The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1914. THE TRAFFIC IN HONORS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 270, 15 April 1914, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1914. THE TRAFFIC IN HONORS.

High-minded Britons, in every part ot the Empire, may well blush with sKaray at the revelations. that have of late years taken placp regoruing the liardly disguised tralfic in Royal favors and titular distinctions. We were wont to believe that only in such countries as Italy, Germany and Spain could honorable titles be bought, hut the most extreme Pecksniflian hypocrisy cannot now avail to keep up the pretence that Britain is free from the same disgraceful traffic. The abandonment of the '"make believe" that in England the fountain of honor remained unpolluted is indeed the most hopeful feature of the sorry business. When the subject was debated in the House of Lords a few weeks ago, there was a refreshing frankness about the way in which the facts were admitted, and though the tone of the various speakers was not always . what could have been desired, the Upper Chamber joined in condemning the practices. The debate arose on a motion tabled by the Earl of Selborne, in the following terms:—"That a contribution £o party funds should not be a consideration to a Minister when he recommended any name for an honor to his Majesty; that effectual measures should be taken in order to assure the nation that Governments, from whatever political party they are drawn, will act according to this rule; and that this House requests the concurrence of the House of Commons in the foregoing resolution." This resolution, it will be seen, goes to the very root of the matter when it declares that "contributions to party funds" are generally the price paid for a knighthood, a baronetcy, or a peerage. It is the party system that is the original sinner. The insatiate demands for money to private party propaganda to fight party elections is the primary cause of the traffic in titles, aa it was of the Marconi scandal. This was freely admitted by the noble Lords who took part in the debate, and it was cheering to observe that "pot and kettle" agreed to accept their full share of the blackness that has besmirched the fair name of Great Britain's public men. It was made quite clear by Lord Srlbonie that the tralfic only applied to honors conferred on the motion of the Ministry of the day, and in no way extended to titles given on the King's own motwn or to those given for service in the army or navy. He admitted that the thing complained of was a crying scandal; lie said he could "quote sheaves of newspaper statements on the subject"; and it had also been the subject of scoffing references on the stage. This is a virtual confession that it was mainly in deference to the outcry of the Press and the stage that the House of Lords was moved to take action. Lord Crewe, the Government leader in tlia ■Upper House, said he agreed with t ; >o view expressed by Lord Sol home, but thewght that there luul been some disposition to exaggerate the evil. On behalf of the Prime Minister he gave a categorical assurance that party funds had not been a consideration to Mm in recommending men for honors, and lie said lie had not the slightest hesitation In giving precisely the same assurance on behalf of Lord Rosebery and Mr. Balfour, the only living ex-Premiers. This is 110 doubt literally correct, for the negotiations for the purchase of titles are eonducted in a roundabout .fashiou atid the" party leaders have no direct hand in the discreditable business; but it cannot be doubted that they have all along knowH what was going on. Some noble Lords, in fact, in ndmittiug the existence of the tralfic, displayed a callous indifference ii( respect to the moml aspect of the matter. Lord Willoughby de Broke, for instance, confessed that he had dabbled in the tralfic himself, having tned to induce some one to give money towards a patriotic object on his promise to do his best to secure a baronetcy for the monicd person. He only failed because lie could not give a guarantee as to when he would be able to "deliver the goads!" Lord Eibblesdale also admitted having dealings in the accursed thing, lor he had been "approached" by "an honest fox-hunter'' (lie must have meant tnlt-hunter) who was prepared to give a good deal of money" for a titular distinction. His Lordship took a very cynical view of the matter, I,doling that such things were inevitable anil after all did not much matter.- Fortunately tins low view did not prevail, and the House passed the resolution we have quoted. Surely it matters much that honors conferred by Royalty should not be given indiscriminately to blatant, vulgar people with no oilier qualification than their wealth, and who by their immoralities and crimes might bring discredit upon all holders of titles. It is appropriate at a time when it is prouoseil to abolish the system of hereditary legislators, that the House of Lords should express itself i„ favor of a more careful bestowal of titles so that the holders should lie men who have done the State some service and who have mental and moral qualifications above the average. It is to lie hoped that the House of Commons will roneur, and timt Parliament will not n , st s -,tislied with having reassured the public, but will take ca rev that there shall be no future lapse info flic disgraceful traffic in titles.