The Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 10. 1923. THE SALE OF HONOURS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16987, 10 March 1923, Page 6

The Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 10. 1923. THE SALE OF HONOURS.

The announcement in the House of Lords that the British Government intends to pass a measure giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Honours will revive interest in a question which created some commotion in Home political circle.-, last year. It was the publication of the penultimate list of Mr Lloyd j George’s recommendations for honours that brought the matter to a crisis. A committee was appointed by Mr Shortt, j Home Secretary in Mr Lloyd George’s • Government, and it made a number of important recommendations. With the exception of Mr Arthur Henderson, who signed a minority report, the Commissioners suggested that all recommendations for honours should first bo scrutinised by a committee of three Privy Councillors, who should be assured that “ no payment, or expectation of payment, to any party or political fund was directly or indirectly associated with the recommendation.” They further proposed that the ‘ touts” for honours should be subjected to penalties under a special Act of Parliament. "Where- a name was objected to by the committee of Privy Councillors, the Prime Minister was to retain the right to submit the name to the King, but the latter was to be informed of the opinion of the committee. Mr Arthur Henderson, who represented the Parliamentary Labour Party on the committee, gained a great deal of kudos for the quality of his minority report. He expressed the opinion that the commission might, with advantage have made a much more searching inquiry. Though they were in possession of the. names of “touts” none was invited t-o give i evidence, nor was any person who had been approached b5 r “ touts ” called. He did not think that the proposals made would be sufficient to prevent abuses. The suggested committee would

presumably be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day from amongst Privy Councillors belonging to his own side i in politics, and it would therefore be a party committee. “It cannot be doubted,” Mr Henderson added, iC that honours have been conferred upon persons whose chief claim to recognition was party service, and it appears to he implied in the evdence of certain witnesses before the committee, though it was not so baldly stated, that the financial exigencies of political parties were in themselves almost a sufficient reason for the conferment of political honours. This system whereby financial assistance rendered to a party is recognised by the conferment of an honour by the State is, in ray judgment, deplorable, and discredits the honours system. I do not believe that the abolition of political honours would in any way diminish either the volume or quality of the services given to the community by its citizens. So long as political honours continue to be conferred, I agree with my colleagues that a penalty should be imposed on anyone promising to secure, or to endeavour to secure, an honour in respect of any pecuniary payment or other valuable consideration, and on any person promising such payment or consideration in order to receive an honour.” The commission, in replying to Mr Henderson, explained that it did not seek evidence from “ touts ” because it had already been satisfied of tbeir existence and activities. It opposed, as destructive, Mr Henderson’s suggestion that honours for political services should be abolished. The attitude of the Press and public was distinctly sympathetic towards the minority report, though the more critical oom men ta tors described the labour leader’s view as too idealistic and “rather too aristocratic” for the twentieth century. It was agreed, however, that so long as the House of Lords remained an estate of the realm the way in which it was recruited was of the first importance to the public. In the past many people have quarrelled with the political opinons of the House of Lords, but it is only in recent years that they have seriously criticised j its personnel. Many of the recent addi- I tions do not possess any distinction * except their titles, yet titles are supposed to be the rewards of merit and the ornaments of greatness. The hope was expressed by some of the leading journals that the proposals of the commission would form a sufficient barrier against corruption. It was recognised, however, that the country would remain at the mercy of those who were temporarily in power in the matter of giving titles. The only real safeguard against scandal is to he found in the highest standard of probity in the men who become the political-leaders of the nation. .