: iLIS:M 
 HE 
 
 .ORDS 
 
 NES 
 

 
 
LIBERALISM AND THE 
 HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
LIBERALISM 
 
 AND 
 
 THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 THE STORY OF THE VETO BATTLE 
 1832-1911 
 
 BY 
 
 HARRY JONES 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW 
 AND FELLOW OF THE INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISTS . 
 
 METHUEN & GO. LTD. 
 
 36 ESSEX STREET W.G. 
 
 LONDON 
 
JVC 1 2. I 
 
 .-31 
 
 First Published in 1912 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PACK 
 
 I. INTRODUCTORY . . i 
 
 II. THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 . . .6 
 
 III. SUBORDINATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS . . 19 
 
 IV. THE LORDS AND FINANCE . . . . 30 
 V. THE POWER OF THE PURSE . . . 41 
 
 VI. GLADSTONE AND THE LORDS . 53 
 
 VII. THE REFORM BILL, 1884 . . 61 
 
 VIII. BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND THE LORDS . . 66 
 
 IX. THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER . . 76 
 
 X. THE ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT . . 87 
 
 XI. THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM . . . 97 
 
 XII. THE LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL . . 106 
 
 XIII. ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE . . 123 
 
 XIV. BATTLE OF THE BUDGET . . . 133 
 XV. THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET . . 148 
 
 XVI. THE LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS . . 161 
 
 XVII. PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA. . . . 172 
 
 XVIII. THE SHORT PARLIAMENT . . . . 191 
 
 XIX. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE . . . 204^ 
 
 XX. THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN . . .217 
 
 XXI. THE APPEAL TO CESAR . . . 232 
 
 XXII. PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS . . 242 * 
 
 459775 
 
LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 XXIII. THE LORDS' DILEMMA . ... 260 
 
 XXIV. PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS . . . 273 
 XXV. THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS . . 283 
 
 XXVI. REVOLT OF THE DIE-HARDS . . . 296 
 
 XXVII. MR. ASQUITH AND THE KlNG . . . 306 
 
 XXVIII. THE CLOSING SCENES . . . 318 
 
 INDEX . . . . ... 341 
 
LIBERALISM AND THE 
 HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
LIBERALISM AND THE 
 HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 THE Session of 1911 will always be memorable in 
 our parliamentary annals. It saw the close of a 
 struggle between the House of Lords and the 
 House of Commons which had been waged intermittently 
 since 1832. From that struggle the House of Commons has 
 emerged victorious, and with the signs of renewed strength 
 upon its form. The Parliament Act, in which the fruits 
 of the popular victory are enshrined, will stand out boldly 
 as a great constitutional landmark in the political history 
 of this country. By that measure the House of Lords 
 has been relegated to a role of definite subordination, 
 and the supremacy of the House of Commons, in legisla- 
 tion no less than in finance, has been securely established. 
 The Parliament Act does little more than give statutory 
 form to constitutional understandings and conventions 
 which had long regulated the practice of Parliament. 
 For two centuries the House of Lords had ceased 
 to exercise co-ordinate authority with the House of 
 Commons. But though as a legislative assembly the 
 House of Lords played a subordinate part, yet the 
 aristocracy, through its control over the unreformed 
 House of Commons, exercised, until 1832, a potent 
 
2 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 influence over legislation. Aristocratic predominance 
 had been a marked feature of the British parliamentary 
 system since the Revolution of 1688. It was not a harsh 
 predominance. The great nobles who took the lead in 
 the overthrow of the Stuart despotism had a genuine 
 feeling for liberty. A Whig oligarchy ruled England for 
 many generations, but it wore the emblems and used the 
 language of freedom. Thus, to vary a phrase of Burke, 
 oligarchical rule lost half its evil by losing all its grossness. 
 Decay of the representative system prolonged the 
 aristocratic regime. The Whigs gloried in the House of 
 Commons, but in the eighteenth century the House of 
 Commons had ceased to be a true reflection of the British 
 people. As a representative assembly it had become a 
 simulacrum and a sham. It represented not the people, 
 but the Court and the aristocracy. Between the two 
 Houses of Parliament there was thus a substantial identity 
 of interest. The industrial revolution undermined this 
 imposing fabric of a not ungraceful feudalism. From 
 the countryside the centre of gravity was shifting to the 
 towns. Merchants and manufacturers were acquiring 
 a new importance. Conscious of their strength, the 
 commercial classes demanded a voice in the management 
 of the nation's affairs, through a reform in the repre- 
 sentative system. The outbreak of the French Revolution 
 and the repressive era that followed in this country 
 checked the advance of liberal ideas, and a reform which 
 had been contemplated by Pitt in 1785 was delayed for 
 nearly half a century. The Reform Act of 1832 was the 
 first legislative sign of the change that was transforming 
 England and Wales from a society predominantly rural 
 to a society predominantly industrial. It was also the 
 first decisive step in modern times in a democratic 
 direction. Mr. Disraeli's " leap in the dark " in 1867, 
 enfranchising the urban artisans as the Act of 1832 had 
 enfranchised the middle classes, marked the next stage 
 
INTRODUCTORY 3 
 
 in the process ; and the gift of the vote to the agricultural 
 labourers by Mr. Gladstone in 1884 completed the 
 enfranchisement of male householders in town and 
 country. 
 
 Inevitably the gradual transference of power from a 
 privileged caste to the masses of the people involved 
 conflict between the aristocracy entrenched in its feudal 
 stronghold, the House of Lords, and a House of Commons, 
 no longer dominated by the Court or the nobles, but 
 become the organ of a free people. With occasional 
 interludes the struggle had gone on since 1832, and the 
 final campaign was waged without intermission from 
 1906 to 1911, culminating last August in a victory for 
 the Democracy. 
 
 In this closing campaign one man, the present Prime 
 Minister, stood out pre-eminent in distinction. Mr. 
 Asquith was the life and soul of the democratic party 
 in its last fight with the House of Lords. He it was who 
 inspired and led the conquering force. He displayed 
 consummate gifts of generalship in the battlefield, high 
 qualities of statesmanship in council, power and eloquence 
 in the House of Commons. His conduct of the two 
 General Elections of January, 1910, and December, 1910, 
 his concentration on one dominant purpose to the 
 exclusion of all minor objects, his insight into the realities 
 of a political situation often undergoing superficial 
 change, and sometimes confused and bewildering, his 
 unflagging energy and inspiring oratory, and finally his 
 superb management of the Parliament Bill in the House 
 of Commons all these things make up an achievement 
 seldom equalled in the history of political campaigning. 
 From the moment when Mr. Lloyd George's Budget of 
 1909 was rejected by the House of Lords, Mr. Asquith, 
 as Leader of the Liberal Party, applied himself with 
 unwavering resolution to the task of beating back the 
 encroachment of an hereditary assembly on the domain 
 
4 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 of free government. He brought to bear on that task 
 all the gifts of a strong character, all the zeal of a con- 
 stitutional statesman passionately devoted to the repre- 
 sentative principle, and inspired by loyalty to the noblest 
 traditions of the House of Commons. When Mr. Austen 
 Chamberlain on one occasion made a contemptuous 
 allusion to the pedantry of the constitutional arguments 
 employed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith replied, 
 " It was pedants like Pym who made and saved the 
 liberties of England." The conviction that he, in turn, 
 was defending English liberties, the belief that he was 
 championing the rights of a free people, sustained Mr. 
 Asquith throughout the long and hard campaign. Fidelity 
 to the people and loyalty to the Crown these were the 
 high motives that animated him. They found eloquent 
 expression in the speech delivered by the Prime Minister 
 in the House of Commons on 7 August, 1911, on the very 
 eve of the popular victory, at a time when he was being 
 vilified as a " traitor " by Conservative speakers and 
 writers. 
 
 " I am accustomed, as Lord Grey in his day was 
 accustomed, to be accused of breach of the Constitution, 
 and even of treachery to the Crown. I confess that I 
 am not in the least sensitive to this cheap and ill-informed 
 form of vituperation. It has been my privilege, almost 
 now I think unique, to serve in close and confidential 
 relations three successive British Sovereigns. My con- 
 science tells me that in that capacity, many and great 
 as have been my failures and shortcomings, I have con- 
 sistently striven to uphold the dignity and just privileges 
 of the Crown. But I hold my office not only by favour 
 of the Crown, but by the confidence of the people, and I 
 should be guilty indeed of treason if in this supreme 
 moment of a great struggle I were to betray their trust." 
 
 These words evoked a great demonstration of enthusi- 
 asm. They breathe the authentic spirit of the House of 
 
INTRODUCTORY 5 
 
 Commons. Pym or Pitt or Fox or Gladstone might have 
 uttered them. As an individual achievement there are 
 few greater things in our parliamentary history than 
 Mr. Asquith's superb leadership of the popular side in 
 the last battle between Lords and Commons. His name 
 is sure of a place among that rare and choice company 
 of great Commoners who have enlarged the domain of 
 British liberty and made " the bounds of freedom wider 
 yet." 
 
CHAPTER II 
 THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 
 
 THE Parliament Act completes the era of constitu- 
 tional change begun by the Reform Act of 1832. 
 Just as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settle- 
 ment set limits to the power of an hereditary monarchy, 
 so the Parliament Act sets a limit to the power of an 
 hereditary aristocracy. The veto of the Crown on legis- 
 lation lapsed by desuetude as a natural consequence of 
 the Revolution of 1688, the gradual evolution of the 
 Cabinet system and the development of the principle 
 of ministerial responsibility. The British people have 
 long since abjured the theory of the Divine right of 
 kings, though by a curious transformation the old 
 fiction of ancient despotism that " the king can do no 
 wrong " has become the new truth of modern constitu- 
 tionalism. At one time it appeared that the veto of the 
 House of Lords on legislation would, like the veto of the 
 Commons, lapse by disuse. But since the rejection of 
 the Home Rule Bill in 1893, an altered spirit had actuated 
 the Peers ; and the efforts of the House of Lords to 
 frustrate the objects and break down the power of the 
 immense Liberal majority of 1906 created a new situa- 
 tion. The events of 1906-9 proved conclusively that 
 unless Liberalism was to perish as an organized political 
 force, the new pretensions of the House of Lords must be 
 resisted, and its powers be defined and circumscribed 
 by law. 
 
 It is the fashion to describe the Parliament Act as a 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 7 
 
 revolution. The phrase is neither happy nor exact. 
 In reality the Parliament Act is little more than the 
 complement of the Reform Act of 1832. In a sense, its 
 provisions were implicit in that earlier measure. The 
 Parliament Act makes the veto of the Lords on legislation 
 suspensory instead of absolute, but the Lords them- 
 selves, though claiming an absolute veto, had, in fact, 
 only exercised a suspensory one since 1832. What the 
 Parliament Act does is to make the letter of the con- 
 stitution in this respect conform to its spirit. It crystal- 
 lizes in a statute a convention of the Constitution that 
 has been recognized by every constitutional writer of 
 authority. The Parliament Act is not revolutionary : 
 it is evolutionary. It represents no rupture with the 
 past. With us " freedom slowly broadens down from 
 precedent to precedent." The Parliament Act follows 
 precedent. It is absolutely in line with the free and 
 ordered development of our constitutional liberties. 
 
 The supremacy of the House of Commons has for 
 centuries been the distinguishing feature of the British 
 Constitution. Beginning with control over finance 
 the representative House had gradually drawn unto 
 itself by an irresistible attraction all the effective govern- 
 ing power. Although the Revolution of 1688 restored 
 the waning prestige of the aristocracy after the 
 shattering effect of the Long Parliament, the House of 
 Commons grew steadily in authority throughout the 
 eighteenth century. " My Lord Bath," said Sir Robert 
 Walpole, after he became a peer, to a man who had been 
 an active opponent of his policy when they both sat in 
 the House of Commons, " you and I have now become 
 two of the most insignificant fellows in England." " A 
 hospital for invalids," was Pulteney's contemptuous 
 description of the House of Lords. The acquiescence 
 of the peers in the predominance of the House of Commons 
 is largely explained by the power they possessed over it. 
 
8 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Every great nobleman had half a dozen rotten boroughs 
 among his possessions. In the last half of the eighteenth 
 century Lord Hardwicke had four of his sons sitting at 
 the same time in the House of Commons ; and Lord 
 Hertford, as Sir George Trevelyan tells us in his Early 
 History of Charles James Fox, was a disappointed man 
 because he could only find seats in the House for five of 
 his sons. That sagacious student of the British Con- 
 stitution, Walter Bagehot, has described the relations 
 of the two Houses of Parliament in those days with his 
 usual felicity : 
 
 " The House of Lords was a second-rate force even 
 when the peers were a first-rate force, because the greatest 
 peers, those who had the greatest social importance, 
 did not care for their own House, or like it, but gained 
 great part of their political power by a hidden, but potent, 
 influence in the competing House. A rural potentate, 
 who half returned two county members and wholly 
 returned two borough members who perhaps gave 
 seats to members of the Government, who possibly 
 seated the Leader of the Opposition became a much 
 greater man than by sitting on his own bench in his 
 own House hearing a Chancellor talk." 
 
 With the influence of the territorial aristocracy so 
 powerful in the House of Commons, there was no reason 
 why the House of Lords should view with jealous eyes 
 the concentration of the whole governing power in the 
 hands of the representative assembly. The occasions 
 when the two Houses came into conflict were few and 
 far between. " Danger of discordance was obviated by 
 a latent unity." That unity was impaired by the Reform 
 Bill of 1832, which gave representation to commercial 
 and industrial centres like Manchester, Birmingham, 
 Leeds, and Sheffield, and took away from derelict villages 
 and obscure hamlets the right to return members to 
 Parliament. 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 9 
 
 The evils of a representative system which had ceased 
 to be representative had long cried out for redress. Most 
 of the English boroughs might be roughly divided into 
 those which were sold by their patrons, the great territorial 
 magnates, and those which sold themselves to the highest 
 bidder ! " The county constituencies of forty-shilling 
 freeholders, although limited and unequal, were less cor- 
 rupt and more independent than the voters in boroughs, 
 but they were practically at the disposal of the great 
 nobles and local landowners." In 1793, when the 
 members of the House of Commons numbered 558, no 
 fewer than 354 were nominally returned by less than 
 15,000 electors, but, in reality, on the nomination of the 
 Government and 197 private patrons. The Union with 
 Ireland in 1801 added 100 members to the House, 
 of whom 71 were nominated by 56 individuals. In 
 1816, of 658 members of the House, 487 were returned 
 by the nomination of the Government and 267 private 
 patrons. Of these patrons, 144 were peers. " The glar- 
 ing defects of the representative system the decayed 
 and rotten boroughs the private property of noblemen, 
 the close corporations openly selling the seats at their 
 disposal to members who, in turn, sold their own parlia- 
 mentary votes, and the existence of great manufacturing 
 cities distinguished by their wealth, industry, and 
 intelligence, and yet possessing no right of sending 
 representatives to Parliament led Lord Chatham, then 
 Mr. Pitt, as early as 1766, to advocate Parliamentary 
 Reform " (Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History). 
 In the House of Commons, Pitt denounced the borough 
 representation as " the rotten part of our constitution. 
 It cannot continue the century ; if it does not drop, it 
 must be amputated." Twenty years later, the younger 
 Pitt made unsuccessful efforts to deal with the evil, but 
 the outbreak of the French Revolution, with its sequel, 
 the Napoleonic Wars, threw back the cause of Reform 
 
10 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 for half a century. At last the question was taken up in 
 earnest by the Whig Ministry of Earl Grey, formed in 
 November, 1830. 
 
 Lord John Russell's Bill for the Reform of Parliament 
 was introduced in March, 1831, and, after many vicissi- 
 tudes, was finally passed into law on 7 June, 1832, the 
 resistance of the House of Lords to the measure only 
 being abandoned on a threat to create peers by King 
 William IV. By the Act of 1832, 56 rotten boroughs 
 with less than 2000 inhabitants and returning in mem- 
 bers were swept away. Other boroughs returning two 
 members were deprived of one of their representatives. 
 By these means 143 seats were obtained for distribution 
 among unrepresented towns and among counties that 
 deserved additional representation. In the boroughs 
 the vote was given to the 10 householder, and in the 
 counties the franchise was enlarged by the addition to 
 the old forty-shilling freeholders of copyholders and 
 leaseholders for terms of years, and tenants at will 
 paying a rent of 50 per annum. 
 
 The Act of 1832 conferred the right of citizenship on 
 500,000 persons ; these new voters belonged for the 
 most part to the middle classes. ( It was not the number 
 of citizens that it enfranchised, but its ancillary conse- 
 quences that made the Act of 1832 so momentous. 
 With the disappearance of the rotten boroughs, the old 
 power of the aristocracy over the House of Commons 
 was destroyed. From this time began those divergencies 
 between the two Houses of Parliament, which culminated 
 in the great struggle of 1906-11. 
 
 The battle between Lords and Commons in 1832 was 
 memorable because it drew into operation the reserve 
 power of the Constitution. It was only the threat that 
 the Crown would overbear their resistance by the creation 
 of new peers that induced the Lords to abandon their 
 opposition to the Reform Bill. This peer-making 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 11 
 
 prerogative has been aptly compared to a safety valve. 
 It is the sole means known to the British Constitution 
 of resolving a deadlock between the two Houses of 
 Parliament when neither will give way. The threatened 
 creation of peers in 1832 was denounced by the Tories 
 as an unconstitutional exercise of the prerogative. To 
 this argument a powerful reply was made in the House 
 of Lords by Earl Grey : 
 
 " I ask what would be the consequences if we were to 
 suppose that such a prerogative did not exist, or could 
 not be constitutionally exercised ? The Commons have 
 a control over the power of the Crown, by the privilege, 
 in extreme cases, of refusing the supplies ; and the Crown 
 has, by means of its power to dissolve the House of 
 Commons, a control upon any violent and rash pro- 
 ceeding on the part of the Commons ; but, if a majority 
 in this House is to have the power, whenever they please, 
 of opposing the declared and decided wishes both of the 
 Crown and the people, without any means of modifying 
 that power then this country is placed entirely under 
 the influence of an uncontrollable oligarchy. I say that, 
 if a majority in this House should have the power of 
 acting adversely to the Crown and the Commons, and 
 was determined to exercise that power, without being 
 liable to check or control, the Constitution is completely 
 altered, and the government of this country is not a 
 limited monarchy : it is no longer, my lords, the Crown, 
 the Lords, and the Commons, but a House of Lords 
 a separate oligarchy governing absolutely the others." 
 
 Nothing could demonstrate more clearly than these 
 words of Lord Grey, the important part played in the 
 working of the Constitution by the prerogative of creat- 
 ing peers. Once only has this emergency power of the 
 Constitution been actually exercised. That was in 1712, 
 when Queen Anne, at the instigation of Harley, a Tory 
 Minister, created twelve peers in order to overcome the 
 
12 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Whig majority in the House of Lords and to smooth the 
 way for the passage of the Treaty of Utrecht. Defending 
 his action against criticism from his assailants, Harley 
 claimed that the creation of peers " flowed entirely from 
 the beneficial and gracious influence of the Crown." 
 Such a plea was of doubtful value even at that time. 
 But there was no means of bringing home to a Minister 
 his responsibility for the acts of the executive until his 
 continuance in office came to depend on the support of a 
 majority in the House of Commons. Already the Con- 
 stitution was developing in that direction, and the growth 
 of the Cabinet system in the next half-century established 
 on firm foundations the doctrine of ministerial responsi- 
 bility. Men are sometimes unable to see the significance 
 of changes taking place under their very eyes, and in 
 1741 we find the House of Lords making it a cause of 
 complaint against Sir Robert Walpole that he had 
 acquired the exclusive confidence of the King and had 
 arrogated to himself the right to act as " a Prime Minister." 
 Having individually a constitutional right of access to 
 the Sovereign a right which they still retain the 
 peers regarded the Privy Council, of which they were 
 members de jure, as a permanent Council of the King's 
 advisers. They did not comprehend that all real power 
 had imperceptibly passed from the Privy Council to a 
 committee of it called the Cabinet Council, with a Minister 
 at its head responsible to the King and dependent for 
 his continuance in office on the support of a majority 
 in the House of Commons. For the peer-making preroga- 
 tive, as for other acts of the Sovereign, it was the Prime 
 Minister who was now actually as well as nominally 
 responsible. " Prerogative," said the younger Pitt, 
 " has justly been called a part of the rights of the people." 
 While Harley, in 1712, argued that the peer-making 
 prerogative was a personal privilege of the Sovereign, 
 Pitt, in 1789, said emphatically that " it was not the 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 13 
 
 individual right of the King, but the especial preroga- 
 tive of the Crown," and insisted that it is a power 
 " essential to the existence of a good government." 
 So swiftly had events moved in seventy-five years. 
 
 It was on these precedents and principles that Earl 
 Grey founded himself in 1832 when he invoked the Royal 
 Prerogative to ensure the passage of the Reform Bill. 
 Between the situation in 1911 and that of 1832 there 
 were so many points of resemblance that it is worth 
 while recalling the circumstances under which the Reform 
 Bill passed into law. Lord John Russell's Bill for the 
 Reform of Parliament was read a second time in the 
 House of Commons on 22 March, 1831. The motion for 
 second reading was only carried by a majority of one, 
 and in April, after an adverse vote, Ministers resigned. 
 The King declined to accept their resignation and dis- 
 solved Parliament. Public feeling was strongly in favour 
 of reform, and a large majority of the new House was 
 returned in support of " the Bill, the whole Bill, and 
 nothing but the Bill." On the reassembling of Parlia- 
 ment, Lord John Russell at once reintroduced his Reform 
 Bill. After prolonged debates its third reading was 
 carried in the Commons in the month of September 
 by a majority of 349 to 236. The Bill then went up to 
 the House of Lords, where it was thrown out on 8 October 
 on the motion for second reading by 199 votes to 158. 
 Parliament was immediately prorogued, and the Speech 
 from the Throne contained a promise that a new Reform 
 Bill would be brought in when the Houses reassembled 
 for the new Session. Intense popular excitement followed, 
 with serious riots in Bristol, Derby, and Nottingham. 
 The Bill was reintroduced in December, 1831, and 
 passed the House of Commons on 19 March, 1832, by 
 355 votes against 239. In the House of Lords it was 
 read a second time on 13 April by 184 votes to 175, but on 
 7 May, in committee, the Ministry were defeated on Lord 
 
14 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Lyndhurst's proposal to postpone the clauses disfran- 
 chising old constituencies. Thereupon the Cabinet 
 decided to ask King William IV to sanction a large 
 creation of peers to ensure the passage of the Bill un- 
 mutilated into law. 
 
 In pursuance of this purpose, the day after the hostile 
 vote in the House of Lords, Lord Grey and the Lord 
 Chancellor (Brougham) went down to Windsor and 
 proposed to the King that fifty new peers should be 
 made forthwith. His Majesty said he wanted time to 
 consider the demand, whereupon the Whig Ministry 
 resigned, Then the King turned to the Duke of Welling- 
 ton, the refuge of every monarch in a difficulty, and 
 asked if he could form a Government. Much as he 
 disliked the Reform Bill the Duke recognized that its 
 passage was inevitable. To his friend, Lord Stanhope, 
 he said, " I don't mean that we shan't be obliged to 
 swallow it, but it is a monstrous gulp." His one desire 
 now was to soften the shock to the institutions of the 
 country. With that high sense of public duty that never 
 failed him, and with a sincere desire to extricate the 
 Sovereign from a perplexing situation, Wellington did 
 his utmost to form a Ministry. He was even prepared 
 to bring in himself a Reform Bill, watered down in some 
 of its provisions. For a full fortnight he laboured hard 
 in the attempt to create an Administration. Mean- 
 while violent temper had been exhibited by the House of 
 Commons in a debate on a petition from the City of 
 London then a stronghold of Liberalism praying that 
 the House would refuse supplies until the Reform Bill 
 had been carried. The Duke of Wellington, having failed 
 in his well-meant efforts, advised the King to recall his 
 former Ministers. His Majesty then wrote to Earl 
 Grey, but urged him, if possible, to forgo the claim for 
 the creation of peers and to introduce such amendments 
 into the Bill as would conciliate moderate opponents. 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 15 
 
 Lord Grey assured the King that he would do what he 
 could, but declined to abandon the demand for a con- 
 tingent creation of peers, and said it would be im- 
 possible to deviate from any leading principle of the 
 measure. The Whig Ministers, therefore, came back to 
 office masters of the situation. For some months a 
 section of Conservative peers, led by Lords Harrowby 
 and Wharncliffe, had been quietly working behind the 
 scenes to prevent the necessity of creating peers. Their 
 desire was to co-operate to a limited extent with the 
 Whig Government. At first the Duke of Wellington 
 was not very sympathetic to these " Waverers," as they 
 were called, but after the return of Lord Grey to office, 
 seeing that the creation of peers was now unavoidable 
 if the Lords persisted in opposing the Reform Bill, the 
 Duke threw all his influence on the side of the con- 
 ciliators. His view was that the House of Lords must 
 at all hazards be saved by taking away from the Prime 
 Minister every kind of pretext for swamping it by a new 
 creation of peers. Accordingly, the Duke told the King 
 that he would offer no further opposition to the progress 
 of the Bill, and that he would cease to attend in his place 
 in Parliament until after the Bill had been passed into 
 law. A similar pledge was given by the ex-Lord Chan- 
 cellor, Lyndhurst. 
 
 Lord Grey now renewed his communications with 
 the Sovereign. Accompanied by Brougham, he had an 
 audience of the King on 17 May, when the Monarch, 
 though not concealing his displeasure, yielded, giving 
 Brougham, in writing, the following promise : 
 
 " The King grants permission to Earl Grey and to 
 his Chancellor, Lord Brougham, to create such a number 
 of peers as will be sufficient to ensure the passing of the 
 Reform Bill, first calling up peers' eldest sons." 
 
 This power was never exercised. Sir Herbert Taylor, 
 His Majesty's private secretary, who was present at 
 
16 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the interview between Grey and Brougham and the King, 
 conveyed an intimation to the peers opposed to the 
 Bill of what had happened at Windsor. Powerful in- 
 fluences were brought to bear on some of the most violent 
 opponents of the Reform Bill with the object of pre- 
 venting them from proceeding to extremities, and 
 unknown to Ministers, the following circular letter was 
 addressed by the King's Private Secretary to all the 
 Opposition peers : 
 
 " ijth May, 1832 
 " MY DEAR LORD, 
 
 " I am honoured with His Majesty's commands 
 to acquaint your lordship that all difficulties to the 
 arrangements in progress will be obviated by a declara- 
 tion in the House to-night from a sufficient number of 
 peers, that in consequence of the present state of affairs, 
 they have come to the resolution of dropping their 
 further opposition to the Reform Bill so that it may 
 pass without delay and as nearly as possible in its present 
 shape. j have the honour to b6j etc ? 
 
 " HERBERT TAYLOR " 
 
 This appeal was effective. Over one hundred peers, 
 including the Duke of Wellington, decided not to take 
 part in any further proceedings on the Reform Bill, and 
 the measure finally passed on 4 June. Dealing with 
 these incidents, Sir Erskine May wrote : ' This inter- 
 ference of the King with the independent deliberations 
 of the House of Lords was, in truth, an act not less 
 unconstitutional than a creation of peers, the one being 
 an irregular interference of the Crown with the freedom 
 of Parliament, the other an extreme exercise of an un- 
 doubted prerogative. But it was resorted to not to 
 extend the authority of the Crown or to overawe Parlia- 
 ment but to restore harmonious action to those powers 
 
THE PRECEDENT OF 1832 17 
 
 of the State which had been brought into dangerous 
 opposition and conflict. In singular contrast to the 
 history of past times, this greatest extension of the 
 liberties of the people was now obtained in the last 
 resort by the personal influence of the Crown." 
 
 It may be noted as a singular coincidence that in 
 1911, as in 1832, the Private Secretary of the Monarch 
 played a part in harmonizing the disturbed relations 
 between Lords and Commons. That wise and venerable 
 servant of the Crown, Lord Knollys, was ubiquitous 
 and active in the House of Lords on the last two days of 
 the debate on the Parliament Bill in August, 1911. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne, grandfather of the present Opposition 
 Leader in the House of Lords, was a member of Lord 
 Grey's " Reform Cabinet." Another member of that 
 historic Cabinet was the Earl of Durham, " Radical 
 Jack," Lord Grey's son-in-law, so memorably associated, 
 a few years later, with the pacification of Canada. 
 Greville records the following in his diary under date 
 6 March, 1832 : 
 
 " While Lord Grey is negotiating with Harrowby 
 for the express purpose of avoiding the necessity of 
 making peers, Durham, his colleague and son-in-law, 
 in conjunction with Down, is going about with a paper 
 for signature by peers, being a request to Grey to make 
 new peers." 
 
 It may be noted that in the summer of 1911 Lord 
 Durham's descendant, the present Earl, though a Union- 
 ist, voted in the final stages of the Parliament Bill 
 steadily with the Government. Among the little band 
 of stalwart Tories who resisted the passage of the Reform 
 Bill of 1832 to the last was Lord Willoughby de Broke, 
 ancestor of the present peer of that name, who organized 
 the " die-hards " last July against the Parliament Bill. 
 Toryism, like Whiggism, is bred in the bone. 
 
 The " leading case " of 1832 revealed the enormous 
 
18 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 value of the emergency powers of the Constitution. 
 Threat to resort to the peer-making power solved a grave 
 deadlock between the two Houses of Parliament and 
 prevented a cataclysm in the country. By this means 
 was peacefully effected what the Duke of Wellington 
 called " the greatest revolution that has ever occurred 
 without bloodshed in this country." The British people 
 suddenly realized as they had never done before the 
 value to the nation of the peer-making prerogative. 
 In old days prerogative was an instrument of oppression. 
 In the natural and wholesome development of our 
 constitutional liberties it had been transformed into a 
 weapon of freedom. The prerogatives of the Crown had 
 become the privileges of the people. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 SUBORDINATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 ATER the passing of the Reform Bill, the House 
 of Lords continued to show a strong Con- 
 servative bias. Measures of a Liberal tendency 
 were flung out without compunction by the Second 
 Chamber. " Essentially a Tory body," was Greville's 
 description of it. Writing in 1835, that clear-sighted 
 observer said : " The House of Lords hardly fulfils 
 the conditions of a great independent legislative 
 assembly, but presents the appearance of a dominant 
 party-faction, which is too numerous to be affected 
 by any constitutional process, and too obstinate to be 
 turned from its fixed purpose of opposing all the 
 measures which have a tendency to diminish the influence 
 of the Conservative Party in the country. ... It is, I 
 think, exceedingly probable that the majority of those 
 who return members to Parliament, and in whom col- 
 lectively the supreme power really resides, though they 
 may be content to retain the House of Lords if it could be 
 made to act in harmony with, and therefore necessarily 
 in subordination to, the House of Commons, would not 
 hesitate for an instant to decree its downfall if it became 
 clear that there was no other way of crushing the Tory 
 faction which now rules triumphant in that House. At 
 all events, the Lords are playing a desperate game. If it 
 succeeds, they who direct the energies of the party are 
 great and wise men ; but what if it fail ? " (Greville, 
 Vol. Ill, p. 289). This prescient passage would have 
 
 19 
 
20 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 been equally appropriate as a description of the position 
 of the Lords in relation to the Commons in the 1906-9 
 Parliament. An observer of a very different calibre from 
 Greville was equally impressed with the unteachableness 
 of the Second Chamber. James Mill, disciple of Jeremy 
 Bentham and father of John Stuart Mill, published in 
 the London Review for January, 1836, an essay entitled 
 " Aristocracy." In this he treated at some length of the 
 House of Lords, whose resistance to progressive legislation 
 since the Reform Act had roused the bitter hostility of the 
 reformers. Mill pointed out that nearly one-half of the 
 legislative power in this country " is placed in the hands 
 of men who, by the tenure on which they hold it, are, of 
 necessity, converted into a body of enemies." " The great 
 object of their dread is every approach to good govern- 
 ment." That a clear-sighted and resolute people would 
 always endure the tyranny of the Upper House Mill did 
 not fear : " But how long it may contrive to carry on its 
 work, by fair words and by little concessions well timed, 
 it is not easy to foresee." To overcome the resistance of 
 the House of Lords to progressive measures, Mill proposed 
 that a Bill passed in three successive Sessions by the 
 House of Commons should become law, regardless of the 
 wishes of the House of Lords. This singularly accurate 
 anticipation of the Parliament Bill of 1911 has a deep 
 historical interest. Mill had in full measure the boldness 
 which was characteristic of the school of philosophic 
 Radicalism to which he belonged. He had boundless 
 faith in the power of the House of Commons, and wished 
 it to overbear the Lords by the simple native force of its 
 own resolutions, without troubling to invoke the Royal 
 Prerogative. His words were : 
 
 " Let it be enacted that if a Bill which has been passed 
 by the House of Commons and thrown out by the House 
 of Lords is renewed in the House of Commons in the next 
 Session of Parliament and passed, but again thrown out 
 
SUBORDINATION OF HOUSE OF LORDS 21 
 
 by the House of Lords, it shall, if passed a third time 
 in the House of Commons, be law without being sent again 
 to the House of Lords." 
 
 In the event of the Lords still refusing their consent, 
 Mill recommended the House of Commons to declare 
 boldly by resolution that Bills that were passed by the 
 representative chamber three times should have the force 
 of law. " This resolution the people would hail with 
 transport and make the enactments laws by their obedi- 
 ence. From that moment the House of Lords is blotted 
 out." Such was Mill's plan. The article in which it was 
 embodied contained wise reflections on the position of 
 the Crown. Let the King, urged Mill, link his interests 
 to those of the people. It is a blunder for a King to " lean 
 upon a corrupt aristocracy and a corrupt Church." Let 
 him feel that he reigns in the reason and understanding of 
 his people. ' The greatness and glory of a King depend 
 upon his people, his interest is theirs." This brave and out- 
 spoken article attracted much attention. Roebuck, then 
 doing manful work for Radicalism, and who had himself, 
 in 1835, urged that the veto of the Lords should be 
 restricted to a single Session, had the article reprinted in 
 pamphlet form and widely circulated. 
 
 Like Mill and the English Radicals, Macaulay was 
 shocked by the unrelenting animosity shown by the 
 House of Lords to Lord Melbourne's Ministry. Though 
 absent from the country on official duty in India, 
 Macaulay closely watched the course of affairs in England. 
 Writing from Calcutta early in 1838, he said : " I am 
 quite certain that in a few years the House of Lords must 
 go after Old Sarum and Gat ton. What is now passing is 
 mere skirmishing and manoeuvring between two general 
 actions. It seems to be of little consequence to the final 
 result how these small operations turn out. When the 
 grand battle comes to be fought, I have no doubt about 
 the event." To Lord Lansdowne he addressed a " care- 
 
22 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 fully reasoned letter, a State paper in all but the form, 
 urging the imminent perils that threatened a Constitution 
 in which a reformed House of Commons found itself 
 face to face with an unreformed House of Lords, and 
 setting forth in detail a scheme for reconstructing the 
 Upper Chamber on an elective basis. Macaulay's notions 
 were not at all to his old friend's taste, and after a single 
 interchange of opinions, the subject never reappeared in 
 their correspondence " (Trevelyan's Life and Letters of 
 Lord Macaulay) . 
 
 There was good cause for the dismay with which 
 reformers viewed the maleficent activity of the House of 
 Lords in the half-dozen years that followed the passage 
 of the Reform Act. For a quarter of a century longer the 
 Lords stubbornly resisted the advance of Liberal ideas. 
 Every measure for the removal of civil and religious 
 disabilities encountered their hostility. Time after time 
 they denied justice to Nonconformity. Four times did 
 they reject the Bill extending citizen rights to Jews. 
 Nevertheless, in 1846 occurred an event which revealed 
 in a flash the subordination of the Lords to the Commons 
 in legislation. The repeal of the Corn Laws was a testing 
 measure for the pretensions of the peers. That great Bill 
 rent the Tory Party in twain. Sir Robert Peel passed it 
 through the House of Commons in the teeth of envenomed 
 opposition from his own party, and only by the aid of 
 Liberal votes. To the landed interest, powerfully en- 
 trenched in the House of Lords, the repeal of the Corn 
 Laws wore an aspect both confiscatory and revolutionary. 
 There was hardly a rural rent-roll in the country that 
 would not be adversely affected by Free Trade m corn. 
 For all that, the Tory peers dared not resist a measure 
 which they loathed, which was bitterly opposed by the 
 bulk of the Tory Party, which they knew would be 
 injurious to their own interests, and which they believed 
 would be detrimental to the interests of the country. 
 
SUBORDINATION OF HOUSE OF LORDS 23 
 
 Nothing could mark more decisively the conscious 
 subordination of the House of Lords to the Representative 
 Assembly. The sullen acquiescence of the Tory peers in 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws was due chiefly to the in- 
 fluence of the great Duke of Wellington. While the Bill 
 was still in the Commons Lord Stanley, " the Rupert of 
 Debate " (afterwards Earl Derby), wrote to the Duke 
 a remarkable letter, which drew a still more remarkable 
 reply. Writing from " St. James' Square," 18 February, 
 1846, Lord Stanley said : 
 
 " We cannot disguise from ourselves that the un- 
 fortunate measure now under consideration has, for the 
 time at least, completely dislocated and shattered the 
 great Conservative party in both Houses, and that the 
 sacrifice of your own private opinion, which you and 
 others have made for the purpose of keeping it together, 
 has failed, as I feared it would, to effect your object. You 
 may remember my appealing to Sir Robert Peel himself 
 in the Cabinet to confirm my statement that if his measure 
 were carried, it would be by the aid of the whole body of 
 his opponents, and the lukewarm support of a few of his 
 friends, against the angry opposition of the great mass 
 of the Conservative party. It is evident that these 
 anticipations have been realized to the fullest extent, 
 and I think it very doubtful whether even your great 
 name and influence will induce the Lords to sanction the 
 Bill, especially if the majority in the House of Commons 
 be not far greater than seems now to be anticipated." 
 
 The illustrious old soldier replied with the prompt 
 decision that was characteristic of him. In a long letter 
 bearing date the following day, 19 February, Wellington 
 gave advice to Lord Stanley as to the course he ought to 
 follow, and explained the principles that had guided 
 him (the Duke) in the management of the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 " You are aware," wrote the Duke of Wellington, " how 
 
24 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 anxious I have been throughout these discussions, 
 commencing in October last [1845], to preserve and 
 maintain the administration of Sir Robert Peel, for the 
 sake of the Queen's ease ; knowing what he had per- 
 formed : the restoration of the finance of the country ; 
 the settlement of the banking system ; the revival of 
 commerce ; the settlement of this very corn question 
 and his defence of what had been settled ; the success 
 in Ireland in putting down the monster meetings ; the 
 universal tranquillity prevailing throughout Great Britain; 
 the confidence which then was felt in his Government 
 abroad, and even in the United States. To this, add 
 the confidence in him and respect for him in the great 
 manufacturing and commercial towns of the country, 
 such as Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, etc. 
 
 " I am very much afraid that the confidence of Parlia- 
 ment has vanished, and that there is no chance of its 
 revival. On the contrary, I am convinced that if his 
 opponents in either House were to move a vote of want of 
 confidence in him, it would pass in the Commons by a large 
 majority, and would be opposed in the House of Lords 
 only by you and myself, and his and my colleagues, a few 
 in the Queen's household, and very few personal friends of 
 his and relations and personal friends of mine. 
 
 " This is a sad change, and I am very apprehensive 
 that there is no prospect of an improvement. That 
 which I look for, therefore, is the holding together in other 
 hands the great and, at this moment, powerful Con- 
 servative party ; and this for the sake of the Queen, of 
 the religious and other ancient institutions of the country, 
 of its resources, influence, and power ; all necessary for 
 its prosperity and the contentment and happiness of the 
 people. It is quite obvious that I am not the person who 
 can pretend to undertake, with any chance of success, to 
 perform this task. It is not easy to account for my being 
 in the situation which I have so long filled in the House 
 
SUBORDINATION OF HOUSE OF LORDS 25 
 
 of Lords. Its commencement was merely accidental. I 
 was Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Master-General 
 of the Ordnance when Lord Liverpool was struck by 
 palsy ; and although I had not, I believe, once spoken 
 in Parliament for twenty years, I at once succeeded to 
 the influence and power which he had for many years 
 exercised in the House of Lords, always in high office ; 
 which, however unworthily, I have held ever since, 
 whether in or out of office. . . . 
 
 " For many years, indeed from the year 1830, when I 
 retired from office, I have endeavoured to manage the 
 House of Lords upon the principle on which I conceive 
 that the institution exists in the Constitution of the 
 country, that of Conservatism. I have invariably 
 objected to all violent and extreme measures, which is 
 not exactly the mode of acquiring influence in a political 
 party in England, particularly one in opposition to 
 Government. I have invariably supported Government 
 in Parliament upon important occasions, and have always 
 exercised my personal influence to prevent the mischief 
 of anything like a difference or division between the two 
 Houses, of which there are some remarkable instances, 
 to which I will advert here, as they will tend to show 
 you the nature of my management, and possibly, 
 in some degree, account for the extraordinary power 
 which I have for so many years exercised, without any 
 apparent claim to it. 
 
 " Upon finding the difficulties in which the late King 
 William was involved by a promise made to create peers, 
 the number, I believe, indefinite, I determined myself, 
 and I prevailed upon others, the number very large, 
 to be absent from the House in the discussion of the last 
 stages of the Reform Bill, after the negotiations had failed 
 for the formation of a new Administration. This course 
 gave at the time great dissatisfaction to the party, not- 
 withstanding that I believe it saved the existence of the 
 
26 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 House of Lords at the time, and the Constitution of the 
 country. 
 
 " Subsequently, throughout the period from 1835 to 
 1841, 1 prevailed upon the House of Lords to depart from 
 many principles and systems which they as well as I 
 had adopted and voted ; on Irish tithes, Irish corpora- 
 tions, and other measures, much to the vexation and 
 annoyance of many. But I recollect one particular 
 measure, the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower 
 Canada, in the early stages of which I had spoken in 
 opposition to the measure, and had protested against it ; 
 and in the last stages of it I prevailed upon the House to 
 agree to, and pass it, in order to avoid the injury to the 
 public interests of a dispute between the Houses upon 
 a question of such importance. Then I supported the 
 measures of the Government, and protected the servant 
 of the Government, Captain Elliot, in China. All of 
 which tended to weaken my influence with some of the 
 party ; others, possibly a majority, might have approved 
 of the course which I took. It was at the same time well 
 known that from the commencement at least of Lord 
 Melbourne's Government, I was in constant communica- 
 tion with it, upon all military matters, whether occurring 
 at home or abroad, at all events ; but likewise upon many 
 others. 
 
 " All this tended, of course, to diminish my influence 
 in the Conservative party, while it tended essentially 
 to the ease and satisfaction of the Sovereign, and to the 
 maintenance of good order. At length came the resigna- 
 tion of the Government by Sir Robert Peel, in the month 
 of December last, and the Queen desired Lord John 
 Russell to form an Administration. On 12 December the 
 Queen wrote to me the letter of which I enclose the copy, 
 and the copy of my answer of the same date, of which 
 it appears that you have never seen copies, although I 
 communicated them immediately to Sir Robert Peel. 
 
SUBORDINATION OF HOUSE OF LORDS 27 
 
 It was impossible for me to act otherwise than is indicated 
 in my letter to the Queen. I am the servant of the Crown 
 and the people. I have been paid and rewarded, and I 
 consider myself retained, and that I cannot do otherwise 
 than serve as required, when I can do so without dis- 
 honour, that is to say, as long as I have health and 
 strength to enable me to serve. But it is obvious that 
 there is, and there must be, an end of all connection and 
 counsel between party and me. I might with con- 
 sistency, and some think that I ought to, have declined 
 to belong to Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet on the night of 
 20 December. But my opinion is, that if I had, Sir 
 Robert Peel's Government would not have been framed ; 
 
 that we should have had and in office next 
 
 morning. 
 
 " But at all events, it is quite obvious that when that 
 arrangement comes, which sooner or later must come, 
 there will be an end to all influence on my part over the 
 Conservative party, if I should be so indiscreet as to 
 attempt to exercise any. You will see, therefore, that 
 the stage is quite clear for you, and that you need not 
 apprehend the consequences of differing in opinion from 
 me when you will enter upon it ; as in truth I have, by my 
 letter to the Queen of 12 December, put an end to the 
 connection between the party and me, when the party 
 will be in opposition to Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 " My opinion is, that the great object of all is that you 
 should assume the station, and exercise the influence, 
 which I have so long exercised in the House of Lords : 
 the question is, how is that object to be attained ? By 
 guiding their opinion and decision, or by following it ? 
 You will see that I have endeavoured to guide their 
 opinion, and have succeeded upon some most remarkable 
 occasions, but it has been by a good deal of management. 
 
 " Upon the important occasion and question now before 
 the House, I propose to endeavour to induce them to 
 
28 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 avoid to involve the country in the additional difficulties 
 of a difference of opinion, possibly a dispute between the 
 Houses, on a question in the decision of which it has been 
 frequently asserted that their lordships had a personal 
 interest ; which assertion, however false as affecting each 
 of them personally, could not be denied as affecting the 
 proprietors of land in general. 
 
 " I am aware of the difficulty, but I don't despair of 
 carrying the Bill through. You must be the best judge 
 of the course which you ought to take, and of the course 
 most likely to conciliate the confidence of the House of 
 Lords. My opinion is, that you should advise the House 
 to vote that which would tend most to public order, 
 and would be most beneficial to the immediate interests 
 of the country. . . . 
 
 " Protection to agriculture is out of the question. I 
 have considered the Corn Law of 1841 and 1842 at an end 
 since the day on which Sir Robert Peel resigned his office, 
 and recommended to the Queen to form another Govern- 
 ment. He never could return into Parliament and retain 
 that law, and I did not, and do not, see in the House 
 persons capable of retaining it." 
 
 The sagacious counsel of the Duke of Wellington had 
 its effect, and the Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws 
 went through the House of Lords without opposition. 
 From that day the supremacy of the House of Commons 
 in legislation was established on a more secure foundation. 
 Power to reject Bills still lay with the Lords, and they 
 exercised it for years afterwards with impunity, but their 
 inferiority in the legislative function was now self- 
 confessed, and their veto on Bills was virtually only a veto 
 of delay. The veto had ceased to be absolute, it had 
 become suspensory. 
 
 " From the Reform Act," wrote Bagehot in 1872, 
 " the function of the House of Lords has been altered 
 in English history. Before that Act it was, if not a 
 
SUBORDINATION OF HOUSE OF LORDS 29 
 
 directing Chamber, at least a Chamber of Directors. 
 The leading nobles, who had most influence in the Com- 
 mons, and swayed the Commons, sat there. Aristocratic 
 influence was so powerful in the House of Commons 
 that there never was any serious breach of unity. When 
 the Houses quarrelled, it was, as in the great Aylesbury 
 case, about their respective privileges, and not about 
 the national policy. The influence of the nobility was 
 then so potent that it was not necessary to exert it. 
 The English Constitution, though then on this point very 
 different from what it now is, did not even then contain 
 the blunder of the Victorian or of the Swiss Constitution. 
 It had not two Houses of distinct origin ; it had two 
 Houses of common origin two Houses in which the 
 predominant element was the same. The danger of dis- 
 cordance was obviated by a latent unity. Since the Re- 
 form Act the House of Lords has become a revising and 
 suspending House. It can alter Bills ; it can reject Bills 
 on which the House of Commons is not yet thoroughly in 
 earnest upon which the nation is not yet determined. 
 Their veto is a sort of hypothetical veto. They say, ' We 
 reject your Bill for this once or these twice, or even these 
 thrice ; but if you keep on sending it up, at last we won't 
 reject it.' The House has ceased to be one of latent direc- 
 tors, and has become one of temporary rejectors and 
 palpable alterers." In short the House of Lords had 
 become " a chamber with (in most cases) a veto of delay ; 
 with (in most cases) a power of revision, but with no 
 other rights or powers." 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 THE LORDS AND FINANCE 
 
 "This privilege which they have now invaded is a known and avowed 
 rig-ht inherent in this House as the representatives of the People. For 
 what do the Lords say when they attempt to invade this privilege? 
 Why, they plainly say to us and to the people : * You shall no longer 
 tax or remit taxation yourselves.' Can liberty exist if we allow them to 
 lay their sacrilegious hands upon this Holy of Holies, this palladium of 
 the Constitution?" BURKE. 
 
 FROM time to time the House of Lords asserted 
 its claim to veto legislation which it disliked, 
 but it had never disputed the supremacy of the 
 House of Commons in finance. Suddenly, in 1860, the 
 peers challenged the representative chamber in the very 
 heart and centre of its authority. Fortunately, Mr. 
 Gladstone was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and 
 we owe it to his intrepid spirit and power of swift de- 
 cision that the Lords were promptly driven out of the 
 forbidden domain into which they had trespassed of 
 set purpose. Mr. Gladstone's achievement was the more 
 remarkable because the victory which he won for the 
 Commons was won in the teeth of the indifference, 
 if not the positive hostility, of the Prime Minister. 
 Warmly sympathetic with the cause of freedom abroad, 
 Lord Palmerston was curiously indifferent to popular 
 rights at home. He was quite willing to remain passive 
 under the intrusion of the Lords into the domain of 
 finance. It was only Gladstone's passion for the consti- 
 tutional rights of the House of Commons that saved a 
 vital position in the popular citadel which Palmerston 
 would have surrendered with light-hearted levity. 
 
 30 
 
THE LORDS AND FINANCE 31 
 
 Between the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer there was very little in common. Their 
 mutual distrust had been intensified by profound differ- 
 ences of opinion on public questions. In 1859 there 
 was almost a rupture between them over the question 
 of borrowing money for a large expenditure on the 
 fortification of the British coasts. In that year dread 
 of French designs caused one of those invasion scares 
 to which the British people are liable or shall we say 
 were liable until they had learnt to repose faith in the 
 Navy, and realized all that was meant by command of 
 the sea ? Under the influence of a nightmare of appre- 
 hension Palmerston wanted to spend large sums on land 
 fortifications. Some of these worthless fortifications 
 still stand, mute but significant memorials of a foolish 
 scare. Though a loan would have eased his financial task, 
 Gladstone loathed the notion of borrowing money to 
 be squandered on fortifications, and fought his chief's 
 policy tenaciously in the Cabinet. If the money must 
 be spent, let it come from revenue that was the view 
 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not the view 
 of the Prime Minister. " It would be better to lose 
 Gladstone than to run the risk of losing Portsmouth or 
 Plymouth," wrote Palmerston in his jaunty way to 
 Queen Victoria. Gladstone was not very malleable to 
 the influences brought to bear upon him. " My mind 
 is made up," he wrote, " and to propose a loan for 
 fortifications would be on my part, with the views I 
 entertain, a betrayal of public duty." Eventually a 
 compromise was arranged, Palmerston and Gladstone 
 making mutual concessions. The influence of this 
 invasion scare was seen in the Budget of 1860. Glad- 
 stone's financial proposals in that year were marked 
 by breadth and courage. He had laboured hard in 
 the autumn of 1859 with Cobden to negotiate a com- 
 mercial treaty with France. "A French panic prevailed," 
 
32 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 he wrote, " as strong as any of the other panics that 
 have done so much discredit to this country. For this 
 panic the treaty of commerce with France was the only 
 sedative. It was, in fact, a counter-irritant ; and it 
 aroused the sense of commercial interest to counteract 
 the war passion." The treaty was successfully negotiated, 
 and out of it, in Lord Morley's words, " grew the whole 
 of the great financial scheme of 1860." Mr. Gladstone's 
 proposals were heartily approved by the House of 
 Commons and the nation. He provided in his Budget, 
 among other things, for the abolition of the excise duty 
 on paper, one of the odious taxes on knowledge against 
 which reformers had long been waging war. This tax 
 was equivalent to a duty of 30 per cent on the price of 
 a daily newspaper. It brought in a revenue exceeding 
 1,400,000 per annum. When the Budget scheme 
 reached the House of Lords the Paper Duty Repeal 
 Bill was thrown out, at the instance of Lord Monteagle, 
 formerly Mr. Spring Rice, M.P., who had had official 
 experience at the Treasury. Lord Derby, Tory Leader 
 in the Upper House, argued that no embarrassment 
 could result to the executive from the rejection of the 
 Bill, for in fact its rejection " preserved a large sum of 
 money (nearly 1,500,000) to the Exchequer." The 
 Whig peers strongly opposed the rash policy to which 
 Lord Derby had lent the sanction of his authority. 
 Lord Granville, Leader of the House, spoke with great 
 persuasiveness in support of the financial rights of the 
 House of Commons. In a speech delivered on 21 May, 
 1860, Lord Granville said : 
 
 " I know no precedent for the rejection by this House 
 of a Bill remitting taxation, or even revising taxation, 
 which formed part of the whole financial scheme ap- 
 proved by the House of Commons. 
 
 " The principle has always been to limit to the smallest 
 possible space the inconvenience arising from any change 
 
THE LORDS AND FINANCE 33 
 
 in our system of taxation affecting the commercial and 
 industrial world. As soon as the House of Commons 
 have declared their opinion in favour of the remission 
 of any Customs duty, it ceases at once. And your lord- 
 ships, in agreeing with the noble lord, will now be dis- 
 turbing all confidence in the decisions of the House of 
 Commons, and it will be impossible for the Government 
 to propose the most beneficent improvements in taxation 
 without our whole merchants, manufacturers, and 
 tradesmen being kept in a state of anxiety and suspense. 
 With regard to revenue^ is it perfectly wise to put your- 
 selves in opposition to the House of Commons ? 
 
 " It was, I think, Mr. Burke who said that one of the 
 most critical and invidious functions which the House 
 of Commons had to discharge was to originate the whole 
 weight of taxation, inasmuch as its hand was felt and 
 seen in every burden that pressed upon the people. 
 This system has, however, hitherto worked well, con- 
 necting, as it does, taxation with representation. Would 
 it be wise for your lordships to introduce a new system 
 and to have your hand, instead of that of the House of 
 Commons, felt in every burden which presses upon the 
 people, thus virtually severing taxation from repre- 
 sentation ? " 
 
 In the same debate the Duke of Argyll told the peers 
 with his uncompromising directness : " You are striking 
 at the very root of the constitutional usage which has 
 hitherto regulated the relations between the two 
 Houses." 
 
 These protests were unavailing, and the Paper Duties 
 Bill was rejected, on the motion for second reading, by 
 193 to 104. 
 
 In those days the annual Budget consisted of a number 
 
 of separate Bills, and the Lords, by rejecting one of them, 
 
 ran no risk of jeopardizing the whole provision made by 
 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the finance of the 
 
 3 
 
34 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 year. This absence of untoward results on the national 
 finances encouraged the Gallio-like indifference of 
 Palmerston. He had never liked the repeal of the paper 
 duties. When Gladstone submitted his proposal for 
 their abolition to the Cabinet in the first instance Palmers- 
 ton spoke against it for three-quarters of an hour. Not 
 only did he speak against it in Cabinet, as he had a right 
 to do, but, as Lord Morley tells us in his Life of Gladstone, 
 Palmerston actually wrote to the Queen that he was 
 bound in duty to say that if the Lords threw out the 
 Bill " they would perform a public service/' Clearly 
 the Prime Minister in his heart approved of the action 
 taken by the Lords, and the Cabinet was quite prepared 
 to sit calmly down under the rebuff that had been offered 
 to the Government, untroubled by any thought of the 
 historic rights and privileges of the House of Commons, 
 which had been so ruthlessly invaded. Gladstone 
 was a man of different mettle. The rejection of the Bill 
 by the Lords filled him with righteous indignation. 
 He regarded it as an act of sacrilege. The peers, he held, 
 had been guilty of a gigantic innovation in the Constitu- 
 tion. Their action " amounted to the establishment 
 of a revising power over the House of Commons in its 
 most vital function." Gladstone was as jealous of the 
 rights of the House of Commons as he was of his own 
 honour. In a letter to the Duke of Argyll he wrote : 
 " To have been the occasion of the blow to the House 
 of Commons, or, as I call it, this gigantic innovation, 
 will be a grief to me as long as I live. If by wildness 
 or rashness I have been its cause, it will be a much greater 
 grief." Overcoming Lord Palmerston's hostility and 
 the apathy of the Cabinet, Mr. Gladstone insisted on 
 the appointment of a Select Committee of the Commons 
 to investigate the precedents. The labours of that 
 Committee led up to the adoption by the House of the 
 famous resolutions of 5 July, 1860, with their bold 
 
THE LORDS AND FINANCE 35 
 
 assertion of the supremacy of the House of Commons in 
 finance. 
 
 Important facts were elicited by the Committee. 
 The peers contended that while they could not amend 
 Money Bills, they had under the Constitution a right of 
 bare rejection. Their strict legal right to reject was 
 indisputable, but it was one of those theoretical rights 
 that cannot easily be put into practical operation. 
 A striking fact discovered by the Select Committee 
 was that none of the Money Bills thrown out by the 
 Lords in bygone years was solely concerned with the 
 raising of taxes. Every one had some subsidiary purpose, 
 and it was this subsidiary purpose that was the cause of 
 the rejection. 
 
 A distinguished member of the Select Committee 
 appointed in 1860 was Mr. Robert Collier, Liberal member 
 for Plymouth, afterwards Lord Monkswell, whose rapid 
 advancement to the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council caused some embarrassment to Mr. Gladstone's 
 administration in 1871. In his speech in the House of 
 Commons during the debate on the resolutions, Mr. 
 Collier, who had minutely examined all the precedents 
 in which the House of Lords had amended or rejected 
 Money Bills, said : 
 
 ' There are far more precedents in favour of amending 
 than for rejecting Money Bills. There are thirty-four 
 cases of the rejection of Bills, repealing or altering a 
 tax ; in not a single one of these cases did the Lords 
 reject a Bill repealing or altering a tax on purely financial 
 grounds." 
 
 In other words, some ancillary purpose, generally 
 protective in its character, marked the Bills thus rejected. 
 
 In the debate in the House of Lords in May of the 
 same year the venerable Lord Lyndhurst said : 
 
 " I don't dispute nor can it be for a moment dis- 
 puted that we have no right whatsoever to amend 
 
36 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 what is called a Money Bill. We have, moreover, no 
 right whatsoever to originate a Bill of that nature. 
 But I take leave to say that there is not an instance 
 to be found in which the House of Commons has contro- 
 verted our right to reject Money Bills." 
 
 Even this bare right claimed by Lord Lyndhurst 
 had been rarely exercised, and then only when matter 
 foreign to a Money Bill had been " tacked " on to it, or 
 when there was some question of the protection 'of a 
 particular industry or the disturbance of a trade involved. 
 
 A Bill of Supply is a Money Bill, but all Money Bills 
 are not Supply Bills. It is necessary to distinguish 
 between a Money Bill pure and simple and a Bill of Supply 
 that is, a Bill providing money for the service of the 
 Crown. On the testimony of the Duke of Argyll, the 
 Lords had never in their history thrown out a Bill of 
 Supply before 1860. The grave inconveniences that 
 would follow the rejection of a Bill of Supply were pointed 
 out by Mr. Collier. 
 
 "If," he said, " the Budget is not to be considered 
 as settled when it passes the House of Commons, and 
 it has to go through a new ordeal in the House of Lords, 
 many grave and most important results must ensue. 
 It will create a disturbance in our commercial relations 
 of which we cannot foresee the consequences. The 
 exclusive right of taxation is the life-blood of the House 
 of Commons. The principle of taxation being co- 
 ordinate with representation is the most vital element of 
 the Constitution." 
 
 But in debate, as in the Cabinet, it was Mr. Gladstone 
 who was the life and soul of the resistance to the en- 
 croachments of the peers in finance. He saw more 
 clearly than any one all that was involved in the claim 
 put forth by the House of Lords. If not repelled, he 
 was apprehensive of what the consequence might be 
 both to liberty and to wise financial administration. He 
 
THE LORDS AND FINANCE 37 
 
 denounced the Lords as authors of a gigantic innovation, 
 " the most gigantic and the most dangerous that has been 
 attempted in our time." The resolutions, he declared, 
 " were a most mild and temperate declaration of the rights 
 of the House of Commons." Not content with the reso- 
 lutions, he wanted the House " to vindicate and establish 
 its rights by action." As for the precedents cited by the 
 peers and their champions, " not one of them," declared 
 Mr. Gladstone, " affords a rag or a shred of covering for 
 the recent proceeding of the House of Lords." Mr. Glad- 
 stone foresaw the danger that would arise from making 
 taxation dependent upon the caprice of popular passion. 
 If the Lords establish a right to veto Budget proposals, 
 then, in that case, the Commons, in dealing with financial 
 projects, " must hereafter look, not only to their merits, 
 but to their probable popularity. They must recollect 
 that there are those lying in ambush for them who will be 
 ready to interfere at the proper moment. If it chance 
 that, in considering the schemes of various taxes for re- 
 duction, they make that choice which, according to their 
 judgment and conscience, they believe to be for the good 
 of the country, rather than that which will probably 
 meet the popular view, they must bear in mind that there 
 are those who will take advantage of their having acted 
 on their conscientious convictions." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone recalled that the Lords early in the 
 century asked for a copy of the estimates, a request 
 that Pitt contemptuously refused. In 1839 the Lords, 
 for the first time in their history, succeeded in obtaining 
 a copy of the estimates, with the help of a compliant 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Spring Rice). " Much 
 good it did them," was Mr. Gladstone's comment. He 
 went on : "I regard the whole rights of the House of 
 Commons as they have been handed down to us, as 
 constituting a sacred inheritance upon which I, for my 
 part, will never permit any intrusion or plunder to be 
 
88 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 made. Sir, I think that the very first of our duties, 
 anterior to the duty of dealing with any legislative 
 measure, and higher and more sacred than any such 
 duties, high and sacred though they may be, is to main- 
 tain intact that precious deposit " (5 July, 1860). 
 
 The resolutions protesting against the encroachment 
 of the Lords in finance were carried by a practically 
 unanimous House of Commons. John Bright was of 
 opinion that the resolutions ought to have been swiftly 
 followed up by action on the part of the Government. 
 Speaking in the House on 10 August, 1860, he asked 
 Lord Palmerston what the Government proposed to do. 
 Bright said : 
 
 " I am so tender of the rights of the House of Commons 
 that I know of no greater calamity that could happen to 
 the country than that we should impair the confidence 
 which the people should have in us, and that we should 
 lessen our power over the great and constantly in- 
 creasingly great questions which affect the finance and 
 the taxation of the country." 
 
 Sometimes, he went on, treason may be honourable and 
 produce good : 
 
 ' There is another kind of treason it is treason against 
 a people which may be committed by a Minister of the 
 Crown, by a consenting Cabinet, and by a compliant 
 legislative body. That is a treason which is all evil, 
 which has no good whatever in it. It covers no man, or 
 body of men, with renown, but it covers them with con- 
 tempt and infamy, decreed, I believe, by the just judg- 
 ment of posterity." 
 
