RSS

Contact us

Wednesday 9 July 2008

Order, order

The Spectator on why the Speaker is further besmirching the reputation of Parliament 

Your email address:
Friend's email address:

Although the Speakership is usually traced back to the appointment of Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377, its true founding father was Arthur Onslow, who held the office from 1728 to 1761 and was rigorous in defence of its dignity and probity (even resigning the lucrative office of Treasurer of the Navy to protect himself from controversy). On retirement, he observed: ‘If I have been happy enough to perform any services here that are acceptable to the House, I am sure I now receive the noblest reward for them; the noblest that any man can receive for any merit, far superior, in my estimation, to all the other emoluments of this world. I owe everything to this House.’

An equally significant figure in the evolution of the office was Arthur Wellesley Peel, the son of Sir Robert Peel, who presided over the Commons with similar rigour, serving four terms. ‘I know how necessary it is for any man,’ he declared after his first election in 1884, ‘who aspires to fill that great office, to lay aside all that is personal, all that is of party, all that savours of political predilection, and to subordinate everything to the great interests of the House at large.’ Peel also understood the inextricable relationship between the health of the Speakership and the will of the Commons. ‘Without the support of the House,’ he said, ‘a Speaker can do nothing; with that support there is little he cannot do.’

Mr Martin should dwell upon these words. But so too should his parliament-ary colleagues, who have behaved as craven members of a club rather than guardians of the public trust. MPs whisper of media plots and class warfare, as if the Speaker were under fire because of his roots or his politics. The Prime Minister stretched credulity by declaring Mr Martin ‘a very good Speaker’. Nick Clegg, supposedly a dynamic moderniser, said there had been ‘something of a witch-hunt’ against the Speaker. This is pitiful stuff.

As Charles Moore points out on page 11, self-regulation is essential to the preservation of Parliament’s liberties. Yet the alarming obstinacy and myopia of many MPs is putting these sacred freedoms at risk. This week the Information Tribunal ruled that MPs must provide a detailed breakdown of expenses covering their second homes, power and telephone bills. This is a further humiliation for Speaker Martin, who has long resisted such disclosure. But it should also be a warning to the other 645 MPs of the mood of the times and the perils that lie ahead if they continue to behave unreasonably.

Trust in politics generally is in the gutter. Trust in parliament specifically is depressingly low. In closing ranks to defend this most sub-standard of Speakers, MPs who mouth platitudes the rest of the time about ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ have shown how empty these words are when applied to their own affairs. As long as Mr Martin occupies this ancient office, we shall know where our representatives stand, and where their priorities truly lie.

More articles from: | this section

Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink  |   Comments (4)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved