Once the poor relation of the top hat, the bowler has survived ridicule and the dubious advantage of becoming recognised as the badge of unadventurous respectability. Yesterday brought almost a complete reversal of its fortunes when Mr Charles Morrison in the Commons described the less desirable type of door-to-door salesmen as "rogues in bowler hats." Displaced admirals, generals, even air marshals (though the RAF seems to be on the winning side against redundancy at present) are commonly said to have been "bowler-hatted," but although this may imply some degree of failure in professional life, it is not considered to imply roguery. Why should Mr Morrison, a Conservative from that most traditional town, Devizes, turn so sharply on the bowler now?

"Rogues in bowler hats" - because they ape respectability? Why not "rogues in macintoshes," or "rogues with rolled umbrellas"? There must be some deep reason: no member of Parliament, least of all a Conservative, would speak so slightingly of a respected (if not wholly admired) British institution unless he meant to. Is it election fever? Was Mr Morrison changing subtly the Tory image by coming out against the bowler? Hardly - for his complaint was that by wearing bowlers those unpleasant salesmen might be pretending to be "officers of the local council, or the Gas Board." Gas is a nationalised industry, of course, but no responsible Conservative would want to say anything nasty about such solid citizens as borough surveyors, rating officers, and readers of gas meters.

Poor bowler. It is rather hard to understand why anybody should want to wear one, but its morality has not hitherto been questioned. It may do well in the end though. Nothing sells a book so well as thunderings against it for impropriety. A hint of roguery may give the bowler a new lease of fashionable life.