HL Deb 20 March 1918 vol 29 cc513-33

The EARL of SELBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper—

To call attention to the Honours List published on January 1, 1918; to point out wherein the public statement therein made of the reasons for which these honours were recommended to the Crown falls short of the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government to this House on October 31, 1917; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point to which I wish draw your attention to-day is a very limited one. We have had more than one discussion in this House on the subject of the abuses which some of us think have taken place in the recommendations made to His Majesty in respect of honours. I do not desire to-day to raise the question of abuse; I wish to confine myself to the consideration of the Resolution which was actually passed by this House and accepted by His Majesty's Government on October 31 last.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, brought forward two Resolutions. One of them was accepted without amendment by the Government, and the other was accepted with an Amendment moved by my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne. I myself voted against that Amendment, because I preferred the Motion in the form in which the noble Earl, Lord Loreburn, had moved it. I am not going back on that question to-day, but having gained what seemed to us a real concession from the Government, a concession which, in our judgment, marked a step in advance in the regulation of this most difficult matter, I hope your Lordships will agree with me in endeavouring jealously to safeguard that concession, and to watch the lists that are published and the statements that are made; and if we find that His Majesty's Government are not acting up to what we consider the spirit of their undertaking, we should remind them and ask an explanation from them.

Let me remind you to what it was that His Majesty's Government pledged themselves on October 31 last. Lord Loreburn moved the following two Resolutions—

  1. "(1) That when any honour or dignity is conferred upon a British subject, other than a member of the Royal family or the members of the Naval, Military, or permanent Civil Service under the Crown, a definite public statement of the reasons for which he has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the notification of the grant.
  2. "(2) That a declaration to the Sovereign be made by the Prime Minister, in recommending any person to His Majesty's favour for any such honour or dignity, that he has satisfied himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party funds is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity."
My noble friend the Leader of the House (Earl Curzon of Kedleston), in dealing with these Resolutions of Lord Loreburn, referred to the second one as follows— As I understand, in proposing the omission of the words about a declaration to the Sovereign— That was is allusion to Lord Lansdowne's Amendment— in which I concur, he suggested that Resolution No. 2 should run as follows: 'That the Prime Minister, before recommending any person for any such honour or dignity, should satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity.' He went on to say— If Lord Lansdowne moved his Amendment in the form which I understand him to recommend—that is to say, the Motion of the noble and learned Earl omitting the Preamble, containing No. 1 in its present form and No. 2 in the amended form which I read out to your Lordships—I shall be quite prepared to suggest that it should meet with your Lordships' acceptance. I have only now to say in respect of the second of those Resolutions, which dealt with the obligation of the Prime Minister to satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity, that I assume that in relation to the Honours List of January 1 the Prime Minister acted on the assurance given to us on his behalf by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Therefore I have nothing more to say about that.

It is to the first of these Resolutions, which was accepted without any qualification by my noble friend, that I wish to refer. The acceptance by my noble friend was quite complete and unreserved. My noble friend Lord Salisbury felt some doubts as to the extent to which the noble Earl who leads the House was prepared to commit His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend the Leader of the House exhibited a little impatience with my noble friend's doubts. Then Lord Lansdowne stepped in in order to clear up what seemed to him to be a misunderstanding, and spoke as follows— My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked the Leader of the House what action he proposed to take if this Resolution was carried. I understand the noble Earl to say that he is prepared to accept the Resolution on behalf of the Government of which he is a member—that is, the Government presided over by the Prime Minister; and surely the inference from that is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues would abide by the terms of the Resolution. My noble friend the Leader of the House stated— That was exactly what I said, almost totidem verbis. Therefore there is no doubt whatever that the Resolution as amended was accepted without reservation by my noble friend on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

The first occasion since that debate on which there has been a grant of honours on a large scale—and it was on a very large scale—was on January 1 last. You may say that it is rather late in the day, in the middle of March, to raise a question about a list that appeared on January 1, but it has not been in our power to find an opportunity to raise this question earlier. Your Lordships will remember that in the early part of the year this House was occupied entirely with the Franchise Bill, and there has been other important work ensuing on that, and to-day is the first day on which I could get the opportunity of raising this matter. I want to say, in order to follow out what I said at the beginning, that I am not to-day going to deal with the general subject, nor am I going to deal with the merits or otherwise of any of the gentlemen whose names are found on this rather portentous list. My sole object is to point out to my noble friend, who of course is not personally responsible for the statements inserted in the papers, that the spirit of the Governmental obligation does not seem to me to be entirely and in every case fulfilled.

