Memorandum by Professor David Cannadine
(HON 53)
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is meant to be read in conjunction
with the extracts from Ornamentalism and Class in Britain
that I have already submitted. Those two pieces focused, respectively,
on the past and the present; now I should like to concern myself
primarily with the present and the future.
1. Historical Background
By the mid 18th century, the British system
of honours was both elaborate and restricted. In ascending order
of precedence, it consisted of knights bachelor, the Order of
the Bath, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of the Garter, baronets
(essentially hereditary knighthoods) and peers (in five levels,
ascending from baron to viscount to earl to marquess to duke).
This was an exclusive and hierarchical system, which recognised
and supported aristocratic authority and military prowess. Knighthoods
were not hereditary; baronetcies and peerages were.
Since then, the British honours system has undergone
two great phases of elaboration and re-invention. The first (and
lesser) was from the 1780s to the 1810s, which saw the creation
of the Order of St Patrick for Ireland (matching the Thistle for
Scotland and the Garter or England), the extension of the Order
of the Bath for military service in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
Wars against France, and the creation of the Order of St Michael
and St George. This was still, essentially, an aristocratic cum
military system, partly hereditary, partly not.
The second (and greater) phase of expansion
lasted from the last quarter of the nineteenth century until the
First World War, and witnessed the creation of a much more complex
system, which was imperial rather than national, and (in some
areas at least) was open to a much wider spread of the population.
From this period date the following: the Imperial Service Order;
the Order of Companions of Honour; the Order of the British Empire;
the Royal Victorian Order and the Royal Victorian Chain; the (expansion
of) the Order of St Michael and St George; the Order of the Crown
of India; the Order of the Indian Empire; the Order of the Star
of India; and the Order of Merit. Unlike baronetcies and peerages,
none of these honours were hereditary. Several of them were awarded
at different levels.
These new honours were all precisely located
within the existing national order of precedence; they carried
a very strong hierarchical message; and they were authentically
imperial in that they were awarded to people living across the
whole spread of the British Empire.
2. Subsequent Evolution
This elaborate system of British imperial honours
has gradually been downsized as the British Empire has downsized.
And it has downsized in two ways. First, some of these honours
have disappeared completely: in 1922, the Order of St Patrick
fell into desuetude with the independence of the Irish Free State;
in 1947 the three Indian orders also became extinct with Indian
independence; and since 1993 no appointments have been made to
the Imperial Service Order. Second, such honours as remain have
ceased to be imperial and are now merely British, since (with
very few exceptions) former colonies and dominions have evolved
their own indigenous honours systems, and thus no longer award
British honours.
The system has also been adapted to reflect
the democratic and meritocratic society that Britain has (up to
a point) aspired to become since 1945. And here again, it has
adapted in two ways. First, hereditary honours have largely disappeared.
Since 1964, baronetcies have been very rarely awarded (Denis Thatcher
being the last). And the same has been true of hereditary peerages
(Whitelaw, Thomas and Macmillan being the only recent exceptions).
Moreover, most hereditary peers have now been excluded from the
House of Lords. Instead, since 1958, life peerages have been given
out in ever increasing numbers. Second, at all levels of the honours
system, there has been increasing recognition of women and minorities.
3. The Present Position
With the exception of life peerages, the period
since the First World War has not witnessed the creation of any
new major honours or orders of chivalry. The traditional hereditary
element in honours has largely disappeared. Honours associated
with two parts of the former empire (Ireland and India) have also
disappeared. Such honours as remain are almost exclusively now
confined to Britain itself, and they are distributed more broadly
across class, gender and race than ever before. To this extent,
the system as it at present exists is both less imperial and more
democratic than it was in 1918, and as such no doubt reflects
the fact that Britain itself has become less imperial and more
democratic. It may best be described as follows:
(A) Life peerages: which continue to be simultaneously
titles of honour and power positions. As a result, they are given
for different purposes (real achievement, golden political handshake,
strengthening the party in the upper house). Unlike hereditary
peerages, they do not descend across the generation. But they
do share the dual identity that hereditary peerages exhibited
until recently: they are both titles of honour (as are knighthoods
and baronetcies) and they are also (unlike knighthoods and baronetcies)
power positions, since they carry with them membership of the
upper house of the British legislature.
(B) Honours in the sovereign's gift—the
Royal Victorian Order and the Royal Victorian Chain; the Order
of Merit; the Order of the Thistle; and the Order of the Garter.
The Royal Victorian Order rewards service to the sovereign; the
Royal Victorian Chain is primarily for other heads of state; the
Order of Merit is for distinguished scientists, humanists and
creative artists as well as (albeit diminishingly) for outstanding
military figures; the Thistle and the Garter are for, respectively,
Scottish and English grandees, senior politicians, military figures,
civil servants, etc
(C) National Honours bestowed by the queen
on the recommendation of the government: knights bachelor; the
Order of Companions of Honour; the Order of the British Empire;
the Order of St Michael and St George; the Order of the Bath.
