THE most telling vignette of the misuse of the honours system is contained in a well-documented story about a shady South African millionaire and a highly reluctant King George V.

In 1922 Sir Joseph Robinson was nominated for a peerage in the forthcoming Birthday Honours by the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.

The King, however, objected so strongly to the nomination that Downing Street was forced to withdraw it. An emissary was sent from No 10 to the Savoy Hotel, where Sir Joseph was staying, to break the news to him. Even before he could state his business, Sir Joseph — already 82 years old — had whipped out his chequebook, uttering the anguished cry of “how much more?”.

It is no longer altogether fanciful to suggest that some such scene could take place today. While of course wealthy donors are not necessarily motivated by the desire for elevation and some have other qualifications for advancement, admission to the Lords is now as blatantly determined as it ever was by contributions made to party funds.

There used to be a body to prevent that happening, but Tony Blair scrapped the Honours Scrutiny Committee earlier this year and its responsibilities have been handed to the House of Lords Appointments Committee; but it was not entirely a self-interested action on the Prime Minister’s part. As the current list shows, the Tories are also not above rewarding cash with coronets.

Nowadays we famously live in a tolerant society, but why is this type of corruption — which caused outrage when it came to light in the dying days of Lloyd George — now more or less openly accepted? One answer may be that the possession of a peerage is no longer the symbol of universal respect it once was. How can it be when peers — such as Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare or Harold Wilson’s Gannex Macintosh chum, Lord Kagan — can cheerfully resume their Lords careers after being shut up in the slammer? There is only one way to clean up the unedifying situation. It is nearly 30 years since the all-party Houghton Committee recommended the state funding of political parties. At the time most politicians expressed horror at such a proposal; but can it really be suggested that a method of open public funding is any more improper than our present system of tickling the tummies of fat cats so that, in return for cash delivered, they become peers of the realm?

Times Recommends

• The Times celebrates its 225th birthday
• Heath discussed IMF loan during 1974 crisis
• Britain’s loneliest café opens for business