XI.

The Structure of Parliament

54.

House of Peers

[]

(a)

ROYAL COMMISSION ON HONOURS REPORT

Cmd. 1789 (1922)

NOTE

The total cost of the Commission, excluding printing of the Report, but including the travelling and subsistence expenses, is estimated at £22. In addition, the cost of printing this Report is estimated at £9 10s. od.

COMMISSION

GEORGE R. I.

George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, to

Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor Andrew Graham, Baron Dunedin, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order;

Our Right Trusty and Right Entirely Beloved Cousin and Counsellor Victor Christian William, Duke of Devonshire, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order;

Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellors:—

Thomas, Baron Denman, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order;

Arthur Henderson, and

Sir Evelyn Cecil, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire; and

Our Trusty and Wellbeloved:—

Sir Samuel John Gurney Hoare, Baronet, Companion of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Lieutenant-Colonel, Territorial Army Reserve, and

Sir George Croydon Marks, Knight, Commander of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire,

Greeting!

Whereas We have deemed it expedient that a Commission should forthwith issue to advise on the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime Minister in making recommendations to Us of names of persons deserving special honour:

Now know ye that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and ability, have authorized and appointed, and do by these Presents authorize and appoint you, the said Andrew Graham, Baron Dunedin (Chairman); Victor Christian William, Duke of Devonshire; Thomas, Baron Denman; Arthur Henderson; Sir Evelyn Cecil; Sir Samuel John Gurney Hoare and Sir George Croydon Marks to be Our Commissioners for the purpose of the said inquiry.

And for the better effecting the purpose of this Our Commission We do by these Presents give and grant unto you, or any three or more of you, full power to call before you such persons as you shall judge likely to afford you any information upon the subject of this Our Commission.

And We do by these Presents will and ordain that this Our Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that you, Our said Commissioners, or any three or more of you, may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof, and of every matter and thing therein contained, although the same be not continued from time to time by adjournment.

And We do further ordain that you, or any three or more of you, have liberty to report your proceedings under this Our Commission from time to time, if you shall judge it expedient so to do.

And Our further will and pleasure is that you do, with as little delay as possible, report to Us under your hands and seals, or under the hands and seals of any three or more of you, your opinion upon the matter herein submitted for your consideration.

Given at Our Court at Balmoral, the sixteenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, in the thirteenth year of Our Reign.

By His Majesty’s Command.

Edward Shortt.

Royal Commission on Honours.

REPORT to the KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY.

1. We, the undersigned, were, by Your Majesty’s Warrant dated the 16th of September, 1922, appointed to advise on the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime Minister in making recommendations to Your Majesty of names of persons deserving special honour. We have the honour to lay before Your Majesty the following report.

2. The terms of reference clearly directed us to provide for the future rather than to investigate the past. At the same time we felt that it was impossible to make recommendations which would serve any useful purpose unless we were made acquainted with the system under which in the past the lists were made up of persons recommended to Your Majesty for the receipt of various honours.

3. We accordingly invited to attend before us the Prime Minister and such persons as had been Prime Ministers who were still alive, and they all accepted the invitation except Lord Rosebery, the state of whose health precluded his attendance. We also examined those responsible for the Party organizations including the various Patronage Secretaries so far as still available. We were also furnished with memoranda on the subject from the Departments of State charged with the duty of compiling lists of recommendations, and from Lord Gladstone and Lord Kilbracken, who were closely associated with the machinery for the bestowal of honours during the late Mr. Gladstone’s administration. We also examined the Duke of Northumberland and the Earl of Selborne as persons who had taken a prominent part in discussions which had led up to the appointment of the Commission. We made ourselves conversant with the published correspondence which had taken place on the subject and also with the discussions in recent years in both Houses of Parliament.

4. Before we go further, we think it is advisable to state clearly the position of the King as to the conferring of honours, a position as to which there can be no controversy, but which is perhaps scarcely appreciated by all who have been interested in the matter.