Plain knighthoods are awarded very widely; the Companions of Honour
is a junior OM; the Order of the British Empire is given very
widely; the Order of St Michael and St George is largely restricted
to the Foreign Office and senior diplomats (it used to be proconsuls
and imperial potentates); and the Order of the Bath is given to
senior civil servants and military figures.
4. The Present Problem
But as this taxonomy makes plain, and despite
the attenuations and modifications since 1922, the system that
was elaborated from the 1870s to the First World War remains largely—and
recognisably—intact. This means that problems still remain,
and for convenience I shall group them under four headings:
(A) Peerages: The confusion about appointments
is unsatisfactory, reflecting the ambiguous position of a peerage
as being simultaneously an honour and a power position. Why are
they awarded both to recognise merit and as political appointments?
There is the further difficulty that the future (and nature) of
life peerages is inescapably bound up with House of Lords reform.
If the House of Lords remains a wholly nominated second chamber,
will this make all appointments "political"? If the
House of Lords is elected, will peerages continue to exist at
all?
(B) Royal Honours: Why is it that royal honours
are widely regarded as the most highly esteemed? Is it because
they are in the sovereign's gift rather than the government's?
Is it because they rank high in the order of precedence? Is it
because they are few in number? Should the sovereign be able to
bestow honours in this very exclusive way?
(C) National Honours: This system is still
far too elaborate and far too imperial for the downsized, post-imperial
nation that Britain has become since 1945/47. Too many honours
are tied to government officials—the Order of St Michael
and St George and the Order of the Bath almost exclusively so.
Now the British Empire has gone, it is no longer appropriate to
have the most widely-distributed Order named after it.
(D) Titles: In a meritocratic society which
(at last in some quarters) aspires to be classless, is it appropriate
to perpetuate the hierarchical archaisms of "lord",
"lady" and "sir"? When the United States won
its freedom from Britain, the founding fathers did not abolish
honours, but they did abolish titles. Should Britain contemplate
following the same path, two hundred years on?
5. Suggestions and Recommendations
The system clearly needs the sort of systematic
overhaul and rethinking that it has not had since it was enlarged
and expanded to serve new imperial and democratic purposes before
and during the First World War. But now it needs to be overhauled
and re-thought to serve the post-imperial nation that Britain
has been in the process of becoming since 1945-47. But before
I get to specifics, let me make some general observations.
1. There is no justification for abolishing
honours altogether. "The object in presenting medals, stars
and ribbons", Sir Winston Churchill once observed, "is
to give pride and pleasure to those who deserve them." That
still seems a convincing justification. Moreover, no nation has
survived for long without an honours system, and all those nations
who rejected British imperial honours when they became independent
have felt obliged to set up their own.
2. There is nothing sacrosanct or immutable
about the present system. Any honours system should certainly
pay heed to past precedent and preserve some links with earlier
times; but it must also evolve and develop to take account of
domestic and international changes, otherwise it will lose conviction
and credibility.
3. But in addition, any credible system
of honours must be both transparent and confidential in its operation.
It must be transparent in the sense that the rules and the criteria
must be clear and consistent and known. But it must also be confidential
(but not secret): secrecy is the unjustified withholding of information;
confidentiality is the justified withholding of information. This
is a very important distinction.
In the light of these general reflections, let
me offer the following suggestions, placed in the categories I
have already set out:
(A) Peerage: Much clearly depends on the
further reform (or not) of the House of Lords. If it is to be
elected, presumably life peerages should and would disappear.
If it is to be nominated, presumably these would be full time
legislative positions. Either way, it might be worth considering
the ending of peerages as honours.
(B) Royal Honours: Presumably there is nothing
that this committee can do about them. But it might be worth wondering
whether it is sensible to have both Companions of Honour and the
Order of Merit. This is a strange, two-tier system, operated by
two separate authorities. It might be better to abolish the CH,
and have an enlarged OM.
(C) National Honours: Here is where reform
is most urgent. Since Britain is no longer a great imperial or
military power, it is no longer sensible to have two orders exclusively
for diplomats and warriors and civil servants. Accordingly, no
further appointments should be made to the Order of St Michael
and St George or to the Order of the Bath. The Order of the British
Empire should be re-named the Order of British Excellence (thereby
keeping the same acronyms and abbreviations), and should be recognised
as the one single national honour, apart from those in the sovereigns
gift. Knights bachelor should be incorporated in it. And as already
mentioned, the CH should be merged into an expanded OM.
(D) Titles: The logic for abolition is very
strong; but it might be easier to proceed with the reforms outlined
above, and to wait on House of Lords reform.
CONCLUSION
It is not the case, as some more sensationalist
stories have suggested, that the British honours system is in
crisis because two per cent of those people who are offered them
turn them down. In what other area of British life can a 98% acceptance
rate be found? No, the real danger is that the system is still
too much caught in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
time warp when it came into being; that the subsequent modifications
and attenuations now seem inadequate; and that there is an increasingly
urgent need for the system to be rationalised and re-thought.
And I offer these suggestions as a contribution to that urgent
and necessary process of reform and re-evaluation.
February 2004
|