Before I give instances, I want to give my noble friend a piece of information of which I do not think he is aware, and which I have only learned after strenuous inquiry and a long search, and that is that these honours of Peerages, Baronetcies, and Knighthoods are the only honours bestowed by His Majesty which are never put into the London Gazette. They are never sent to the London Gazette at all, though every other honour is sent to it. I ask my noble friend to see that that is remedied, and for this reason. The Government is pledged when these honours are published to make a statement as to the reasons for which the recommendation on behalf of these gentlemen has been made to His Majesty. That statement, I have ascertained, is issued from the Lord Chamberlain's office, but, it is only sent to the daily Press and not to the London Gazette. There is no obligation on any newspaper to publish a word of that statement absolutely none; whereas if it is sent to the London Gazette we are perfectly certain that it will be published. Everybody would know where to look for it if he is interested in the subject, and the matter is regularised, and put on an official footing. I do ask my noble friend most earnestly, as the natural consequence and complement of the pledge given on October 31, that he will see that these honours are henceforward, with the official statements issued, published in the London Gazette. I think he will be surprised when I tell him it is not so now, but I assure him it is a fact, because the head of the Stationery Office, who is responsible, is my informant.

Now, I come to the statements themselves. I have no wish to make out any case against His Majesty's Government, and therefore I am not going through this list in at all an exhaustive way. I think if any of your Lordships had the curiosity to refer to The Times of January 1 and read these statements through, you would agree with me that, while some of them give the public all the information which could be desired, a good many of them fall short very materially of the spirit of the undertaking given to your Lordships' House by my noble friend on behalf of His Majesty's Government. But I am not going to attempt an exhaustive inquiry. I am going to take only three instances. And again, in taking those instances, I wish it to be understood that I am making no reference to the merits of the gentlemen in question; I am dealing only with the statement issued by His Majesty's Government from the Lord Chamberlain's office of the reason for which the honour is conferred. I am taking these three cases only as illustrations.

Alexander Black, Esq., is put down for a baronetcy. The statement of the reasons for which it is given is in the following words— An active worker, supporting local charities and efforts to encourage food production. Has assisted the Government in the promotion of the fishing industry. If you substitute for "fishing" agriculture, coal, iron, cotton, or any other industry, I think you will agree with me that there probably are at least 100,000 gentlemen in the country whom that description will exactly fit—an active worker, supporting local charities and food production; has assisted the Government in the promotion of a certain industry. I submit that this is altogether too general and too vague a statement to be accepted as a real reason for the grant by His Majesty of such a signal honour as that of a baronetcy, and that it does not really carry out the spirit of the pledges given to us.

Then I come to the second case—W. H. Clemmy, Esq. Here the statement of reasons is very short and very sweet. It is "Mayor of Booth."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is that all?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is all—"Mayor of Bootle." And he receives a knighthood. Another knighthood is given to "S. B. Quinn. Esq., Mayor of Limerick." In the same number of The Times there is a grant of a knighthood for another gentleman who has occupied the mayoral chair—"S. Garland, Esq. Has been Mayor of Chichester for six consecutive years." That is a signal instance of public service. Nobody who knows what is implied in the amount of self-sacrifice and public work in the mayoralty of a town like Chichester for six consecutive years can deny that it is a striking example of public service, and it is most natural that His Majesty should select such a man to honour. But what inducement can there be to anybody in the future to become mayor for six consecutive years if he can get the same honour by being mayor for one year? I suggest that if the mere occupation of the mayoral chair on a single occasion is to be taken as a sufficient qualification for a knighthood, then we may revise our estimates of the value of these honours and of the meaning conveyed in an approbation by His Majesty of public service. I submit that those curt statements, "Mayor of Bootle" and "Mayor of Limerick" are wholly insufficient as an endorsement of the pledge given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Nothing would surprise me less than to find that these gentlemen have behind them an excellent record of public service. But why is it not stated? And what can be in the mind of the official—I wonder very much who the official was who drew up these statements—what can have been in his mind when he thought that it was a respectful thing to your Lordships' House or to the public that all the information that could be vouchsafed to us was that a gentleman was a mayor of a provincial town?

