Letters to the Editor

The National Trust

Sir: 1 would like the opportunity to comment briefly on the previous letters from Mr and Mrs Brock, and the article by Mrs Brock in your issue of April 21, concerning the National Trust.

It will be obvious to your readers that Mr and Mrs Brock have not agreed for some time with the general policy of the Trust. They felt that it was becoming too ' commercial,' particularly in encouraging more visitors to Montacute and installing a shop there. Their dissatisfaction resulted in a serious deterioration in the relationship between them and the regional staff and it was for this reason decided that they should leave their employment as administrators at Montacute. The decision was taken with the approval of the Head Office of the Trust. The terms on which they left were in my opinion entirely fair.

The Trust, in accordance with its statutory purposes, has to combine the task of preserving its properties with enabling its members and the public to have access to them and to enjoy them. The provision of shops at a small number of properties is a facility which most people have welcomed, and the Trust carefully tries to ensure that the articles sold in them are in good design and taste. The increasing number of visitors and the continuing rise in membership — now over 350,000 — indicate that the Trust's general policy is widely appreciated. While these developments are helping to put the Trust on a sounder financial basis, I am sure that the Trust has not compromised its high standards of taste.

But whether the Trust has on the whole succeeded in achieving the right balance between preservation and enjoyment is fortunately something that its members and the general public can judge for themselves. The best answer to Mr and Mrs Brock's endless criticism is for your readers to visit Montacute or the many other National Trust properties open in the Wessex Region where so much has been accomplished in the last few years, or elsewhere. Experience has so far shown that entrusting management restfonsibility to the Regions has been successful. Certainly the Executive Committee of the National Trust has every confidence in the Chairman and Committee of the Wessex Region; and in the harmonious working relations between them and the Trust's permanent staff there.

Director-General, The National Trust, 92 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW I .

Sir: I have read with increasing interest and alarm the articles on the National Trust by Mrs prock. On many points I am in full agreement but her attacks on Lord Head appear far from the mark. I would be certain that his character is the complete opposite to that she presents. One does not want to enter into personal vilification in order to make constructive criticism of the Trust.

I have to admit that I had a similar ground for complaint in that when Operation Neptune' was launched I offered my services in the London area. On obtaining an interview at Head Office I had a very pleasant con

versation with a charming retired naval commander in a completely disorganised room full of charming secretaries with gentlemen passing through with glances upon me as to what I was doing there. I was thanked for my interest and promised that I would be informed as to whether I would be asked to assist and coordinate support in Kensington and Chelsea. I have never heard one word since!

On moving to Worcestershire my wife and I continued our interest in the Trust. When the Malvern Centre was formed we showed our enthusiasm by joining and offering our services, after much thought, in a capacity in which we considered we could help. We have heard no more and have resigned from the Centre after attending a number of meeting at which we appreciated that the prime interests were not those of the Founder. • . _ We hive had no complaints on visits to properties and would certainly single out Cotehele ps the right approach. Well situated shop with a charming ' soft-sell '; it was only discipline that prevented us leaving overburdened with ties, aprons, guidebooks, candles, etc!

Incidentally I remember approaching a caravan-site owner as regards ' Operation Neptune' and he admitted that it had been the greatest boon to his company — very understandably — but he was kind enough to send a substantial contribution to the Trust!

The National Trust must obviously look at its affairs in greater detail at a time when it has an even more responsible part to play.

R. A. Humphries Holdfast Post, Upton upon Severn, Worcester

Sir: Mrs Brock's relentless castigation of the National Trust is becoming a bore, in spite of her undoubted skill in recounting its sins of omission and commission. Does she not realise that the more she indulges in this rather spiteful and therefore unendearing exercise the more sympathy is aroused for the Trust officials perforce involved?

I do not at all repent for having written one of the so called "proTrust " letters! Whether the Trust would accept that these were an "oblique response" I do not know. Nor do I know what Mrs Brock means by the suggestion that such letters may be "something else," but the implication is offensive and I am surprised that you have allowed this alma rent ncnpr. sion upon the integrity of your correspondents to appear. I await your explanation.

Rosemary N. Leach Trobridge House, Crediton, Devon Sir: Since moving to the country — since, in fact, even before that; since, I seem to remember, reading in The Spectator the most savage attack on any book I have ever read, save more recently that of Woodrow Wyatt's on Cecil King's Diaries in the Sunday Times, the attack in question being on a minor masterpiece of my own — I own I have managed to live without the benefits of reading your esteemed journal. But for some extraordinary reason, thinking perhaps that time would hang heavy on my hands over Easter (being no longer a Christian, and therefore not having much to do), I purchased on Maundy Thursday a copy of The Spectator at Huntingdon railway station. The only article which 'even caught my eye, let alone captured my interest, was Mrs Yvonne Brock's attack on the National Trust. Suddenly it all came back to me.

