Historical and Contemporary Concerns Over the Integrity of Honours
The history of the British honours system includes controversial practices such as those by Maundy Gregory during the Lloyd George era. Gregory sold honours from an office opposite Downing Street, charging about £10,000 for a knighthood, £40,000 for a baronetcy, and £50,000 for a peerage. His commissions reportedly amounted to around £30,000 per year, with the funds primarily funneled to party coffers, mainly those of Lloyd George. While Lloyd George defended this system as a cleaner way to fund the party, he privately acknowledged it was indefensible. King George V privately described the rogues as "disagreeable and distasteful," and the Tory party objected to their donors being diverted by Lloyd George's fixers.
Following political pressure, the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act was passed in 1924. Maundy Gregory was the only person ever tried under this act; he served about two months in prison and was fined £50 plus 50 guineas. After his release, Gregory went into exile in Paris and reportedly received a monthly pension in brown envelopes as payment for keeping silent. Due to the hereditary nature of titles at that time, some descendants of Gregory's honorees remain today.
In a contemporary context, concerns about the integrity of the honours system persist alongside modern political scandals. For example, a company offering independent recognition claimed a 6.5 times greater likelihood of attaining a royal honour and an 80% success rate for "king’s awards for enterprise," with fees tied to the nomination length. This suggests that while the form of issues has evolved, they are not entirely absent from the current honours system.
