The Press Monday, June 18, 1917. Honours and Party Funds.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15930, 18 June 1917, Page 6

The Press Monday, June 18, 1917. Honours and Party Funds.

The Birthday Honours List was not, of course, telegraphed in full to the Australasian, newspapers, a selection only .of the names being sent. For the most part we havo had particulars only of the Honours conferred on Australasians, although somo knighthoods and other honours of general interest were also mentionod. We cannot say, therefore, what is tho justification for tho sharp criticism to which The Times" has subjected the list. Not all of tho three viscounties, five baronies, 25 baronetcies, and 50 knighthoods,,it says, are "a mcro ex"change for cash down or Parliamentary docility," but "only hero and ' thero in the dreary waste ono «n- ---" counters a distinguished name." "The Times" then proceeds to suggest that the existing party funds should bo diverged to a national object and that in future party contributions. should be published and the party accounts audited. It has for very many years been notorious that places in the Honours List have been, for all practical purposes, bought for cash, and it has oven been alleged that something very like a scalo of rates was in force—so much for a knighthood, so much for a barony, and so on. Both the main parties have been equally to blamo in the matter, and this is why the practice has been so very difficult to get rid of. It has : been one of those cases of "Front "Bench collusion" which have been the despair of active and straightforward men of all parties. Although there has never been a regular and steady campaign against the rewarding of party services of a financial kind; by the bestowal of honours, the mattar lias frequently been discussed. The! most energetic of the newspaper cp-i poneAts of the system, one would mp.! pose, would be a journal attached to' seither of tho main parties, but the

contrary is the case. The "Morning "Post" has most frequently and most vigorously protested against the ennobling of the party financiers, and the "Post" is a very Conservative paper, and one of the most strongly party organs in England. But there ccos not appear to be much prospect, r ven with the appearance of "The Times" against tho commercialising of honours, of altering the present system very fundamentally. Practical politicians know that party organisations cannot bo usefully managed without funds, and the number of rich party men who would give largely to the funds without hope or desire of any personal recognition is, one cannot but suppose, very much smaller than the number of those who, in writing their cheques, do so with tho expectation that the appropriate Toward will come. Tho Frort Benches are not in the least likely to favour the publication and auditing of party contributions, nor, ns a matter of plain fact, do wo think tho public advantage of such publication is very obvious. But in tho present condition of affairs it is quito possible tliat some favour may be shown to the suggestion that the party funds should be devoted to some national object—not merely invested, as no doubt thoy in large measure are invested, in war bonds, but actually handed over as a gift for some national purpose. There is no prospoct of tho parties ranging themselves against each other as of old for a considerable time, and the necessity for unitv is increasing instead of diminishing.