Notebook
What could be more exciting than a battle of wills between the country's two leading ladies, Mrs Thatcher and the Queen! Such a battle has just taken place, and the Prime Minister has won it. Other losers, apart from the Queen, were the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Thrilling, isn't it? The controversy was about the appointment of a new Bishop of London. The two favourites for the job were the Bishop of Truro, Dr Graham Leonard, and the Bishop of Durham, Dr John Habgood. Dr Leonard is a traditionalist, with strong views on the sanctity of marriage; Dr Habgood is a 'wet' who must bear much of the blame for sabotaging the Cranmer Prayer Book. Dr Leonard was in fact Mrs Thatcher's first choice to be Archbishop of Canterbury when Dr Coggan retired, but she met what may seem surprising resistance from the Queen, who is of course no trendy. The Queen, it seems, has never really forgiven Dr Leonard for his behaviour in 1978 when Princess Margaret'S marriage was breaking up. He displayed what was no doubt considered a lack of sensitivity by discussing the Princess's problems with a Sunday Mirror reporter. He said, among other things: 'If you accept that you are a public person, you do accept limitations that don't apply to others. I would have thought the thing that had to be resolved now was in fact how far she can go on being a public person'. Perhaps it was lucky that Dr Leonard did not get Canterbury, or we might today have a Henry H Thomas a Becket situation. But Mrs Thatcher does not like being beaten more than once, even by the Queen, and Dr Leonard is to be Bishop of London. Although Dr Leonard was not the first choice of the Crown Appointments Commission, which includes the two archbishops, he was the favourite of the London diocese following soundings among the flock. So his appointment may also be seen as a victory for democracy.
The traditionalist worshippers of the Church of England have also acquired a curious group of spokesmen in Parliament, who next Wednesday will be trying to get parliamentary protection for the continued use of the 1662 Prayer Book. They include, in the House of Lords, Lord Sudeley, a right-wing eccentric whose recreations in Who's Who are 'ancestor worship' and 'cultivating his sensibility', and Lord Glenamara, the former Labour minister Ted Short; and in the House of Commons, Lord Cranborne, Lord Salisbury's boy and Conservative member for Dorset South, and the very earnest left-wing MP, Mr Frank Field. They will together be presenting the Prayer Book (Protection) Bill, which seeks to ensure that on at least one Sunday a month the main morning service in Anglican parish churches shall be according to the Book of Common Prayer. Although there is an understanding that legislation of this sort should nowadays be initiated by the Church Assembly and not in Parliament, the champions of the old Prayer Book have lost all confidence in the clergy who they fear are trying to foist the new Alternative Services Book upon a reluctant laity. And legally Parliament retains unfettered control over Church legislation. Although the Bill is unlikely to get very far, it is causing a good deal of excitement. The recently ennobled Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre of Glanton) is coming down from Scotland to make his maiden speech in support of it, and the retiring Bishop of London, Dr Gerald Ellison, has told Lord Sudeley that, if the Bill were passed, it would lead to the disestablishment of the Church.
Inasmuch as Mr Chapman Pincher's 'revelations' about Sir Roger Hollis are of any use to anybody, they would appear to be of use to the KGB which, being already in possession of all the worthwhile secrets this country has to offer, can only hope to discredit our espionage arrangements and make us look idiots in the eyes of the Americans. It must be distressing for such a patriotic man as Mr Pincher to be serving their purposes so well. I tend to the view that Mr Pincher got it wrong about Hollis, just as he got it wrong when he named Maurice Dobb, rather than Anthony Blunt, as the man who recruited Burgess and Maclean for the Russians. This was also, amusingly enough, the view of the Daily Express which, after copying the Daily Mail story day by day, and correctly attributing it on each occasion to the 'former Defence Correspondent of the Daily Express', broke down on the day after Mrs Thatcher's statement with huge front-page banner headlines: 'Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Can we now have an end to unsubstantiated claims against people who are dead?' It ended its peculiarly violent attack on the Daily Mail: 'Investigative reporting is one thing. Allegations against the dead who cannot hit back is (sic) another. It represents the unacceptable face of British journalism'. In fact, the Express was first with. these allegations against a dead man who could not hit back. As long ago as November 1979, Chapman Pincher revealed his doubts about Sir Roger in the Daily Express under the headline: 'Was MI5 chief Hollis linked with the KGB?' The trouble was that, as the story appeared in the Daily Express, no" body noticed.
Despite one or two discreditable episodes in recent years, such as falling for the notorious Ryder letter hoax and demanding money in damages from the Spectator, the Daily Mail has finally covered itself in glorY — not by publishing the Pincher disclosures but by fighting and winning the colossally expensive libel action brought against it hY the 'Unification Church', otherwise known as the `Moonies' after the name of its sinister Korean leader, Sun Myung MOP' If I understand the jury's verdict correctlY, it means that we are all now free to describe this organisation which brainwashes Popie's children as odious, evil, and so on:, without running the risk, which the )1141,11 ran, of losing £1,000,000 as a result. Furthermore, so heavily is the law of hue, weighted against newspapers that few °I them nowadays are prepared to risk the enormous costs of fighting court actions even when they know they are in the right; So the Mail's successful stand is a great victory for press freedom.
aot Being about to leave for Europe °n a motoring holiday, I have obtained from the Automobile Association a `GB' sticker t° which is attached the following curious instruction: `Do not use on Rolls-Royce or Bentley cars'. Why on earth not? sure,' somebody replied,' but I think it nlaY be that Rolls-Royce have softer paint than .
other cars'. It seemed unlikely that expensive cars should be sprayed with inconveniently soft paint, so I telephoned Rolls-Royce for another explanation. 'we, prefer it,' said a man on the end of the line, 'if our owners don't put stickers on our cars; They disfigure the lines'. This was so absurd that I suggested he might like to 1113,ke further inquiries and ring me back, which he politely did. The truth appears to be that while the glue on GB stickers is capable e, damaging the paintwork on any car, not Os` on a Rolls-Royce or Bentley,Rolls-It0Yete, are the only car manufacturers to view sne'l a possibility with alarm, so they asked the servile AA to issue its confusing instructione. As a consequence, I will be travelling in°It._ of my other cars; and while I am away, this Notebook will be written by the infinitely distinguished Mr Peregrine Worsthorne.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