 The action which Bright desired was taken in the 
 following year by Gladstone, who in the Budget of 1861 
 embodied all his financial proposals, repeal of the paper 
 duties included, in one comprehensive Bill, which the 
 Lords could not reject without disorganizing the national 
 finances and deranging the machinery of taxation. In 
 
THE LORDS AND FINANCE 89 
 
 incorporating all his financial proposals in one Bill, Mr. 
 Gladstone was reverting to a practice followed by the 
 younger Pitt. Lord Robert Cecil (afterwards Lord 
 Salisbury, the Conservative Prime Minister) was, in his 
 own words, " absolutely aghast " at Mr. Gladstone's 
 audacity. " It has been the practice hitherto," he said, 
 " to divide all measures of finance into separate Bills, and 
 to send them up separately to the House of Lords. But 
 now for a special political object, to avenge a special 
 political defeat, to gratify a special pique, and to gain the 
 doubtful votes of a special political section, it is proposed 
 to vary the practice of half a century." When the 
 omnibus Bill, embodying the Budget of 1861, reached the 
 House of Lords, the Earl of Derby argued that it was 
 within the power of the Lords to divide the Bill, but he 
 did not counsel this course. Some noble lords were quite 
 ready to resume the battle. Lord Derby, however, dis- 
 suaded them. He was " too wise, or at any rate in too 
 responsible a position," wrote Spencer Walpole, " to 
 venture on a course which would have deprived the Crown 
 of the supplies which it required for the conduct of the 
 government of the country. Under his advice the Duke 
 of Rutland consented to withdraw his amendment, and 
 the Lords accepted a measure which they disliked, but 
 dared not oppose. Some of them later on enjoyed the 
 barren privilege of recording in writing their protest 
 against a Bill they had not ventured to reject." Thus the 
 Budget of 1861 passed unscathed through the House of 
 Lords. Mr. Gladstone's comment on this sequence of 
 events was characteristic : " The House of Lords for its 
 misconduct was deservedly extinguished, in effect, in all 
 matters of finance." Recalling this struggle in a speech 
 delivered in Midlothian in March, 1880, Mr. Gladstone 
 said : 
 
 " The House of Lords took little benefit thereby 
 (rejection of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill), for in the very 
 
40 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 next session we in the House of Commons brought in a 
 measure which provided that the whole of the changes 
 affecting Supply and Ways and Means from year to year 
 should be sent up to the Lords in one single measure 
 which we knew the Lords would not dare to throw out ; 
 and the consequence has been that from that time on- 
 wards the House of Lords has, I may say, never opened 
 its mouth on the finance and taxation of the country." 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE POWER OF THE PURSE 
 
 THE resolutions of 1860 mark an important stage 
 in the history of the long struggle between the 
 Lords and Commons. They were in harmony 
 with the traditions of the House of Commons. From the 
 beginnings oi our parliamentary system the representa- 
 tives of the people realized the value of the power of the 
 purse. Originally the territorial magnates in the House 
 of Lords taxed themselves, and the clergy in Convoca- 
 tion retained the right of self-taxation until 1664. But 
 the exclusive power over general taxation which the 
 Commons had successfully established had given them 
 a commanding power in the State even in the days of 
 Elizabeth. " The great rebellion and the abolition of 
 the feudal tenures immediately after the Restoration 
 effected, in theory at any rate, a complete revolution in 
 the relation of the great landholders to the State. Their 
 obligation to provide a national army had ceased, and 
 they constituted but a comparatively small portion 
 of the population. Everything that was necessary for 
 the public service had now to be raised by taxation in 
 some form, and members of the House of Commons 
 represented almost the whole of the persons who were 
 taxed " (Pike's Constitutional History of the House of 
 Lords). As the sphere of government widened, as 
 population and wealth increased, and as the taxable 
 resources of the community had to be enlarged to meet 
 
 41 
 
42 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 new and diverse needs, so the power of the Commons 
 grew. 
 
 Nothing is more striking in our parliamentary history 
 than the unvarying persistence of the House of Commons 
 in asserting its exclusive supremacy over finance. From 
 the time of the Plantagenets down to the Parliament Act 
 of 1911 the chain of precedents is unbroken. The exclu- 
 sive right of the House of Commons to tax the people of 
 England was coeval with its existence. In the reigns of 
 Edward II, Richard II, and Henry IV the Commons 
 asserted again and again their right to the exclusive 
 taxation of the commonalty. Very early in their history 
 the Commons made their money grants conditional 
 upon the redress of grievances. Writing of the " Good 
 Parliament," which met in April, 1376, and whose most 
 distinguished member was Sir Peter de la Mare, Mr. 
 Arthur Irwin Dasent, in his Speakers of the House of 
 Commons, says : 
 
 " After protracted debates, both by themselves and 
 in conjunction with the Lords, the Commons appeared 
 in full Parliament with de la Mare at their head. His 
 first duty was to answer the usual demand for money, 
 made to the Lower House on this occasion by the Chan- 
 cellor, Sir John Knyvet. Not only did de la Mare take 
 upon himself to refuse supplies until the grievances of 
 the nation were redressed, but he adopted the financial 
 position as the text for a sermon on the required re- 
 forms." 
 
 This was in the reign of Edward III. In the reign of 
 his unfortunate grandson, Richard II, the Commons 
 refused to grant a supply except upon the condition that 
 the King would pardon the insurgents. On this point 
 a controversy arose between the King and Commons, 
 and the King eventually gave way (Hallam's Middle 
 Ages). 
 
 Even in Tudor days, when the monarchical power in 
 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE 48 
 
 England was at its greatest height, the rights of the 
 Commons in taxation were preserved intact. From time 
 to time encroachments were attempted by the Crown, 
 but neither Henry VIII nor Elizabeth disputed the rights 
 of the Commons to the extent that they were disputed 
 by James I and Charles I. The Petition of Right, 1628, 
 and the Bill of Rights, 1688, have established for all time 
 the principle that money for the service of the Crown 
 can only be voted by Parliament, and can be levied by 
 no other authority. The Commons jealously preserved 
 their rights over finance from encroachment whether 
 by the Crown or the House of Lords. 
 
 " One of the most ancient and valued rights of the 
 Commons is that of voting money and granting taxes 
 to the Crown for the public service. From the earliest 
 times they have made this right the means of extorting 
 concessions from the Crown and advancing the liberties 
 of the people. They upheld it with a bold spirit against 
 the most arbitrary kings ; and the Bill of Rights crowned 
 their final triumph over prerogative. They upheld it 
 with equal firmness against the Lords. For centuries 
 they resented any * meddling ' of the other House 
 ' with matter of supply ' ; and in the reign of Charles 
 II they successfully maintained their exclusive right 
 to determine as to the matter, the measure, and the time 
 of every tax imposed upon the people " (Erskine May's 
 Constitutional History) . 
 
 It is remarkable that the most effective blow against 
 the financial pretensions of the House of Lords should 
 have been delivered by the servile Parliament which sat 
 from 1 66 1 to 1678 the Parliament which is described as 
 having been in its earliest sessions " more zealous for 
 Monarchy than the King, more zealous for Episcopacy 
 than the Bishops." Yet, to quote the words of Professor 
 Richard Lodge, " it was this Parliament which shackled 
 the monarchy by insisting on the appropriation of 
 
44 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 supplies, the audit of accounts, and the responsibility 
 of Ministers ; and it was this Parliament which struck 
 the great blow against the financial powers of the House 
 of Lords." 
 
 The following table of events will show how persistent 
 all through the centuries has been the claim of the 
 Commons to predominance in finance : 
 
 1309. Reign of Edward II. The Commons grant a 
 subsidy " upon this condition that the King should 
 take advice and grant redress upon certain articles in 
 which their grievances were set forth." 
 
 1327-77. Edward III. Grant of supplies made 
 conditional upon the redress of grievances ; all taxation 
 without the consent of Parliament illegal. 
 
 I 353- First instance of appropriation of supplies ; 
 a subsidy on wool being granted to be applied solely for 
 the purposes of a war. 
 
 1380. Reign of Richard II. Commons demanded a 
 schedule of exact sums needed by the Crown, and the 
 purposes for which they were required. Right to examine 
 public accounts, and appropriate the supplies voted, 
 firmly established ; also right to impeach the King's 
 Ministers for misconduct. 
 
 1404. Henry IV. Commons voted subsidies subject 
 to condition that the money raised should be received 
 by Treasurers, in order that Parliament should have 
 confidence that the supply should not be misappro- 
 priated. 
 
 1407. Henry IV. Commons, by the Declaration of 
 Gloucester, laid down that money grants must not be 
 hampered by the personal intervention of the Crown 
 in Council, that the Commons have a precedence in 
 finance, and that all grants and aids are made by the 
 Commons and only assented to by the Lords. 
 
 1483. Richard III. Benevolences declared by statute 
 to be for ever illegal. 
 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE 45 
 
 1509. Henry VIII. Tonnage and poundage granted 
 to the King for life with a proviso : " That these grants 
 be not taken in example to the Kings of England in 
 time to come." 
 
 1601. Elizabeth. Monopolies abolished. 
 
 1614. James I. Unanimous vote by the Commons 
 protesting against all imposition of taxes by the King 
 without consent of Parliament. 
 
 1628. Charles I. Petition of Right. Lords and 
 Commons unite in protest against illegal exactions and 
 other arbitrary acts. 
 
 1640. Charles I. Short Parliament. On 24 April 
 " the King himself came to the House of Lords, and 
 without his robes made a speech to the Lords in which 
 he urged their Lordships : ' My necessities are so urgent 
 that there can be no delay.' The Lords immediately 
 take this speech into consideration, and in obedience 
 to His Majesty's declaration resolve : 
 
 " (i) That the supply shall have precedency, and be 
 resolved upon before any other matter whatsoever. 
 
 " (2) That there shall be a Conference desired with 
 the House of Commons to dispose them thereunto." 
 
 " On 28 April the Commons resolved that the privi- 
 leges of the House are violated, and that their Lordships' 
 voting and propounding and declaring touching matters 
 of supply before it is moved from this House is a breach 
 of the privilege of this House." (Address sent to the 
 Lords by Mr. Pym.) 
 
 New preamble to Money Bills, leaving out all mention 
 of the House of Lords : " Most gracious Sovereign, 
 we, your Majesty's most faithful Commons, have given 
 and granted to your Majesty, etc. ..." 
 
 A Conference of the two Houses. Lords suggested a 
 compromise, that neither Lords nor Commons be men- 
 tioned in the preamble of Money Bills, but that the grant 
 should be "as from the High Court of Parliament." 
 
46 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 This compromise the Commons declined. Lords re- 
 luctantly acquiesced. 
 
 Declaration of the Lords, entered in the Journals 
 of the House of Lords. " My Lords would not meddle 
 with matters of subsidy, which belonged properly and 
 naturally to you, no, not so much as even to give you 
 advice therein, but have utterly declined it." 
 
 1641. Long Parliament. Ship Money abolished, and 
 all proceedings in Hampden's case declared void. No 
 duty, subsidy, impost, or other charge whatsoever to 
 be imposed without common consent of Parliament. 
 
 1671. Charles II. Bill for an imposition on foreign 
 commodities. Lords sought to vary rates. The Commons, 
 replying to resolutions of the House of Lords justifying 
 the Lords' action in this matter, say : 
 
 " The best rule for deciding questions of right between 
 the two Houses is the law and usage of Parliament, 
 and the best evidence of that usage and custom of 
 Parliament are the most frequent and authentic pre- 
 cedents. All these precedents prove : (i) that all aids 
 must begin with the Commons, and (2) that when they 
 are begun the Lords can neither add nor diminish." 
 
 A long recital follows of grants by the Commons : 
 
 " All grants these of the Commons, yet none of those 
 Bills were ever varied by your Lordships or your pre- 
 decessors, which, if there had been such a right, would 
 some time or other have been exercised, though in very 
 small values, purposely to preserve that right. 
 
 " Thus an uninterrupted possession of this privilege 
 ever since 9 Henry IV confirmed by a multitude of 
 precedents both before and after, not shaken by one 
 precedent for these 300 years, is now required to be 
 delivered up or an end put to all further discourse ; 
 which opinion, if it be adhered to, is as much as in your 
 Lordships lies to put an end to all further transactions 
 between the two Houses in matters of money, which 
 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE 47 
 
 we pray your Lordships consider. Your Lordships have 
 a negative of the whole." 
 
 1673. Charles II. On n February, 1673, the King 
 having, in a speech from the Throne, recommended to 
 the Commons the consideration of the means of providing 
 a naval force, the Lords on the same day sent down a 
 note of thanks for His Majesty's speech, to which they 
 desired the concurrence of the Commons, but the Com- 
 mons answered : " That there being something in His 
 Majesty's speech which particularly relates to the House 
 of Commons, it makes their concurrence with their 
 Lordships on this occasion not so proper." 
 
 1678. Resolution of the Commons : " All aids and 
 supplies are the sole gifts of the Commons, and all Bills 
 for granting such aids and supplies are to begin with the 
 Commons ; and it is the undoubted and sole right of 
 the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills, 
 the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limita- 
 tions, and qualifications of such grants, which ought 
 not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords." 
 
 1689. Statement of Committee of the House of Com- 
 mons on Crown supplies : the Lords " are to pass all 
 or reject all without diminution or alteration." 
 
 1691. Resolution of the House of Commons on Bill 
 passed for appointing Commissioners to examine the 
 Public Accounts of the Kingdom : " That in aids and 
 supplies and grants the Commons only do judge the 
 necessities of the Crown." 
 
 1692. Resolution by Commons : " That the right of 
 granting supplies to the Crown is in the Commons alone as 
 an effectual part of their constitution, and the limitation 
 of such grants as to matter, manner, measure, and time 
 is only in them, which is so well known to be funda- 
 mentally settled in them that to give reasons for it has 
 been esteemed by our ancestors to be a weakening of 
 that right." 
 
48 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 1699. Resolution of the House of Commons on the 
 question of duties on vellum and parchment : 
 
 "It is an undoubted right and privilege of the Com- 
 mons that such aids are to be raised by such methods and 
 with such provisions as the Commons only shall think 
 proper, and that your Lordships, by the ancient law 
 and constitution of Parliament, are not to alter any such 
 gift or grant or the methods or provision for collecting, 
 raising, or enforcing the same." 
 
 1700. Land Tax Bill passed by the House of Commons 
 and sent to the Lords, who made alterations in the Bill. 
 
 Conference of the two Houses held. Instructions of 
 the Commons to their representatives : 
 
 " Monday, 8 April, 1700. 
 
 ' That the Upper House had no right to alter a Money 
 Bill, that the point had long been settled and was too 
 clear for argument ; that they should leave the Bill with 
 the Lords, that they should leave with the Lords also 
 the responsibility of stopping the supplies which were 
 necessary for the public service." 
 
 " Wednesday, 10 April. 
 " The Bill passed the Lords without amendments." 
 
 While the House of Lords had been practically banished 
 from the sphere of finance, the power of effective protest 
 against " tacking " remained to them. Their contentions 
 on this subject have been effectively sustained down 
 to modern times. They are expressed in the resolution 
 adopted by the Lords in 1699, in the following terms : 
 
 1699. Resolution by the Lords : 
 
 " The joining together in a Money Bill things so totally 
 foreign to the methods of raising money and to the 
 quantity or qualification of the sums to be raised, is 
 wholly destructive of the freedom of debates, dangerous 
 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE 49 
 
 to the privileges of the Lords, and to the prerogatives 
 of the Crown. For by this means things of the last ill- 
 consequence to the nation may be brought into Money 
 Bills, and yet neither the Lords nor the Crown be able 
 to give their negative to them without hazarding the 
 public peace and security." 
 
 On 9 December, 1702, the Lords made the following 
 Declaration, which was added to their Standing Orders : 
 
 " That the annexing any clause or clauses to a Bill of 
 aid or supply, the matter of which is foreign to and 
 different from the said Bill of aid or supply, is unparlia- 
 mentary, and tends to the destruction of a constituent 
 of the Government." 
 
 1702. Resolution of the Commons : " The granting 
 and disposing of all public moneys is the undoubted 
 right of the Commons alone, and an essential part of 
 their constitution." 
 
 1708. Commons disagree to an amendment made by 
 the Lords to a Bill for covering St. Paul's cupola with 
 copper, which the Lords proposed should be covered 
 with lead. Among other reasons the Commons allege 
 " that the money for building the said cathedral was 
 granted by the Commons, and therefore the application 
 thereof does belong to them." The Lords gave way. 
 
 1709. The Lords amended a Bill for building a light- 
 house on the Eddystone Rock by inserting a clause 
 limiting the duration of the Act. The Commons report 
 " that this amendment for shortening the time for the 
 collection of certain duties, being an alteration of the 
 Commons' disposition of the money arising by those 
 duties, doth entrench upon the ancient rights and 
 privileges of the House of Commons, from which they 
 can never depart." The Lords gave way. 
 
 1719. Resolution by the Commons re clause introduced 
 by the Lords which, in effect, would have imposed a 
 new subsidy not granted by the Commons : " It is the 
 
50 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 undoubted and sole right of the Commons to grant, and 
 from which they will never depart." 
 
 1860. Resolutions by the Commons : 
 
 ' That the right of granting aids and supplies to the 
 Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of 
 their constitution, and the limitation of all such grants 
 as to matter, manner, measure, and time. 
 
 " That although the Lords have exercised the power 
 of rejecting Bills of several descriptions relative to 
 taxation by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of 
 that power by them has not been frequent, and is justly 
 regarded by this House with peculiar jealousy, as affecting 
 the right of the Commons to grant the supplies and to 
 provide the Ways and Means for the service of the year. 
 
 " That to guard for the future against an undue 
 exercise of that power by the Lords and to secure to the 
 Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply, 
 this House has in its own hands the power so to impose 
 and remit taxes and to frame Bills of Supply that the 
 right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure, 
 and time may be maintained inviolate." 
 
 A high constitutional authority, Sir William Anson, 
 expressed the opinion that the resolutions of 1860 were 
 a declaration that the Commons had it always in their 
 power so to frame Money Bills as to make the right of 
 rejection by the Lords nugatory. 
 
 The jealous solicitude of the Commons for their finan- 
 cial privileges is illustrated by the distinction which is 
 drawn between Supply Bills and other legislative measures 
 in the different methods of procedure adopted when 
 they are ready for passage into law. I quote the following 
 from Hatsell, a learned authority on parliamentary 
 usage, for long years a clerk at the table of the Commons, 
 who wrote over a hundred years ago : 
 
 " The uniform practice with respect to the returning 
 Bills of Supply from the Lords, in order that they may 
 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE 51 
 
 be presented by the Speaker to the Throne, has long 
 been not to send them back by the Masters in Chancery, 
 but for the Clerk of the House of Lords to deliver them 
 privately to one of the Clerks belonging to the House 
 of Commons, and if there is any doubt which are and 
 which are not Bills proper for the Speaker to present, 
 the Clerk of the House of Lords, in delivering the list 
 of the Bills ready for the Royal Assent, desires that the 
 Speaker would mark in that list which of them appear 
 to him to be Bills of Supply, and these Bills are im- 
 mediately sent down to the House of Commons. This 
 practice of the House of Commons of insisting that 
 Bills of aid to the Crown should be presented by the 
 Speaker in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, 
 which appears above 200 years ago [Hatsell was writing 
 over a century ago] to have been considered no trifling 
 or indifferent privilege, naturally arises out of that prin- 
 ciple of the Constitution which is expressed in the resolu- 
 tion of 3 July, 1678. And in the preamble of these 
 Bills this principle is expressed by the words with which 
 they always begin : ' Most Gracious Sovereign, We, 
 your Majesty's most faithful Commons, have given and 
 granted to your Majesty, etc.' Again, when the Crown 
 has occasion to demand supplies or to give thanks for 
 supplies that have been granted, it is to the House of 
 Commons alone that this part of the Speech is addressed." 
 The peculiarities of procedure in the House of Lords 
 with regard to Supply Bills are made clear in the Com- 
 panion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords on 
 Public Business, compiled by Sir Henry Graham, the 
 present Clerk of the Parliaments. From this it appears 
 that all Bills, except Supply Bills, passed by the House 
 of Lords, remain in the custody of the Clerk of Parlia- 
 ments. A Supply Bill, after it is passed by the House 
 of Lords, is at once sent down to the House of Commons, 
 and remains in the custody of that House and of the 
 
52 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Speaker until such time as the Royal Assent is to be 
 signified to it. The Clerk of Parliaments draws up the 
 list of Bills to which the King's Assent is to be signified, 
 the Supply Bill (in other words, the Budget) being placed 
 first in the list, and on the day appointed he has all the 
 Bills in his custody except the Supply or Finance Bill. 
 When the Commons are summoned to the House of 
 Lords, the Speaker has in his custody the Finance Bill. 
 The Clerk of the House of Commons, who brings the 
 Bill with him, when the Commons are come to the bar 
 of the House of Lords, hands it to the Speaker. Then 
 the Clerk of Parliaments, instead of remaining at the 
 table, goes to the bar of the House and receives the Bill 
 from the hand of the Speaker and brings it to the table, 
 bowing. The Royal Assent is signified to a Finance Bill 
 in these words, " Le Roi remercie ses bon sujets, accepte 
 leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult," instead of in the 
 shorter form, " Le Roi le veult," in which Assent is 
 given to other public Bills. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 GLADSTONE AND THE LORDS 
 
 OF all the great statesmen in British history, it was 
 Mr. Gladstone who most often came into conflict 
 with the House of Lords. Yet Gladstone was one 
 of the most constitutionally minded statesmen who have 
 ever served the Empire. The windows of his mind were 
 always open to the light of new ideas. He was always 
 ready to move forward, but he loved to travel along the 
 well-worn ways. No statesman before or since can com- 
 pare with him in the union of caution and courage, of 
 boldness with prudence. We have seen how decisively he 
 acted in 1860 and 1861 over finance. When he became 
 Prime Minister it was his fate to come into sharp conflict 
 with the peers in regard to legislation. He triumphed 
 over their opposition in every encounter. Looking back 
 at the record of the great Administration of 1868-74, it 
 is wonderful that so much was accomplished by a Liberal 
 Government that had to carry its principal measures in 
 the teeth of a hostile Second Chamber. 
 
