he proposed to add other men who had achieved distinction
in a public career. He attached a high importance to the
existence of a second chamber. His motion was negatived
by 97 votes against 50. On the 26th of April Lord Dunraven withdrew
a bill for the reform of the House of Lords on the promise
of the government to deal with the matter, and on the iSth of
June Lord Salisbury fulfilled this pledge. He introduced a bill
on that day to provide for the creation of a limited number
of life peers and for the exclusion of unworthy members from the
house. Under this measure a maximnm of five life-peerages
in any one 3'ear m.ight be created, but the total number was
never to exceed fifty. In respect of three out of these five
life-peers the choice of the Crown was restricted to judges,
generals, admirals, ambassadors, privy councillors and ex governors
of colonies. The two additional fife-peers were to
be appointed in regard to some special qualification to be stated
in the message to the house announcing the intention of the
Crown to make the appointment. Power was also to be given
to the house to e.xpel members for the period of the current
parliament by an address to the Crown praying that their writs
of summons might be cancelled. The biU was read a second
time on the 10th of July, but it met with a cold reception and was
dropped. The only outcome of all that was written and said
in this year was that in 18S0, after the report of a select committee
set up in 18S8, the Lords made a few changes in their standing
orders, among which the order establishing a quorum of thirty
in divisions and those for the constitution of standing committees
were the most important.
The parliament which met at Westminster in August 1S92 was more democratic in its tendencies than any of its predecessors. At the beginning of the session of 1893, in the course of which the Home Rule BUI was passed by the House of Commons, government bills were introduced for quinquennial parliaments, for the amendment of registration, and for the Hmitation of each elector tc a single vote. The introduction of these bills served merely as a declaration of government policy, and they were not further pressed. On the 24th of March a resolution in favour of payment of members was carried by 276 votes against 229, and again in 1895 by 176 to 158. But the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords, with the apparent acquiescence of the country, combined with the retirement of Mr Gladstone to weaken the influence of this House of Commons, and small importance was attached to its abstract resolutions. In the ensuing session of 1894 an amendment to the Address condemning the hereditary principle was moved by Mr Labouchere, and carried by 147 to 145. The government, however, holding that this was not the way in which a great question should be raised, withdrew the Address, and carried another without the insertion. In his last public utterance Mr Gladstone directed the attention of his party to the reform of the House of Lords, and Lord Rosebery endeavoured to concentrate on such a policy the energies of his supporters at the general election. But the result of the dissolution of 1895, showing, as it did, that on the chief political issue of the day the electorate had agreed with the House of Lords and had disagreed with the House of Commons, greatly strengthened the upper house, and after that date the subject was but little discussed until the Liberal party again came into power ten years later. The House of Lords claimed the right to resist changes made by the House of Commons until the will of the people had been definitely declared, and its defenders contended that its ultimate dependence on the electorate, now generally acknowledged, rendered the freedom from ministerial control secured to it by its constitution a national safeguard.
In 1907, under the Radical government of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (?.».), the conflict between the Commons and the Lords again became more acute. And the prime minister in May obtained a large majority in the lower house for a resolution, on which a bill was to be founded, involving a complicated method of overriding the will of the Lords when the Commons had three times passed a bill. But no further immediate step was taken. In 1908 a strong committee of the House of Lords
with Lord Rosebery as chairman, which had been appointed in consequence of the introduction by Lord Newton of a bill for reforming the constitution of the upper house, presented an interesting report in favour of largely restricting the hereditary element and adopting a method of selection.
So the question stood when in 1909 matteis came to a head through the introduction of Mr Lloyd George's budget. It had always been accepted as the constitutional right of the House of Lords to reject a financial measure sent up by the Commons but not to amend it, but the rejection of the budget (which was, in point of form, referred to the judgment of the electorate) now precipitated a struggle with the Liberal party, who had persistently denied any right on the part of the upper house to force a dissolution. The Liberal leaders contended that, even if constitutional, the claim of the House of Lords to reject a budget was practically obsolete, and having been revived must now be formally abolished; and they went to the country for a mandate to carry their view into law. The elections of January 1910 gave an unsatisfactory answer, since the two principal parties, the Liberals and the Unionists, returned practically equal; but the Liberal government had also on their side the Irish Nationalist and the Labour parties, which gave them a majority in the House of Commons if they could concentrate the combined forces on the House of Lords question. This Mr Asquith contrived to do; and having introduced and carried through the House of Commons a series of resolutions defining his proposals, he had also tabled a bill which was to be sent up to the House of Lords, when the death of the king suddenly interrupted the course of the constitutional conflict, and gave a breathing-space for both sides to consider the possibility of coming to terms. In June Mr Asquith took the initiative in inviting the leaders of the Opposition to a conference with closed doors, and a series of meetings between four representatives of each side were begun. The government were represented by Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd George, Mr Birrell and Lord Crewe. The Unionists were represented by Mr Balfour, Lord Lansdowne, Mr Austin Chamberlain and Lord Cawdor.
The situation on the Radical side at this juncture may be best understood by setting out the resolutions passed in the House of Commons, and the text of the parliament bill of which Mr Asquith had given notice:-
The Resolutions. — " I. That it is expedient that the House of Lords be disabled by law from rejecting or amending a money bill, but that any such limitation by law shall not be taken to diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
" For the purpose of this resolution, a bill shall be considered a money bill if in the opinion of the Speaker it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects — namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by parliament; supply; the appropriation, control or regulation of public mone>'; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or matters incidental to those subjects or any of them.
" 2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House of Lords, as respects bills other than money bills, be restricted by law, so that any such bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, has been rejected by that house in each of those sessions, shall become law without the consent of the House of Lords, on the royal assent being declared: provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
" For the purpose of this resolution a bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed upon by both houses.
" 3. That it is expedient to limit the duration of parliament to five years."
The Parliament Bill, IQIO. — " Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament: And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation: And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new second-chamber, but it is expedient
