ON Monday the freedom of the press was assaulted, not mortally, but enough to raise serious concerns.

The culprits were MPs, no less, many of whom have serious grievances against the press.

As I listened to one self- congratulatory speech after another, I realised there was more than a hint of vindictiveness, often disguised as victory for ‘victims’.

True, some papers and publications have got it seriously wrong, and I do not condone their behaviour, but laws already exist to deal with most cases.

Phone hacking, for example, is a criminal offence, and libel and defamation laws are there to defend reputations, admittedly, though, expensive to pursue.

The pressure for the government to do something following the Leveson inquiry was immense. A royal charter sounded benign enough, so long as it was not underpinned by statute and thereby within reach of politicians.

However, having been assured by the Prime Minister’s firm stance last Thursday, when he unilaterally withdrew from the all-party talks, we learned there’d been a U-turn on Monday. Suddenly, statute was needed – albeit a smidgen – following all-night negotiations.

But that gives politicians the power to interfere with the royal charter if supported by two-thirds majorities in Parliament. Why wasn’t it bigger? The vehicle is now there for governments with big majorities to adapt to their liking and the temptation could prove irresistible.

As for the new system, it’s complex, raising more questions than it answers.

The Spectator has rightly refused to sign up and other publications are expressing serious reservations.

On Monday we took a baseball bat to press freedom with self-righteous indignation.

The press is there to hold us to account, not the other way round.