 Gladstone's first struggle with the Lords, like his last, 
 concerned Ireland. Fresh from his victory at the polls, 
 Mr. Gladstone in 1869 brought in the first of his great 
 remedial measures dealing with Ireland. The third 
 reading of the Bill for the Disestablishment and Dis- 
 endowment of the Church of England in Ireland was 
 carried through the Commons in May by a majority of 114. 
 Then, in Lord Morley's words, " the contest was removed 
 from the constituencies and their representatives in 
 
 53 
 
54 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Parliament to the citadel of privilege." The issue was 
 no longer single, and the struggle for religious equality 
 in Ireland was henceforth merged before the public eye 
 in a conflict for the supremacy of the Commons in England. 
 The Queen, having heard that the House of Lords was 
 likely to throw out the Irish Church Bill on the motion 
 for second reading, exercised powerful influence behind 
 the scenes in favour of peace. Her counsels were aided by 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury (Tait), a man eminent for 
 his wisdom and moderation. The Queen had no liking for 
 the Bill, and in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, written on 3 June, 
 1869, Her Majesty refers to the apprehensions she had 
 always held as to the possible consequences of the 
 measure. In this letter occurred the following passage : 
 
 " These apprehensions Her Majesty is bound to say 
 still exist in full force ; but, considering the circumstances 
 under which the measure has come to the House of Lords, 
 the Queen cannot regard without the greatest alarm the 
 probable effect of its absolute rejection in that House. 
 Carried as it has been by an overwhelming and steady 
 majority through a House of Commons chosen expressly 
 to speak the feeling of the country on the question, there 
 seems no reason to believe that any fresh appeal to the 
 people would lead to a different result. The rejection of 
 the Bill, therefore, on the second reading, would only 
 serve to bring the two Houses into collision, and to 
 prolong a dangerous agitation on the subject." 
 
 The conciliatory tone of Gladstone in his communication 
 with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Queen's 
 action in writing direct to the Earl of Derby, dwelling on 
 the danger of a collision with the Commons, were effectual. 
 At 3 a.m. on 19 June the motion for second reading was 
 carried by a majority of 33, the second time in twenty 
 years in which the Conservatives had been beaten in the 
 House of Lords. The two Archbishops abstained from 
 voting ; one Bishop, Thirlwall, of St. David's, a scholarly 
 
GLADSTONE AND THE LORDS 55 
 
 and an eloquent man, voted for the second reading, as also 
 did thirty-six Conservative peers, including the late Lord 
 Salisbury. In Committee trouble arose. " The amend- 
 ments," said Mr. Gladstone, " seem to mean war to the 
 knife." In mid- July the Bill came back to the Commons, 
 overladen with obnoxious amendments. At the invitation 
 of the Prime Minister the Commons made short work of 
 these amendments, and on 16 July the Bill, restored sub- 
 stantially to its first shape, was back in the Lords. Again 
 the Lords were obdurate, and, as Lord Morley phrases it, 
 " shipwreck seemed to be inevitable." Ensued pour- 
 parlers between Gladstone and Granville and the Tory 
 leaders, Lord Cairns and Lord Salisbury. After much 
 anxious deliberation an agreement was reached. As 
 Sir Robert Phillimore, a devoted friend of Gladstone, 
 recorded in his diary : " There was a well-grounded alarm 
 on the part of Cairns and his immediate supporters in the 
 Lords, that their order was in imminent danger. Bluster 
 disappeared, and a retreat as decent as well could be 
 expected was made from a situation known to be un- 
 tenable." The Bill for the Disestablishment and Dis- 
 endowment of the Irish Church then swiftly passed into 
 law. 
 
 In the following year, 1870, another struggle with the 
 Lords this time over the abolition of the purchase of 
 commissions in the Army was solved by bold action on 
 the part of Mr. Gladstone, who used the sharp weapon of 
 the Royal Prerogative to cut the Gordian knot. 
 
 "An Act of George III abolished selling of offices in other 
 departments, but gave to the Crown the discretion of 
 retaining the practice in the Army if so it should seem fit. 
 This discretion had been exercised by the issue of a 
 warrant sanctioning and regulating that practice. Com- 
 missions in the Army were bought and sold for large sums 
 of money, far in excess of the sums fixed by the Royal 
 Warrant, and vested interests on a large scale grew up in 
 
56 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 consequence. The substitution, instead of this abusive 
 system, of promotion by selection was one of the first 
 steps in Army Reform. No effective reorganization was 
 possible without it. ... The first question before Parlia- 
 ment depended upon the Commons voting the money 
 to compensate officers who had acquired vested interests. 
 If that were secure there was nothing to hinder the Crown 
 in the discretion committed to it by the statute from 
 cancelling the old warrant. Instead of this, Ministers 
 determined to abolish the purchase by Bill " (Morley's 
 Gladstone) . 
 
 The military caste loathed the Bill. Its progress 
 through the House of Commons was stubbornly resisted, 
 and when it reached the Lords it was met by a dilatory 
 resolution. The Cabinet effectively countered this by 
 decision to drop the Bill and to cancel the old warrant 
 regulating purchase by a new Royal Warrant abolishing 
 purchase. When Mr. Gladstone announced this decision 
 to the House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli taunted the 
 Government with resorting to the prerogative of the 
 Crown to get out of a difficulty of their own creation. 
 Some Radicals, Professor Fawcett prominent among them, 
 attacked Mr. Gladstone for an act which they feared 
 would exalt the Crown at the expense of the rights of 
 Parliament. It was a strange argument for Radicals 
 to employ. They did not realize that the prerogative 
 of the Crown had become the privilege of the people. 
 
 In 1871 the Lords threw out the Ballot Bill. " It was 
 novel/' they said; "it was dangerous; it had not been 
 considered by the country or Parliament ; it was in- 
 coherent and contradictory ; and to enact vote by ballot 
 was inevitably to overthrow the monarchy." Such were 
 the arguments, with much more to the same purpose. By 
 97 votes to 48 the Bill was rejected. Speaking in the 
 autumn at Whitby, Mr. Gladstone said the people's Bill 
 had been passed by the people's House, and when it was 
 
GLADSTONE AND THE LORDS 57 
 
 next presented at the door of the House of Lords it would 
 be with an authoritative knock. He told Lord Houghton 
 (father of the Marquis of Crewe) that he was sorry to see 
 the agitation apparently rising against the House of 
 Lords, though he had a strong opinion about the im- 
 prudence of its conduct on the Army Bill, and especially 
 on the Ballot Bill. " There is no Duke of Wellington in 
 these days," he wrote ; " his reputation as a domestic 
 statesman seems to me to rest almost entirely on his 
 leadership of the peers between 1832 and 1841." The 
 Ballot Bill was again passed through the House of 
 Commons in 1872. This time it was agreed to by the 
 House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone had no more trouble with 
 the hereditary chamber during his great administration. 
 
 The Liberal Party was happy in having as Leader of the 
 House of Lords during these eventful years a man so 
 capable as Earl Granville, whose courtesy, suavity, and 
 silken grace of manner masked a firm character and a very 
 resolute spirit. Liberals do not always recognize the 
 delicacy and difficulty of the task that falls to the Leader 
 of the permanent Liberal minority in the House of Lords. 
 The position of such a Leader is sympathetically described 
 in his Life of Lord Granville by Lord Fitzmaurice. Lord 
 Granville, in the Parliament of 1868-74, at a time of 
 Liberal predominance in the country, found himself " sur- 
 rounded on the benches of the Upper House by a huge 
 array of hostile peers, aided by prelates who recalled the 
 observation of Lord Grey that the pulse of ambition could 
 beat as strong under a lawn sleeve as under the cuff of a 
 cloth coat." 
 
 ' To this assembly, hostile to the recognition of the 
 smallest approach to religious equality in school and 
 college alike, Lord Granville had to recommend an 
 Education Bill and the abolition of University Tests. 
 He had to persuade the same audience to accept the 
 disestablishment and disendowment of the Established 
 
58 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Church in Ireland. He had to ask a House the great 
 majority of which still believed that, in the words of Lord 
 Palmerston, ' tenant right spelt landlord wrong ' to 
 submit to the provisions of the Irish Land Act of 1870. 
 Against the opposition of a formidable array of social 
 prejudice, which considered the military forces of the 
 Crown to be the natural preserve of the upper classes, 
 he and his colleagues had to carry through a great scheme 
 of Army Reform, and, perhaps the most difficult task of all, 
 before a tribunal which could show at the moment an 
 array of legal talent greater even than that usually to be 
 found there, he had to justify the abolition of purchase by 
 Royal Warrant, when Parliament had been asked and had 
 refused to abolish it by statute. Soon afterwards he 
 had to recommend for acceptance a Bill for the intro- 
 duction of secret voting, another to give a legal status 
 to trade unions, and another for the complete alteration 
 of the Supreme Judicature of the Empire. Collisions 
 between the two Houses were constantly to be feared, 
 even when they did not actually take place ; and if one 
 grave crisis at least occurred, others were but with 
 difficulty averted." 
 
 This passage, with slight alteration, might stand as a 
 description of the position of Lord Crewe as Leader of the 
 House of Lords in our own time. 
 
 The Gladstone Government went out of office in 1874. 
 By that time the subordination of the House of Lords to 
 the House of Commons in legislation as well as in finance 
 had become axiomatic. All effective power had departed 
 from the House of Lords. The supremacy of the Commons 
 in finance had long been established, but the incidents 
 of 1860-1 had reduced to a nullity even the bare right 
 which the Lords still possessed of rejecting a Finance 
 Bill, for Mr. Gladstone had so contrived that any such 
 rejection must entail consequences so grave that the 
 Second Chamber would not lightly incur them. To its 
 
GLADSTONE AND THE LORDS 59 
 
 supremacy in finance the House of Commons had now 
 added an unquestioned supremacy in legislation. The 
 peers retained the power of vetoing Bills, but in practice, 
 as we have seen in the instance of the Ballot Bill, the veto 
 was only a suspensory one. In short, by a natural process 
 of evolution, we had arrived at the constitutional under- 
 standing whereby " the Lords are expected in every 
 serious political controversy to give way at some point or 
 other to the will of the House of Commons as expressing 
 the deliberate resolve of the nation " (Dicey, Law of the 
 Constitution). In the words of Sir William Anson (Law 
 and Custom of the Constitution) a convention had come 
 into existence to the effect that " when the country has 
 emphatically pronounced in favour of a measure, and 
 when that measure has been formulated in the House of 
 Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords, that House 
 will acquiesce although the measure is one of which the 
 majority of the peers may disapprove." 
 
 In all the great functions of government the House of 
 Lords had become almost a negligible quantity. The 
 peers' privilege in ancient times of advising the Sovereign 
 had passed to a Committee of the Privy Council made up 
 of Cabinet Ministers, these Ministers being responsible not 
 to the House of Lords, but to the House of Commons. 
 Their old duty of furnishing armed forces for the service 
 of the Crown had vanished with the extinction of the old 
 feudal tenures and the establishment of a standing army. 
 The growth of the country in wealth and population, and 
 the extension of governmental activities, involved a large 
 national expenditure, and the revenue to meet it had to be 
 found not as in old days by contributions from the Nobles, 
 the Clergy, and the Burgesses, but by a system of national 
 taxation. An inevitable effect of this change was to 
 depress the Nobles and exalt the authority of the 
 Commons. The Lords, however, remained the final 
 Court of Appeal in matters of law, thus retaining a 
 
60 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 remnant of the extensive powers wielded until the 
 seventeenth century by the King in Council. But while 
 in theory the House of Lords was the Supreme Court of 
 Appeal, in fact its appellate jurisdiction was exercised 
 only by a few chosen members of its body who had had a 
 distinguished legal career. The Law Lords, owing their 
 office to their own eminence in a learned profession, are 
 life peers, attached by instinct and association to the 
 general body of the nation rather than to an hereditary 
 aristocracy. 
 
 The House of Lords had no power of influencing 
 domestic or foreign policy. It had no voice in making war 
 or in concluding peace. India and the Crown Colonies 
 could be governed without reference to it. Over Navy 
 and Army it had not the slightest control. Education, 
 agriculture, industry, commerce, public health, were all 
 outside its sphere. The only residue of all its ancient 
 authority was a veto on legislation, and this as we have 
 seen had become suspensory. Such was the position of 
 the House of Lords when the great Administration of 
 1868-74 came to the end of its career. So it remained for 
 a generation, and in 1886 we find the late Lord Salisbury, 
 in a letter to Mr. Alfred Austin, Poet Laureate, lamenting 
 the impotence of the House of Lords, and deploring that 
 " the position of a peer is so helpless politically." 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 THE REFORM BILL OF 1884 
 
 TRUE to its characteristics, the House of Lords 
 slumbered during the Conservative Administra- 
 tion, 1874-80. With the return of Mr. Gladstone 
 to power in 1880 it resumed the activity it had always 
 displayed against a Liberal Government. Ireland was 
 seething with agrarian discontent, and one of the first 
 acts of the new Government was to bring in a Bill pro- 
 viding, in certain conditions, for payment of compen- 
 sation to an evicted tenant turned out of his holding. 
 To this generation, accustomed to much more drastic 
 measures dealing with Irish land, the Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill appeared a very mild palliative for the 
 distressing evils then prevalent in Ireland. 
 
 It was, however, too strong for an assembly of land- 
 owners, and the House of Lords, by 282 to 51, rejected 
 the Bill on second reading. Of this, Mr. Gladstone, 
 writing in later years, said : 
 
 " Late in the session came the decisive and disastrous 
 rejection by the House of Lords of the Bill by means of 
 which the Government had hoped to arrest the progress 
 of disorder and avert the necessity for measures in the 
 direction of coercion. The rapid and vast extension of 
 agrarian disturbances followed, as was to be expected, 
 this wild excess of Landlordism, and the Irish Govern- 
 ment proceeded to warn the Cabinet that coercive legis- 
 lation would be necessary." 
 
 61 
 
62 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " I remember," wrote Mr. Justin MacCarthy, a dis- 
 tinguished member of the Irish Nationalist Party, 
 " speaking in the House of Commons, and declaring my 
 conviction that the action of the House of Lords, in 
 rejecting the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, was the 
 fountain and origin of all the agrarian trouble then going 
 on in Ireland. I shall never forget how Mr. Gladstone, 
 seated on the Treasury Bench, leaning across the table, 
 with flashing eyes and earnest gestures, called ' Hear ! 
 Hear ! Hear ! ' to my declaration." 
 
 Heralded by this lamentable action of the House of 
 Lords began the stormiest years of the Irish Land War. A 
 year later trouble was again anticipated from the House 
 of Lords over Mr. Gladstone's Irish Land Bill of 1881, 
 which established the three " F's " fixity of tenure, fair 
 rents, and free sale. It seemed at one time that the Lords 
 would devitalize the Bill, but their alarm at the grave 
 condition of Ireland overcame their repugnance to Mr. 
 Gladstone's measure. Lord Selborne, for once, stood 
 to his guns, and his authority, strengthened eventually 
 by the prudent timidity of Lord Salisbury, secured the 
 passing of the third reading. Mr. Gladstone wrote a 
 grateful letter to the Lord Chancellor " the most 
 demonstrative," said Lord Selborne, " which I ever re- 
 ceived from him " (Wemyss Reid's Life of Gladstone). 
 
 There was no other encounter between the Government 
 and the House of Lords until 1884. In that year Mr. 
 Gladstone brought in a Reform Bill extending to house- 
 holders in the counties the parliamentary franchise con- 
 ferred in 1867 on householders in the towns. One result of 
 the Bill would be the enfranchisement of the agricultural 
 labourer. In 1884 there were in round numbers 3,000,000 
 parliamentary voters in the United Kingdom. The new 
 Bill would add 2,000,000 more to the electoral roll, nearly 
 twice as many as were added by Mr. Disraeli's Bill in 1867, 
 and more than four times as many as were added by the 
 
THE REFORM BILL OF 1884 63 
 
 Reform Bill of 1832. The second reading was carried in 
 the Commons by 340 against 210. " On the third reading 
 the Opposition disappeared from the House, and on Mr. 
 Gladstone's prompt initiative it was placed on record in 
 the journals that the Bill had been carried by a unanimous 
 verdict. ' ' The House of Lords met the Franchise Bill with 
 a resolution urging that it ought not to be carried unless 
 accompanied by a measure providing for a redistribution 
 of seats. " What the Tories, with different degrees of 
 sincerity, professed to dread was that the election might 
 take place on the new franchise, but with an unaltered 
 disposition of parliamentary seats. At heart the bulk of 
 them were as little friendly to a lowered franchise in the 
 counties as they had been in the case of the towns before 
 Mr. Disraeli educated them. But this was a secret 
 dangerous to let out, for the enfranchised workers in the 
 towns would never understand why workers in the villages 
 should not have a vote." 
 
 The action of the Lords in stopping progress with the 
 Bill led to a formidable agitation in the autumn against 
 the hereditary chamber. Mr. Chamberlain took the 
 lead in this, and conducted a veritable pilgrimage of 
 passion up and down the land. Whigs and Radicals 
 united in the agitation. One of the greatest demonstra- 
 tions against the Lords took place in the Pomona Gardens, 
 in Manchester, when a vast audience was addressed by 
 John Bright, the Marquis of Hartington, and Sir Henry 
 James. Always a restraining force, when popular passion 
 was aroused, Mr. Gladstone exerted all his influence to 
 quell the storm. In August he submitted to the Queen a 
 memorandum on the political situation. Of this Lord 
 Morley says : " It is a masterly statement of the case, 
 starting from the assumption, for the sake of argument, 
 that the Tories were right and the Liberals wrong as to 
 the two Bills ; then proceeding on the basis of a strongly 
 expressed desire to keep back a movement for organic 
 
64 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 change (in the composition and powers of the House of 
 Lords) ; next urging the signs that such- a movement 
 would go forward with irresistible force if the Bill were 
 again rejected ; and concluding thus : 
 
 " I may say in conclusion that there is no personal act, 
 if it be compatible with personal honour and likely to 
 contribute to an end which I hold very dear, that I would 
 not gladly do for the purpose of helping to close the present 
 controversy, and in closing it to prevent the growth of one 
 probably more complex and more formidable." 
 
 To all suggestions of a dissolution on the case in issue, 
 Mr. Gladstone replied : 
 
 " Never will I be a party to dissolving in order to 
 determine whether the Lords or the Commons were right 
 upon the Franchise Bill. If I have anything to do with 
 Dissolution, it will be a dissolution upon organic change 
 in the House of Lords. Should this Bill be again rejected 
 in a definite manner, there will only be two courses open 
 to me, one to cut out of public life, which I shall infinitely 
 prefer, the other to become a supporter of organic change 
 in the House of Lords, which I hate, and which I am 
 making all this fuss in order to avoid. We have a few 
 weeks before us to try and avert the mischief. After a 
 second rejection it will be too late. 
 
 " There is perhaps the alternative of advising a large 
 creation of peers, but to this there are great objections, 
 even if the Queen were willing. I am not at present sure 
 that I could bring myself to be a party to the adoption of 
 a plan like that of 1832." 
 
 Eventually an agreement was reached in the month of 
 November between the Government and the Tory leaders. 
 Under this compact the Franchise Bill was allowed to pass, 
 on the understanding that the Redistribution Bill should 
 promptly follow, the scope and nature of the latter Bill to 
 be first disclosed to the Conservative leaders, Lord Salis- 
 bury and Sir Stafford Northcote. Lord Morley justly 
 
THE REFORM BILL OF 1884 65 
 
 says that it was Mr. Gladstone's statesmanship that 
 brought this pacification into sight and within reach. 
 He it was who put the damper on the fierce fires of the 
 anti-Lords' agitation, which had been kindled by Mr. 
 Chamberlain's ardent oratory. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND THE LORDS 
 
 OF the assailants of the House of Lords in 1884 
 1885, the most formidable and unrelenting was 
 Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. His great colleague 
 in the representation of Birmingham, Mr. John Bright, 
 though he took a less active part in the popular campaign, 
 yet spoke with all the power of his matchless eloquence 
 against the Lords at two great meetings, one in Manchester 
 and the other in Birmingham. The Birmingham speech, 
 delivered on 4 August, 1884, is notable for its disclosure of 
 a plan to limit the veto of the House of Lords a plan 
 which anticipated with remarkable fidelity the Parliament 
 Bill passed last summer. It has, in fact, been said that 
 the real author of the Parliament Bill is John Bright. But 
 Bright himself, as has been shown, had been anticipated in 
 this matter by James Mill, the philosophical Radical, now 
 best remembered not for his own achievements, con- 
 siderable as these were, but as the father of John Stuart 
 Mill. 
 
