the House of Commons adopted, by a vote of 349 to 134, a memorable resolution to the effect that "the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the provision made by the House of Commons for the finances of the year is a breach of the constitution, and a usurpation of the privileges of the House of Commons"; and, on the other, the Asquith ministry came instantly to the decision that the situation demanded an appeal to the country. In January, 1910, a general election took place, with the result that the Government was continued in power, though with a reduced majority; and at the convening of the new parliament, in February, the Speech from the Throne promised that proposals should speedily be submitted "to define the relations between the houses of Parliament, so as to secure the undivided authority of the House of Commons over finance, and its predominance in legislation." The Finance Bill of the year was reintroduced and this time successfully carried through; but in advance of its reappearance the premier laid before the House of Commons a series of resolutions to the following effect:[155] (1) that the House of Lords should be disabled by law from rejecting or amending a money bill; (2) that the power of the chamber to veto other bills should be restricted by law; and (3) that the duration of a parliament should be limited to a maximum period of five years. During the course of the debate upon these resolutions it was made clear that the Government did not desire the abolition of the Lords, but wished merely to have the legislative competence of the house confined to consultation, revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, delay. April 14, 1910, the resolutions were adopted in the Commons by substantial majorities,[156] and with them as a basis the Government proceeded with the framing of its bill upon the subject.
Meanwhile, March 14, there had been introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Rosebery an independent series of resolutions, as follows: (1) that a strong and efficient second chamber is not merely a part of the British constitution but is necessary to the well-being of the state and the balance of Parliament; (2) that such a chamber may best be obtained by the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords; and (3) that a necessary preliminary to such a reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle that the possession of a peerage should no longer of itself involve the right to sit and vote in the House. The first two of these resolutions were agreed to without division; the third, although vigorously opposed, was carried eventually by a vote of 175 to 17.
113. The Unionists and the Referendum.—The death of the king, May 6, halted consideration of the subject, and through the succeeding summer hope was centered in a "constitutional conference" participated in by eight representatives of the two houses and of the two principal parties. A total of twenty-one meetings were held, but all effort to reach an agreement proved futile and at the reassembling of Parliament, November 15, the problem was thrown back for solution upon the houses and the country. November 17 there was carried in the Lords, without division, a new resolution introduced by Lord Rosebery to the effect that in future the House of Lords should consist of Lords of Parliament in part chosen by the whole body of hereditary peers from among themselves and by nomination of the crown, in part sitting by virtue of offices held and qualifications possessed, and in part designated from outside the ranks of the peerage. A few days subsequently, the Government's Parliament Bill having been presented in the second chamber (November 21), Lord Lansdowne, leader of the Opposition in that chamber, came forward with a fresh series of resolutions designed to clarify the Unionist position in anticipation of the elections which were announced for the ensuing month. With respect to money bills it was declared that the Lords were "prepared to forego their constitutional right to reject or amend money bills which are purely financial in character," provided that adequate provision should be made against tacking, that questions as to whether a bill or any provision thereof were purely financial should be referred to a joint committee of the two houses (the Speaker of the Commons presiding and possessing a casting vote), and that a bill decided by such a committee to be not purely financial should be dealt with in a joint sitting of the two houses. With respect to all measures other than those thus provided for the resolutions declared that "if a difference arises between the two houses with regard to any bill other than a money bill in two successive sessions, and with an interval of not less than one year, and such difference cannot be adjusted by any other means, it shall be settled in a joint sitting composed of members of the two houses; provided that if the difference relates to a matter which is of great gravity, and has not been adequately submitted for the judgment of the people, it shall not be referred to the joint sitting, but shall be submitted for decision to the electors by referendum." It will be observed that these resolutions were hardly less drastic than were those carried through the Commons by the ministry. Their adoption involved the abolition of the absolute veto of the second chamber and might well involve the intrusting of interests which the peers held dear to the hazards of a nation-wide referendum.[157] None the less, the resolutions were agreed to without division, and, both parties having in effect pronounced the existing legislative system unsatisfactory, the electorate was asked to choose between the two elaborate substitutes thus proposed.
114. The Enactment of the Parliament Bill, 1911.—The appeal to the country, in December, yielded results all but exactly identical with those of the elections of the previous January. The Government secured a majority of 127, and in the new parliament, which met February 6, the Parliament Bill was reintroduced without alteration. On the ground that the measure had been submitted specifically to the people and had been approved by them, the ministry demanded its early enactment by the two houses. May 15 the bill passed its third reading in the Commons by a vote of 362 to 241. During the committee stage upwards of one thousand amendments were suggested. But the Government stood firm for the instrument as originally drawn and, while it accepted a few incidental changes, in the end it got essentially its own way.
Meanwhile, early in May, Lord Lansdowne introduced in the upper chamber a comprehensive bill which put in form for legislation the programme of reconstruction to which the more moderate elements in that chamber were ready, under the circumstances, to subscribe. The Lansdowne Reconstruction Bill proposed, at the outset, a reduction of the membership of the chamber to 350. Princes of the blood and the two archbishops should retain membership, but the number of bishops entitled to sit should be reduced to five, these to be chosen triennially by the whole body of higher prelates upon the principle of proportional representation. The remainder of the membership should comprise lords of parliament, as follows: (1) 100 elected from the peers possessing carefully stipulated qualifications, for a term of twelve years, on the principle of proportional representation, by the whole body of hereditary peers (including the Scotch and Irish), one-fourth of the number retiring triennially; (2) 120 members chosen by electoral colleges composed of members of the House of Commons divided for the purpose into local groups, each returning from three to twelve, under conditions of tenure similar to those prevailing in the first class; and (3) 100 appointed, from the peerage or outside, by the crown on nomination by the premier, with regard to the strength of parties in the House of Commons, and under the before-mentioned conditions of tenure. It was stipulated, further, that peers not sitting in the House of Lords should be eligible for election to the House of Commons, and that, except in event of the "indispensable" elevation of a cabinet minister or ex-minister to the peerage, it should be unlawful for the crown to confer the dignity of an hereditary peerage upon more than five persons during the course of any single year.
This body of proposals, it will be observed, related exclusively to the composition of the upper chamber. The Liberal leaders preferred to approach the problem from the other side and to assure the preponderance of the Commons by the imposition of positive restrictions upon the powers which the Lords, under given conditions, might exercise. Lord Lansdowne's bill—sadly characterized by its author as the "deathblow to the House of Lords, as many of us have known it for so long"—came too late, and the chamber, after allowing it to be read a second time without division, was constrained to drop it for the Government's measure. July 20 the Parliament Bill, amended in such a manner as to exclude from its operation legislation affecting the constitution and other matters of "great gravity," was adopted without division. The proposed amendments were highly objectionable to the Liberals and, relying upon an understanding entered into with the king during the previous November relative to the creation of peers favorable to the Government's programme, the ministry let it be understood that no compromise upon essentials could be considered.[158]