I have said that my point was a small one. I do not pretend that it is otherwise, but I think that it is very important that, having secured this willing and full concession from His Majesty's Government —not going so far as I should like, but still going a considerable way—we should scrutinise these lists, and when we think the statements are inadequate, as indeed I think in many of these cases they are, that we should draw the attention of my noble friend to their inadequacy. He does not think for a moment that I regard him as personally responsible for this inadequacy, but unless he will, on behalf of the Government, see that the official who is charged with this responsibility really fulfils it, I am quite sure that it will not be fulfilled according to the spirit of his undertaking. I beg to move.

EARL CURZON of KEDLESTON

My Lords, although I do not think that my noble friend was either altogether happy or altogether just in his criticism of the list, to which I will presently turn, I have no objection whatever to his raising this matter, which I think he was fully entitled to do. Nor do I dispute anything that he said as to the interpretation of the words which I employed on the previous occasion—October last—when this matter came before your Lordships' House. I am sure that neither he nor any other noble Lord will suspect me of any wish to detract in the smallest degree from the fulfilment of the pledge which, on the part of His Majesty's Government, I then gave. I entirely accept the canon laid down by the noble Earl—that this House is right, in the event of any pledge having been given from the Ministerial Bench, to act as the jealous guardian of the rights which it has thereby secured.

The remarks of the noble Earl this afternoon have been directed not to the second part of the Resolutions carried by your Lordships in the month of October, but to the first branch of those Resolutions. I will briefly read again the particular Resolution to which he has asked your Lordships' attention. It ran as follows— That when any honour or dignity is conferred upon a British subject, other than a member of the Royal Family, or the members of the Naval, Military, or permanent Civil Service under the Crown, a definite public statement of the reasons for which it has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the notification of the grant. That was the Resolution which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government and with the fullest intention that it should be observed in all future Honours Lists, I accepted in your Lordships' House. Now, if you will look at the report of the discussion you will see that I was myself in some doubt as to what was the exact form of statement which your Lordships' House, and those noble Lords who led the discussion, required. I pointed out at the time that a statement—of which the noble Earl seems still to be unaware—is issued to the Press as an ordinary practice upon the distribution of honours, a statement which contains an account of the services rendered by the recipient. I am very sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his place, because on that occasion he gave a categorical and point-blank denial to what I said across the floor of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was wrong, and I was right. Such a statement—I have a copy of the latest one—is drawn up, not in the Lord Chamberlain's office, but at Downing-street. It is printed, and it is issued on the same day and at the same hour as the List of Honours itself, to the representatives of the Press for their use in the columns of the daily Press the next day; and the statements that you read in the newspapers are in the main derived from the compilation of which I hold a copy in my hands. Downing-street, of course, cannot compel the Press to make full use, or any use at all, of this statement. Sometimes they use it; sometimes they do not; sometimes, perhaps, they amplify it; sometitnes—and more commonly, owing to the pressure upon their space—they compress it.

Having made that statement about this Paper (which I shall be only too glad to hand to any noble Lord who desires to see it), I then in the debate asked what more the House, and those who were leading the discussion, desired. These were my words— It is, of course, difficult to settle this matter by dialogue or conversation across the House. Assuming that the Government are quite willing to carry it out, noble Lords should favour me with their own views as to the best method of carrying it out, and as to what extent the range of it should extend. That is, the range of information about individual cases. To that question on my part the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, speaking a little later in the afternoon, made reply. His observations are to be found in column 879. They are as follows— Broadly, we may say that, if anybody receives an honour, somebody ought to be able to say why he receives it, and what the good reasons for its bestowal are; and the only question is to have those reasons printed in public. Whether they are printed in the Gazette or in Papers laid before your Lordships' House is a matter indifference. The point is that when anybody receives an honour there ought to be some good reason for its conferment. Let us print what the good reason is.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Hear, hear.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I have nothing to object to in that language. There the matter rested, and when the debate was over and the Resolution had been accepted by your Lordships' House I drew the attention of Downing-street to the Resolution, with the full intention that it should be acted upon not only in the letter but in the spirit. I think the impression prevailed there that the printed statement which is now drawn up, and to which I have more than once alluded, is adequate, and satisfied the requirements laid down in this discussion by your Lordships' House. But it is clear from what the noble Earl has said that it has not satisfied him, and he has drawn attention to this list—or, rather, not to this list in the form in which it was issued to the Press, but to the List of Honours in the form in which it appeared in the Press.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I had no possibility, of course, of seeing the other list.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

