Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/1042

986

were. Under it, the reconstituted House would consist (ex- cept for royal princes) of " Lords of Parliament," summoned as such and not because of any hereditary title; 100 would be elected by the hereditary peers from such among their number as were qualified, under a schedule to the bill, by having held various public positions or ranks in the public services; 120 would be elected to represent different districts of the United Kingdom by colleges of electors consisting of the members of the House of Commons for the constituencies with- in those districts; too would be appointed by the Crown (i.e. the Ministry) so as to represent the proportional strength of parties in the House of Commons; seven would be "spiritual lords," i.e. the two archbishops and five bishops to be elected by the Anglican Episcopate; and 16 would be peers who had held high judicial office. Except for the law lords, who would sit for life, and the spiritual lords, who would sit while they occupied their sees, the lords of Parliament would sit for 1 2 years, subject to one-fourth in each class (selected by ballot) retiring every third year. Peers who were not " Lords of Parliament " would be eligible for the House of Commons, but the creation of new hereditary peerages for commoners other than past or present Cabinet ministers was to be limited to five a year. In Lord Lansdowne's view, such a reform of the constitution of the Upper House, which followed on the lines of suggestions already thrown out by Lord Curzon and Lord Selborne, would provide a representative Senate, of which the existing Unionist party preponderance would no longer be characteristic.

So long, however, 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 repre- sentative, it would simply stereotype a Tory majority. On the day after it was read a second time, the second reading of the Parliament bill was taken (May 23), and the real issue had to be faced; but the approach of the coronation, and the prev- alence of a feeling that, in spite of bellicose utterances in the Liberal press as to the creation of 500 new peers for swamping opposition, the Government might still be forced to a com- promise, made the debate still only a manoeuvre for position, and Lord Lansdowne 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 28 to July 6, 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 28), substituting a joint committee for the Speaker in deciding what a " Money bill " was, and Lord Lansdowne's amendment (July 5), pro- viding 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 majorities. On July 20 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 the third reading, and unless those amendments 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 mystery up to this moment whether Mr. Asquith The Vie of na< ^ btained f rom the King a definite assent to the Royal the use of the royal prerogative for creating peers, Pnroza- and the question whether such a course could possibly be resorted to had 'been freely discussed from the time when the Parliament bill was first proposed. All doubts were now set at rest. On July 21, 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 circum- stances, 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. 7 and 8) on votes of censure moved by the Unionist leaders, the course taken by the Government was more fully explained. It appeared that the Cabinet had presented a memorandum to the King on Nov. 15 1910, before the general election, as follows:

His Majesty's ministers cannot take the responsibility of advising a dissolution unless they may understand that in the event of the policy of the Government being approved by an adequate majority in the new House of Commons, His Majesty will be ready to exercise his constitutional powers, which may involve the prerogative of creating peers, if needed, to secure that effect shall be given to the decision of the country. His Majesty's ministers are fully alive to the importance of keeping the name of the King out of the sphere of party and electional controversy. They take upon themselves, as is their duty, the entire and exclusive responsibility for the policy which they will place before the electorate. His Majesty will doubt- less agree that it would be inadvisable in the interests of the State that any communication of the intentions of the Crown should be made public unless and until the actual occasion should arise.

The King had felt that he had no alternative except to assent, though he did so, as Lord Crewe now stated, " with natural and legitimate reluctance." The Government had hoped that, as the result of the general election, the Parliament bill would be allowed to pass without amendments which would be fatal to its purpose, and therefore without a disclosure of the con- fidential understanding which all the time existed as to the use of the prerogative, but this was no longer possible; the only question now was whether the threat was to be sufficient.

It was clear that, in the House of Commons, the Lords' amendments would be summarily rejected by the Government majority. The further developments of the political The Die- crisis depended, therefore, on what would happen hard in the House of Lords when the bill was sent back * to it. A hurried meeting of Unionist peers was held (July 21) at Lansdowne House, at which Lord Lansdowne informed them that the Government had told the Opposition leaders that their intention was not to send the bill up from the House of Commons unless an assurance was given that it would be passed, the assumption being that, in the absence of this assurance, peers would at once be created in sufficient num- bers for the purpose; and it was freely stated in the Liberal press that the Government Whips had a list ready of persons who were prepared to accept peerages on condition that they voted for the Liberal programme. A state of extreme exas- peration prevailed, but a considerable majority of Unionist peers agreed with Lord Lansdowne's view that, if this crea- tion of peers were proceeded with, not only would the Par- liament bill be passed, but even such opportunities as it left open for subsequent resistance to Home Rule and similar meas- ures would be nullified; the only prudent course, in the interest either of the Unionist party or of the peerage, was to sink further opposition, now that they were no longer " free agents." On the other hand a minority, whose view was strongly expressed by Lord Halsbury, bitterly opposed such a surrender; in their view they did not cease to be " free agents " until they were actually out-voted. It was in this sense that they had under- stood Lord Lansdowne's use of the phrase on the third reading and it was only on that condition that they had not rejected the bill then. They still regarded the Government threat as a piece of bluff. It was asked whether it could be regarded as certain that, when the 500 eligible magnates who were willing to take Liberal peerages had voted for the. Parliament bill, they would not take a more independent view of their position