Harold Wilson's resignation honours list of 1976 was almost universally condemned by politicians, civil servants, and the press because it contained a number of high honours to individuals who were seen as scandalously lacking in merit. Unknown officials leaked details to the press and used multiple internal mechanisms, including the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, to try to block the list, but Wilson pushed it through. This article examines the controversy around the list in terms of how the various parties involved used ideas about scandal, honour, and merit to discredit Wilson, his secretary Marcia Falkender and the honours nominees. It shows that the scandal was shaped by three double standards: one of the main grounds for the disqualification of certain appointees was that they had not donated to Labour; in spite of their traditional prioritization of secrecy around honours, the civil service failed to uphold this tradition when it suited them not to; and critics of the list attacked Falkender's influence over the list even as they defended their own traditional place in determining who was selected for honours. The scandal also shows how the British establishment and British society was struggling to deal with broader questions about the value of exactly the kinds of service that Wilson honoured in the list, namely, capitalist entrepreneurship, popular culture, and contributions from traditional outsiders. While the list was universally condemned in 1976, these forms of service were to become more valued in honours lists from the 1990s.

中文翻译：

---

哈罗德威尔逊的“薰衣草名单”丑闻和荣誉道德经济的转变

哈罗德·威尔逊 1976 年的辞职荣誉名单几乎遭到政治家、公务员和新闻界的普遍谴责，因为它包含了许多对被视为无能可耻的个人的崇高荣誉。身份不明的官员向新闻界泄露了细节，并使用了包括政治荣誉审查委员会在内的多种内部机制来试图阻止该名单，但威尔逊推动了它。本文从有关各方如何利用丑闻、荣誉和功绩来诋毁威尔逊、他的秘书玛西娅·法尔肯德 (Marcia Falkender) 和荣誉提名人的角度来审视围绕这份名单的争议。这表明这起丑闻是由三个双重标准造成的：取消某些被任命者资格的主要理由之一是他们没有向工党捐款；尽管他们传统上优先考虑为荣誉保密，但公务员制度在适合他们的情况下未能坚持这一传统；名单的批评者攻击福尔肯德对名单的影响，即使他们捍卫自己在决定谁被授予荣誉方面的传统地位。这起丑闻还表明，英国建制派和英国社会如何努力应对更广泛的问题，这些问题涉及威尔逊在名单中所表彰的服务种类的价值，即资本主义企业家精神、流行文化和传统局外人的贡献。虽然这份名单在 1976 年受到普遍谴责，但这些服务形式在 1990 年代的荣誉名单中变得更加重要。公务员在适合他们的情况下未能坚持这一传统；名单的批评者攻击福尔肯德对名单的影响，即使他们捍卫自己在决定谁被授予荣誉方面的传统地位。这起丑闻还表明，英国建制派和英国社会如何努力应对更广泛的问题，这些问题涉及威尔逊在名单中所表彰的服务种类的价值，即资本主义企业家精神、流行文化和传统局外人的贡献。虽然这份名单在 1976 年受到普遍谴责，但这些服务形式在 1990 年代的荣誉名单中变得更加重要。公务员在适合他们的情况下未能坚持这一传统；名单的批评者攻击福尔肯德对名单的影响，即使他们捍卫自己在决定谁被授予荣誉方面的传统地位。这起丑闻还表明，英国建制派和英国社会如何努力应对更广泛的问题，这些问题涉及威尔逊在名单中所表彰的服务种类的价值，即资本主义企业家精神、流行文化和传统局外人的贡献。虽然这份名单在 1976 年受到普遍谴责，但这些服务形式在 1990 年代的荣誉名单中变得更加重要。这起丑闻还表明，英国建制派和英国社会如何努力应对更广泛的问题，这些问题涉及威尔逊在名单中所表彰的服务种类的价值，即资本主义企业家精神、流行文化和传统局外人的贡献。虽然这份名单在 1976 年受到普遍谴责，但这些服务形式在 1990 年代的荣誉名单中变得更加重要。这起丑闻还表明，英国建制派和英国社会如何努力应对更广泛的问题，这些问题涉及威尔逊在名单中所表彰的服务种类的价值，即资本主义企业家精神、流行文化和传统局外人的贡献。虽然这份名单在 1976 年受到普遍谴责，但这些服务形式在 1990 年代的荣誉名单中变得更加重要。