No; the noble Earl, of course, had not any possibility of seeing it. I am merely explaining the practice that has hitherto prevailed, and was carried out on January 1 last. The noble Earl has called attention to the statements that appeared in the Press, and he has named one or two cases in which he seems to think that they were inadequate. If I may say so, I do not think the cases of the noble Earl were altogether well chosen. Let us see what they were. He took the case of a Baronetcy conferred upon Mr. Alexander Black. I know nothing about that gentleman beyond what is stated in this record and in the newspapers. The newspapers having, as I indicated just now, varied very much in the degree of information they gave, let me read what appeared in the Daily Telegraph, for instance, about Mr. Alexander Black. These were the words in which they justified the appointment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I read it from The Times.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Yes. The Daily Telegraph contained a fuller use of the information supplied. It is there stated— Mr. Alexander Black has taken an active part in many directions, and has been a generous supporter of local war charities. He has shown particular interest in the encouragement of food production and school gardens on a large scale, and has made a handsome gift in furtherance of these objects. The Government secured his aid in connection with the fishing industry.

THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY

Is the noble Earl quoting from the Official Paper?

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I am reading from the use made by the Daily Telegraph of the information in the Official Paper. That seems to me precisely the kind of general statement about the services of a man who has moved in public life, and who has been what we may call an honourable, useful, and distinguished servant in the best sense of the term. It is precisely the kind of information which the noble Earl complained of our not giving. Later on Lord Selborne came to the case of the two Mayors. It is rather difficult to satisfy my noble friend. If we give the information he says, "That is too general." But when we come down to the case of the Mayors he says, "Give me general information; that is what I want."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Could we hear what is said in the Official Paper about the case of Mr. Black?

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

It is a compression of what I have read. It says— Alexander Black, Esquire. Has been a generous supporter of all local war charities, including gifts to encourage food production and school gardens on a large scale. Has rendered valuable assistance to the Government in connection with the fishing industry. I take now the case of the two Mayors. One of those gentlemen was Mr. Clemmy, the Mayor of Bootle; the other was the Mayor of Limerick. The noble Earl expressed dissatisfaction that the mere statement of this fact was regarded as sufficient by the Government, and he seemed to claim that a Mayor is not worthy of an honour at the hands of his Sovereign—certainly not of the honour of Knighthood—unless he has served for a number of years in succession; because the test that the noble Earl applied was that of another Mayor, Mr. Garland, who had served for six years in succession. I suggest that a man who, very likely in the latter part of a meritorious life, becomes the Mayor of a great borough and receives this proof of the confidence of his fellow-citizens, is likely to be in the list of persons who might be suitably considered, and who have for more than a generation past been considered, for such a form of honour. Now I will go a little more particularly into these two cases. Take the case of the Mayor of Bootle. It does not satisfy the noble Earl that he has not been elected many times in succession, but at any rate the Government were satisfied that this gentleman, now between seventy and eighty years of age—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is the noble Earl going to read from the Official Paper directly?

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I am now giving the reasons for which the appointment was made, and I shall proceed to ask what it is that the noble Marquess and his friends desire should have been stated in the published record. The printed list contains the remarks "Mr. So-and-so, Mayor of Bootle."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What we are anxious to ascertain is whether those terse and impressive words are all that is contained in the official communiqué.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Yes; and I am now trying to explain why more was not contained in the official statement issued to the Press. This gentleman was rewarded by the confidence of his fellow-citizens, being made Mayor of Bootle. He has had a long and distinguished career and has been identified with many war services, and that is the kind of man who in the evening of his life receives this kind of honour. He was recommended by the Member for the constituency, who happens to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by another member of His Majesty's Government. In those circumstances I really do not quite understand what kind of statement of the public services of this gentleman it is that the noble Marquess or the noble Earl would desire.