5. The King is the fountain of Honour, and all grants are made by him, but in the selection of the recipients of these grants, as in other things, he is in use to act not on his own initiative but on the advice of his Ministers. The Minister responsible for advising is the Prime Minister except in certain special cases, e.g., Order of St. Michael and St. George, Naval, Military, and Air Force honours, Orders of the Star of India and of the Indian Empire, where the Minister in charge tenders his advice direct. With these exceptions, and that of the Royal Victorian Order, which is a private Order and is bestowed by the King alone and upon his own selection, no grant of honour is ever made by the King except upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Even in the case in which the King might wish that an Order or a Peerage should be given to a member of his own Household, the recommendation should appear on the Prime Minister’s list.

6. It follows therefore that the whole true responsibility rests on the Prime Minister and we think that it is of the greatest importance that this position should be fully maintained and that any suggestions which we may feel able to make should be looked on as mere aids to the Prime Minister and not as in the slightest degree relieving him of the responsibility which in a question with the King he must truly bear. We would add that we think it ought never to be cast on the Private Secretary of the King to make enquiries as to the proposed recipients. The list, as presented to the King, ought to be unassailable both as to selection and composition, and the only outstanding matter for the King to decide, with the Prime Minister, should be the number of honours to be conferred.

7. While, therefore, we cannot too strongly insist on the Prime Minister’s responsibility in the matter, it is at the same time obvious that in his position, he cannot make up his list alone and unassisted.

8. It will tend to clearness if we make a division into classes of the honours given. There are first, those given on what we may term exceptional occasions which do not often recur; such are Coronation honours and honours in connection with the War. Secondly, there are what may be termed the Departmental honours, e.g., those given to Civil Servants in the Home Government Departments. Thirdly, there are honours given in connection with the Foreign Office, the Fighting Services and the India Office, and honours given to persons connected with the Dominions, Colonies or India, as distinguished from persons connected with the United Kingdom. Lastly, there are honours given to members of the general public for service or distinction, and these may be subdivided into honours for distinction in literature, science and art, using those terms in their broadest sense, and honours given for political services.

9. The first class we may at once dismiss from further consideration. So far as War honours are concerned, it is obvious, thanks to the unparalleled devotion of nearly all the Nation in giving individual help to the necessities of the War, that the well-founded claims were so numerous and the distribution so necessarily lavish, that no rules or recommendations for ordinary times could meet such a case. It is the wish and fervent hope of all that such an occasion may never again arise.

10. The Departmental honours are, comparatively, a simple matter. The principal honours which are at the disposal of the Civil Departments are the various grades of the Order of the Bath. The Order of the Bath is a limited Order, so that at any of the periodical distributions of honours—New Year and Birthday—it is known how many vacancies are available. The Head of each Department forwards the names of such of its own Members as he thinks are worthy of such promotion with a record of the services of the individual recommended. The respective claims are weighed and considered by the Prime Minister in conjunction with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, whose duty it is, as Head of the Civil Service, to advise the Prime Minister on Civil Service decorations. We have had no hint of dissatisfaction with this system and we do not think it calls for any alteration. There does not appear any possible chance of suggestion or preference due to improper motives. The services of the potential recipients are well known and the Prime Minister has every opportunity of making up his mind as to whose claims are paramount.

11. We proceed to our third category and deal first with the honours in connection with the Foreign Office, the Fighting Forces and India. Under the statutes of the Order of St. Michael and St. George and the reconstituted Order of the British Empire, a certain fixed number of honours are reserved for allocation on the independent recommendation of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Other recommendations, accompanied by a full statement of services rendered, are forwarded by the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister. Direct recommendations as to Orders can, in certain regulated cases, be made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air, and the Secretary of State for India. All these direct recommendations do not fall within the terms of our reference, but as we have been furnished with full particulars of the procedure, which is very elaborate, we may say to avoid misapprehension, that we have heard no suggestion of abuse in this matter and that the procedure adopted seems to us sufficient and not in any way calling for reform. The India Office list does, in addition, include Knighthoods and sometimes Baronetcies. These are always submitted to the Prime Minister by authority of the Viceroy with a full statement of the services rendered.

