SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK

J. W. M. THOMPSON

In view of the excitement created when Mr Heath dared to drag the subject of the Bomb

and defence generally into the Common Mar- ket debate, it could have been expected that any reference to this matter by President de Gaulle at his famous press conference last week would have been seized upon by Fleet Street and given the most rigorous scrutiny. After all, some newspapers had declared that Mr Heath had thrown a 'bombshell': how did the General react to this alarming act?

Well, so far as one could tell from the lengthy reports of his statement published in the British press, the General had pretty well ig- nored the theme altogether. The 'full text' (sic) in The Times and the 'unofficial translation' in the Guardian (which happened to be identical, by the way) quoted a short passage on the politics of Europe which conceded that the policy of the Six could in many cases be asso- ciated with that of Britain, and added starkly : `but one cannot see at all how one policy and the other could be intermingled.' Full stop. The Telegraph version was much the same.

However, looking at the text as printed in Le Monde, and recruiting also the unofficial English translation supplied by the French em- bassy, I see that the General, far from ending his sentence there, in fact continued in a rather interesting way. In this version the sen- tence reads: 'But it is not possible to see how the two policies could merge, unless the British resumed complete freedom of action, particu- larly with regard to defence, or unless the peoples of the Continent gave up the idea of ever building a European Europe.' The differ- ence is obviously substantial. Yet by one of those unexplained quirks of the communications business these words have been completely over- looked. (Incidentally, if anyone should wonder how The Times's report 'From our own corre- spondent' and the Guardian's version happened to be identical, the explanation is that both were taken from Reuter's agency.)

Left behind

All political parties have to deny their past on Occasion, but the wholesale manner in which

Labour has found itself doing so since 1964 will long fascinate historians. Everyone notices the big reversals, such as the deliberate creation of unemplyoment, but the inconspicuous shifts have their significance too.

There is irony, for example, in the threat posed by the Leasehold Bill to the economic structure of Letchworth Garden City : part of the dream of its founder, Ebenezer Howard, was to secure communal control for his leafy utopia by a system of leasehold. The garden city movement sprang from the same reforming mood at the end of the last century which launched the Labour party, yet today Letch- worth is disturbed by a Labour government's anxiety to sell off the leases to private owners.

Equally, there was something rather touch- ing in the deputation to Downing Street this week led by the socialist vicar of Thaxted, in Essex. They were distressed because the Government's plans to develop Stansted airport are likely to ruin their mediaeval church and disrupt the town. Thaxted has for several generations been the cathedral city of Christian socialism, notable for a certain rather endearing Mirres's and William Morris-like zeal. That

it should now face physical disaster at the hands of a Labour government is a bizarre turn, as though the Pope were to contemplate making a motorway through St Peter's.

Vacancy

One good question arising from Lord Chal- font's selection as head of our Brussels negotiating team is whether there will in fact be any negotiations for him to take part in, and what he will do now that he has lost his job as Disarmament Minister if there aren't. Assum- ing there are negotiations, however, the general surprise at his being picked for the job seems well justified. Lord Chalfont is known to be a half-hearted sort of European at best, even if not quite to be counted among the numerous anti- Market men in the Government. But a greater difficulty comes from Lord Chalfont's recent role as one of the architects of the non-pro- liferation treaty. This draft treaty has affronted much influential continental opinion.

Why then has Mr Wilson chosen him? One possibly unworthy speculation suggests itself. He's in the House of Lords. Someone will have to do what was once Mr Heath's task of pre- senting masterful progress reports to the House of Commons. Since Lord Chalfont will be ruled out, who could better step into the breach than —shh, you know who.

Suggestion

The fact that U Thant can say that the third world war may now be beginning makes It seem all the more appalling that we should have a Foreign Secretary whose behaviour Is under heavy fire from newspapers of both left and right. Since part of the trouble stems from Mr Brown's taste in evening wear, I have a modest and helpful proposal to offer. Mr Brown won't wear white tie and tails, but Mr Wilson often does, so there cannot be any ideological objection to the outfit. Perhaps then Mr Brown feels uncomfortable without any decorations to wear in the splendid assemblies he must fre- quent? Mr Wilson, as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, ought to be sympathetic; so why doesn't he advise the Queen to appoint Mr Brown to the Order? The junior rank of Member would meet the case. It would elevate the Foreign Secretary to the same station as the Leader of the Opposition (who has been an AIDE for years); preserve a seemly differential between him and his Prime Minister; and allow him to give his dinner jacket (and also the sur- prisingly protocol-minded reporters) a rest.

Silver lining

At times like these, when alarming or un- pleasant news seems to be coming thick and fast from all directions, I admire people who make a point of looking for gleams of light in the murk. A misanthropic acquaintance of mine told me he had derived much pleasure from the Registrar-General's recent statistical review, which disclosed a fall in the birth rate for the first time in a decade. This fall was accom- panied, unfortunately, by a rise in the births out of wedlock: but even so, my misanthrope pointed out, 'it means that at least there wilt be fewer of the bastards—even if more d aim are illegitimate.'