Then I take the case of the Mayor of Limerick. I do not know what the career or the services of this gentleman have been, but he was Mayor of Limerick and was recommended for this honour by the Lord Lieutenant and by the Chief Secretary. Is not that enough? Are you to put in the statement of this gentleman's services "Mayor of Limerick, recommended by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary" or is it of great interest to the public to know that this gentleman has rendered this or that public service? I should not have taken these instances unless they had been selected—I think not altogether successfully selected—by the noble Earl himself. But let me point out to the House what is the real difficulty that arises in the case. The noble Earl is really interested in the case of gentlemen, unknown perhaps to himself, and perhaps unknown to the public at large, and he is very anxious, and rightly anxious, that in such cases the public should be given a clear idea as to why the honour is conferred. He accordingly demands that a full statement should be made in each case. Now let us see how that would work out in practice. In the New Year's Honours List, which he was criticising, there are, among the names of Privy Councillors, those of Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Gordon Hewart, and Lord Edmund Talbot. The gift of that honour to them would be recognised by everybody without a word of explanation as an entirely reasonable and legitimate thing. The positions they occupy are known to the world. Does anybody really mean that where a Privy Councillorship is conferred a kind of biography of the recipient should be published in the Gazette, or, if this is unnecessary because it is already in "Who's Who," that the services which they have rendered in the preceding one year or two years should be put down? I take the case of Baronetcies, and there I find the name included of Mr. Ellis Griffith, M.P., a very distinguished man, who has served for many years in the House of Commons. The sole thing stated here is that he was M.P. for Anglesey since 1895. If that does not satisfy the views of the noble Earl, what more would he have us do? Then Sir F. E. Smith was made a Baronet, and the only information given to the public was "Attorney-General." Again, are we to give a full description?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I have a very full description here of Mr. Ellis Griffith.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I am talking now about the list issued by the Government, which was challenged. The newspapers may have amplified it or treated it in what way they liked, but I am speaking about what you are talking about, and I am seeking to get from the House information as to what it is that you have in your minds. Take the case of knighthoods, about which, in regard to those conferred upon mayors, the noble Earl was so sensitive. But Mayors are not the only recipients, and in the list of knighthoods on the last occasion, I find the following. "Mr. John Galsworthy, novelist and playwright—"

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Who refused it.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

It was offered him. "Mr. John Lavery, artist; Mr. Edwin L. Lutyens, architect; Mr. Leslie Ward, the artist of Vanity Fair." In all those cases it has been considered by the Government at any rate sufficient to state to the public what were the main credentials and credit of the recipient. Does the House want more? When a statement is published in the Gazette or otherwise—I am coming to that in a moment—what is it exactly that the House desires? Does it desire that one standard shall be applied in the case of inconspicuous people and another in the case of conspicuous people? Are gentleman of the class of whom I am speaking to be treated as if their tames alone were sufficient to justify the acceptance of title, but in other cases are we to embroider the services and give a full record to the country? The point is one of some difficulty, which I should be very glad if this debate should enable your Lordships to elucidate for my benefit.

Take again the case of a Peerage. That was a point about which noble Lords were very sensitive when we discussed the matter two or three months ago. When Lord Tennyson, or Lord Lister, or Lord French, or Lord Jellicoe are made Peers, are we to draw up a list of their services and present it in the Gazette, or otherwise, to the House; or is the mere fact that they have been appointed with the general approval of their countrymen, to whom their names are so well known, sufficient? That, again, is a question to which I shall be very grateful for some sort of reply. Therefore I have shown that, with the utmost desire on the part of the Government to carry out its pledge to the full, I am still, even after these three debates, in some doubt as to what it really is that the House desires. One other point abort the Gazette. The noble Earl acquainted its with a discovery that he had made—namely, that hereditary honours are nut published in the Gazette. I am not quite certain that the noble Earl is correct in that.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

What I ascertained was that these Birthday and New Year's honours, except the orders of knighthood, are not published in the Gazette.

EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON

Obviously they cannot be, for this reason. Suppose a man is created a Peer. The statement of the intended honour appears, we will say, in the New Year's Honour List. Then some time elapses during which the patent has to be made out. The title which the noble Lord is going to take has to he settled between him and the advisers of the Crown, and in some cases arrangements as to the form of remainder or other points have to be settled. I think I remember my own case, in which two or three months elapsed between the date on which the Peerage was announced in the paper and that at which I was, as I believe, gazetted. Upon that point I hesitate to pronounce definitely, but my impression is that, although a Peerage cannot be gazetted straight away for the reason I have named, it is gazetted later on.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear hear.

EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON

There are noble Lords heer who support me in what I say.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

What about the others—the baronetcies and knighthoods?

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I cannot speak for the question of knighthoods. As regards baronetcies, with hereditary title, the same questions have to be settled. The noble Earl just now seemed to think that it would be an easy thing to publish the statement in the Gazette. For the reasons I have named I do not believe it would be easy, but I have a suggestion to make to the House which I think may be a way out of the difficulty—that is that in substitution for, or preferably in addition to, the statement to which I have more than once referred as issued from Downing-street now, there shall be drawn up a list which should be issued by the Government simultaneously with the appearance of the Honour List in the Press, and which should contain the information that the House desires, and that I, on behalf of the Government, promised to give. It might take the form—I think it would be possible that it should take the form—of a special Gazette (not an ordinary Gazette, for the reasons I have named), issued for the purpose of stating the reasons for these honours, and published synchronously with the appearance of the list of names in the newspapers. That suggestion, which I throw out, will I hope meet with the approval of your Lordships. But, again, I would say that it still leaves me in some doubt as to exactly what this Gazette ought to contain. I put to the House the difficulty which is in my own mind as to the discrimination between the recipients of honours who are well known to the public and those who are not, and I would ask your Lordships who take an interest in the matter to give me some guidance as to the character of the description that you want in both of these cases.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, we are glad that at the close of his remarks my noble friend proposed a method by which the publication, whatever it is, can be properly secured; but before I say anything about that I should like to remind my noble friend of what is quite evident—and your Lordships generally will agree—that when your Lordships debated this subject for two whole afternoons you did not do so with the object of getting some technical compliance with a rule which the Government accepted. I am sure your Lordships will all agree, and my noble friend himself will agree, that something more was intended by the House than a technical compliance with a rule accepted by him on behalf of the Government. What is behind it? There is no advantage in printing a gentleman's name either in the newspapers or in the Gazette with an insufficient description of his services. That does no good to any one. What is required is that the public should know the reason why Ministers have recommended to the Sovereign a particular gentleman for an honour. That is the substance of the thing. It is that which the public should know.

