The Privacy of the Individual By RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL r

OR centuries enlightened and public-spirited men and women have fought for the liberty of the citizen against governments. The main battlefields for this continuing fight have been France and England. And by the end of the eighteenth century it looked as if the battle had largely been won. Thenceforward what had been achieved in these two countries was widely imitated nearly all over the world. The liberties of the subject as they existed in England by the end of the nineteenth century, based on Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, freedom of the press and a system of justice which courageously protected the subject from all forms of arbitrary power, were taken as a pattern, and this beneficent in- fluence Was imitated by many other peoples. Today the rights of the citizen as against the government are challenged in many lands; and even in the nations of the West constant vigilance is still required against the ever more exorbitant Powers of meddlesome interference of an ever more proliferating and lush bureaucracy. How- ever, the battle has been substantially won and the victory consolidated. Meanwhile, however, a new menace has grown up over the last thirty or forty.years against the true liberty of the citizen to live as he chooses—what Kipling finely called `Leave to live by no man's leave underneath the

law.'

Perverting the slogan of freedom of the press, Which merely means the right of the citizen to print whatever he chooses without censorship (so long as it is not blasphemous, seditious, obscene or libellous), a large section of the press, aided by its brash and saucy handmaiden television, has indulged in the vice of intrusion into the private lives of rich and poor, of powerful and obscure, in a manner' that threatens fundamental human rights and seeks to deny to those not powerful enough to defend themselves the privacy which everyone who desires it should surely be allowed to enjoy within his own family and in his Own home.

No one who reads the baser newspapers or looks at the more depraved television pro- grammes can fail to notice five or six times a Week the most gross and wanton intrusion into People's private lives. What makes the whole pro- cess so slimily revolting is the double dose of hypocrisy involved. Not only do these peccant Papers and TV commentators sail under the false colours of the 'freedom of the press,' which they have corrupted into the power of the preis; they excuse their pernicious activities by saying that they only wish to serve the public and that cir- culation figures show that this is what the public wants. Of course, this is a lie and a cold-blooded one at that. Most of them care nothing for the interests of the public; they merely want to sell more newspapers and SO, become richer than they already are. But since among them all there is a conspiracy of silence to shield the misdeeds of others, lest their own should be exposed, the Public is very largely helpless against their Methods.

A particularly nasty specimen of the treatment of the Royal Family by the gutter press arose recently following the return to England of Group Captain Townsend. He was received for tea by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret and, as far as I have been able to elucidate, no representatives of the press were of the party. This did not deter some papers from publishing the most wild and contradictory extravaganza as to the feelings of the two people concerned. One might have thought that both their lives had already been made sufficiently unhappy and em- barrassed by the fabrications of the past two years. Surely these two individuals (who have as much right as anyone else to their own private feelings) should not be persistently pursued by reporters and photographers in search of a story and also beset by the fabrications of editors who feel frustrated in their search for the truth but who are still determined to get these well-known names into the headlines whether there is any news or not.

For instance, the Sunday Pictorial, which is controlled by Lord Rothermere's first cousin, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth King, headlined : 'IT WAS A ROYAL BOMBSHELL'

`PRINCESS MARGARET "ON THE CARPET" TONIGHT'

This was how the story started : PRINCESS MARGARET will be flying home to trouble tonight. Big trouble with the family. When she arrives from Germany and drives to Windsor she will face the Queen for the first time since her dramatic reunion with Group Captain Peter Townsend last Wednesday. AND THAT MEETING—DESPITE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE READ—WAS A BOMBSHELL TO THE PALACE.

The Pictorial's stable companion, the Daily Mirror, picked up the story on Monday with a signed story by Desmond Wilcox and Hugh Saker : The Queen and Princess Margaret yesterday spent an hour alone in a drawing room at Royal Lodge, Windsor, while the Queen Mother and Princess Anne played together in another room.

The meeting followed reports at the weekend that the Princess would be 'on the carpet' over her tea party last Wednesday with Group Captain Peter Townsend at Clarence House while the Queen was away in Holland.

One paper invents a story, another the next day treats it as authentic. And no one, least of all the gutter press, has any means of knowing what might have been the true feelings and emotions which may have existed between Princess Mar- garet and the Group Captain. Surely it is an insufferable presumption of the rich proprietors of newspapers to seek to get richer by hiring journalists to write millions of grossly inaccurate words about things of which they know nothing.