 After an interval of nearly half a century James Mill's 
 plan was resurrected by John Bright. Having discussed 
 various methods that had been suggested for solving a 
 deadlock between Lords and Commons, Bright, in this 
 Birmingham speech, proceeded to indicate the remedy. 
 His suggestion was that the Lords should only have the 
 right to reject a Bill once, not twice as Mill suggested. 
 Below is a quotation from Bright's speech : 
 
 " What we have before us is this fact, that the Lords 
 
 66 
 
BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND LORDS 67 
 
 do now what the despotic monarchs did formerly ; and 
 the question which I put to you, and from this platform 
 to all the people of the United Kingdom, is this : Shall 
 we submit ? (No.) Shall we submit, or curb them curb 
 the nobles as our fathers curbed our kings ? (Loud 
 cheers.) Now, I may assure you that the veto of the 
 monarch was as legal in those days, and was as much 
 cherished by the monarch, as any despotic power could 
 be. It was given up and abolished, but the Crown was 
 not overturned. The Throne remained, and the Throne 
 remained with an unimpaired dignity, and from that time 
 to this has been held in great and just reverence by the 
 great mass of the people of this country. (Cheers.) Well, 
 now, how should we curb them ? (Cries of ' Turn them 
 out.') At present you know that within their own walls 
 they are, in a sense, omnipotent. (Laughter.) They can, 
 if they like, I believe, turn out any one of their own 
 members in the same way that the House of Commons 
 has turned out one of its members. (' Shame,' and cries 
 of ' Three cheers for Bradlaugh,' the cheers being heartily 
 given.) They can reject a Bill sent up from the House of 
 Commons, as they rejected the Bill for the Repeal of the 
 Paper Duty in 1860, and as they have rejected the Fran- 
 chise Bill now. Now, the proposition that I should make 
 would be this that they should have, unimpaired, all the 
 power they have now with regard to any Bill that has 
 passed the House of Commons for the first time during 
 the session in which the Lords are called upon to deal with 
 it. That is, in the case of this Bill they would be at liberty 
 to amend it, and send it back to the Commons. If the 
 Commons did not like the amendments, and would not 
 accept them, the Bill would go back to the Lords, and if 
 the Lords chose they might reject it. But in a second 
 session, if practically the same Bill was sent up to the 
 Lords, they would then also have a right to debate and to 
 amend ; but when the Bill came down to the House of 
 
68 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Commons in this second session, and the Commons would 
 not agree to the amendments of the Lords, then the Lords 
 should be bound to accept the Bill. (Cheers.) 
 
 " Now, what would remain to the peerage ? There 
 would this remain the peerage and its titles. There 
 would be, as now, members of the House of Lords. (A 
 Voice : ' You are too lenient.') But you have not heard 
 it all. There would remain dukes, and marquises, and 
 earls and viscounts, and barons, as now. They would be 
 members of the House of Lords ; but I venture to suggest t 
 and I am sure I am correct in the opinion, that the change 
 which I have proposed would entirely and most bene- 
 ficially change the character and the conduct of the 
 House of Lords. (' Hear, hear/ and cheers.)" 
 
 Such was John Bright 's proposal. Bright 's oratory on 
 the Lords' question paled its ineffectual fires before the 
 blaze of his junior colleague's rhetoric. The speeches of 
 Mr. Chamberlain in 1884 vibrated with passionate resent- 
 ment, and were marked by a rasping invective. Never 
 had the House of Lords been more ruthlessly assailed. 
 " It has denied justice and delayed reform," said Mr. 
 Chamberlain. <f It is irresponsible without independence, 
 obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judgment, 
 arrogant without knowledge." " The cup is nearly full ; 
 the career of high-handed wrong is coming to an end." 
 In a speech at Hanley, 7 October, 1884, Mr. Chamberlain 
 said : 
 
 " Lord Carnarvon told his hearers on one occasion the 
 old fable of the bees, and he compared the House of 
 Lords to a hive which it would be dangerous to meddle 
 with. . . . Gentlemen, it was impossible for him to have 
 chosen a more unfortunate illustration. Mr. Firth (late 
 M.P. for Chelsea) tells me that the community of bees in 
 a hive are like the British Constitution. First, there is 
 the queen, who is honoured and respected by all her 
 subjects. Then there are the drones (loud laughter), and 
 
BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND LORDS 69 
 
 then there are the working bees. (Cheers.) The drones 
 lead an idle life ; ' they toil not, neither do they spin ' ; 
 they feed on the produce of others' labour, and I have no 
 doubt they think themselves the best and the wisest and 
 most patriotic of insects. But there is a tragic ending to 
 the pleasant dream. About this time of year the working 
 bees prepare for winter. They become impatient of these 
 lazy parasites, and with a swift and implacable resolution 
 they stop the supply. They drive the drones from the hive 
 (loud cheers), and the drones perish miserably from the 
 violent pressure of their indignant fellow-subjects. . . . 
 
 " Let the prime condition be that the Franchise Bill 
 shall pass. ... It is said that the peers will not give way. 
 Then I say neither will the people submit. We grudge the 
 Lords nothing that rightly belongs to them, nothing they 
 can enjoy without injury to others, their rank and title, 
 their stars and garters, any influence which their personal 
 qualities can gain for them ; any power that they may 
 procure by long prescription and high station ; but their 
 claim to dictate the laws which we shall make, the way in 
 which we shall govern ourselves, to spoil, to delay, even 
 reject, measures demanded by the popular voice is a claim 
 contrary to reason, opposed to justice, and which we shall 
 resist to the death." 
 
 At an overflow meeting Mr. Chamberlain said : 
 
 ' The House of Lords is permanently in opposition to 
 a Liberal House of Commons. ... It is sometimes de- 
 scribed as an independent House of Legislature, but it is 
 not independent. The House of Lords has become, so far 
 as its majority is concerned, a mere branch of the Tory 
 caucus, a mere instrument of the Tory organization, and 
 the House of Lords does what the wire-pullers of the 
 Tory party suggest." 
 
 In the course of a powerful speech delivered at Denbigh, 
 North Wales, on 20 October, 1884, Mr. Chamberlain 
 said : 
 
70 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " Are the Lords to dictate to us, the people of England? 
 (Loud cries of ' No ! No ! ') Are the Lords to dictate to 
 us the laws which we shall make, and the way in which 
 we shall bring them in ? Are you going to be governed 
 by yourselves or will you submit to an oligarchy which 
 is a mere accident of birth ? Your ancestors resisted 
 kings and abated the pride of monarchs, and it is in- 
 conceivable that you should be so careless of your great 
 heritage as now to submit your liberties to this miserable 
 minority of individuals, who rest their claims upon 
 privilege and upon accident. ... I have always thought 
 that the House of Lords is a very picturesque institution, 
 attractive from its connection with the history of our 
 country. I have no desire to see a dull uniformity of 
 social life, and I am rather thankful than otherwise to 
 gentlemen who will take the trouble to wear robes and 
 coronets, and who will keep up a certain state of splendour 
 which is very pleasant to look upon. They are ancient 
 monuments, and I should be very sorry to deface them. 
 But, gentlemen, I don't admit that we can build upon 
 these interesting ruins the foundations of our Government. 
 I cannot allow that these antiquities (loud laughter) 
 should control the destinies of a free Empire ; and when 
 they press their claims without discretion and without 
 moderation, when they press them to an extreme which 
 their predecessors never contemplated, I say they provoke 
 inquiry and controversy which cannot but end in their 
 humiliation. 
 
 " We are told that the object of the Second Chamber is 
 to stay the gusts of popular agitation, and to give the 
 nation time for reflection. I defy any student of history 
 to point to one single case in which the House of Lords 
 has ever stayed a gust of popular passion, or checked a 
 popular impulse. ... I am going to ask you to follow me 
 into an examination of the baneful influences that this 
 assembly exercises upon the great interests of the Empire, 
 
BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND LORDS 71 
 
 and I will call your attention more particularly to two. . . . 
 With regard to Ireland you know that the condition of 
 that country is the constant preoccupation and anxiety 
 of English statesmen. After centuries of a hollow Union 
 the people are still discontented. We only hold our own 
 in the nineteenth century as we did in the seventeenth, 
 by an overwhelming display of military force. We have 
 been unable to rest ourselves upon the affections of the 
 people. This state of things, so discreditable to a free 
 country, is due mainly, if not entirely, to the action of the 
 House of Lords, that club of Tory landlords, which in its 
 gilded chamber has disposed of the welfare of the people 
 with almost exclusive regard to the interests of a class. 
 The House of Lords refused Catholic Emancipation until 
 it was extorted from them by the dread of revolution. 
 They maintained, as long as they dared, the iniquitous 
 penal laws by which the life of every Irishman was at the 
 mercy of the meanest of the dominant class. They have 
 at all times rejected or delayed every measure intended 
 to secure a more popular and effective representation of 
 the wishes of the people, and they have mangled or post- 
 poned or thrown out from first to last, from the time of 
 the Union to the present day, every Bill which was in- 
 tended to secure to the Irish tenant his fair interest in the 
 land which he tilled, and to give him some guarantee for 
 the product of his industry and thrift. Again and again 
 conciliation has been delayed until it has been too late. 
 And when at last demands which could not be resisted 
 have been tardily conceded, it has been of no avail. No 
 gratitude has been earned because none has been deserved. 
 ' Wales has been, and is now, and I hope ever will be, 
 the home of a vigorous, self-respecting, and independent 
 religious work. The people of Wales have their own 
 ministers and teachers whom they have learnt to revere 
 and respect, and under whose influence they have at- 
 tained a simplicity of life, and a standard of morality, 
 
72 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 which cannot be exceeded in any other part of the United 
 Kingdom. How has the House of Peers treated the Non- 
 conformists of Wales and of the rest of the Kingdom ? 
 In old days it persecuted you, then insulted you. The 
 days of heavy oppression are removed, but the slights 
 and insults still remain, and you are far from the equality 
 which is your due. The time, I hope, is in our view when 
 the last shred of inequality and inferiority shall be re- 
 moved, and the last badge of sufferance torn from your 
 shoulders. The treatment by the House of Lords of the 
 Dissenters has exceeded in injustice almost anything that 
 can be brought against it in reference to any part of its 
 proceedings. The House of Lords maintained until 1828 
 the Test and Corporation Acts by which Dissenters were 
 precluded from serving their country in any office of 
 profit or honour. In 1834 they refused to repeal a Bill 
 which made a licence of the bishop of the diocese necessary 
 before twenty men could meet together for common 
 worship. In 1836 they insulted the Dissenters by re- 
 quiring that their banns of marriage should be read before 
 the Board of Guardians. In 1839 tnev refused the educa- 
 tion grant because the Dissenters were to share in it. 
 Five times in their history they rejected Bills for abolish- 
 ing the iniquitous Church rate. Three times they refused 
 Bills which would have given to Dissenters the consolation 
 of the presence of their own ministers at the graves of 
 those whom they had loved and lost. Gentlemen, at this 
 moment you are interested, and it is greatly to your 
 credit, in the higher education of the Principality. You 
 are anticipating much from your colleges which are being 
 so vigorously promoted ; but you will owe very little to 
 the House of Peers for the higher education and culture 
 of the Dissenters. As long as they could they did every- 
 thing in their power to prevent it, and four times from 
 1834 to 1870 they have rejected Bills for the abolition of 
 the tests which deprived Nonconformists of the prizes of 
 
BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND LORDS 73 
 
 the national universities, except at the sacrifice of their 
 conscientious scruples. No, gentlemen, I have no spite 
 against the House of Lords, but, as a Dissenter (loud and 
 prolonged cheers), as a Dissenter, I have an account to 
 settle with them, and I promise you I will not forget the 
 reckoning. I boast a descent of which I am as proud as 
 any baron may be of the title which he owes to the smiles 
 of a king, or to the favour of a king's mistress, for I can 
 claim descent from one of the two thousand ejected 
 ministers who, in the time of the Stuarts, left home and 
 work and profit rather than accept the State-made creed 
 which it was sought to force upon them ; and for that 
 reason, if for no other, I share your (Welsh Noncon- 
 formity's) hopes and your aspirations, and I resent the 
 insults, the injuries, and the injustice from which you 
 have suffered so long at the hands of a privileged assembly. 
 But the cup is nearly full. The career of high-handed 
 wrong is coming to an end. (Prolonged cheers.) The 
 House of Lords have alienated Ireland, they have op- 
 pressed the Dissenters, and they now oppose the enfran- 
 chisement of the people. We have been too long a peer- 
 ridden nation, and I hope you will say to them that, 
 if they will not bow to the mandate of the people, they 
 shall lose for ever the authority which they have so long 
 abused." (Prolonged cheers.) Denbigh, 20 October, 
 1884. 
 
 Though it has no strict relevance to the subject, interest 
 attaches to another quotation from a speech delivered by 
 Mr. Chamberlain in the following year, 1885, a speech 
 which has a pathetic interest as being almost his last 
 public utterance as a Radical, and which touches on the 
 necessity for a devolution of powers from the Imperial 
 Parliament to subordinate national assemblies. 
 
 " What are the great problems of the future ? We have 
 to deal with the obstruction in the House of Commons. 
 We have to deal with the system under which the greatest 
 
74 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 legislative assemblage in the world has begun to lose its use- 
 fulness, and in consequence lose its influence. And that 
 result can never be accomplished so long as the Imperial 
 Parliament is burdened with an ever-increasing amount 
 of petty detail with which it is incompetent to deal, and 
 which ought to be referred to other bodies. We have also 
 to recognize and to satisfy the national sentiment, which 
 is in itself a praiseworthy and a patriotic and an inspiring 
 feeling, and which both in Scotland and Ireland has led 
 to a demand for the control of purely domestic affairs. 
 And these objects can only be secured, I believe, by some 
 great measure of devolution, by which the Imperial 
 Parliament shall maintain its supremacy, but shall 
 nevertheless relegate to subordinate authorities the 
 control and administration of their local business. 
 
 !< I believe that in this way only is there any chance of 
 our being able to remove the deeply rooted discontent 
 which follows as a natural consequence from the attempt 
 of one nation to control and interfere with the domestic 
 and the social economy of another, whose genius it does 
 not understand, whose pressing necessities it is not in a 
 position to appreciate, whose business it has not time to 
 attend to, and whose prejudices and whose preferences it 
 is impossible, even with the very best intentions, to avoid 
 sometimes ignoring or offending. I look forward with 
 confidence to the opportunity which will be afforded in 
 the new Parliament for the consideration of this most 
 momentous question, and I believe that in the successful 
 accomplishment of its solution lies the only hope of the 
 pacification of Ireland, and of the maintenance of the 
 strength and integrity of the empire, which are in danger, 
 which are gravely compromised so long as an integral 
 portion of Her Majesty's dominions can only be governed 
 by exceptional legislation, and so long as it, in consequence 
 continues to be discontented and estranged." (Speech 
 to the Cobden Club, 13 June, 1885.) 
 
BRIGHT, CHAMBERLAIN, AND LORDS 75 
 
 Nothing said on the Liberal side in the angry contro- 
 versies with the House of Lords since 1906 matched the 
 bitterness and the vehemence of the language applied by 
 Mr. Chamberlain to the Lords in 1884. Little did anybody 
 in those days imagine that the time was fast approaching 
 when the most powerful of all the foes of the House of 
 Lords would be transformed into its champion. A quarter 
 of a century later this fearless, unabashed Radical, who 
 had attacked the Lords with unequalled vigour, coun- 
 selled the very assembly he had assailed to reject the 
 Budget of 1909 inciting them to an act which was the 
 most violent exercise of arbitrary power of which the 
 House of Lords has ever been guilty. Since the days of 
 Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, that man of 
 splendid talents, who, from being the pride and glory of 
 the Parliamentary party, became the chief instrument of 
 Charles Fs despotism, there has been no such startling 
 reversal of roles in our political history. Radicals sorrow 
 to this day over the defection of their " Lost Leader." 
 
 We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him, 
 
 Lived in his mild and magnificent eye, 
 
 Learned his great language, caught his clear accents, 
 
 Made him our pattern to live and to die ! 
 
 Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us, 
 
 Burns, Shelley, were with us : they watch from their graves ! 
 
 He alone breaks from the van and the freemen, 
 
 He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves. 
 
 We shall march prospering not thro' his presence ; 
 Songs may excite us not from his lyre ; 
 Deeds will be done while he boasts his quiescence, 
 Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 
 
 DEFEAT overtook Mr. Gladstone's Government in 
 June, 1885. The decision of his Cabinet to con- 
 tinue coercive measures in Ireland had angered 
 the Irish Nationalists, and Mr. Parnell, their leader, was 
 waiting his opportunity to strike. It had been arranged 
 that the new Crimes Bill should be introduced on 10 
 June. But as a result of a secret compact negotiated 
 with Parnell by Lord Randolph Churchill, then the 
 rising hope of Tory Democracy, Conservatives and Nation- 
 alists joined forces, and on 8 June, two days before 
 the date for introducing the Coercion Bill, the Govern- 
 ment was defeated by a majority of twelve. The fatal 
 division took place on the motion for the second reading 
 of the Budget Bill, to which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach 
 (now Lord St. Aldwyn) moved an amendment con- 
 demning the increase in the beer and spirit duties. Mr. 
 Barry O'Brien, in his Life of Parnell, records that " when 
 the figures 264-252 were handed in, a wild cheer of 
 triumph and vengeance mingled with cries of ' Re- 
 member Coercion ! ' broke from the Irish benches." 
 Lord Salisbury then formed his stop-gap Government 
 an Administration called into being by the Nationalist 
 party, and dependent on Irish support for its con- 
 tinuance in office. Lord Carnarvon, a peer who had 
 served the Crown in the Colonies and who was attracted 
 by the noble ideal of Imperial Federation, became Lord- 
 Lieutenant of Ireland. The Tory Government did not 
 
 76 
 
THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 77 
 
 scruple to fling away instantly the weapon of coercion. 
 Earl Spencer, who had ruled Ireland with dauntless 
 courage through dark and troublous years, was deeply 
 impressed by this cynical abandonment by the Con- 
 servatives of the policy which Dublin Castle regarded 
 as one of law and order. Coercion is " inexpedient," 
 said the new Irish Viceroy, Lord Carnarvon ; and the 
 Prime Minister spoke lightly of boycotting. " It depends," 
 said Lord Salisbury, " upon the passing humour of the 
 population. I doubt whether in any community law 
 has been able to provide a satisfactory remedy." With 
 his customary directness, Lord Randolph Churchill 
 made frank admission that the Tory Government meant 
 to effect a complete change in the system of Irish Ad- 
 ministration. " Undoubtedly," he said, "we do intend 
 to inaugurate a change of policy in Ireland " ; and he 
 accused Mr. Gladstone's Government of having " mad- 
 dened and irritated an imaginative and warm-hearted 
 race." In July, 1885, came the secret interview at a 
 house in Grosvenor Square, between Parnell and Lord 
 Carnarvon. Mr. Parnell has left on record an account of 
 that famous interview: 
 
 " In reply to an inquiry as to a proposal which had 
 been made to build up a central legislative body on the 
 foundation of county boards, I told him that I thought 
 that this would be working in a wrong direction, and 
 would not be accepted as a settlement by Ireland ; that 
 the central legislative body should be a Parliament in 
 name and in fact, that to it should be left the considera- 
 tion of whatever system of local government for the 
 counties might be found necessary. Lord Carvarvon 
 then assured me that that was his own view also ; 
 that he strongly appreciated the importance of giving 
 due weight to the sentiments of the Irish in this matter. 
 He then inquired whether, in my judgment, some plan 
 of constituting a Parliament in Dublin short of a Repeal 
 
78 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 of the Union might not be devised and prove acceptable 
 to Ireland ; and he made certain suggestions to this end, 
 taking the colonial model as a basis, which struck me 
 as being the result of much thought and knowledge of 
 the subject. Then came the reference to Protection. 
 We were discussing the general outline of a plan for 
 constituting a Legislature for Ireland on the colonial 
 model, when I took occasion to remark that some Pro- 
 tection for certain Irish industries against English and 
 foreign competition would be absolutely necessary ; 
 upon which Lord Carnarvon said, I entirely agree with 
 you, but what a row there will be about it in England ! ' 
 At the conclusion of the conversation, which lasted 
 more than an hour, and to which Lord Carnarvon was 
 very much the larger contributor, I left him believing 
 that I was in complete accord with him regarding the 
 main outlines of a settlement conferring a Legislature 
 upon Ireland." 
 
 That Lord Carnarvon, whose Toryism had been 
 modified as the result of experience in the over-sea 
 Britains, was a Home Ruler of sorts is indisputable. 
 Some of his colleagues in the Cabinet were almost per- 
 suaded to Home Rule, and, at any rate, were ready 
 for a new departure in Irish policy. During the general 
 election campaign in the autumn, Lord Salisbury, in a 
 speech at Newport, Monmouthshire (October, 1885), 
 made a significant allusion to the advantages of a national 
 assembly. " A large central assembly," he said, " in 
 which the wisdom of several parts of the country will 
 correct the folly and the mistakes of one," was to be 
 preferred to the setting up of a system of local govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his manifesto to the electors of 
 Midlothian, gave prominence to the Irish question. 
 " History," he said, " will consign to disgrace the name 
 of every man who, having it in his power, does not aid, 
 
THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 79 
 
 or prevents, or retards an equitable settlement between 
 Ireland and Great Britain." Mr. Barry O'Brien, who 
 had an interview with Mr. Gladstone a couple of months 
 before the general election, carried away from that 
 interview two clear ideas : (i) That Mr. Gladstone's 
 mind was full of Ireland ; (2) That Mr. Gladstone fore- 
 saw the revolution which the Franchise Act of 1884 
 would make in the Irish representation. Parnell in 
 public speech pressed Gladstone to come out boldly in 
 favour of Irish autonomy. Gladstone replied that it 
 was not for him to usurp the functions of a Government. 
 Moreover, nothing could be done until Ireland had 
 declared her wishes at the polls. Parnell knew full well 
 that Ireland had most to hope from Mr. Gladstone, but 
 he was bent on preventing the return of the Liberals to 
 power in a position which would make them independent 
 of the Irish Nationalists. He calculated that owing to the 
 support of the newly enfranchised agricultural labourers 
 the Liberals would gain in the counties. So he resolved 
 to utilize the Irish vote in Great Britain to encompass 
 the defeat of the Liberals in the towns. Accordingly, 
 orders were issued for the Irish vote to be cast in favour 
 of the Conservatives, and the Nationalist junta issued 
 a manifesto denouncing the Liberals in furious terms. 
 " Ireland," said Parnell, in one of his election speeches, 
 " has been knocking at the English door long enough 
 with kid gloves. I tell the English people to beware 
 and be wise in time. Ireland will soon throw off the kid 
 gloves, and she will knock with a mailed hand." 
 