The question which we have to put to my noble friend is, Did the list which he tells us was circulated to the newspapers contain the full information for which the public have a right to ask? I need not tell your Lordships why the public have a right to ask for it. Everybody knows the real reason. The only difficulty of stating the reason is that one is most reluctant to seem to imply any suggestion against particular gentlemen's names which must perforce be mentioned in the course of the debate. I have no doubt that the Mayor of Bootle and the Mayor of Limerick are most worthy gentlemen, entirely deserving, so far as I know—I certainly do not know anything to the contrary—of His Majesty's favour. But the point is that if nothing but a phrase like "the Mayor of Bootle" or "the Mayor of Limerick" be published, there is no security against what we know in common colloquial language as a political "job." That is the point. Do not let anybody think that I am suggesting for a moment that the noble Earl and his colleagues are guilty in these cases of "jobs." I have no doubt they are not. The noble Earl, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the matter except that he is kind enough to answer our questions in this House. But the point we have to secure, as the guardians of the public credit, is that there should be no room for political "jobs." That was the reason for the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House. We established on the last occasion that political "jobs" had taken place. We proved to your Lordships that money had been asked for for political honours, and we shrewdly suspect—indeed, we are all satisfied; let us not pretend—we are all satisfied that money has been given for honours. Very well. It is in order to prevent this that we are asking the Government to make certain concessions, and one of the concessions was the obvious one that the reasons why a gentleman was recommended to His Majesty's favour for an honour should be published. The question is, Is such a phrase as "the Mayor of Slocombe Poget" sufficient to protect the public against a political "job"? Obviously it is not. That, standing by itself, is no use whatever.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Why?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is net very distinctive. The Mayor of Slocombe Puget! There are a great many Mayors, one every year. It is quite obvious that this is no protection whatever. No doubt, if the gentleman is in the particular case made a Mayor in the latter part of a meritorious life, which was my noble friend's phrase, it makes a considerable difference. But who knows that it was the latter part of a meritorious life? All we knew was that he was Mayor of some place or other. That is no protection. That is nothing more than a technical compliance with the rule to which your Lordships agreed, and which the Government accepted in the most solemn manner. They assured us, or gave us to understand, that they intended to comply with it. My noble friend said: "Are you proposing one rule for humble people and another rule for more distinguished people?" Apply my criterion. Does the country wish to be carefully and elaborately informed why Lord Jellicoe has been recommended to His Majesty for a Peerage? Obviously not. The Government are protected by the distinction and fame which that gallant officer has obtained. But I see no objection why all his services—perhaps they are so numerous as to make that impossible—but why a selection of his services should not be printed. It would be a proper thing to do. There is no difficulty. The same observation applies to a large number of the eases which the noble Earl quoted—gentlemen who have been made Privy Councillors or Peers.

The noble Earl thought it was amply sufficient if he said "the gentleman has been recommended by the Chief Secretary," or "by the Lord Lieutenant." "What more can you want?" he said. I can see my noble friend standing at the box and saying, "This gentleman is recommended by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury; what more can you want?" There is no charge against the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant, or against these gentlemen, as far as I know, who fully deserve the honour, but the language of the noble Earl—and he himself knew it—was no protection against the particular evil which the whole of the discussions in your Lordships' House on the last two occasions were designed to prevent.

I am quite certain that when my noble friend comes to think over the matter, and also when your Lordships think over it, you will see that what is wanted is a publication of the motives, the real reasons, width led the Government to recommend a gentleman for an honour. If he is a citizen of a considerable town, lots worked long for many years and has grown grey in the service of the town, why should not that be stated? What is the objection to it? It is all to his honour and to his credit, and I suggest that in the future everything should be so stated. Then there will be security. Let my noble friend recollect that, glad as we are to see him occupying a great position in the Government, he and his colleagues will not be there for ever. They will be succeeded by other Governments in the course of nature, and some day we may have a Government which is less meticulous in the care with which they recommend for honours. Then these precedents which we set will become effective. The mere designation of a gentleman as the Mayor of something or other may be used to conceal every conceivable kind of mischief which we desire to avoid. We are not legislating or establishing rules and regulations for the moment; we are doing it as a permanent part of the practice of our Constitution, and in that spirit I suggest we have established that such terse and limited accounts of gentlemen's services are not sufficient really to comply with the spirit of the Resolution which the Government accepted in your Lordships' House.

Then comes the question of how the publication should be made. The noble Earl says he sees a way out of the difficulty. He would have a special edition of the Gazette in which all these things should be set forth. I have nothing to say against that; it appears to be a very valuable suggestion. I do not make any complaint against newspapers. They are extremely valuable public servants in this respect, but we have no security that they will print what the Government give to them, and there will always be a doubt, when we see that somebody has been honoured because he is an alderman of something or other, that the whole facts are not stated in the newspapers. I was obliged to put a question to the noble Earl to know whether there was anything more in the official publication than appeared in the newspapers, and that doubt will always occur to every one. But once the matter is printed in a special Gazette no doubt will arise, and we shall know that we have the full reasons why the Government have recommended to His Majesty gentlemen to be the recipients of honours, and we shall be satisfied that to some extent protection is afforded to the public against a misuse of this power of the Crown.

