Royal charter: The press must resist this assault on liberty This is extremely worrying, because charters are exclusively the preserve of the Executive, the Queen in Council, rather than the Queen in Parliament. They are not subject to any detailed democratic scrutiny and may be issued by the "mere motion" of the Sovereign, inevitably on the Prime Minister's advice. This means, once the precedent has been set to regulate by means of a charter, that a new charter could be issued without any reference to Parliament. As long as it builds on, rather than replacing or amending the first charter, there would be no need for it to secure a two thirds majority in both houses. As the Lords prepared the manacles, so the Commons forged the ball and chain. Another convenient Bill was also amended last week, this time the Crime and Courts one. It introduced eight pages of statute to coerce the press into accepting a licence, while giving the Government cover to pretend that it is voluntary. Exemplary damages may be awarded against any publication that does not volunteer to sign up to the Government's scheme, and costs may be charged to newspapers which choose to remain independent even if they win a libel action. This financial penalty for those who resist state licensing could be severe. A routine libel action is already expensive, and punitive damages could put publications out of business. Equally, bearing the costs of unjustified action where the claimant has lost and the newspaper has been vindicated is in no sense just. It opens the door to speculative libel actions with little risk for mischievous claimants. This is redolent of the approach taken in the 18th century, when libel laws were used to prevent the press from reporting in a way the government did not like. The Left would do well to remember John Wilkes, who was declared an outlaw in 1764 for "an obscene and impious libel." He had regularly attacked the government in the North Briton newspaper, edition 45 of which was burned by the hangman as a seditious libel. It was not only in the 18th century that libel laws were used to suppress truth. Robert Maxwell was notorious for his willingness to resort to law, and he is not the only less-than-reputable businessman to have done so. In 1957, The Spectator lost a libel action for saying three Labour MPs were drunk in Venice. Many years later it was revealed by one of them, Richard Crossman, to have been true. Clearly, libel actions can impede a free press, and punitive libel is even more likely to do so. None of this is to deny that the press will sometimes behave badly. If the choice were between a free and irresponsible press or a responsible state-controlled one then freedom must prevail. The powerful and politicians will never like this because it can threaten their authority. This is where Hacked Off has been so clever, for it has exploited the sad stories of a handful of people who came briefly into the public eye as a cloak for the peccadilloes of celebrities. It will not say who funds it, but some of the luminaries in favour of licensing have disreputable pasts. Politicians are little better. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have both suffered, so in a fit of pique have abandoned their liberal principles. Fortunately, there is a fine tradition of individuals within the press standing up against punitive laws in the cause of free speech and justice. This is how Parliament came to be reported, and governments properly held to account. Even my highly law-abiding father, who edited The Times, was willing to challenge stultifying laws. It is to be hoped that newspapers and periodicals will not sign up to coercive licensing, and will succeed in preserving liberty. Jacob Rees-Mogg is the Conservative MP for North East Somerset