12. The Colonial Office calls for a few words. So far as the Office proper is concerned, the remarks made in regard to the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, and India Office may be repeated. Recommendations come to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the Governors-General and Governors. In the case of the Colonies and Protectorates these recommendations are made by the Governor on his own responsibility, but in the case of the self-governing Dominions the recommendations are made with the advice of the Dominion Prime Minister or State Premier. All these are submitted by the Secretary of State for the Colonies either direct to the King or through the Prime Minister. We recommend no change in the existing practice in regard to these honours.

13. But there is in addition, the case of honours being submitted in respect of Imperial services by the British Prime Minister without initiative from the Oversea Governments. It would not, we think, be expedient that the power of conferring such honours should be interfered with. But we are strongly of opinion that before submitting to the King the name of any person who is or has lately been domiciled in any of the Oversea Dominions, the Prime Minister should communicate his intention to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in his turn, should pass on the name to the Governor-General or Governor concerned for his observations, it being understood that, in the case of a self-governing Dominion, he should consult his Prime Minister. It is obvious that in such a case the committee which we recommend later in this Report would be powerless to act, and we think it eminently advisable that Oversea opinion as to the antecedents of a person whom it is proposed to honour should not be entirely disregarded.

14. We pass to our last category, namely, honours for distinction in literature, science and art and political honours.

15. In choosing those persons who, for their services in literature, science and art, are worthy of such recognition—and to those we think we must add the persons who have signalized themselves by the work or pecuniary support which they have given to charitable undertakings—the Prime Minister will have many suggestions made from innumerable quarters. He will doubtless make enquiries as to what we may call the professional opinion of these cases and as to the general public repute of the persons concerned. We do not doubt that this has been done by the gentlemen who have held the high office of Prime Minister, nor do we think any suggestion could be usefully made to help Prime Ministers on future occasions in this department. The selection of an unworthy recipient is, in view of public opinion unlikely, and in any event is not, we think, open to any public abuse.

16. We now come to the part of the system which has given rise to widespread suspicion that abuses exist—we mean the political honours. As to the mere existence of political honours there is room for a difference of opinion. This question is outside the scope of our reference, but we think it very desirable to state quite distinctly two things. The first is that the practice of giving honours for purely political service has been continuously followed ever since the growth and development of the Party system of Government. The second is that nearly all the witnesses that we have examined proffered the opinion that such a system is right and ought to prevail.

17. The method of making up the political list, as detailed to us by the members of the various administrations of the last 30 years, has varied in slight particulars but it has been substantially the same. Those rewarded for political services may be divided into the two classes of those who are, and those who are not, members of the House of Commons. As regards the former, the person who would frame and put the list tentatively before the Prime Minister would always be his Patronage Secretary. As regards the second, it would generally be the Head of the Party Organization, who might also be the Patronage Secretary. The practice seems to have varied as to how far the list of the Party Organizer would be submitted to the Patronage Secretary, if a separate officer, before it found its way. to the Prime Minister. But whether with or without co-operation, the lists of these two functionaries would be put before the Prime Minister. There have also been names of persons submitted by the Prime Minister which have not found their way to him through either of the lists mentioned.

18. It will, of course, be readily understood that all this does not mean that the true initiative as to individual names rests with either the Patronage Secretary or the Party Manager. Suggestions and applications come from all quarters—sometimes from the candidate for honours himself, but more often from his friends. The friends, in the case of a member of the House of Commons, would probably be members of the House themselves, and in the case of other persons, either members of the House representing the constituencies where the proposed recipient has had his sphere of activity or influential persons in the Party in the same neighbourhood.

