THE HONOURS QUESTION.
WE are glad to see that the Duke of Northumberland has reprinted in the August National Review his speech in the House of Lords on the Honours question. The new and very significant feature of his speech, though it is a point which is not as yet at all realized by the public, is that the Duke brings first-hand evidence to show that something very much like a system of Honours-Brokerage has arisen owing to the carelessness, or worse, with which the Coalition Prime Minister has distributed the titles and decorations which are supposed to flow from the King as the fountain of Honour. But here let us say that we have no objection to the Prime Minister as the nominee of the House of Commons, and so of the nation, controlling and directing the King's prerogative in the matter of Honours. That is the system of the Consti- tution. The Prime Minister, who is only Prime Minister because he is supported by the majority of the House of Commons, who are, again, only in Parliament because they represent the majorities in their constituencies, exercises through his advice, which is in effect compulsory, the prerogatives which were once supposed to belong to the King as an individual and now belong to the nation as a corporate body. What we object to is not the fact that the Prime Minister directs the flow of the stream, but that he has been directing it so exceedingly badly.
Lord Palmerston is reported to have said that the fountain of Honour was not a pump, and he was not its handle ; by which he meant that the function was one which must be exercised with the care and responsibility which is to be expected in every function of State under- taken by the Prime Minister. Mr. Lloyd George, however, has unfortunately converted the fountain of Honour into a pump and, apparently, glories in being the handle, though perhaps we should say the handle at one remove, for Mr. Lloyd George, as we understand him, asserts that he can always prove an alibi when the decision was taken as to who was to be on the Prime Minister's list of Honours and who not. The Prime Minister's special list, remember, is what the Americans call "O.K.'d." No objections are allowed. It is hallowed ground. Who actually prepares this part of the list we are not told. All we know is that no Prime Minister ever asks the sordid question in regard to any of the names : "How much did he give to my Party Funds ? " As we never supposed for a moment that Premiers ask such embarrassing questions, we confess to feeling no great interest in this disclosure.
All this sounds well known and commonplace, but it is really important when we attempt to fix the responsibility as we ought to fix it. Prime Ministers are too clever and well instructed in the world's ways to incur the perils of knowing too much. They are most careful to enclose themselves by all sorts of ingenious devices in a little shrine, over which is in effect written : "Prime Ministers can do no wrong." When they are advised to recommend people for Honours, it is by somebody they trust. That person says, no doubt with an air of decision : "I take all responsibility for recommending him, sir "—and the lock snaps. In the same way the Prime Minister never makes any statement in the House of Commons which he does not believe to be absolutely true. He speaks, he assures us, "from information supplied by the Department responsible." If, later on, the figures or the facts are proved to be untrue, then it is the Department which is to blame. It is a very pretty game, but if the British public were not so easily gulled it would be a very futile game. The answer ought to be not a weary acquiescence in such sophistical effrontery, but a stern command from the electors : "If you cannot get the truth out of the Depart- ments you had better make room for someone who can."
Let us look at the Honours problem for a moment in a little more detail. The Chief Whip, or the Party Manager, or quite possibly some person without any post or pre- ferment, who stands behind these more obvious and more definite personalities and "works them," produces the names of a certain number of people and then goes to the Prime Minister "in strict confidence." He tells the Prime Minister that he is particularly anxious that four or five of the men on the list should have Peerages,. another seven or eight Baronetcies, and another three or four Privy Councillorships, and then he probably goes over them one by one, somewhat in this fashion : goes can't tell you how useful and helpful this man has been to us in the last three years. He has never worried at all about any reward. Every time, however, that the Govern- ment has been in a difficulty he has instantly come to the rescue and worked day and night to put things right. His influence, too, on other people has been very great. He has indeed worked like a slave at the most thankless tasks. I do think it would be very unfair to pass him over, and I can assure you that I should not recommend him if it was not a really vital matter. It is true that he has not done much work before the public, because he is rather a shy, odd man ; but as to his usefulness there can be no question. How I should have managed without him passes my comprehension."
If the Prime Minister is a man who takes a serious view of his office, even though he may be a man of the world and a good Party man, he will say : "I can't act on that. I daresay he may have helped you in your work, and I think too highly of our Party not to hold that a man who helps us is helping the State and demands our gratitude. But there must be something else than mere Party services of the sort you indicate. However useful men may have been to you, I can't recommend them for high Honours unless they have done something besides that. The names must stand fire. I cannot have people saying of my Honours, Just look at these two names ! It is absolutely certain that the only thing that could have got such people into the Honours list is a big cheque.' That won't do. I won't, of course, have people put under a ban or passed over because they have helped US with gifts. That would be absurd ; but there must, as I said, be something more. You cannot have a man suddenly spring up from nowhere and be made a Peer or even a Baronet."
It is quite obvious from the last three or four lists that, though this was the way that Mr. Gladstone, the late Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery and Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman interpreted their functions in the matter, this is not the way in which Mr. Lloyd George manages the business. There are, obviously, many men in his recent lists for whom no effective apologia pro konore suo could be made. The Government may be said to have tacitly acknowledged this. In the recent debates all they seemed to think it was necessary for them to do was to show, in the case of the Peerages or Baronetcies which were chal- lenged, that the recipients had not done anything actually criminal. They appeared to think, indeed, that to have proved this for the persons receiving seats in the House of Lords was a kind of triumph. They never ventured to go so far as to say : "We will not allege that these men did not help their Party, as they had a perfect right to do ; but we do allege that they are men of such distinction in our public life, or have bestowed such signal benefits on the community, that they deserved the recognition we have given them. We do not want to see our system of granting Honours abolished. All we desire is that Honours should be dis- tributed by the Government with a proper sense of responsi- bility—as Trustees, not as Hucksters. We believe that Honours are very useful carrots with which to stimulate men to exertion, and so long as care is taken to select only people who have had some thought of public duties as well as of making money, no harm but real good can come from rewarding them with titles and decorations. In truth, the creation of Honours is like most other things in life. What matters, what makes the action good or bad, is the spirit in which it is performed.
Previous page
