Granting of Honors.

Hokitika Guardian, 3 January 1923, Page 2

Granting of Honors.

REPOR T OF RfiVAI. COMMISSION. AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. LONDON. Dee. 29. Tho report of the Royal Commission on Honours recommends t hat before the names of persons for appointment to any dignity or honour are submitted to the King they should he referred to a oommittcee of the Privy Council consisting of three members, who are not members of the Government, appointed for the period of the Govermncm's holding office; that this committee should he supplied with particulars ol the service for which the houoiu is pioposecl, am! also with a statement hy the patronage secretary that, no payment or expectation or payment to any party or political fund is associated with the recommendation ; that the name of the person making the original suggestion of the honour should he furnished, and if. in spite of ail upfavourable report !,v the committee, the Prime Minister still wishes to submit the name to the King, the latter should he informed of the committee's report. The commission further recommends the passing of a short Act of Parliament imposing penalties on any person seeking to secure honours tor another in respect of any valuable consideration. or for offering payment for an honour. The Commission considers ii impracticable to limit the number of honours as that would he limiting the Kings prerogative. Mr Arthur Henderson dissents from the report on the ground that the Commission might have made much more searching enquiry. He declares though the Commission . -se- '.'l Gi ■ iiaiim- ol persons described ls " touts f- r honours.” none was called, leaving unexplored one of the gravest abuses. Concerning nominations lor honours, Mr 1 lenders.,n does not believe the present recommendations will proven) abuses. The Privy Council Committee could -till he a party committee. Mr Henderson thinks that public recognition for meritorious services could ho given without recourse to titles. Other members of the Commission, in view of Mr Henderson’s remarks, ex-j plain that they did not call the evidence mentioned because they were already \ satisfied that such advances had been ■ made and the Commission’s task was | solely to prevent such abuses in the j future.