 The Liberals lost heavily in the boroughs, largely 
 through the influence of the Irish vote, but there were 
 compensating gains in the counties, where the vast 
 majority of the newly enfranchised electors voted on 
 the Liberal side. In the end the Liberals had a majority 
 of 86 over the Conservatives, but the Nationalists, 
 who came back in greatly increased numbers, were able 
 
80 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 to neutralize the Liberal majority. The effect of the 
 Franchise Act of 1884 in Ireland was seen in the increase 
 of the Nationalist members from 60, the number elected 
 to the 1880 Parliament, to 86. Ireland was now demand- 
 ing self-government with an emphasis that could not 
 be ignored. The new House of Commons was com- 
 posed of : 
 
 Liberals . . . . . 335 
 
 Conservatives ..... 249 
 
 Liberal majority ..... 86 
 Irish Nationalists ..... 86 
 
 Lord Salisbury was still in office, though not in power. 
 His transient Administration fell after an adverse vote 
 in the new House of Commons on a motion by Mr. 
 Jesse Collings in January, 1886. Mr. Gladstone then 
 formed his third Administration. It had a very brief 
 life. From its birth the shadow of the Home Rule schism 
 was over it. The Marquis of Hartington, deeply dis- 
 trustful of Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy, had declined 
 office, and on 26 March Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. George 
 Trevelyan, Mr. Jesse Collings, and Mr. Heneage resigned 
 their positions in the Ministry. Mr. Gladstone introduced 
 the Home Rule Bill on 8 April, and on 16 April brought 
 in, as supplement to it, the Irish Land Bill, which con- 
 tained provisions for the buying out of the Irish land- 
 lords and the creation of a peasant proprietary an 
 anticipation of the Wyndham Bill passed by Mr. Bal- 
 four's Government in 1903. The new Irish policy pro- 
 duced a formidable secession from the Liberal ranks. 
 At one o'clock in the morning of 8 June, on the motion 
 for the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, the Govern- 
 ment was defeated by a majority of 30, the figures being : 
 For 313, Against 343. In the ensuing general election, 
 the Unionists, as the Conservatives and their dissentient 
 
THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 81 
 
 Liberal allies were now compendiously described, were 
 triumphant. Home Rule, accompanied by a vast 
 scheme for the expropriation of the Irish landlords with 
 moneys advanced from the British Treasury, proved too 
 much for the cautious English temper. The result of 
 the general election was to leave the Home Rule sup- 
 porters in a minority of 118 : 
 
 Tories ..... 316 
 
 Dissentient Liberals ... 78 
 
 Unionist total ..... 394 
 Liberals . . . . .191 
 Irish Nationalists .... 85 
 
 Home Rule total ..... 276 
 
 Unionist majority . . . . .118 
 
 One day shortly after the first meeting of the new 
 House of Commons, Parnell was standing in the Lobby 
 when Mr. Chamberlain passed by. " There goes the 
 man," said Parnell, " who killed the Home Rule Bill." 
 In the six years of Unionist Government that followed, 
 the House of Lords was very quiescent, true to its manner 
 during the lifetime of a Conservative Administration. 
 The influence of their Liberal-Unionist allies in mitigating 
 the spirit of old Toryism was seen in the passage in 
 1891 of the Free Education Act a measure largely 
 due to the inspiration of Mr. Chamberlain, who, though 
 outside the Ministry, had a potent influence in its coun- 
 cils. In the old days of the Birmingham Education 
 League, Mr. Chamberlain had been the most vigorous 
 champion of the principle that education should be 
 compulsory, secular, and free. To the Lords the Free 
 Education Bill was thoroughly odious, but they offered 
 6 
 
82 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 no opposition to it. Did it not come to them with the 
 imprimatur of a Tory Government on its face ? 
 
 Meanwhile, Mr. Gladstone was leading the forces of 
 Liberalism with an unconquerable energy and all the 
 resources of his stirring eloquence, his supreme gifts of 
 generalship, and magnetic personality. All the signs 
 were that the Home Rule cause was marching steadily 
 to victory when its progress was suddenly stayed by 
 the catastrophe of the O'Shea-Parnell divorce suit. 
 As a melancholy sequel to that moral and political dis- 
 aster came a fratricidal strife in the Nationalist ranks, 
 Parnellite and anti-Parnellite arrayed against each other 
 in deadly feud j and finally, in October, 1891, the death 
 of Parnell, broken-hearted at the ruin of the cause 
 which he had brought to the verge of victory. These 
 tragic events had a blighting effect on the cause of Ire- 
 land, and the tide of the Liberal revival was stemmed. 
 In the summer of 1892 came the general election, and 
 the return of the Liberals to office. " Until the Irish 
 schism arose," said Mr. Gladstone, " we had every 
 prospect of a majority approaching those of 1868 and 
 1880." His actual majority, with the Irish members 
 included, was only forty over the Conservatives. Lord 
 Salisbury's Government was still in office when the new 
 House of Commons met. It was overthrown in August, 
 1892, as the result of a vote of want of confidence moved 
 by Mr. Herbert Henry Asquith, a rising barrister, who 
 had distinguished himself at the Parnell Commission, 
 and who now stood out as a man of brilliant promise on 
 the Liberal side. In Mr. Gladstone's fourth Administra- 
 tion, Mr. Asquith became Home Secretary, advancing 
 to Cabinet rank without any previous service in the 
 Ministerial hierarchy. During its three years of office, 
 the work of this Government was grievously hampered 
 by the hostility of the House of Lords. The Home Rule 
 Bill was rejected by the Peers. They also killed Mr. 
 
THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 83 
 
 Asquith's Employers' Liability Bill by insistence on a 
 contracting-out amendment. Mr. H. H. Fowler's Parish 
 Councils Bill escaped execution, but it was badly mangled 
 by the hereditary chamber. In rejecting the Home 
 Rule Bill, the House of Lords did more than destroy the 
 chief work of the Government. They helped to re- 
 habilitate their faded prestige as a legislative assembly. 
 The Home Rule Bill was conducted through the House of 
 Commons in the Session of 1893 with superb skill by 
 Mr. Gladstone, then in his eighty-fourth year. Never 
 had the Grand Old Man been more imposing than in 
 this his last campaign, when he strove heroically to 
 settle the Irish question and crown the labours of a 
 long life by effecting a permanent reconciliation between 
 Ireland and England. The hero of a hundred fights 
 seemed to gather up all his moral and mental gifts, all 
 the resources of his eloquence, and all the arts of Parlia- 
 mentary management for this crowning effort of his 
 wonderful career. Despite the infirmities of age, there 
 was no waning of his intellectual powers. Never had 
 he spoken with more fire. " Age could not wither nor 
 custom stale his infinite variety." He was like a man 
 inspired. As a feat of physical endurance by a man 
 over fourscore years, the conduct of the Home Rule 
 Bill through all its stages by Mr. Gladstone was an 
 achievement without parallel in our Parliamentary history. 
 On i September, 1893, after having occupied eighty- 
 three Parliamentary days, the Bill was read a third time 
 by 301 against 267, a Government majority of 34. The 
 rejection of the Bill was moved in the House of Lords 
 by the Duke of Devonshire, long associated with Mr. 
 Gladstone as Marquis of Hartington, and after four days' 
 debate the motion that it be read a second time was 
 defeated by 419 to 41, majority 378. London was not 
 in love with Home Rule, and the popular acclamation 
 which greeted the Peers in Palace Yard on that memor- 
 
84 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 able night encouraged them in the belief that they were 
 the saviours of the country. The Government's sub- 
 missiveness under this tremendous rebuff weakened its 
 prestige. Mr. Gladstone was for dissolving and fighting 
 the Peers, but he could not carry his Cabinet with him 
 in that militant policy. Early in the following year 
 Mr. Gladstone moved to discharge the Employers' 
 Liability Bill, a measure that had been devitalized by 
 the House of Lords. Finally, on St. David's Day, i 
 March, 1894, came Mr. Gladstone's last speech in the 
 House of Commons, though not more than a score of 
 those who heard it realized at the time that it was the last 
 utterance of the mighty orator who had been for so long 
 the glory of the House. Speaking on the Lords' amend- 
 ments to the Parish Councils Bill, the veteran statesman 
 devoted his last speech to a protest against the encroach- 
 ments of the House of Lords. He said : 
 
 "We feel that this Bill is a Bill of such value that, upon 
 the whole, great as we admit the objections to be to the 
 acceptance of these amendments, the objections are still 
 greater and weightier to a course which would lead to 
 the rejection of the Bill. We are compelled to accompany 
 that acceptance with a sorrowful declaration that the 
 differences, not of a temporary or casual nature merely, 
 but differences of conviction, differences of prepossession, 
 differences of mental habit, and differences of fundamental 
 tendency between the House of Lords and the House 
 of Commons appear to have reached a development in 
 the present year such as to create a state of things of 
 which we are compelled to say that, in our judgment, 
 it cannot continue. (Loud and continued cheers.) 
 Sir, I do not wish to use hard words, which are easily 
 employed and as easily retorted. It is a game that two 
 can play at but, without using hard words, without 
 presuming to judge of motives, without desiring or 
 venturing to allege imputations, I have felt it a duty to 
 
THE HOME RULE SCHISM AND AFTER 85 
 
 state what appear to me to be indisputable facts. The 
 issue which is raised between a deliberative Assembly 
 elected by the votes of more than six millions of people, 
 and a deliberative Assembly occupied by many men 
 of virtue, by many men of talent, of course with con- 
 siderable diversities and varieties, is a controversy which, 
 when once raised, must go forward to its issue. (Loud 
 cheers.) The issue has been postponed, long postponed, 
 I rejoice to say. It has been postponed in many cases 
 to a considerable degree by that discretion, circum- 
 spection and reserve in the use of enormous privileges 
 which the House of Lords, on various occasions in my 
 recollection, in the time of the Duke of Wellington and 
 Lord Aberdeen and other periods, has shown. But I 
 am afraid, sir, that the epoch, the age of that reserve 
 and circumspection may have gone by. I will not abandon 
 all hope of it, but I must say of the present I do not 
 like to say that the situation is intolerable, because that 
 is a hard and may seem a dictatorial word ; but I think 
 hon. gentlemen opposite must feel, as I feel, that in 
 some way or other a solution will have to be found for 
 this tremendous contrariety and incessant conflict upon 
 matters of high principle and profound importance 
 between the representatives of the people and those 
 who fill a nominated Chamber. (Cheers.) It is not with 
 the House of Commons to pronounce a judgment on 
 this subject. The House of Commons is itself a party 
 in the case. I have no difficulty in pronouncing a judg- 
 ment on behalf of the Ministry in the issues that have 
 been raised throughout this year between the two Houses. 
 We take frankly, fully, and finally the side of the House 
 of Commons. The House of Commons could not be a 
 judge in its own case, and I am by no means anxious to 
 precipitate proceedings of that kind, however they might 
 be invited by an impatience most natural in the circum- 
 stances of the case. No doubt, sir, there is a higher 
 
86 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 authority than the House of Commons. It is the authority 
 of the nation which must in the last resort decide." 
 
 These were the words with which Gladstone quitted 
 the famous arena in which for more than half a century 
 he had been a shining and inspiring figure. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 THE ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT 
 
 THE tide of Liberal feeling against the House of 
 Lords was now rising strong and menacing. At 
 a special meeting of the National Liberal Federa- 
 tion, held in Leeds in June, 1894, the following resolution 
 was unanimously adopted on the motion of a veteran 
 North-country Liberal, Dr. Spence Watson : 
 
 " That this meeting calls upon the Government to 
 introduce, as soon as practicable during the present 
 Parliament, a measure for the abolition of the House of 
 Lords' veto, by providing that whenever a Bill passed by 
 the House of Commons shall be altered or rejected in the 
 House of Lords, such Bill may be reaffirmed by the House 
 of Commons at any time in the same session or the same 
 Parliament, with or without such alteration, and, sub- 
 ject only to the Royal Assent, shall thereupon become 
 law." 
 
 Summoned by Queen Victoria when Mr. Gladstone 
 resigned, Lord Rosebery succeeded him as Prime Minister. 
 The new Premier threw himself with zest into the agita- 
 tion against the Lords' veto, but he received no help from 
 his colleagues. This was not surprising, for the Cabinet 
 was torn with dissensions. Some Ministers and many 
 members of the Liberal Party felt that Sir William 
 Harcourt (with whom, when he was at the Home Office 
 in the 1880-5 Parliament, Lord Rosebery had served as 
 Under-Secretary) had fairly earned the succession to Mr. 
 Gladstone. Sir W. Harcourt's services to Liberalism 
 
 87 
 
88 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 were incomparably greater than those of the new Prime 
 Minister, but many Liberals had been captivated by the 
 charm of Lord Rosebery 's personality and the glamour 
 of the reputation he had won as first chairman of the 
 London County Council. From the Rosebery-Harcourt 
 feud the Liberal Government and also the Liberal Party 
 suffered grievously. One of its effects was seen in the fact 
 that Lord Rosebery was left to plough a lonely furrow 
 in his campaign against the veto of the House of Lords. 
 Long before he became Prime Minister he had endeavoured 
 to persuade the House of Lords to reform itself. His 
 first speech on this subject was made on 20 June, 1884, 
 when he moved for the appointment of a Select Committee 
 to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of 
 the House of Lords. His motion was defeated 67 to 38. 
 In 1888 he again appealed for reform, but again the 
 motion for a committee of inquiry was defeated 97 to 50. 
 His speech on this occasion contained the following 
 sentence : " One party in power enjoys a practical 
 omnipotence ; the other party is never absolutely in power. 
 Whether in or out of office it is galled by a perpetual 
 barrier, a constant stumbling-block, an endless disability. 
 The divisions in this House represent rather the passions 
 of a party and a class than the deliberate reasoning of a 
 Senate." In the same speech Lord Rosebery said the 
 chief weakness of the Lords was " the indiscriminate 
 and untempered application of the hereditary principle." 
 He advocated the principles of delegation and election. 
 
 As Prime Minister in 1894, Lord Rosebery proposed 
 reform from without rather than from within. The 
 speeches he delivered during that year in Glasgow, 
 Bradford, and Devonport contain a masterly statement 
 of the Liberal case. He argued that what was needed 
 was to restrict the veto of the House of Lords, not to 
 reform its composition. His proposals anticipated those 
 of Mr. Asquith with singular exactitude. Speaking at 
 
ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT 89 
 
 Bradford, then represented by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (now 
 Lord Eversley), Lord Rosebery said : 
 
 " In this great contest there lies behind you to inspire 
 you all those great reforms, those great aspirations and 
 great measures upon which you have set your hearts. 
 Before you lie all the forces of prejudice and privilege ; 
 before you lie the sullen ramparts behind which are con- 
 cealed the enemies whom you long to fight, and so long 
 have fought ; and I would ask you, if you are prepared 
 to go into this fight, to fight as your old Puritan fore- 
 fathers fought, to fight with their stubborn, persistent, 
 indomitable will, fight as they fought in Yorkshire, as 
 those old Ironsides fought in Yorkshire, never knowing 
 when they were beaten, and determined not to be beaten ; 
 to fight, as they would have said themselves, not with the 
 arm of the flesh, but with the arm of the spirit ; to fight 
 by the means of educating your fellow-men not as to the 
 object, for in that, I maintain, you are clear already but 
 as to the proper means of attaining that object. And if 
 you believe that we of the Government are earnest in 
 this matter, and are capable of dealing with the matter, 
 you will give us your support. We fling down the 
 gauntlet ; it is for you to back us up. . . . 
 
 " The next election will be fought on none of these 
 questions, but on one which includes and represents them 
 all I mean the House of Lords. Suppose at the next 
 election you were to send back only 100 Liberals to the 
 House of Commons, there would be 30 Liberal peers ; 
 suppose you were to send 200 back to the House of 
 Commons, there would be 30 Liberal peers ; suppose 
 you were to send 300 back, there would be 30 Liberal 
 peers ; suppose you were to send 400 back, there would 
 be 30 Liberal peers ; suppose you were to send 500 back, 
 there would be 30 Liberal peers ; suppose you were to 
 send 600 back (a Voice : " We'll do that ") I am sure the 
 gentleman would do it if he could ; but still, even if he 
 
90 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 succeeded, there would be only 30 Liberal peers ; and 
 if you sent the whole House of Commons back Liberal, 
 there would be only 30 Liberal peers. Gentleman, what 
 a mockery is this ! We boast of our free institutions, 
 we swell as we walk abroad and see other countries ; we 
 make broad our phylacteries of freedom upon our fore- 
 heads ; we thank God that we are not as other less- 
 favoured men are ; and all the time we endure this 
 mockery of freedom. You are bound hand and foot. You 
 may vote and vote till you are black in the face. It will 
 not change the aspect of matters at all. Still the House 
 of Lords will control at its will the measures of your 
 representatives. It has practically come to this, that we, 
 knowing that the House of Lords is a party body of one 
 complexion, cannot any longer introduce the Bills that 
 we think fit, unless we mean to waste the time of the 
 House of Commons on an absolutely bootless and fruitless 
 process, or else we must simply introduce the Bills into 
 the House of Commons which we think have some 
 possible chance of passing the Tory Party in the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 " I know well that before we deal with this, the greatest 
 of all Constitutional questions if we wish to deal with 
 it successfully we must bring into play the greatest 
 of all Constitutional forces that we possess. What is 
 that greatest Constitutional force ? In the first place, 
 it is the House of Commons. No lesser force than the 
 House of Commons can confront the House of Lords ; 
 no lesser force than the House of Commons is competent 
 to insist upon the position and privileges of the House of 
 Commons ; no lesser body than the House of Commons is 
 able to lay down in clear and unmistakable terms the 
 shifting in the balance of the Constitution, which has 
 been produced by the great Reform Bills of 1832, of 1867, 
 and of 1884. It is quite clear that our first step, if we 
 propose to deal with the House of Lords and we do pro- 
 
ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT 91 
 
 pose to deal with the House of Lords is to bring the 
 House of Commons into play. And how are we to bring 
 the House of Commons into action ? The House of 
 Commons, in my opinion after long consideration of 
 this most difficult of subjects, can only proceed, in the first 
 place, as it has always proceeded in its contests with the 
 House of Lords, by resolution. In regard to the powers 
 of the House of Lords over finance, they were restricted 
 once, twice, and thrice by resolutions of the House of 
 Commons. As regards the powers of the House of Lords 
 to interfere in elections for the House of Commons, 
 those have been equally restricted by resolution of the 
 House of Commons. But the great resolution, which I 
 suppose we shall have in our mind in framing the resolu- 
 tion which will assert the privileges of the House of 
 Commons as against the irresponsible control of the 
 House of Lords, would be the resolution of 1678, as I 
 think it is, which asserts the free and uncontrolled 
 right of the House of Commons to represent the people 
 in matters of finance. I suppose of course, I do not pledge 
 myself to the exact form of resolution I take it that 
 resolution would declare in clear and unmistakable 
 terms what I have once before said in a phrase which I 
 have often heard since, that the House of Commons in 
 the partnership with the House of Lords is unmistakably 
 the predominant partner. 
 
 ' You may say, ' The House of Lords may snap their 
 fingers at your resolution.' They may say, ' We have 
 had resolutions of this kind before, and we don't care 
 a fig for your resolution.' Well, I admit that, in my 
 judgment, the resolution will not be enough. Powerful 
 as the House of Commons is, for such a purpose as this 
 it must call in a power even greater than itself. That 
 power can only be given, that strength can only be con- 
 ferred that inspiration which I have been derided for 
 asking can only be afforded by the people of Great 
 
92 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Britain and Ireland. To that august tribunal we will 
 appeal. We will ask you to give us strength and authority, 
 a majority and a mandate, to deal with that question, 
 and to come back empowered to deal in your name with 
 the question of Constitutional revision. The Government, 
 then, will put these forces into motion. At the proper 
 time it will ask the House of Commons to pass such a 
 resolution as I have indicated, and at the proper time 
 it will endeavour to appeal to the country on such a 
 resolution." 
 
 In a speech delivered at Devonport on u December, 
 1894, Lord Rosebery said : 
 
 " I say confidently that no such act of insanity as our 
 proposing reform of the House of Lords has ever for an 
 instant occurred to us. I hear all sorts of arguments 
 between single-chamber men and second-chamber men 
 and men who differ on that point. I do not say it is not 
 a very interesting and suggestive topic of discussion, 
 but I think if the ' fifth-Monarchy men ' were to begin 
 again their interminable discussions about an ideal State 
 we should be engaged in about as profitable a discussion 
 as we are in discussing the respective merits of a first and 
 second Chamber. As a matter of fact, we have no power 
 whatever to put an end to a second Chamber in this 
 country except by the consent of that second Chamber. 
 I say, then, that the whole question of a second Chamber, 
 or the existence of a second Chamber alone, is one of 
 those abstract discussions which, like the propriety 
 of the execution of Charles I, may engage the attention 
 of the debating societies of our rural centres, but are 
 not matters for practical politicians to engage in at 
 this moment. 
 
