ENGLISH POLITICAL HISTORY 493 



The second reading of the Bill was begun on May i5th, and on May 22d was carried 

 without a division after debates which had disclosed considerable differences of opinion 

 on the Unionist side. It was then quietly put on the shelf. The fact was that, as long 

 as the Government flatly declined to accept any reconstruction of the Upper House as a 

 substitute for the Parliament Bill, any such proposals were mere beating of the air. 

 The actual scheme excited no particular interest on the Unionist side, and was assailed 

 by Liberals on the ground that, according to their calculations, while pretending to be 

 representative, it would simply stereotype a Tory majority. It was a well-meant effort 

 on the part of the Unionist leaders to show that a basis existed for agreement between 

 the parties, so far as concerned the willingness of the House of Lords to accept reforms; 

 but a good many Unionists, and a good many peers, thought that it was a mistake in 

 tactics. On the day after it was read a second time, the second reading of the Parlia- 

 ment Bill was taken (May 23d), and the real issue had to be faced; but the approach of 

 the Coronation, and the prevalence of a feeling Lhat, in spite of bellicose utterances in the 

 Liberal Press as to the creation of 500 new peers for swamping opposition, the Govern- 

 ment might still be forced to a compromise and could not possibly pursue their demands 

 to the bitter end, made the debate still only a manoeuvre for position, and Lord Lans- 

 downe decided not to divide against the Bill but to propose amendments in Committee. 



The real fight only began when the Coronation was over. The Committee stage of 

 the Parliament Bill lasted from June 28th to July 6th, and, in spite of warnings from Lord 

 Morley that the Government would refuse, in the House of Commons, to accept them, 

 Lord Cromer's amendment (June 28th) substituting a Joint Committee for the Speaker 

 in deciding what a " Money Bill " was, and Lord Lansdowne's amendment (July sth), 

 providing for a Referendum in specific cases of measures attacking the existence of the 

 Crown, the Protestant succession, or the establishment of National Parliaments with 

 legislative powers in Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, were carried by large majori- 

 ties. On July 2oth the Bill, so amended, was read a third time without a division, Lord 

 Lansdowne declaring that the principal amendments were " so essential that we should 

 certainly not be prepared to recede from them so long as we remain free agents." 

 Lord Halsbury went still further: " but for the existence of the amendments, he would 

 have himself moved the rejection of the Bill on third reading, and unless those amend- 

 ments were accepted in substance, in meaning, and in operation, he would never consent 

 without a division to the passing of the Bill." 



The next day the Government exploded their bombshell. It had been a complete 

 mystery up to this moment whether Mr. Asquith had obtained from the King a definite 

 The use of assent to the use of the Royal Prerogative for creating peers in sufficient 

 the Royal numbers to give a Government majority in the House of Lords, and the 

 prerogative. q Ues ti O n whether such a course could possibly be resorted to had been free- 

 ly discussed from the time when the Parliament Bill was first proposed. All doubts were 

 now set at rest. On July 2ist, a letter from Mr. Asquith to Mr. Balfour in the following 

 terms, written the day before, was published: 



I think it courteous and right, before any public decisions are announced, to let you know- 

 how we regard the political situation. When the Parliament Bill, in the form which it has 

 now assumed, returns to the House of Commons, we shall be compelled to ask that House 

 to disagree with the Lords' amendments. In the circumstances, should the necessity arise, 

 the Government will advise the King to exercise his prerogative to secure the passing into 

 law of the Bill in substantially the same form in which it left the House of Commons, and 

 His Majesty has been pleased to signify that he will consider it his duty to accept and act 

 on that advice. 



In the subsequent debates in both Houses of Parliament (Aug. yth and Sth) on 

 votes of censure moved by the Unionist leaders, the course taken by the Government 

 was more fully explained, though with a decided economy of information, due to re- 

 luctance on both sides to bring the action of the Crown into political controversy. It 

 appeared that the Cabinet had presented a Memorandum to the King on November 

 15, 1910, before the general election, as follows: 



His Majesty's ministers cannot take the responsibility of advising a dissolution unless 



