Asymmetrical Information

Not to be utterly pedantic...well, actually, to be utterly pedantic, the Lord Chancellor holds the oldest SECULAR office, other than the monarch, that is regularly and continuously occupied. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds one of the Great Offices of State as Lord Primate of All England, and of course predates the monarchy, or at least the monarchy of a unified England circa Alfred the Great in the ninth century.

I say "that is regularly occupied" because the Offices of Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable have never technically been abolished, and still come to existence for the funeral of a monarch and the coronation of the next one.

I say "continuously occupied" because the Office of Lord Great Chamberlain is at least contemporary and probably older. It's still held by the Marquess of Cholmondeley, but was disputed between several families for centuries and not occupied. Not that's it's really important; while it once had real duties, it's been reduced to escorting the monarch from the Robing Room to the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament.

Each of these offices, unlike the Lord Chancellorship, was a secular office from the start, held by a layman, while until the 16th century all Lord Chancellors were priests (the last such, Cardinal Wolsey, having the distinction of being both Lord Chancellor AND Archbishop of York at the same time). Thomas More, uniquely, remains the only commoner ever to be Lord Chancellor, although of course this is because in more recent history the job simply came with a peerage if the appointee didn't already have one.

All that said, yes, this is a really dreadful idea. I can see arguments both ways, but personally I don't think he could do this without an Act of Parliament.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury holds one of the Great Offices of State as Lord Primate of All England,..."

Hey, I thought Tarzan was King of the Apes! Guess I was wrong....

I agree that change should probably be a more gradual thing, but I don;t think that change in the English system is bad.

James

Isn't the age of the office really beside the point...Isn't the ability of one man to make such structural changes to the government a little worrisome. Perhaps the British should have written a constitution instead of relying on "respect" for tradition.

The age of the office just illustrates the point. Lord Hailsham, who was Lord Chief Justice in the 1960's, described how a British PM with a large majority in the House of Commons had the potential to be an elected dictator, and with Blair it does often seem to be the case that he regards what few checks on his power that do exist as anachronistic inconveniences. I'd be the first to admit that the UK's unwritten constitution is imperfect, but the changes he's rammed through often seem like either thoughtless change for it's own sake or Blair tossing a bone to "Old Labour," i.e., the foaming-at-the-mouth socialist left of his party, which is still very real (tossing most of the hereditaries out of the House of Lords, for example, as justified as it might be, was clearly done primarily for this reason).

The problem with a written constitution for the UK is that that it would invariably be filled to the brim with all sorts of PC bullshit. My point is: it's bad that the UK doesn't have one, but any one that it would get would almost certainly be worse than the status quo.

Small men don't like competition. Tony is just grabbing at power. Too bad all the English are just sock puppets to the monarchy. We did the right thing in 1776. How nice to look back. And, reflect. Being a 'subject' just doesn't cut it.

Did I tell you I don't think this Blair is a Churchill? And, England rarely gets its good people to the top. Pomp. Circumstance. And, nonsense.

Perhaps, a blow too to the Queen ... Whose the silly guy who walks backwards in deference to her? Wasn't this one of the jobs of this pompous office? So that once a year she'll no longer see this subjective poverty? Dunno. Don't care. CHANGING OF THE GUARDS! Be nice, if it had happened in England. (Of course, we now have a George that sucks.)

All a bit beside the point for two reasons:

1. The age of the office has nothing to do with its utility. The role of the Lord Chancellor ludicrously combined senior positios in the executive, the legislature and the the judiciary in one post. The tension, in particular, between government-as-litigant and head of the judiciary as a government politician was unsustainable. There is room for criticism of successive governments for letting this state of affairs fester, but not for changing it.

2. Like it or not, it has always been part of the prime minister's prerogative to re-organise the structure of government. Departments have been regularly created, merged, separated and abolished. There are technical aspects of this which are subject to parliamentary approval under transfers of functions orders, but there is no general right of approval (still less prior approval) and no past serious political argument that I am aware that there should be. Again, that may or may not be a good thing - but it puts this artificial row firmly in the category of opportunistic fuss rather than deep constitutional outrage.

Comments are Closed.