19. From the lists so submitted, and with such advice from either the framers of the lists or from other colleagues as he chooses, the Prime Minister makes his final selection. He naturally enquires from the makers of these lists the claims of each man that is put forward. He must obviously be dependent to a great extent on the information supplied to him, and it is too much to expect that he should be personally conversant with the services and position of every gentleman whose name is on the list. We put the question to each Prime Minister in turn, whether he had ever been cognizant of any bargain or promise to the effect that an honour would be contingent on a contribution to Party funds. We received the answer that we expected, that they had not. Answers to the same effect were given by the Patronage Secretaries and Party Managers.

20. The existence of Party funds is notorious and the necessity for such existence under modern conditions as to the conduct of elections is equally so. Indeed, two of the Party Managers with great frankness informed us, giving actual figures, as to the source of supply. They were at the same time emphatic that, so far as they were concerned, no bargain of the sort alluded to had ever taken place.

21. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there have been for some time, and recently in increasing numbers, persons who, for want of a better name, we may stigmatize as touts, who have been going about asserting that they were in a position to secure honours in return for specified payments.

22. It needs no imagination to see that the endeavour to secure an honour might be carried out without authorization of the person in charge of the list. Provided the person indicated had done Party service at all, it would be possible to interest some prominent member of the Party, who in ignorance of the preliminary negotiations, which are possibly so contrived as to result in pecuniary advantage to the tout himself, might be got to put forward the name, and exaggeration as to services rendered might do the rest. For after all, it must not be forgotten that the dividing line is a narrow one in statement, though in application there should be no difficulty to anyone acting in a straightforward manner. It is obviously no disqualification for one who has rendered Party service to have contributed to Party funds. As to service some are able to help in one way such as, for instance, in speaking; some in another, such as organization, and organization cannot well be conducted without funds. That is the one side; the other side is that it is repugnant to honest feeling that a person otherwise undeserving of an honour should get it simply because he promised to contribute so much to the Party funds.

23. It is here that we think something may be done to help the Prime Minister to avoid being in a position in which if he had the whole truth before him, he would refuse to put forward the name. In any case, he could, we think, be saved from finding out afterwards, when it is too late, that he had put forward the name of a man whose antecedents, if properly known, would have precluded the idea of his being singled out for promotion.

24. We think there should be a small committee appointed —we should advise not more than three members—chosen from the Privy Council, men of well-known character and position. They would have to be appointed by the Prime Minister for the period of his Government and their names would be published. They should have attached to them a secretary, and as it is inexpedient to create a new office for business which would only be intermittent, we think a suitable person should be found in the ranks of the Civil Service who should combine these intermittent duties with his ordinary functions.

25. We suggest that, when the Prime Minister has finally settled on the list of names he proposes to submit to the King, he should send the list to this committee. To each name should be appended a note of the services in respect of which the honour is proposed to be conferred, and a statement by the Patronage Secretary or Party Organizer that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party or political fund is directly or indirectly associated with the recommendation. We think it would be advantageous that there should also be appended the name and address of the person to whom was due the first suggestion of the name before it reached the Patronage Secretary or Chief of the Party Organization. This information would enable the committee to make such enquiries, through their secretary, as they thought desirable and they would then report if, so far as they knew, there was any good reason which made it inexpedient that the name in such or such an instance should be submitted. If in spite of an unfavourable intimation the Prime Minister still wished to submit the name to the King, then the King should be informed of the report of the committee.

26. Two things in this proposal we wish to make abundantly clear.

27. The first is that the committee is to have no duties either of initiation, that is of adding names to the list, or of selection, that is to say, if the list is to be reduced in number, they are not to say "We think that the claim of A is preferable to the claim of B." Their duty must be one of scrutiny, and scrutiny only—to report if the past history or general character of a person rendered him unsuitable to be recommended.

28. Next, we again emphasize that the existence of this committee must in no way be held to derogate from the Prime Minister’s responsibility to the King and through him to the public. It is not necessary to quote all that has been said on this subject by those representing the Government of the time in the successive debates which have taken place in both Houses of Parliament. It will be sufficient to quote the resolution which was accepted by the Government in the House of Lords on October 31st, 1917, and which was in the following terms:—

"That this House considers that His Majesty’s Government ought forthwith to give effect to the following provisions:—

"(1)That when any honour or dignity is conferred upon a British Subject, other than a Member of the Royal Family, or the members of the Naval, Military, or Permanent Civil Service under the Crown, a definite public statement of the reasons for which it has been recommended to the Crown shall accompany the notification of the grant.

"(2)That the Prime Minister, before recommending any person for any such honour or dignity, should satisfy himself that no payment or expectation of payment to any Party or Political Fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity."

29. This resolution was accepted by the Government in the House of Commons on 6th November following, and we are clearly of opinion that it should be adhered to.

30. The proposal we make is intended only to help the Prime Minister to satisfy himself and not to diminish his duty in so doing.

31. We have now dealt with the portion of the list as to which most apprehension is naturally felt, but we think there ought to be a further step, and that a short Act should be passed which should impose penalties on any person offering to become instrumental in the securing of an honour for another in respect of a money payment or valuable consideration. We do not anticipate that convictions will be numerous, but such an Act might serve as a deterrent to the class to whom we have given the name of touts in our preceding observations. The very existence of any such persons is a blot upon the honourable life of any community.

32. We think that the Act should also impose penalties on any person promising payment or consideration in order to receive an honour.

33. It was suggested to us that it would be well that a definite number limit should be put on the honours to be awarded in each year. We do not think that this is a practical proposal. There is the constitutional objection of limiting the King’s Prerogative and taking away the method which was constitutionally employed in the reign of Queen Anne, and was ready to be employed at the time of the Reform Bill, for dealing with a political crisis. In addition, there would obviously be considerable exceptions required to deal with cases of urgency, e.g., the appointment of a Commoner as Lord Chancellor where a Peerage is a practical, though not a technical necessity. We only mention this to show that it has not been overlooked. It is of course open to any Prime Minister to restrict severely the number of his recommendations and we think that this course has much to commend it on many grounds.

34. We summarize our recommendations as follows:—

(i) That a committee of the Privy Council, of not more than three members, be appointed of persons not being members of the Government to serve for the period of the duration of office of the Government; the committee to have a Secretary taken from the ranks of the Civil Service.

(ii) That before submission to His Majesty of the names of persons for appointment to any dignity or honour on account of political services, the names of such persons should be submitted to the committee with, appended to each name, the following particulars:—

(a) a statement of the service in respect of which, and the reasons for which, the recommendation is proposed to be made;

(b) a statement by the Patronage Secretary or Party Manager that no payment, or expectation of payment, to any Party or political fund is directly or indirectly associated with the recommendation;

(c) the name and address of the person who the Prime Minister considers was the original suggestor of the name of the proposed recipient.

(iii) That the committee, after such enquiry as they think fit, should report to the Prime Minister whether, so far as they believe, the person is, in the whole circumstances, a fit and proper person to be recommended.

(iv) That in the event of the committee reporting against any name and the Prime Minister determining still to recommend such name, the King should be informed of the report of the committee.

(v) That an Act be passed imposing a penalty on anyone promising to secure, or to endeavour to secure, an honour in respect of any pecuniary payment or other valuable consideration, and on any person promising such payment or consideration in order to receive an honour.

35. We desire to express our appreciation of the services rendered by our Secretary, Mr. James Rae, which have been of great assistance to us.

All of which we humbly submit for Your Majesty’s gracious consideration.

(Signed) Dunedin (Chairman).

Devonshire.

Denman.

Evelyn Cecil.

Samuel Hoare.

Geo. Croydon Marks.

James Rae,

Secretary.

22nd December, 1922.

NOTE OF DISSENT BY MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

Whilst I regret that I cannot subscribe my name to the Report presented by my colleagues on the Commission, I accept the descriptive statement as to how honours are conferred.

