OUR TITLED "ARISTOCRACY" Truth

NZ Truth, Issue 913, 26 May 1923, Page 4

OUR TITLED "ARISTOCRACY"

Truth

NEW ZEALAND • HEAD OFFICE*:

BRANCH OFFICES— AUCKLAND: 3 Customs-street East CHRISTCHORCH: 102 Gloucester-street DUTCEDIN: HI Stuart-street. AUSTRALIA— SYDNEY: 112 King-street. NEWCASTLE: Scott-street MELBOURNE: 244-6 Little Lonsdale-street. BRISBANE: 216-2rY Adelaide-street PERTH: 39-41 King-street. ADELAIDE: King William-street. TASMANIA: Hobart - SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1923. ,

"TRUTH'S" PROTEST ENDORSED. Hundreds of letters endorsing "Truths attitude on various subjects' reach us every month. The mail also contains some communications that are critical— most of them written m friendly spirit and with appreciative reference to the many good achievements m the publlo Interest that stand to the credit of the outspoken. People's Paper. it «« it Our introductory paragraph is penned with no thought of vataiglorious | self-appreciation. It Is a statement of fact leading up to yet another: that we were almost overwhelmed, yet not surprised, at the innumerable expressions of approval of a recent editorial article m which,' under the heading of '"Decorations' or Honors'?" we raised our voice m protest against the creation of a colonial-made aristocracy per medium of the bestowal of titles — titles more often conferred for ,pollticoflnancial reasons than on grounds of merit or Bervice to the community. We have not heard one word m protest. There has been a general "chorus of applause." Some of our correspondents, however, have sought enlightenment concerning the report of the British Royal Commission that was set up to deal with this subject last year after some suspiciously unsavory disclosures had been made. With these requests we gladly comply, especially so because the whole matter is timely m view of the anticipated early announcement of a~list of "Birthday Honors." The Royal Commission referred to was appointed as the result of sensational statements about touts having offered to secure "honors" for persons on payment of large sums of money. Over a long period Dame Rumor, who is not always an untruthful jade, had anticipated these disclosures. It was generally accepted that something of the kind 'had been going on for many years. This time, however, the noise made so affected an awakened Democracy that something had to be done. The Royal Commission — a popular escape exit of many Governments m modern times — was set up. Its Instructions were "to; advise on the procedure to be adopted m future to assist the Prime Minister m making recommendations to the Crown <of names of persons deserving special honor." It was a makeshift sidestep — perhaps better than nothing. The terms of reference plainly directed the Commission to provide for the future rather than to investigate the past. No doubt sensational disclosures were not desired by the ruling parties — past or present. • Yet the Commission could not blind itself to facts and admitted: There Is no doubt that there have been for some time, and recently m increasing numbers, persons whom, for want of a better name, we may stigmatise as touts, who have been going about asserting that they were In a position to secure honors m return for specified payments. . . The very existence of such persons Is a blot upon the honorable life of any community. Admission enough, surely, apart from other considerations, to justify "Truth's" attitude. Then followed the main recommendations of the Commission, which, though far from satisfactory to us, may be regarded as one step towards effecting improvement and as such are worthy of more publicity than they .have yet received. They were as follow: That a Committee of the Privy Council, of not more than three members, be appointed of persons not being members of the Government to serve for the period of the duration of office of the Government That before submission to His Majesty of the names of persons for appointment to any dignity or honor on account of political services, the names of such persons should be submitted to the Committee with, appended to each name, the following pinTiculars: (a) A statement of the service m respect of which, and the reasons for which, the recommendation Is proposed to be made. (b) A statement by the Patronage Secretary or party manager that no j payment or expectation of payment to any party or political fund Is directly or Indirectly associated with the recommendation. j (c) The name and address of tho I person who the Prime Minister considers was the original suggeator of the name of tho proposed recipient, j That the Committee should report, i after inquiry, to the Prlmo MinlHter as ' to the fitness of tho person to bo recommended. That if the Prlmo Minister should still determine to recommend a name against which tho Committee had reported, the King should bo Informed of the report of the Committee. That an Act should bo passed imposing a penalty on anyone promising to secure, or to endeavor to secure, an honor m respect of any pecuniary payment or other valuable consideration, and on any person promising such payment or consideration In order to receive an honor. So far as wo arc aware no such Act aa that recommended In the last paragraph has been pa need. :t ' s: :: Tho report of the Commission was not unanlmouß. That solid Labor leader, Arthur Henderson, M.P., refused to sign it Not content with this re-

