Notebook

Commenting recently on a letter to the Times from Mr Eric Levine, a solicitor, in which he defended a judgment given in favour of

his client, the then Mr James Goldsmith, we suggested that such a course was most un

usual. Now it has happened again. This time the correspondent was Mr Oscar Beuselinck, writing at length to the same newsPaper, on behalf of his client, Mr Telly Savalas, after the latter's successful action against the Daily Mail. Since it is hardly desirable that this novel course of action Should become accepted practice the Law Society might give the matter its attention.

While there is no suggestion here of touting—neither Mr Beuselinck nor Mr Levine mentioned the names of their firms in the correspondence—many readers of the Times may be glad to learn of solicitors who are Prepared to fight their clients' cases not merely through the courts but through the columns of the national press as well. This is something which the Monopolies Commission might usefully consider as part of its inquiry into the present restrictions on advertising by lawyers.

It is the Law Society's continuing view that no form of advertising should be undertaken by an individual solicitor or by a firm. And the Bar Council would take the gravest exception to anything which carried a hint, however veiled, of touting for business. In America, however, the Justice Department IS about to issue writs against all Bar Associations to require lawyers to end their advertising restrictions. The argument is that such a move would encourage competition within the profession and reduce legal fees to the benefit of the client. And, says theJustice DePartment, the present prohibition against advertising is in breach of anti-trust legislation. Would the Monopolies Commission dare to reach the same conclusion here?

The three national treasurers of the Conservative Party, Lord Chelmer, Lord Ashdown and Mr Alistair McAlpine, are well pleased with their efforts to overcome the deficit that has dogged the Tories, even if it has not demoralised them, since the two expensive election campaigns of 1974. In the financial Year just ended they succeeded in raising £1,800,000. But now they must produce a further £2,500,000 if the organisation is to be Maintained at adequate strength as a general election draws nearer.

UP to now, the Tory hierarchy (and many Others) have shied away from the thought that Political parties should receive state uPPort except for a limited number of Par"arnentary services. But their resistance is Perhaps declining, such is the bite of infla'Ion and its consequences. It has been too easily forgotten that the present is the second crisis the Government's bill for the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries has had to endure. In 1975, too, it perished for lack of parliamentary time. And whatever Michael Foot may say it is fairly clear that, unless the Commons timetable is again re-arranged, and unless the House of Lords sits throughout August, the legislation will not reach the statute book this year. The Government seem oddly complacent about this fact, considering the urgent tone of ministerial speeches during the debate to overturn the Speaker's ruling on hybridity. It is even rumoured that they are quite keen for the whole matter to be dropped. The Treasury would like it so, because the knights of Great George Street are not keen to spend any more money and, besides, the abandonment of a major measure of nationalisation would make the international bankers happy. It is even said that Mr Foot would be happy with such an outcome: he now accepts that heavy unemployment in the aircraft industry is inevitable, and sees the opportunity of blaming it on the Tories and their opposition to the bill.

None of us can do anything about the architectural rape of London by property speculators and borough councils which, in the past ten years, through a mixture of aesthetic cynicism and indifference has plastered our city with dull, third-rate buildings and gloomy vistas. The economic recession has brought much of this cynical work to a halt for the time being. But meanwhile, another kind of visual outrage continues everywhere, under the technical heading of 'street furniture'. To implement the diversion of traffic from one route to another, or to prevent pedestrians from crossing the road, barriers are set up in the shape of metal fencing which invariably looks, in its aes

thetic shoddiness, like a cheap and bad temporary expediency—until we discover that this gloomy hardware is permanent. The railings are painted in some nondescript brown colour that looks like an undercoat, but nothing is added and the drab colour and dull finish remain.

The level of design is execrable—look at Piccadilly Circus, Coventry Street and the Haymarket. Enforced plans for pedestrians and redeployment of traffic are usually needed, but this kind of visual sludge is unnecessary when we have excellent designers in England. It is not just a question of dull, brutish rails: outside the Shaftesbury Theatre and in other pockets of London, objects resembling old bedsprings from a junkyard have been slotted together to make very long traffic barriers—again temporary looking but doubtless permanent. These appalling units, which make each vicinity look as if it were under siege, are presumably manufactured. Can nothing be done to bring in good, cheerful design ?

The Australian Labour Party remains in the turmoil to which Mr Malcolm Fraser reduced it by his smashing victory in the last general election. In particular, discontent with the Leader of the Opposition is rife, and quarrels between the senior members of the party are frequent. Mr Whitlam's future is in doubt, and he appears to be making little effort to rally his troops. In particular, there is considerable annoyance at the fact that he is about to set off on a world tour. This, however, is no expensive indulgence on his part, for the Leader of the Opposition in Australia is entitled to one such trip a year—paid for by the Federal government.

Mrs Thatcher has decided to publish a Conservative mid-term manifesto. It will appear on I October, just ahead of the party conference. This will be the Opposition's answer to those critics who have complained that Tory commitments have, up to now, been too vague and imprecise. Already the Shadow Cabinet is engaged in prolonged consideration of the reports which have emerged from the policy committees which Mrs Thatcher set up as soon as she became Leader: it is even said that one of these documents specifies cuts in public expenditure to the tune of £3000 million. In publishing a mid-term manifesto Mrs Thatcher will be following the example of Mr Heath, whose Action not Words made a considerable impact in 1969.

