govern.

. The Edinburgh contest was peculiar M that all four parties started with a chance of winning, and that all four 'sVed the deposit and live to fight again with some prospect of victory. In !n'actice, now that Mr Steel's canny It!Ogement has been vindicated, the ‘lberals may pull out and the SNP °I.ganisation will certainly wake up ialnd do the work which should have een done earlier. Labour claim a 41,41i-swing (0.5 per cent) towards loemselves, but there is no glory in n,sirlg half their vote in a semi-martinet' where they started a good 8ec0nd: this was the sort of place Wv.here they should nearly have closed tge gap with the Tories if they wished 0 be taken seriously. seems likely that the present ItInird-party trend will be maintained, Leoause elderly MPs in uncertain oealth mostly represent 'safe' seats, p,redominantly Labour, and it is vulerefore in seats of this type (plus a i.erYfew safe Tory ones where the MP • heir. to a peerage) that the next frnoP of by-elections may be expected 0of occur. In such areas the supporters „,,T1tainaj0r party know it cannot win. lie those who back the other do not ;1XPect it to lose, and this leads to a„,eavY abstention and protest voting "" 'ong the dissatisfied. The longer this. kept up, the more credible the Third erce parties will become..and the less rePendent they will be on outside einforcements (the SNP can already V, by without them in many areas), mob increases their viability under general election conditions. 11,9 rt present showing the Tories will ""t1 about 260 seats to Labour's 240 in N0 m . next general election: Liberals, ettonalists and others will share the 10Maining 130. and Mr Heath may fail get in at Sidcup: the 'eviction' of, suenle Pat Hornsby-Smith has caused ti°1111e ill-feeling 'locally, and I do not

O hk the committee women will turn „Ut for him as they did for her. But it 7ould not take any great acceleration this trend to produce a Third Force

rvernment, presumably with Mr „porpe as Prime Minister and Dr 'Slcintyre and Gwynfor Evans as eecretaries of State for their respective sOuntries. As of now, Third Force A"„PPort seems'to run at a steady 35 to Per cent overall, plus or minus 5 per 08 Perin a few plaees, and 38:per ceht "Ci'iven our electoral systenvarnd)la Party situation, is the' *nabs"Le threshold 01 victory ',where

the third party does reasonably well. An average of 40 to 45 per cent would almost certainly mean a Third Force government, with a majority of Nationalist MPs in Scotland and Wales.

An interesting fact is that the.

Liberals and the SNP appear to do little harm to each other, because they appeal to a different type of vote. In 1970 the SNP only did slightly better in constituencies where they did not en counter a Liberal than in other corn parable areas where they did; conversely there was little to choose between Liberal performance in Edinburgh North (three-party) and in Edinburgh l West (four-party) both fairly safe but ' not cast-iron Tory seats. In recent by. elections the Liberals have made some' improvement from a zero showing in Dundee and Govan, and a substantial improvement on a lost deposit in Edinburgh: in the first two seats the SNP did much better than expected, perhaps due to Liberal intervention rather than in spite of it: in Edinburgh North they did rather worse, barely achieving a third place, but there were other reasons for their failure.

Finally, the Govan result must call the whole future of the Scottish Labour machine into question, because it shows they have learnt nothing from Hamilton, Stirling and Dundee. What the apparatchiks do is to operate something very like Domesday Book feudalism, with its privileged villeins and its starving. borders and cottars. The villeins are the council tenants in massive housing schemes, who sometimes pay less rent for their house than for their TV set: the borders and cotters await their turn on the housing list, in rat-infested tenements, subsidising the villeins through the rates which they or their private landlords pay. The whole thing is supposed to run on the unconditional loyalty of the Scottish working-class to the machine, and of the machine itself to Transport House and the vassals (apparatchiks) ultimately creep down to Westminster in accordance with the law of Buggins' turn, to do homage and reap their reward.

There will be no reward for Mr Selby, and others with ten or fifteen years to wait may wonder whether the SNP might not get them sooner either down to Westminster or into a Scottish Parliament within commuting distance of their homes.

Anthony J. C. Kerr

52 Castlegate. Jedburgh, Scotland