What are the facts? Two years ago, when Group Captain Townsend left this country and Princess Margaret announced that she did not intend to marry him, the gutter press for days continued to assert without any evidence that it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who had brought pressure on Her Royal Highness to make her act contrary to her true inclinations. At that time I wrote the following letter to the Spectator: Sir,—A large section of the gutter press has in recent months squandered acres of newsprint oy writing in an impertinent, untruthful and offen- sive manner about the private life of Princess Margaret. And a number of newspapers have sought to suggest that Her Royal Highness was thwarted from marrying the man she wishes by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some have per- sisted in this falsehood after Her Royal Highneis had already given the story the lie. A similar canard was spread about the abdication of King Edward VIII, and the public was invited to believe that the King was chased from his throne by a conspiracy organised by Archbishop Lang. The recent biography of Mr. Geoffrey Dawson by Sir Evelyn Wrench has utterly dis- proved this story and we now know for certain that the Archbishop played virtually no part .n the abdication.

However, since so many journalists believe that history repeats itself and therefore think it safe and profitable to parrot each other's fabrications, the public has had this further legend of archiepiscopal intrigue foisted upon it.

What is the truth? Princess Margaret had made up her mind that she did not wish to marry Group Captain Townsend before she went to visit the Archbishop at Lambeth Palace on October 27. The Archbishop, however, suppos- ing that she was coming to consult him, had all his books of reference spread around him care- fully marked and cross-referenced. When Prin- cess Margaret entered she said, and the words are worthy of Queen Elizabeth 1, 'Archbishop. you may put your books away; I have made up my mind already'

It seems in the interests of Her Royal High- ness, of the Archbishop and not least of history that this fact should be known.—Yours faith- fully, Randolph S. Churchill. Stour, East Bergholt, Suffolk

What I wrote was accepted as the truth, but, of course, none of the papers who made this allegation ever condescended to say that they had been wrong. The Sunday Pictorial blew up my discreet little letter into gigantic proportions as if they had another scoop of their own.

What are the facts on this more recent occa- sion? Again I am in a position to assert on im- peccable and first-hand authority that the Queen knew before she left for Holland that Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were going to receive Group Captain Townsend to tea. And what more natural? If two people have had an affair of the heart, as in this case seems likely, and for reasons of their own have decided to part, would it not be uncivilised in the highest degree if two years later when they hap- pen both to be in the same town they should not meet again?

England claims to be a civilised and Christian country, but the great blot on this claim is the gutter press. Surely there should be some respect for human feelings and human dignity. Surely people's private emotions, joys and griefs should be respected and not exploited just to sell news- papers. Princess Margaret does not go around snooping into the private lives of her fellow- subjects. Surely her fellow-subjects who profess to love and admire her should extend the same respect for individual dignity and freedom' to her which they would like to have themselves? Alas, this is only vouchsafed to those who are rich enough to own a newspaper and thereby gain the protection of the tacit rule, 'Dog don't eat dog' or, as I prefer to say it, 'Son of a bitch don't eat son of a bitch.' When one thinks of all the exciting and terrible things in the world today —the hydrogen bomb, guided missiles and sum- mit talks—could not people be allowed to have a cup of tea together without every serious and im- portant topic being driven Oli the front pages for several days?

But the gutter press would reply, of course : Princess Margaret is third in succession to the Throne, so the public have a right to know every- thing about her. Even if this monstrous claim were justified, would it not be better if the truth were told instead of fabricated lies which are in no way designed to inform the public but fabricated solely in the interest of selling news- papers?

However, I am making no special plea for the Royal Family. The humblest and poorest homes in the land often feel the scourge of the whip of the gutter press. If by chance anything unusual, particularly anything tragic, enters their lives— a plumber in Balham has a daughter who kills herself; a carpenter in Birmingham has a wife who is raped—immediately their houses are be- sieged by a horde of reporters and batteries of camera-men who do not scruple to set ladders against their houses and bully or bribe the family to give them 'human interest stories' about the tragedy in which they have been involved. Human indeed.

Man's inhumanity to man Makes countless thousands mourn.

It is true the unthinking public lap it up, little realising, in their moment of passing curiosity, the misery on which they are invited to gloat. Still less do they reflect that they, too, may one day be the victims of this type of intrusion; and how powerless they will be to resist it.

Of course, it is not the fault of the underpaid reporters and photographers who wait for hours in the cold and slush to spy on the Royal Family or intrude into the grief of the plumber or the carpenter. They are merely acting under the orders of the 'rich men who want to get richer' when they intrude into the lives of those whom they profess to serve.

Has the ordinary citizen any remedy against these abuses? I think so. Courage, some sense of solidarity with other victims and a little knowledge of the law. It was recorded of the people of China that they had been slaves for 3,000 years because they were incapable of pro- nouncing the syllable `no.' If reporters come to the door and you do not wish to see them, shut it in their faces. if they persist, send for the police. Help any friend or neighbour of yours who is being victimised. The representatives of the press have no rights which are not available to all other citizens. Certain courtesies and facilities are often accorded to them by the authorities, but if they are in any way abused they should, of course, at once be rescinded, and the plain citizen should not flinch from doing his duty in all of this. I believe that he will find that public opinion is increasingly on the side of those who stand up for their own rights as free men and women in a free society.