But her committees are very different in composition from those of Mr Heath : their membership is largely parliamentary, and relatively few outside experts have been called upon. This reflects Mrs Thatcher's contrasting—and more overtly party-political—approach to the business of policy formulation. Even so, it may be thought that there is still too much willingness on the part of the Conservatives to tie themselves down to particular promises.

Sir William Anstruther-Grey, when he was chairman of the 1922 Committee in the 1966 Parliament, disapproved strongly on the huge and elaborate network of committees, observing after one meeting, 'Policy, policy, policy. The more policies you have the more votes you lose. We had a policy for the railways and now there isn't a station in my constituency. What's wrong with a sound pound and an honest agriculture?' What indeed ?

Turner is now the highest priced British painter, and Robert Medley described him last week as 'the only good painter of international standing that this country has produced'. He is, indeed, fully recognised in the English-speaking world. There are nine of his pictures in the National Gallery in Washington, DC, five in the Frick collection and three in the New York Metropolitan. He is also represented at Boston and Cleveland, and in several other American collections. In addition, there are two Turners in Ottawa and three in Melbourne.

But what of the continent of Europe ? Our greatest painter is totally unrepresented in Spain, Austria, Italy and Holland, as well as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe generally. Stockholm has one picture of his and there are two in Lisbon. The Louvre in Paris has only one, acquired as recently as 1967, and it was only last year that Agnew's sold to the Munich collection the very first Turner to hang in West Germany. What would the Dutch think if we had no Rembrandts, or the French if we had only one Claude?

The Arab purchase of the Dorchester Hotel is surely a staggering example of commercial folly, or (if you like) of Arab extravagance, although no doubt very pleasing to the McAlpine family, who were large, if not controlling, shareholders. The price paid— approximately L9,000,000—is much more than the hotel is worth as an investment returning perhaps £100,000 a year. Moreover it is in need of many costly improvements which may consume a further £3,000,000 or so. Deposited in the City of London, • the sum of £9,000,000 (or £12,000,000) would earn vastly more than the Dorchester can ever be expected to produce.

Tel Aviv Radio was foolish to proclaim that the hotel would now lose Israeli custom, however. Any boycott would be deplorable. The Israelis (and other Jewish interests) rightly complain about the machinations of the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, but they have no need to emulate it.

When will Mr Wedgwood Benn, the Energy Secretary, decide to commit himself finally

, —and with dates—to paying the official visit to Brazil which has been in the air since last October ? He clearly has no invincible objection to dealing with Brazilians at the official level, since he had a meeting with President Geisel during the recent State visit. True, he tried to enter Buckingham Palace by a side entrance, but when told that a Minister of the Crown coming to see the Queen's guest must enter by the front door, he decided to risk left-wing odium rather than fail in his public duty. He should do the same once again, by making up his mind to visit Brazil and agreeing dates.

After the recent economics debate in the Lords Lord Brockway initiated a discussion of the stark prospect facing overseas students, with the threat of rising fees and limitation of numbers. He was supported by an impressive array of fellow peers, including Lord Gladwyn, Baroness Vickers and Lord Caradon. They extracted no very satisfactory reply from the Government spokesman, Lord Donaldson, but at least the matter seems to remain open for the time being. The discussion ended at nearly half past one in the morning. One has to admire Fenner Brockway's stamina. He was born in 1888 and made his political debut in the General Election of 1906, as agent to a candidate who—amazingly----captured Tonbridge for the Liberals.

There can be no doubt that Electoral Reform is the fashionable cause of the age. It has finally received the establishment seal of approval with the formation of the National Committee for Electoral Reform earlier this week. The Committee is one of the most extraordinary gatherings of ultra-respectable 'moderate' opinion, or, if you prefer of bien pensants. The list could almost write itself: Mr Austen Albu, Professor Max Beloff, Mr Humphry Berkeley, Lord Chalfont, Mr Christopher Mayhew, Mr Brian Walden, Mr Dick Taverne. Thrown in among them are other more surprising names. Did we previously know that Mr John Arlott, the entertaining cricket writer, was an enthusiast for electoral innovation? Or Miss Katherine Whitehorn or Sir Hugh Casson or Mr Henry Moore? Even more surprising is the appearance on the list of the names of the Bishops of Bristol and Liverpool. It has recently become the fashion among the hierarchy of the Church of England to take an active part in political campaigns. It may be remembered that a number of bishops announced their enthusiasm for the 'European ideal'. It was asked then precisely what their theological justification for such activity was. It could be asked now what the pastoral significance of electoral reform is.

Now is the time to take a holiday in Italy. In their idiotic, sheep-like way, foreign tourists have been boycotting the country for fear that last Sunday's election would suddenly bring a Communist government to power and be followed at once by a bloody counter-revolution. The result is that Rome during the election period was emptier, calmer and more appealing than for manY years. The Romans, who are not the easiest of people, were relaxed and goodhumoured, presumably because they were not obliged to spend all their time dutifully extorting money out of hoards of Germans and Japanese. The hotels had plenty of spare rooms and the streets were empty.