A Spectator's Notebook

I don't think anyone would argue that our divorce law is satisfactory, but that doesn't mean that any reform would be the better. Certainly, I must confess to serious reservations about the proposals that have emerged from the Arch- bishop of Canterbury's group on divorce, headed by that distinguished liberal churchman, the

Bishop of Exeter. The group's main conclusion is the highly radical recommendation that all existing divorce law should be thrown out of the window and replaced by the single ground of the `death' of the marriage—a 'fact' to be established by a judicial inquiry 'analogous to a coroner's inquest,' and which can only be said to have occurred when 'the resources of conciliation have been exhausted.'

The first objection is that this would prob- ably, in most cases, make divorce considerably harder to obtain than it is at present. This may, indeed, be the Church of England's intention; if so, I believe it to be both wrong and contrary to the bulk of informed opinion in this country. At present we have, to all intents and purposes, divorce by consent: the problem arises where there is not consent. Under the new proposals divorce by consent would disappear: the hus- band and wife would still have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that their marriage had irrevocably broken down.

And to do this they would presumably have to reveal—and this is surely the most intolerable aspect of all—the most intimate details of their failed relationship. Nor could anything be safely left out. For whereas the existing law is at least fairly precise—adultery, for example, is a pretty well-defined `offence'—the concept of the 'death' of a marriage is vague, all-embracing, and would almost certainly be interpreted in different ways by different judges. All in all, if the Mortimer group's proposal were to be presented as an additional ground for divorce, for use in those cases where an 'innocent' party refuses to con- sent, there would be something to be said for it. But as a replacement for the existing law it would represent a substantial step backward.

• Non-politics

Mr John Crosby was on good form last Sun- day with his column in the Observer on the pro- liferation of non-phenomena. All the same. I'm surprised that so devoted an observer of the Eng- lish scene should have failed to notice one of the newest manifestations of all—and one of con- siderable constitutional significance. I refer, of course, to the non-resignation, as pioneered by Mr George Brown. Ever since Goschen ministers in fundamental .conflict with government policy have been faced with the agonising dilemma of how to reconcile the demands of honour with those of -their politicar:caseefr• Now at. last le answer has been pr-ovided:. •As- Mr 'James

Margach commented the very same day in the Sunday Times, a propos the non-resignation of Mr Kenneth Robinson, 'the Minister of Health had been seriously considering resigning on this issue. But it was equally apparent to all that a resignation at this particular time would gravely harm the Government. The fact that their Minister fought so vigorously on their behalf will be noted by the doctors, and honour will be satisfied.' You bet.

Will to Win

I must say, I never thought we'd win the World Cup. Why did we? First, I suppose, because we were the home team: in five out of eight world cups so far the host side has reached the final. Second, because although we had very few great players (Bobby Charlton? Banks? Moore? Cer- tainly no more) we had (unlike the more attrac- tive teams with the real stars) no weak links. At a level of football in which a single error in defence is nkely-to mean a goal this alone can be decisive. And third—the factor I had not anticipated—a relentless will to win, every minute of the game, whether in front or behind. And does it all mean anything, except that we've got a good football team and an even better manager in Alf Ramsey? Probably not, although I'd like to draw the moral (not for the first time) that there's nothing wrong with Britain: it's just our politicians that let us down.

Survival

As David Watt makes clear in his despatch on -Page 165, President Johnson's remarks about Churchill and Wilson weren't intended to repre- sent a considered historico-political judgment— nor indeed is there any reason to suppose LBJ competent to make one. My only worry about that whole extraordinary episode is the sneaking suspicion that our little Winston actually took it all seriously. Much graver, to my mind, is the sort of nonsense about Britain now being peddled by the sophisticated. metropolitan, Anglophile, New York Times. All right, I accept that we probably talk as much rubbish about the United States as American do about us. Maybe more. All the same, listen to this, the concluding para- graph of the first leading article in last week- end's edition :

Put bluntly [what is at stake] is the survival of Britain as a competitive economy. the sur- vival of the British pound as international trading currency. the survival of British in-

• fluence in the world. Things are dark. psycho- logically and economically. But the British are always at their best when alone with their backs to the wall.

.Put bluntly, this is a load of old rubbish. Things may be dark economically, but there's nothing. ..NronE, Ipsychologically • (apart from original sin. which is' unlikely :to be .cared way). British influence in the world is nol going to disappear if we have to withdraw some more troops from South-East Asia: don't. tell the Americans, but it might even increase. Th6 pound is likely to. continue as an inter- national trading currency for the time being simply because no one else wants to relieve us of the role—although we should probably be better off if they did. And as for 'the survival of Britain as a competitive economy' it's somewhat obscure what this portentous rubric means. Certainly. if we're to balance our payments (as we must) we shall have to become more competitive inter. nationally, and no doubt we shall have to devalue the pound to devalue this. But this is simply a necessary technical adjustment which quite rightly means a good deal less to most people than the World Cup. But we shall 'survive.' For one thing, no one's attacking us. For another. it's a habit countries have. What in heaven's name does non-survival mean?

Yellow Peril

Some five years ago I was involved in a motor accident at a crossroads. I'd moved off when the traffic lights changed to yellow-and-red together: unhappily, at the same time, a bus shot from right to left across the yellow. Not only did my car inevitably come off worse from the en- counter, but I was convicted of careless driving and fined heavily. The magistrate explained that driving across a yellow light was all right, whereas moving when the lights were at red-and- yell6w wasn't. Since then I've been careful to wait for the green (at least, whenever I've re- membered to) only to find myself more often than not in a minority of one. If this is how drivers behave, wouldn't it be more sensible to see that at all busy crossroads the two yellows never coincide? This certainly isn't so at the moment in central London, as I can testify from my regular morning drive to this office. If the authorities were really as interested in preventing accidents as in persecuting parkers, I can't help feeling they would do something about this.

Tailpiece

Scene: a committee-room of the House of Commons, a few days ago, graced by the presence of the Leader of the House. the Government and Opposition chief whips, the Kitchen Committee (chairman: Mrs Bessie Braddock) and divers members. The meeting is addressed by a mem- ber of the Kitchen Committee, who reports that in the light of the economic crisis the Chancel- lor of the Exchequer has felt unable to increase the subsidy to the Committee, and that therefore, after the summer recess, the price of meals in the House of Commons will have to be increased by 20 per cent. A buzz of resigned acceptance all round. A second member of the Committee then ups and adds that this will enable them to pay a small increase in the wages of the House of Commons catering staff, many of whom have already left and more have threatened to leave unless they get more pay. Further buzz of re- signed acceptance all round. Motion about to be carried nem. con. when a voice from the back asks: 'won't we all eo to jail if we do this?: General astonishment that any member should raise so bizarre a point. If we don't get the sub- sidy, what can we possibly do but raise our prices? -And the service is bad enough as it is wages have simply got to be increased or it will grind to a halt altogether. 'Yes,' replies our hero: 'I quite agree. But there's still this Bill, you know.' Reluctant conclusion : the decision will be de-

ferred until after the recess. • • - NIGEL .LAWS014.