During our debate yesterday on reform of the Lords, there was a most interesting contribution from the Earl of Sandwich. You can read his and all the rest of our speeches here:
This reminded me of a fascinating historical “what if” I came upon in my current bedtime reading. I had previously thought that the first Earl of Sandwich was one of the many illegitimate sons of Charles II, in common with the Duke of St Albans (the product of a liaison with Nell Gwyn) and a number of his other aristocratic inventions.
Far from it, George Montague, who was the boss of Samuel Pepys, was rewarded by Charles at the restoration. He chose the title of Earl of Sandwich “because the fleet he was commanding in 1660 was lying off Sandwich before it sailed to bring Charles II back. It was the fourth Earl, a workaholic, who became synonymous with the snack, but, had Montague opted to name himself after the naval harbour in Hampshire as he originally planned, the sandwich might have been known as a Portsmouth”.
I’m hugely indebted to the excellent book Whitehall – the Street that Shaped a Nation by the distinguished political commentator Colin Brown for this vital bit of information.
But, if they called it the Portsmouth, no one would want to eat it!
Summertime, all too many sand-witches lolling on the beaches; some enterprising multi-national will have thought of concocting some sort of sensuous sandwich; and some non-purine-vulnerable would buy now, have had a swig from a bottle-of-port’s mouth ?
—————–
(jm1624W3006)
Well you’re closer than you thought in one respect and I think quite off in another 🙂
The Dukedom of Portsmouth was created as a life peerage for one of CIIs mistresses – Louise de Kerouaille mother of the 1st Duke of Duke of Richmond & Lennox. The 1st Earl of Sandwich was Edward (not George) Montagu. The only George Montagu I can think of was the MP in the 1660s and son of the Earl of Manchester and cousin of the 1st Earl of Sandwich.
My mistake – not Colin Brown’s – Edward it was.
Having just scanned the debate some of the logic is circular in the extreme.
“The 2008 White Paper maintains that primacy does not rest solely or mainly on the fact that the Commons is an elected Chamber while the House of Lords is not.I agree that the subordinate relationship of the Second Chamber is underpinned by the Parliament Acts, including supply, and the fact that it is the Commons on which a Government rely for confidence”
The Parliament Acts were a consequence of one house being elected, as was supply/taxes being an historic commons primacy and was central to the relatively modern notion of confidence in the commons removing a government. No part of the primacy of the commons was established because one chamber was sought or constitutionally necessitated to have the chief role. Everything was created from the fact of election and it really boggles the mind that MPs and peers keep trying to pretend otherwise.
Sadly so many peers are ex-MPs and are vicariously protecting their old stomping ground which muddies this whole debate.
Towards Reform of the House of Lords:
It is already evident, my lords, that the Coalition’s front-line Command (I find no Leadership there so far)contains tactically-planned wolves-in-sheeps-clothing and (since there is ample evidence to justify such a thought) I name to begin with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords;
and it is necessary for me to say this up-front since your practically-serious topic here is the House of Lords Reform (Note) introduced by Lord Strathclyde (Con govt) and its ensuing ‘debate’, in which The Earl of Sandwich supported Lord Lea’s observation of political-perks and lifetime-appointments by the temporary but ‘almighty’-political-power of the House of Commons as ‘leapfrogging’, and ES said “if the public knew all that, they would be horrified that the parties are still promising appointments as a reward for service”.
My lord, since there were so many speakers and an ensuing further motion by Lord Steel
[a motion in the interests of such existing good-governance as we have, of time-costs in legislation-drafting then step by step scrutiny, amendment, and final risk of becoming a bad Act, and (good or bad Act) a huge forevermore added running-cost for the taxpayer to keep paying (who has no voice now; never had; only abrogated his/her life and monies to the State when s/he put that single pencilled cross on a little piece of ballot-paper (last May and maybe once every four or five years), and of faithfulness to the needs and efforts of the People (‘Public’) ]
in which there were further speeches before the Coalition Government lost the division Vote
(44 in favour of Lord Steel’s motion to clear away strong sub-factors in the Reform Matter before being bums-rushed by the C-Government headlong into an irreversible, super-costly and good-governance-erosive piece of tactical legislation; only 29 in favour of the latter and against the win-win-win motion itself, among which opponents were of course the Govt Leader of the House of Lords Lord Strathclyde and the deputy-leader Lord McNally)
one has to self-report “drowning” under the extensity, complexity and intensivity of the proceedings we can see and hear (and can re-wind, pause and note); and under the worry and negative-apprehension caused by all the invisible and inaudible proceedings and (doubtless) machinations going on away from the cameras and microphones.