LORD BURNHAM

My Lords, I regret that I was not in my place when the noble Earl referred to an interruption of mine in a former debate in which he said I was misinformed. The interruption was to the effect that no official notice was sent to newspapers to be inserted as to the reasons for the conferment of honours upon gentlemen whose names were sent for publication. I took the trouble, after that debate, to refer to the actual papers which came into the newspaper offices, and I find that, strictly speaking, that was absolutely correct. The information sent was not, in the strict sense, official at all.

I will tell your Lordships what actually happens. It is only recently that any information was given to the papers at all. I think it dates from the time when Lord Gainford was Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in a former Administration. Then it was limited to certain classes of honours. Up to the moment when I spoke no information was given at all in respect to those gentlemen on whom the honour of a Peerage was conferred, and who were called to His Majesty's Privy Council. I do not know whether it was assumed in all cases that their merits were so obvious that no explanation was required, but in those cases no information was given at all.

In regard to Baronets and Knights information was furnished by the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, and it appeared in a paper issuing horn official quarters but not in the nature of an official publication. This information was generally of a perfunctory kind. It merely gave what could be gathered from some books of reference, or from local histories where the general book of reference did not embrace the name, and it was the practice, I think, in most newspaper offices to take this paper and use it for what it was worth. The details given were as to the public offices which the gentleman on whom the distinction was conferred had filled. Sometimes these were supplemented by biographical details derived from other sources. It was not looked upon as giving the official reasons for the conferment of the honour, the particular services for which the honour was conferred, but as showing the general nature of the claims of public service and other reasons of that kind. I saw the Paper actually that came in on the last occasion, and in the case of Peerages and Privy Councillors no reasons and no record were given. Therefore I do not think I was wrong in informing your Lordships' House that in these two most important classes of honours no information was given—and attention had been directed to the case of Peerages which had been conferred, as it was alleged (I am making no allegation myself) from undesirable motives. Therefore it is true that since last January there has been this list sent round, but it cannot be looked upon, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said, as giving the reasons for the conferment of the Peerage, or otherwise than as a record of the bare facts in a ecrtain number of cases.

Even in regard to some knights and baronets, no details at all were given. They may not have been available, or there may not have been any record worth giving, or the facts may have been so well-known that they were not furnished. Certainly what was given was not sufficient for the purpose of a newspaper office, which had to supplement the information in other ways. It is to be assumed that the information furnished is the ground upon which the honour is conferred. I would suggest that it ought to be given in a slightly different way. If the service done in war or peace is to be presented to the public as the reason for the Crown having acted, that ought in itself to be stated, and not merely facts which can in most cases be derived from books of reference. Since the last list I have noticed in the case of Peerages, that a statement was made as to the posts which the gentlemen so honoured had occupied. I observed that especially in the case of one of my noble friends who was sitting for a moment behind Lord Curzon.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, the point is a small one, because it does not touch the main subject of our discussion. But the noble Lord is not quite accurate in his recollection of what he said on a previous occasion, or in his account of the practice that at present prevails. What he said on a previous occasion was this— It is not the case that any official statement is issued of the Honours List, or circulated to the newspapers.

LORD BURNHAM

Officially.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

The noble Lord added— The Press agencies send out details as to the lists and as to the merits of various persons in the Honours List, but no official statement is issued. That, my Lords was incorrect. An official statement is drawn up at Downing-street. It is issued—I have a copy of the last in my hands—in this form. It is not sent out, but it is handed to the representatives of the Press at, I think, five or six o'clock in the evening of the day before that on which the honours are published, along with the list itself. Representatives of the Press take it away, and I have no doubt tha the representative of the Daily Telegraph did so. It is therefore an official statement. It may not be sufficient for the purpose of the noble Lord, or for your Lordships' House, but it is an official statement. It has been twice issued since the present Government came into power in the case of two distributions of honours, and I was told by the Secretary to the Prime Minister that he was carrying on the practice which he had inherited from his predecessor. Further, my Lords, the statement is not limited to Peers.

LORD BURNHAM

Not now.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I can only answer for the present Government. The statement—here it is—contains an account of the service and the reason for which the honour is conferred not only upon Peers or Baronets, but upon Knights. In fact, it covers the entire Honours List. The point, however, is one of no very great importance.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.