PRESCRIPTION WITHOUT DIAGNOSIS. T HE debates on the Honours scandal in
both Houses have showed unmistakably how strong public feeling is. When the Government consented to have a debate in the House of Commons if two hundred signatures were obtained by private Members in favour of it they very likely thought they were safe. But the degree of seeing on this occasion was beyond the computation of even the Prime Minister. Two hundred and seventy-nine signatures were obtained, and when the debate came on the Government solved the whole problem by surrendering. Or rather we ought to say that they made a partial sur- render, for though public indignation has made the Govern- ment tremble, the concession of a Royal Commission which is to make recommendations for the future is by no means all that is required.
We must repeat what we have said before, that it seems to us no less than tragic that when full democracy is for the first time at work it should, through the actions of the present Prime Minister, have brought itself into ridicule and contempt by the distribution of Honours. It is not fair to the King, whose profoundly right feelings in every question of national dignity and rectitude everybody instinctively recognizes, and it is not fair to the nation. We are no opponents of Honours. We believe that a democracy might be extremely well served by the public honouring of citizens who have done great service. But where on earth do all these names come from that we habitually see in the Honours Lists ? The promised explanations of what the recipients of Honours have done leave us in many cases quite in the dark. The vague formula is worse than useless ; it may even be misleading. The public would have been justified in jumping to the conclusion that those who received Honours had been chosen for some undeclared reason even if evidence had not been presented in the debates that Honours have been hawked about for money. We agree with those who pointed out that a subscription to party funds should not in itself be a bar to an Honour. We are committed to party politics, and parties cannot carry on without funds. So far from being a wrong thing it is the definite duty of a rich man to help with money the political party which he supports. But it is really quite easy to distinguish dona- tions given, as it were, impartially from donations given with a view to receiving-an Honour. It is detestable that an Honour should be given solely or principally because " money has passed."
We shall not exaggerate if we say that we found that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which he repudiated all knowledge of money payments rather sickening reading. No doubt he is careful not to be informed what people have paid, or whether they have paid at all. It has always been the business of the party managers to keep the figures to themselves. But it is frankly quite in- credible that no hints about particularly large sums having drifted into the party exchequer have ever penetrated into the Prime Minister's room. He cannot be the only person in the country who is ignorant of the kind of thing that is going on. One can fancy the scene when an exuberant Secretary comes to the Prime Minister smiling with the good news that the rich Mr. Blank has paid a thumping sum into the party chest. The Prime Minister holds up a deprecating hand. " That has nothing to do with me. You must not tell me. I know nothing of these things." The Secretary then goes on to say that a new Honours List is almost due. It is a most fortunate fact, he points out, that the rich Mr. Blank has worked so hard for many years on his County Council. His services could be described beyond all dispute as " important national work." He has done quite as good work as Mr. So-and-so or as Mr. Somebody Else, and even better than Sir X.Y.Z. Besides, how could he be ignored now that he has subscribed ? Again the Prime Minister holds up a deprecating hand. Of course, he knows nothing in detail. He speaks the strict truth. And yet if he did not know everything in general he would not have any one of those renowned faculties which have made him Prime Minister.
The Royal Commission may well be a better instrument of inquiry than a Select Committee. What we object to is that there is to be prescription without diagnosis. If a disease is to be cured we must inquire into its past history. We must know exactly what the patient is suffering from and what his symptoms are. To say merely that he is obviously ill and that therefore he must have some medicine is not enough.
Two objections may be made to retrospective inquiry. One is that witnesses will not tell the truth to their own detriment unless they are compelled to do so by being put on oath—and that this is not done at a Royal Commission. The other is that if the whole truth- is to come out all parties will suffer alike and a great deal of dirty linen will be washed. In answer to the first objection, we would say that, as was suggested in a letter to the Times on Tuesday, witnesses could be heard in secret. What is needed is that honest persons who have received Honours should be able and willing to say, " I solemnly declare that no money transaction was involved, directly or indirectly, when I was offered an Honour." That process would at least mark down those who were unwilling to make the declaration. So far nobody has made any such state- ment. In answer to the second objection we would say that it is much better to know that there is dirty linen than not to have it washed. We do not pretend for a moment that any party is free from blame. We can believe that existing ex-Prime Ministers allowed Honours to go to men who in the future—as we hope it will be—would be recog- nized as unsuitable recipients. All we allege is that the breath of scandal has become very much more prevalent since Mr. Lloyd George has been Prime Minister. Inquiries ought certainly to be made into the Duke of Northumberland's definite accusations that certain men have been touting Honours about the country. We cannot suppose that the Government authorize these persons. We imagine that what happens is something like this. Some self-appointed agent with a knowledge of public life and some acquaintance with, or power of access to, rich men in public life approaches a man who he thinks would like an Honour and informs him that the thing can easily be done if he will pay such and such a sum. The agent then goes to a party manager and informs him that Mr. A. will pay a certain large sum. If the transaction goes through the private agent does not find it difficult to extract a fee for himself. He can truthfully point out that without his intervention Mr. A. would never have received an Honour. But whether this be a true account or not, the Royal Commission will never prescribe rightly for the disease unless it knows the facts. Whispers that awful revelations involving all parties will be insisted upon if the inquiry should be retrospective ought not to awe us at all.
Previous page