WELLINGTON. LUKE'S LANB

fusal he added a note of dissent expressing the opinion "that the Commission might, ' with advantage, have made a much more searching inquiry than it has done. I regret that, though the Commission was iri possession of the names of persons who are conveniently and appropriately described as 'tout,' none of them was invited to give evidence before us, though the names of such personsrwere also before the Commission." Most people will agree with Mr. Henderson m hi» expression of regret ..- ' ii '>" ;. ■;|i ..■• •-■■■ ..'" ii .' .•.;''./.. The Labor member, however, did not end his comment there, but went on to give sound reasons for disagreeing : The omission of evidence from those who. are alleged, to have asserted that they were m a position to secure honors m return for money >payments and. from those who have been approached by such persons has left unexplored one of the gravest abuses concerning the nominations for honors. Had the investigation been , pursued more thoroughly I have no doubt that the evidence forthcoming would have led the Commission to realise the inadequacy of its recommendations. :t :: :t To this statement the other members of the Commissidn;— -Lord Dunedln, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Denman, Sir Evelyn Cecil, Sir Samuel Hoare, and Sir G. Croydon Marks — replied: In view of Mr. Henderson's note of dissent, we, think _ right to aiaXe that , we did not invite those who had been approached by touts, because we were already satisfied that such advances have been made, and the gentlemen approached could, tell us no more; and we did not invite the attendance of those who had behaved as touts, because that would not have helped us m any way to make suggestions for the future. It is true that the pestiferous touts 'might not have made any helpful suggestions, but the exposure of their methodsPand of their authority for acting as touts — if they had any — would have been illuminating and would have assisted the Commission to" devise means of preventing further abuse. In the majority report the Commissioners say that they made themselves acquainted with the system under which, m the past, the lists were made up by summoning before them a number of notable people. These included "the Prime Minister and such persons as had been Prime Ministers who were still alive," all of whom responded, except Lord Rosebery, whose state of health precluded his attendance. They strongly insist on the Prime Minister's responsibility m the matter, but remark that it is "obvious that m his position he cannot make up his list alone and unassisted." x The Commissioners recognised that suggestions and applications came from all quarters — sometimes from the candidate for honors himself, but more often, from his friends. Prom list^ submitted by the Patronage Secretary or party manager, the Prime Minister makes his final selection. "We put the question to each Prime Minister m turn, whether he had ever been cognisant of any bargain or promise to the effect that an honor would be contingent on a contribution to party funds. We received the answer that we expected, that they had not. Answers to the same effect were given by the Patronage Secretaries and party managers'." That was only to be expected. :t :: :: Various kinds of honors were discussed m the report. In regard to all but political honors the Commission expressed the belief that there was no suggestion of abuse. That, unfortunately, is just where, there has been the greatest abuse • and the Commls-. slon's efforts were disappointingly futile m its attempts to prevent it. Let us see what it had to say on the aspect of the question more directly concerning us. In the matter of Dominion honors It Is recommended that oversea opinion as to the antecedents of a person whom it Is proposed to honor should not be disregarded. This Idea may be wellmeant, but what gross Injustices it could assist hi perpetrating and perpetuating! What unbridled power It would place m the hands of an unscrupulous politician m authority, even to burdening a deserving son with the political "sins" of his father! : » : : : : "In the case of the colonies and protectorates," the report proceeds, "the recommendations are made by the Governor on his own responsibility, but m in© case of tne soir-jcovernlng Dominions, the recommendations arc made with tne advjco of tho Dominion .Time Minister or Stato .Premier. All these are submitted by the Secretary of State for tho Colonies either direct to the King, or through tho Prime Minister. Wo recommend no change m the existing practice m regard to these honors. "But there is, m addition, tho case of honors being submitted m respect of Imperial services by the British Prime Minister without Initiative from the oversea Governments. It would not, we think, be expedient that tho power of conferring auch honors should be Interfered with. But we are strongly of opinion that before submitting to the King the name of tiny person who Is or has lately been domiciled In any of the oversea Dominions, the Prime Minister should communicate hln intention to the Secretary of ,Stuu> for the Colonies, who, In his turn, .should pass on tho name to the Governor-

General or Governor concerned for his observations, it being understood that, m the case of a self-governing Dominion, he should consult his Prime Minister. It is obvious that m such a case the Committee which we recommend would be powerless to act, and we think It eminently advisable that oversea opinion as to the antecedents of a person whom it is proposed to honor Hhould not be entirely disregarded." ',; :: '•'• We have devoted so much upacc to tho report of the British Royal Commission not only to enlighten our inquiring correspondents and other readers, but also to demonstrate tho unsatisfactory position m which the power to bestow Imperial honors still remains. Th 6 report may tend to minimise past abuses. At tho same time It strengthens our protest against tho creation of a colonlal-mado titled "uristocracy." We hope Parliament and people will Join In our protest and not follow the lead of South Africa which last week, by 54 votes t0, 42 rejected a proposed addrcsw to the Kliik praying him to refrain liv the fuiiin? from conferring any titling upon subjects domiciled In the Union. A bettor example to follow Irt the on« sot by Canada, which ha« already made a request of this nature to the Imperial Government.