(1) Though the terms of reference were somewhat restricted, I am of opinion that the Commission might with advantage have made a much more searching enquiry than they have done. I regret that, though the Commission were in possession of the names of persons who are conveniently and appropriately described as "touts," none of them were invited to give evidence. Nor was any person who had been approached by "touts" called to give evidence before us, though the names of such persons were also before the Commission. The omission of evidence from those who are alleged to have asserted that they were in a position to secure honours in return for money payments, and from those who have been approached by such persons, has left unexplored one of the gravest abuses concerning the nominations for honours. Had the investigation been pursued more thoroughly, I have no doubt that the evidence forthcoming would have led the Commission to realize the inadequacy of their recommendations.

(2) The proposals contained in the Report of my colleagues would not, if put into operation, be sufficient, in my opinion, to prevent abuses or to allay the suspicion which undoubtedly exists in the public mind on the subject of honours. The suggested Committee of the Privy Council to be appointed for the duration of a Government would presumably be a Committee appointed by the Prime Minister of the day from amongst Privy Councillors belonging to his own side in politics. It would, therefore, be a Party Committee, and whilst its reports on nominees for honours might do something to minimize abuses in their worst form, I cannot conceive that considerations of Party funds and Party advantages would be entirely eradicated. I do not think, moreover, that such a Committee would afford any guarantee that, if the present interest in the subject which has been roused by flagrant mistakes in the compilation of honours lists were to die out, the evils which have aroused public feeling would not again recur.

(3) It cannot be doubted that honours have been conferred upon persons whose chief claim to recognition was Party service, and it appears to be implied in the evidence of certain witnesses before the Committee, though it was not so baldly stated, that the financial exigencies of political parties were in themselves almost a sufficient reason for the conferment of political honours. This system whereby financial assistance rendered to a Party is recognized by the conferment of an honour by the State is, in my judgment, deplorable, and discredits the honours system. It is a means of enabling the temporarily dominant political party to bestow special political power, through membership of the House of Lords, on individuals of their own selection, and it does not secure that the person honoured possesses any distinction except his title.

(4) In a democratic country it is a distinguishing mark of the good citizen that he interests himself according to his opportunity in the well-being of the community. It is indisputable that public service of great value has been rendered by men and women whose thoughts have never dwelt upon titled reward, and in view of the difficulty of keeping the honours list pure, I do not believe that the abolition of political honours would in any way diminish either the volume or quality of the services given to the community by its citizens. If it were desirable to give public recognition to individuals for services of outstanding merit, it could be given without recourse to titles and the inclusion of the names of honoured persons in a list of miscellaneous quality and distinction.

(5) And, so long as political honours continue to be conferred, I agree with my colleagues that a penalty should be imposed on anyone promising to secure, or to endeavour to secure, an honour in respect of any pecuniary payment or other valuable consideration, and on any person promising such payment or consideration in order to receive an honour.

(Signed) Arthur Henderson.

22nd December, 1922.

In view of Mr. Henderson’s note of dissent, we think it right to state that we did not invite those who had been approached by touts because we were already satisfied that such advances had been made, and the gentlemen approached could tell us no more; and we did not invite the attendance of those who had behaved as touts because that would not have helped us in any way to make suggestions for the future. We further think it necessary to remark that our reference was for the purpose of constructive suggestions, and that the only practical suggestion in the note of dissent is that honours for political services should be abolished, a suggestion which is not constructive but destructive and is, in our opinion, clearly outside the terms of reference.

(Signed) Dunedin (Chairman).

Devonshire.

Denman.

Evelyn Cecil.

Samuel Hoare.

Geo. Croydon Marks.

22nd December, 1922.

(b)

HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) ACT, 1925

15 & 16 Geo. V, Cap. 72.

An Act for the prevention of abuses in connection with the Grant of Honours.

1.—(1) If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money, or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

(2) If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

(3) Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty. . .

¹ V., e.g., Nos. 26 and 27, supra, and No. 84, infra.