——————
With every respect, loyalty and good-intention, my lord, there doesn’t seem to be much hope in the Legislative Parliamentary Top educating the Public, telling us your abilities and problems, if we many levels and layers of People have insufficient channels and two-way communication abilities to appreciate and respond to that education, and to tell you our abilities (experiences) and problems, my lord.
Look how much time and space this little comment alone is taking up.
Your moderators are doing an enormously wizard job;
but we all know this is only like a Kontiki raft facing an Ocean and possible piracy, and a possible enemy Armada, alone all all alone, without defensive-escorts, without a supply-ship, and without sufficient life-jackets and survival-rations.
Where are the unbiased ‘Serious-People Sorters’ in this “already 100% British Democracy”, my lord ?
—————–
(jsdm1055Th0107).
LT: You stood your ground well (Part 3, 2:17:30) on an attempted intervention by not giving way unless you were to be given penalty time. When a member holds the floor and time is short such interventions are most unwelcome.
But I ask the same question as I have done before on this blog. How is it that members come to Parliament with no accredited academic qualifications in its Principles and Practice? And I don’t restrict this to knowledge only of Erskine and May as there are many other subjects that need to be taught alongside this.
There is nothing more off putting to the public when watching media coverage than a member being ticked off by the speaker or another for inappropriate behaviour that the member clearly knows nothing about. This can be very discouraging to the novice and makes for shyness or an overly long time before they find the nerve to speak again. Simply not good enough! Let new members hit the ground running and with confidence.
When Lord Lucas rose to speak (Part 3, 2:31:15) the body language of the government front benches was revealing. He spoke of a statutory appointments commission as a closed list and elections as open, Lord Steel screwed his face up as though some dismissive moron had spoken. Why was this, had Lord Lucas hit a nerve? The atmosphere could have been cut with a knife. Hansard records none of this in its dry pages.
Then there was Lord McNally and his rudeness to Lord Desai in the closing remarks. Was this economists intervention one too many? Prior to this there was talk of trench warfare in the chamber over the draft bill but what worries me is that because nobody has a recognised qualification in the Principles and Practice of Parliament things are going to descend into farce as emotions run high and the public are going to be watching. Perhaps a boot camp should be organised?
And on the subject of a boot, Lord Hunt felt he had a definition of ‘Grandfathering’ when he paraphrased article 13 (III)(2)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001 which says that if you have the experience then you need not retrain. In this context he meant for ‘experience’ and ‘staying’ to be synonymous. However, what he did not consider was the duality, because a lack of experience would mean permanent retirement as members were given the ‘boot’. He therefore defined the LIFO peer, Last-In-First-Out.
Lord Strathclyde on the other hand begged peers for an intervention and support on the manner of permanent retirement. He only got one and from Lord Richard only to hear “it depends on what the scheme is”. During the debate it was pointed out that in 1999 there were 1200 hereditary peers and only 300 turned up on a regular basis. The position after this saw a rise in attendance to 400.
A writ of summons is an order to attend the house. Those that do not attend are derelict in their duty therefore the house should downsize on the basis of attendance and the LIFO principle with hereditary peers exempt as their numbers are defined and constrained by the constitution.
Nobody should retire as it has implications for the Monarchy. If the Monarchies Nobility in Parliament can escape its lifelong duty by an act of retirement then so should the sovereign as head of state by an act of abdication. What’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
The government quite rightly opposed Lord Steel’s motion. Lord Tyler and Lord Norton were contents for the motion.
Ref: Part 3; HoL Reform Debate: Jun 29, 2010: Earl of Sandwich: 1:08:40
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8763000/8763218.stm
Results of the division on Lord Steels motion.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100629-0019.htm#1006305000209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May_Parliamentary_Practice