would neither be the reward of docility or assiduity in attending divisions, nor a prophylactic against too critical tongues; it would be a mark of respect from those whom long association had given the means of judging.  There are some men in every Parliament whose high character and unobtrusive work through a long period of service have won the special regard of their fellow-members, even though opposed to them in politics, and an opportunity of expressing that feeling would be welcomed.  The selection would be a real honour, and would be bestowed in recognition of independence of character and steady useful work.  Peerages might still be conferred on the advice of the Prime Minister, as a peerage renders the recipient incapable of sitting in the House of Commons, and the existence of Ministries does not depend on votes in the Lords.

(2) The party whips ought to have nothing to do with the conferment of honours of any kind, whether on members of the House of Commons or others.  The considerations which must be uppermost in the mind of a whip, whose duty it is to fill the division lobbies for his party, ought not to affect the fountain of honour.

(3) The accounts of the party associations ought to be published.  It may be right for well-to-do people who feel keenly on political questions to contribute to help party organisation, to aid in providing the money necessary to enable promising men, who have not the means for paying their own election expenses, to contest a seat and to enter Parliament.  There is nothing derogatory to a candidate in accepting assistance of the kind.  Many men who were unable to fight an election without it, would prefer to have it openly stated that they had received such assistance.  Why should a young man whom a poor constituency would like to adopt, and who can only afford, say, L100 towards the cost of contesting a seat, object to his constituents knowing that the balance had been found from funds provided by others who wish well to the cause he is advocating?  If the system is wrong, let it be abolished; if right, why try to preserve secrecy?

(4) No one should be allowed to contribute to party funds who has received a peerage or other “honour” within a given period, and if anyone has contributed to such funds before receiving an honour the amount paid should be publicly announced.  Everyone has heard, and anyone acquainted with what goes on could give instances, of cases where a contribution has been asked from those whose services to the community are supposed to be recognised by some title of honour.

A change is needed in the method of selecting candidates.  Two examples will illustrate the kind of thing that takes place.