Over the past years I happened to have built up a modest collection of pictures, and when rewriting my Will for the twenty-seventh time some eighteen months ago it occurred to me to leave them on trust to the aforesaid institution. So at some expense I telephoned them. To my surprise they seemed reluctant to accept my poor little Barrets, Varleys, Vicat Coles, Shotter Boys', Thomas Monros, Zucchis, Jacques Stellas and Ciprianis, but suggested that I might like to give them some money instead. Weakly, I , said I would, for I had always thought of the National Trust as beipg A Good Thing, and the voice-at-the-other-end promised to send "full details." These never came, and as I say, until I read Mrs Brock's article I had clean forgot all about it.

Which reminds me, are all ' art ' organisations as bad? The other day I was invited to a very grand house, Southill, actpally, whose thirty-fiveyear-old death duty-avoiding owner, Mr 'Sam ' Whitbread of that Ilk, had lent it to the National Arts-Collections .Fund,. for a sort of pay-by-cheque soirée. Naturally I got as many glasses of hock I'd paid for down as fast as I could, to fortify myself against having to listen to Sir Antony Hornby, chairman of the estwhile Fund, castigating those of us who had not prior to that

evening sent in our annual subscription.

I am not entirely ignorant (at least, I don't think I am, although maybe your book-reviewer does) but I'd never !even heard of the Fund before, for the perfectly simple reason that they do their public relations so badly. After listening to Sir A. Hornby going on About us, we were graciously invited by Mr and Mrs Whitbread to move from their diningroom into their drawing room, to view their pictures and furniture, on condition we left our drinks behind. Like good serfs, most of their ' guests ' did just that. I staved in the dining room and helped one of the waiters open another bottle.

I also hung around afterwards in re sponse to the Fund's request for voluntary helpers, but no one would bother to take my name, so I drove the twenty-five miles home, sent off my banker's order, and to hell with the lot of them.

Michael De-le-Noy Kimbolton Lodge, Stow Longa, Huntingdonshire

Stoney -hearted Heath

Sir: I find it hard to believe that a recent broadcast here from Australia was properly researched. It was stated that the British Government, in the guise of Mr Heath, had refused to back New Zealand's campaign to oppose French atomic testing in the Pacific, apparently because it did not wish to upset trade relations with France. Clearly there has been some mistake; Britian cannot have reached such a stage of degradation that the idea of a little more trade with France Prevents the Government from speaking out on a matter which must outrage everyone with a trace of humanity.

However, considering the way in which Mr Heath drummed the unhappy electorate into the Common Market and considering his lack of protest over the West German gun-running incident, perhaps the news proadcast was correct. But 1 think it would be unfair to accuse the British people of even their government of inhumanity or spinelessness. Only Mr Heath it seems is responsible — a stony-hearted man who rides roughshod over others and can see no value that cannot be cashed or capitalised and has no standards but those that vary with the matter in hand. I suspect that had Mr Heath been Prime Minister at the right time, he would have condoned the slave trade for fear of upsetting the merchants and planters profiting from It.

It is becoming increasingly embarassing to be British abroad.

P. T. Bowater PO Box 60, Mendi,'SHD, Papua New Guinea

Less English?

Sir: In his essay, no Latin less Greek (April 21) Benny Green argues, not very convincingly, against the need for learning Latin and Greek. And in one sentence he writes, "Ovid believed the kind of things that would get you or I certified," What about the need of learning English? Or could this, though improbably, be another of The _Spectator's printer's errors? Edward Samson 3 Belmont House, Queen's Road, St. Peter Port, Guernsey Cl.

Abortion,

,Sir: I am fascinated to read in your correspondent Guy Collis's letter, that Birmingham based Pregnancy Advisory Service had revealed that "last year ten schoolgirls aged ten and under received second abortions." I looked up BPAS's newly published "Client Statistics for 1971" and am puzzled to discover that a grand total of fifty-four girls aged "under fifteen" had abortions at all. Whether any of these were under ten is not stated._Whether any of these were having second abortions is not stated. Where has Mr Collis derived these' facts 'from?

' Entering into Mr Collis's fantasy life for one moment, let me say at once, that if it were the case that ten children under ten years were pregnant, I would certainly rather they were offered abortions than bullied into hopeless pregnancy.

Mr Collis next tells us that the 157,000 abortions last year "almost equals the population of Luton". He has conveniently forgotten that 52,000 of these patients arrived here from Catholic countries of Europe, where abortion is illegal and birth control either illegal or discouraged (just the situation Mr Collis and his friend would like to reproduce here, presumably).

I am sorry that the counter-demonstrators were so plain and unlikely to require abortions themselves. It is indeed hard to compete against the old women of both sexes that graced SPUC'S footslog round Manchester — the glamorous Leonie Abse and Malvolia Muggeridge.

Madeleine Simms 14 Dunstan Road, London NWI I

Wilson in Czechoslovakia

Sir: Readers of The Spectator who are friends of Czechoslovakia, as I am, will join me, I am sure, in applauding Harold Wilson's common sense recent declaration that, whatever happened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 is" past and over " and that we must accept the situation in that country. as it is and seek understanding accordingly.

