The practice of conferring British honours on distinguished persons in New Zealand dates from 1858 when the then Governor, Sir Thomas Gore Browne, was invited to bring deserving cases to the notice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Originally these recommendations, which were made by the Governor without reference to his ministers, were for one or other of the classes in the Civil Division of the Order of the Bath. Later, probably in the 1860s, the Governor consulted unofficially with the Premier whenever recommendations were to be made. In the early 1870s the Statutes of the Order of St. Michael and St. George were revised to enable colonial statesmen to receive honours for their services. Until after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, however, colonial honours were notified in the English lists, although, on occasion, the Governor was informed in time to make a simultaneous announcement. By 1931 the New Zealand Prime Minister had assumed a larger part in preparing the list of recommendations. Up until the First World War honours were conferred only in the two orders already mentioned, as well as in the Imperial Service Order (since 1902) and in the degree of Knight Bachelor. Only one or two New Zealanders were included and sometimes years might pass between successive conferments. The constitution of the Order of the British Empire, in 1917, has meant that more honours are available for Commonwealth citizens. The practice of publishing honours lists at the New Year and on the occasion of the Sovereign's birthday is comparatively recent, being adopted in the early years of this century. Previous to this New Zealand creations were either “spontaneous”, as in the case of Sir William Fox and Sir Edward Stafford, or were made on the anniversary of the orders concerned.
The system of conferring honours is governed by provisions of the statutes constituting the various orders and, as the following chart shows, the number of honours available in any year and the mode of making recommendations are strictly defined. In addition, most orders contain provisions limiting the total number of awards that may be made in any year or group of years. Commonwealth Prime Ministers cannot recommend persons for admission to the Orders of the Garter, Thistle, Bath (Civil Division), Merit, or the Royal Victorian Order. The Companions of Honour appear, although this is not clearly specified in the statute, to be granted on the recommendation of the British Prime Minister. In the orders open for conferment upon citizens of Commonwealth countries a certain proportion of the total number of places in all classes is reserved for these. These may only be filled by recommendations from this source or from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. When the Commonwealth places in any order are filled no further awards may be made until a vacancy occurs.
In proportion to population, the Commonwealth countries are liberally treated.
In New Zealand the procedure for recommending candidates for the New Year or Birthday lists is quite unofficial and, in the event of fewer names being received than the honours available, the Government never canvasses to fill the lists. Nor is it in any way mandatory that recommendations should be made. No recommendations were sent forward for the Birthday list in 1931 “for it was felt that with the depression and the serious economic crisis the matter was one that could well stand over until the next opportunity”. This reason still applied when recommendations for the 1932 New Year list were considered, and again no New Zealand names were sent forward. In 1940 the practice of forwarding New Zealand names for inclusion in the list of civil honours was discontinued for the duration of the war and was not resumed until New Year 1946. Following the publication of the Birthday list in June 1946, the Prime Minister was questioned in the House about the procedure of recommendation for honours. He replied: “It has been the custom for many years for His Majesty's advisers to receive recommendations and sometimes requests from many sources, including members of Parliament, local bodies, and various organisations, for names to be placed on the honours list. These are carefully scrutinised and considered, due regard being paid to geographical allocation. The final acceptance does not … rest with His Majesty's advisers. As the honours to be conferred are limited in number a certain amount of criticism can be expected”. When pressed for an explanation of the sources of such recommendations the Prime Minister said: “Ever since the country had been a Crown Colony, the intention aimed at and the invariable practice in dealing with honours was that those people or organisations who considered certain persons had given faithful service in some public capacity, that was conducive to the advancement or benefit of the country and its people, would submit the names to His Majesty's advisers, and the list of names would be considered with due regard to the geographical allocation…. The Government had always accepted suggestions from both sides of both Houses and from representatives of local bodies, such as chairmen of county councils, but no government could guarantee that all suggestions would be adopted, because there was only a limited number of honours available and a selection had to be made – indeed any public body or private person could make recommendations….”.
In view of the very large number of candidates for the few honours available, there are often criticisms about prominent or deserving persons being omitted from the lists. In many cases a name many be omitted because it is felt that there is no fitting honour available. Such a person may not be offered a Knight Bachelorship because it is felt that his services merit a K.C.M.G. or higher, and there may not be a vacancy in the appropriate order. In most cases, also, the persons recommended are not approached in the matter until the recommendation has been approved by the Sovereign. Before the lists are gazetted they are then asked if they will accept the honour.
by Bernard John Foster, M.A., Research Officer, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.