Liz suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

The Spectator’s Notes

Charles Moore

Wednesday, 27th February 2008

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

This is what Stubbs’s Constitutional History of England says: ‘That individual members should not be called to account for their behaviour in Parliament, or for words there spoken, by any authority external to the house in which the offence was given, seems to be the essential safeguard of freedom of debate. It was the boon guaranteed by the king to the Speaker when he accepted him, under the general term, privilege.’ This is still the case, but people don’t understand it any more. They keep thinking that some external authority should control MPs. They do not realise that, if this happened, they would be taking away their own power, which resides in the men and women they have elected, and giving it to unelected people. You cannot have a free Parliament if you do that. But this truth, I fear, only makes the behaviour of the present Speaker, Michael Martin, even worse than the critics think. Since the Speaker is the guardian of parliamentary privilege (that is what he Speaks for), he should be unbelievably strict in insisting on its essence and repudiating its, ahem, frills — exploiting your constituency office allowances, charging up your wife’s taxis, or spreading your officially earned air miles round your warm extended family. If the Speaker won’t, who else can? But of course Mr Martin won’t, can’t. It would be wrong for him to be voted out, since that would set a precedent for war within Parliament about who presides over it; but it would be a good thing if he slipped quietly away. His successor should be the one who tells MPs honestly how near they have come to self-ruin, and promises to reclaim their true rights — to make proper laws without government guillotine, to scrutinise European legislation as fully as other laws, to choose the heads of committees without reference to whips, etc. Speaker Lenthall, faced with Charles I’s demands for the five Members in 1642, famously told him, ‘I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me.’ He did not add, ‘Nor fingers in the till.’ The House must hurry up and be pleased to direct a fit person.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (3)

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

AppalledofLondon

February 28th, 2008 10:38am

The way to get round the obligation which firms selling you tv equipment have is to give a completely phony address. My favourite is SW1A 2AA. I hope G Brown enjoys reading the letters from the TV licensing authorities.

Jim Hardman

February 29th, 2008 8:22pm

Regulation of Parliament? Yesterday evening, I went to hear the Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority explain the role of the SRA. His background, he said, was in.......'regulation'......... of doctors, dentists etc. He was an apparently civilised, intelligent man, whose background is......... regulation. At some point the SRA will be regulated by some statutory body. Who will regulate the super regulator?

Jack Monteltici

March 6th, 2008 10:58pm

In Italy tv shops have been handing over details of buyers of new sets to the state tv (RAI) for decades, and licence evasion is rife. The phoney address ploy mentioned by AppalledOfLondon is excellent and one that is used extensively in Italy. Actually, only part of the licence money will actually end up in the BBC coffers (RAI only cash about 30%), so it's just another stealth tax! Seems to me that the greatest benefit of Britain's EU membership is that continental politicians have been teaching their British counterparts a trick or two: how to fleece us and how never to be honest!