Since there are doubtless some among them, however, who regard this as a " betrayal," comparable even with that at Munich thirty years earlier, it is unfortunate, I think, that the • leader of the Opposition should have spoilt the effect of that declaration by insisting that he was absolutely right in the attitude which he adopted (to no useful purpose) at the time of the events here in question, and still maintains it.

This inconsistency on his part is the more surprising because it is quite evident from what he has said about his present visit to Czechoslovakia that he has realised that he has been misled , by the reports which he has read in our newspapers, and which he has been given by the Foreign Office, as regards the situation there. There may well be discontented and indignant people there, and these may well be causing some trouble for the Government, but by and large Dr Husak and his Government have made themselves acceptable to, and have won the confidence of, the majority. The people are working properly, both in the mines and factories and on the farms, and the economic situation, already much improved, is promising. The Soviet armed presence is not much in evidence and is clearly in no way oppressive. Czechoslovakia feels herself a free country, in fact, possibly the more _so because of the Soviet presence, and is conducting herself as such. Harold Wilson is too astute and too experienced a politician to be fooled in this connection, if his Czechoslovak hosts had tried to do that.

If I am correct in the foregoing assumption, it is surely surprising that Harold Wilson appears not to suspect that he was equally deceived by tendentiously misleading appreciations of the situation, from all the sources which I have mentioned above, in August, 1968. The superbly concerted coverage of press, radio and television of the prelude to the crisis and of the actual crisis by the Czechoslovak protagonists of the so-called ' Prague Spring' programme and their supporters here and in West Germany and the US should have made him suspect at the time that something funny was going on. In the light of what he has now discovered, it should make him realise that he was both the victim of, and party to, a cunningly staged deception, which, for the sake of his own reputation, and also in the public interest, he should now publicly denounce.

Edgar P. Young 101 Clarence Gate Gardens, Glentworth Street, London NW1

The gold market

Sir: Please allow me, ahead of Mr Charles Stahl (or others), to correct an obvious error in my letter on 'The gold market ' in your issue of April 21. What I should have said (apropos possible future liquidations of monetary gold) is, of course, that " . . . the IMF should buy surplus gold from central banks at a uniform price (which could be varied periodically) somewhere between the official monetary and the ruling free market prices, and sell it at the free market price .. ." The proposed three-tier system would thus be: (1) the official price (at present $42.20 a fine ounce), at which the IMF buys newly-mined gold and Central banks value their reserves, and 'settle transactions between themselves and with the IMF; (2) the IMF buying price of surplus gold from central banks; and (3) the free market price, assuming that, as now, it exceeds (1) and hence (2).

W. Grey 12 Arden Road, Finchley, London N3

NUS reforms

Sir: Your article ' Reforming the NUS ' (April 7) makes a number of comments about the National Union of Students which rest for their validity.

upon the assertion "that the elected representatives of the students are not representative." If this assertion were correct one would expect to find considerable support amongst the student body for the reforms you suggest. In fact the reverse is the case. A year ago Mrs Thatcher tried to foist upon student unions the very measures you now advocate. The response from students was one of overwhelming rejection, as measured by demonstrations involving over 400,000 students in every town and city in the country.

Your conclusion is invalid, but your assertion requires more than the evidence of one issue to be refuted. Such additional evidence is provided by the massive support the elected leadership of the NUS and local student unions have received in the current grants campaign. Thousands of students have again been involved in demonstrations, boycotts and rent strikes — hardly the sort of tactics that could have been foisted upon an unwilling or apathetic membership.

Your assertion that student leaders are unrepresentative rolIciWed— tEe-statement of your view that the NUS should restrict itself to advancing the interests of students as students. We would indeed be unrepresentative if we were to heed your advice, for the majority of students do not wish to lead an ivory tower existence but wish to advance the interests of students as members of the com

munity in a way that will also assist the underprivileged in our society. Thus the housing of students is rightly seen as but one facet of a wider problem of homelessness, a campaign to increase grants is also a campaign to provide grants for those that do not have them, a concern for future employment prospects is also a concern for all those who are unemployed or whose jobs are threatened, and the debate about curriculum in higher education is but a part of the wider debate about educational opportunity for the deprived. If there is now public comment on the affairs of the NUS, it is a sign that our views as members of society, as well as our views as students are being listened to.

Finally, I must comment from a more personal viewpoint on the characteristics you attribute to student leaders in general, and by implication to myself in particular. You accusation of a " proclivity towards violence " I find as objectionable as your incredible assumption that the acceptance of democratic decisions is naive. If to support the struggles for peace and self-determination of the peoples of the underprivileged nations of the world is illiberal, if to oppose discrimination on grounds of race, creed or sex is illiberal, if to work for a society which takes from each according to his means and gives to each according to his needs is illiberal; then am proud by be illiberal.

John Randall President Elect, National Union of Students, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC I • – _