 " We have nothing to do with the present constitution 
 of the House of Lords. We take the House of Lords as 
 it stands. In our opinion the time has come when the 
 right of the House of Lords to an absolute veto upon the 
 
ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT 93 
 
 wishes or legislation of the House of Commons should 
 for ever cease. We propose to effect this in a direct and 
 constitutional way. We propose to ask for a mandate 
 from the country to deal with that question, by passing 
 a resolution through the House of Commons which shall 
 declare and give effect to what I have said is our policy 
 in this matter." 
 
 Lord Rosebery's speeches in 1894 supplied in advance 
 a complete justification of the policy pursued by the 
 Liberal Governments in 1907, 1910, and 1911. 
 
 Enlightened Conservative opinion was by no means 
 satisfied with the position of the House of Lords despite 
 the successful efforts of the peers in mutilating and 
 rejecting Liberal Bills. Ambitious young heirs to the 
 peerage, eager for an active political career, began to 
 rail against the inexorable destiny that would in the 
 course of nature take them away from the living 
 and throbbing House of Commons to the sepulchral 
 shades of the House of Lords. In April, 1894, three 
 eldest sons, Lord Wolmer (now Earl Selborne), Mr. 
 Brodrick, and Mr. Curzon, delivered their souls in the 
 Nineteenth Century against the " irrational and merciless 
 sentence of ostracism which sends a man to the House 
 of Lords when he succeeds to a peerage." They proposed 
 that a peer, on succeeding to the title, shall have the right 
 of electing whether he would sit in the House of Lords 
 or continue to be eligible for a seat in the House of 
 Commons. These three heirs to peerages did not 
 conceal their disapproval of the attitude of the Lords 
 on many questions. " Nor is it possible," they wrote, 
 " to veil the fact that the record of the House of Lords, 
 certainly for the last two centuries, has been one of 
 undiscriminating resistance, in the interest, or at least 
 under the influence, of privilege, to changes of every 
 kind, to changes demanded by an enlightened juris- 
 prudence and even humanity, as well as to political 
 
94 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 reforms." The revolt fizzled out and is only interesting 
 as a sign of dissatisfaction within the Tory camp. 
 
 While the House of Lords in the Parliament of 1892-5 
 asserted boldly extreme claims in the sphere of legislation, 
 it acknowledged at the same time the supremacy of 
 the House of Commons in finance. Sir William Har- 
 court's great Budget of 1894, with its proposals for a 
 graduation of the death duties, the scale rising with the 
 value of the estate, set up a new principle of taxation 
 in this country. Graduation was intensely unpopular 
 with the landed interest, and during the progress of the 
 Budget through the Commons there were many threats 
 of what might happen in the House of Lords. The third 
 reading of the Finance Bill was carried in the House of 
 Commons by the exiguous majority of twenty. Leaving 
 out the Irish members, there was actually a majority 
 in Great Britain against the Budget. Yet the Lords, 
 much as they detested the Budget proposals, allowed 
 them to pass with a malediction. The Duke of Devon- 
 shire strongly counselled acceptance on the ground that 
 grave inconvenience to the national finances would 
 ensue upon their rejection. Lord Salisbury dwelt upon 
 the same consequences. In his speech on the third 
 reading of that Bill on 30 July, 1894, Lord Salisbury 
 made use of memorable words : 
 
 " I draw a very strong distinction, as strong as it is 
 possible to draw, between the legal powers of this House 
 and the House of Commons, and the practice which 
 considerations of obvious convenience in the interest 
 of the public welfare may induce the two Houses to 
 adopt. It is perfectly obvious that this House in point of 
 fact has not for many years past interfered by amend- 
 ment with the finance of the year. The reason why this 
 House cannot do so is that it has not the power of changing 
 the Executive Government ; and to reject a Finance Bill 
 and leave the same Executive Government in its place 
 
ROSEBERY-HARCOURT GOVERNMENT 95 
 
 means to create a deadlock from which there is no escape. 
 If the House of Commons had rejected this Finance Bill 
 during the present month there would no doubt have been 
 considerable inconvenience, but at least another Execu- 
 tive Government would have been provided whose duty 
 it would have been to have suggested an alternative 
 for making provision for the year. But if this House 
 were to reject a Finance Bill or to amend it so that the 
 House of Commons would reject it, as the same Execu- 
 tive Government would remain in office there would be 
 obviously the greatest inconvenience in dealing with the 
 public finance." 
 
 Besides, Lord Salisbury consoled himself with the 
 reflection that a Budget was a transient affair. " Budgets 
 come and Budgets go." No more decisive proof could be 
 desired of the subordination of the House of Lords in 
 finance than the surly acquiescence of the territorial 
 magnates in the passage of the detested Budget of 1894. 
 
 Defeated on the cordite motion of Mr. Brodrick, the 
 Government resigned office, and in July, 1895, there 
 was a general election. The result was a great Conserva- 
 tive victory, the Unionists having a majority of 152 over 
 Liberals and Nationalists combined. The composition 
 of the new House of Commons was : 
 
 Conservatives . . . 340) 
 Liberal Unionists . .71) 
 Liberals .... 177^ 
 Nationalists . . .70!- 259 
 Parnellites 12) 
 
 Total Unionist Majority 152 
 
 To the smashing defeat of the Liberals many causes 
 had contributed, not least the notorious feud between 
 Lord Rosebery and Sir William Harcourt, which sapped 
 
96 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the vitality of the fighting legions of Liberalism, and 
 the passing of Mr. Gladstone, whose withdrawal from 
 public life altered the whole political landscape like a 
 convulsion of nature. Local veto, which occupied a 
 conspicuous place in the Liberal programme, was also a 
 source of electoral weakness. The Unionists made great 
 and profitable use during the general- elect ion campaign of 
 a promise of old-age pensions, but they chose to attribute 
 their victory chiefly to the nation's dislike of Home Rule. 
 Apologists for the House of Lords claimed that the verdict 
 of the people was an emphatic endorsement of the action 
 of that assembly in throwing out the Home Rule Bill ; 
 and, encouraged by what they were pleased to regard as 
 this popular approbation, the Lords, after long eclipse, 
 acquired a new sense of their importance and responsibility 
 in the Constitution. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM 
 
 A STRONG Government was formed by the Marquis 
 of Salisbury in 1895. The old attachments which 
 had prevented Liberal Unionists from joining the 
 Administration of 1886 had weakened with time, and in the 
 new Government the Duke of Devonshire, Mr. Chamber- 
 lain, and Sir Henry James, and other quondam disciples 
 of Mr. Gladstone took office. The Unionist coalition 
 remained in power from 1895 to 1905. Its term of office 
 was abruptly terminated by its own act in 1900, in which 
 year Mr. Chamberlain, anxious to profit by the patriotic 
 emotions excited by the South African War, plunged 
 the country into a general election, and obtained by 
 that means a new lease of power. From 1895 to July, 
 1902, Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister, but the out- 
 standing figure in the Government was Mr. Chamberlain. 
 His energy and strong, clear purpose were very marked 
 in the work of the Government in the years 1896-8. The 
 Conservatives were borne forward on a tide of reforming 
 enthusiasm. Sops were thrown to the old Tories in the 
 shape of the Agricultural Rating Act, 1896, and to the 
 Church in the new aid grant to the denominational schools; 
 but in 1897 came a valuable measure of social reform, the 
 Workmen's Compensation Act, and in 1898 the Irish Local 
 Government Act. For this latter measure it was Mr. Gerald 
 Balfour, Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was responsible. 
 The Marquis of Londonderry observed, with truth, that 
 " measures have been passed through Parliament by the 
 7 97 
 
98 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Conservative leaders which, if introduced by the Radical 
 party, would have received the most strenuous opposition, 
 and not have been permitted to pass into law." Speaking 
 in the House of Lords on 20 July, 1897, Lord Londonderry 
 said : " I agree with Mr. Asquith that if the party to which 
 he belonged had introduced the Workmen's Compensation 
 Bill, it would not receive forty-eight hours' consideration 
 from your Lordships." It will be remembered that Mr. 
 Asquith's Employers' Liability Bill, which had the same 
 objects, though its scope was not so wide as the Workmen's 
 Compensation Bill of Mr. Chamberlain, was destroyed by 
 the Lords in 1893. 
 
 Meantime dejection prevailed in the Liberal ranks. 
 Lord Rosebery had resigned the leadership in 1896 
 because of his want of sympathy with the passionate 
 feelings aroused in the Liberal party by the Armenian 
 atrocities. Sir William Harcourt was now unquestioned 
 leader of the party of progress, but the influence of old 
 feuds and animosities, arising out of the Rosebery-Har- 
 court quarrel, survived, and in December, 1898, in a 
 highly characteristic letter to Mr. John Morley, Sir 
 William resigned the post of leader. " A disputed leader- 
 ship beset by distracted sections and conflicting interests 
 is an impossible situation." Mr. Morley 's reply was not 
 calculated to bring harmony out of these discords. 
 " There is, to my mind," he wrote to Sir William Har- 
 court, " something odious in telling a man who has 
 strenuously faced all this, who has stuck manfully to the 
 ship instead of keeping snug in harbour because seas 
 were rough and the skies dark, that his position in his 
 party is to be incessantly made matter of personal in- 
 terest and personal challenge." The thankless burden 
 of the leadership of a party torn with dissensions was 
 cheerfully assumed in the spring of 1899 by Mr. Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman, whose fortitude and good temper 
 were soon to be seriously tried by a fresh schism in 
 
THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM 99 
 
 Liberalism, caused by the South African War. Never 
 had the Liberal party been so demoralized as at the 
 time when the khaki election was sprung upon the 
 country in the autumn of 1900. The result of the election 
 was to confirm the Unionists in power, though with a 
 smaller majority, 134, the new House of Commons being 
 constituted thus : 
 
 Unionists ...... 402 
 
 Liberals and Labour . . . 186 ) ,,> 
 Nationalists . . . . . 82 j 
 
 Majority .... 134 
 
 During the general election campaign, both Mr. Balfour 
 and Mr. Chamberlain appealed to the nation to subordi- 
 nate all questions of domestic controversy to the one 
 paramount question of the successful prosecution of the 
 war. A truce of God on the ordinary issues of party 
 controversy was suggested by the Unionist leaders. Mr. 
 Balfour explicitly asked the electors to *' dismiss all 
 smaller issues." Mr. Chamberlain, in more than one 
 speech during the campaign, spoke in the same sense. 
 Speaking at Lichfield, a mining constituency, on 
 8 October, 1900, Mr. Chamberlain said : " A great many 
 of the elections have already been held, and the most 
 extraordinary feature of them was the great turnover of 
 the mining vote. In the North of England thousands and 
 thousands of miners who had never voted Unionist before, 
 who still called themselves Liberals and Radicals, had on 
 this occasion supported the Unionist candidate." What 
 was true of the miners was true of other Radicals. There 
 can be no shadow of doubt that at this khaki election 
 a very large number of Liberal voters supported the 
 Government on patriotic grounds. This fact must be 
 borne in mind when the record of the Unionist adminis- 
 tration 1900-5 is examined. The Education Bill of 1902 
 and the Licensing Bill of 1904 were acutely controversial, 
 
100 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 and from the Liberal point of view it seemed as if the 
 Government, in passing these Bills, had deliberately 
 tricked the people, having used power obtained by appeals 
 to the sentiment of common patriotism for the purpose of 
 promoting partisan legislation of a highly objectionable 
 character. On its introduction Mr. Balfour's Education 
 Bill was greeted with a storm of disapprobation from the 
 Nonconformists. This was not surprising, as the Bill 
 quartered on the public funds all denominational schools, 
 and yet provided that their control should remain in 
 denominational hands. That public control should 
 accompany public expenditure was a venerated maxim 
 of British policy. Its violation in the Education Bill of 
 1902 deeply offended a large body of opinion outside the 
 Nonconformist community. It was an offence against 
 the canons of good citizenship to throw the whole expense 
 of the denominational schools on the rates and taxes, and 
 yet to leave their control, including the appointment of 
 teachers paid out of public funds, in the hands of com- 
 mittees on which the representatives of the public were 
 in a permanent minority. Though the teachers became 
 public servants, yet, so far as the Church schools were 
 concerned, their appointment was dependent on a re- 
 ligious test. A clerically controlled committee appointed 
 the teacher ; the public paid his, or her, salary. Wide- 
 spread hostility was excited by the Bill. At the 
 by-elections the tide of popular feeling flowed strongly 
 against the Government. We know from Mr. Bernard 
 Holland's Life of the Duke of Devonshire how repugnant 
 the Education Bill was to Mr. Chamberlain. Its pro- 
 visions were also distasteful to many of the Government's 
 supporters in the House of Commons. But the Bill was 
 rammed through the House by Mr. Balfour, in spite of 
 a formidable revolt on his own side. The opposition to 
 some of its chief clauses shown by the Liberal-Unionist 
 and the moderate Conservatives was neutralized in the 
 
THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM 101 
 
 division lobbies by the Irish Nationalists, who, out of 
 solicitude for the Roman Catholic schools in England and 
 Wales, voted steadily with the Government at every 
 stage. It is just to recognize that the Nationalists 
 evinced an earnest desire to assist the Liberals in remedy- 
 ing the Nonconformist grievance in the single school 
 areas. They supported Mr. Dillon's proposal that the 
 committees of management of denominational schools 
 should be equally representative of the three interests 
 concerned, viz. 2 members nominated by the local 
 education authority, 2 by the trustees of the school, and 
 2 elected by the parents of the children attending the 
 school. Mr. Balfour's Bill gave the trustees 4 and the 
 local education authority 2 representatives on the 
 committee of managers. Mr. Dillon's amendment a 
 step in the direction of public control was defeated, and 
 Mr. Balfour succeeded in ensuring that the clerical 
 interests should be predominant on the committees, 
 though he cast on the public authority the responsibility 
 of providing all the funds necessary for the denomina- 
 tional schools. 
 
 Had the House of Lords fulfilled impartially the 
 functions of a Second Chamber it would have delayed or 
 amended a Bill against which public opinion had so 
 decisively declared itself. On the contrary, it swiftly 
 passed the Education Bill with all its imperfections on 
 its head. Indeed, it aggravated its injustice by accepting 
 from the Bishop of Manchester an amendment making 
 the local education authority liable for the cost of all 
 repairs to the denominational school buildings. This new 
 " wear-and-tear " clause introduced into the Bill by the 
 Lords was a violation of the privileges of the Commons, 
 since its effect was to throw an additional charge on the 
 rates. In order to avoid the rock of privilege, the Lords, 
 at the invitation of the Duke of Norfolk, added to their 
 new clause the words " this obligation on the local 
 
102 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 education authority shall throw no additional charge 
 on any public fund." Obviously this addendum made 
 nonsense of the clause. This was realized by the officials 
 of the House of Lords, who actually added to the amended 
 Bill in a parenthesis after the addendum the following 
 words : " Proposed to be omitted by the House of Com- 
 mons." Thus the Lords violated the privileges of the 
 Commons by a monetary amendment, then added words 
 which made the amendment unmeaning, and virtually 
 commanded the Commons to strike out the nonsensical 
 words in order to facilitate an invasion of the Commons' 
 own domain. The device succeeded through the com- 
 pliance of Mr. Balfour and a weak ruling by Mr. Speaker 
 Gully. 
 
 As with Mr. Balfour's Education Bill, so with his 
 Licensing Bill, which the Lords passed with alacrity, 
 though it marked an entirely new departure in our 
 licensing laws. Its effect was to transform the publican's 
 expectation of an annual renewal of his licence into a 
 certainty, and to secure to him compensation for the 
 loss of the licence, even though its refusal might be 
 necessary in the public interest. These things sank deep 
 into the public mind, and helped to fix the popular con- 
 viction that the House of Lords was not in any true sense 
 a Second Chamber, but only a pliant instrument of 
 Toryism. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain never uttered a word in the House of 
 Commons during the debates on the Education Bill. His 
 dislike of the measure is revealed in a letter written to the 
 late Duke of Devonshire on 22 September, 1902, in which 
 he said : 
 
 " The political future seems to me an optimist by 
 profession most gloomy. I told you that your Education 
 Bill would destroy your own party. It has done so. Our 
 best friends are leaving us by scores and hundreds, and 
 they will not come back." The Duke of Devonshire, who 
 
THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM 103 
 
 could not understand sacerdotalism, and to whom 
 ecclesiasticism, even in its simplest form, was disagreeable, 
 never had any sympathy with the denominational view 
 of education. Mr. Bernard Holland, in his life of the 
 Duke, writes : " The Duke himself, like nine Englishmen 
 out of ten, would have been perfectly content, and indeed 
 better pleased, with the simplest and most undenomi- 
 national teaching." He had a correspondence in 1900 
 with Lord Cranborne (the present Marquis of Salisbury), 
 who quite unsuccessfully endeavoured to explain to him 
 the Church view. The Duke said in one of these letters : 
 " I am afraid that there is some defect in my intelligence 
 which renders me incapable even of understanding the 
 apprehensions of the advocates of denominational educa- 
 tion." It was a hard political necessity which compelled 
 the Duke, with his Erastian views, to become responsible 
 in the House of Lords for the Education Bill of 1902. 
 
 Meantime, in July, 1902, Mr. Balfour had succeeded 
 his uncle, Lord Salisbury, as Prime Minister. From that 
 moment the star of Toryism began to wane. In November, 
 1902, Mr. Chamberlain went to South Africa for a tour of 
 investigation, to study on the spot the post-war conditions. 
 He returned in the spring of 1903, his mind fermenting 
 with the conception of Colonial preference. His first 
 public reference to the new idea that had captivated his 
 imagination was in a speech delivered in Birmingham on 
 15 May, 1903. A fortnight later came a speech in the 
 House of Commons in which occurred the phrase, destined 
 to become notorious : " You must put a tax on food." The 
 glamour of Colonial preference was soon lost in the re- 
 crudescence of the old crude Protectionism, with its un- 
 enlightened selfishness and its vulgar appeal to hatred of 
 the foreigner. Upon the solidarity of the Unionist Party 
 the preaching of the Protectionist gospel had the shatter- 
 ing effect of an explosion of dynamite. Mr. Chamberlain 
 resigned the office of Colonial Secretary in September, 
 
104 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 1903, and withdrew from the Cabinet in order to be able 
 to pursue his agitation for Tariff Reform (an American 
 Free Trade term pressed into service here as an euphemism 
 for Protection) with less embarrassment to the Unionist 
 party. Mr. Ritchie having simultaneously resigned the 
 Chancellorship of the Exchequer because of his Free 
 Trade convictions, the way was clear for the promotion 
 of Mr. Austen Chamberlain to that high office. Chamber- 
 lain pere went out and Chamberlain fils went up. Mr. 
 Joseph Chamberlain's withdrawal from the Government 
 was accompanied by a singular benediction from Mr. 
 Balfour : " The loss to the Government is great indeed ; 
 but the gain to the cause you have at heart may be greater 
 still. If so, what can I do but acquiesce ? " The ex- 
 pulsion of the Free Trade members from the Cabinet was 
 undoubtedly part of a deal between Mr. Balfour and Mr. 
 Chamberlain, one of the conditions of the secret compact 
 being that if and when the latter retired his son was 
 to be moved higher up in the Ministerial hierarchy. Mr. 
 Balfour had succeeded in compelling the resignation of 
 his Free Trade colleagues in the Cabinet Mr. Ritchie, 
 Lord George Hamilton, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh 
 who retired as a protest against the Chamberlain policy, 
 little suspecting that Mr. Chamberlain's own resignation 
 was already in Mr. Balfour's hands. The fact that Mr. 
 Chamberlain had resigned was deliberately withheld from 
 them by Mr. Balfour, but was communicated by him to 
 the Duke of Devonshire, whom the Tory leader wanted 
 to retain in his Cabinet, realizing the value of his massive 
 personality and the confidence he inspired in the country. 
 These not very scrupulous Balfourian manoeuvres failed, 
 though they succeeded in deferring the Duke's resignation 
 for a few weeks. When at last, early in October, the 
 Duke determined to withdraw from the Government, he 
 was reproached by Mr. Balfour in a shrill epistle that 
 revealed a baffled man, but was a poor requital for the 
 
THE ECLIPSE OF LIBERALISM 105 
 
 magnificent services rendered to the Unionist cause by 
 His Grace of Devonshire. 
 
 After these events the Balfour Government moved 
 swiftly downhill. Popular resentment against the pro- 
 posed tax on food was wide and deep. Great commercial 
 interests were terrified at the possible effects of Protection 
 on British trading and industrial supremacy. The Non- 
 conformists were furious because of the Education Act of 
 1902. A wave of indignation swept over the country in 
 consequence of the introduction of Chinese labour into 
 the Transvaal mines. The Government was staggering 
 to its doom. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 THE LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 
 
 BY all sorts of shifts and devices in tactics, by so- 
 phistries and subtleties in debate, Mr. Balfour man- 
 aged somehow to hang on to office until 1905. At 
 the end of November in that year, when Parliament was 
 not in session, he resigned, to the immense relief of a 
 disgusted nation. Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman 
 promptly formed a strong Liberal Administration. Mr. 
 Balfour had still a large nominal majority in the House 
 of Commons, but he never met the House again as Prime 
 Minister. In January, 1906, came the general election, as 
 a result of which the Liberals were returned to power 
 with a majority unexampled in the political annals of the 
 country. The Unionists were smitten from Dan to 
 Beersheba. But Birmingham, pathetically faithful to 
 Mr. Chamberlain, remained a little island of Unionism 
 untouched by the spring-tide of Liberalism that flowed 
 resistless all over the kingdom. Toryism in Lancashire 
 was almost entirely submerged. Mr. Balfour lost the 
 seat he had held for many years in Manchester. Nearly 
 all his colleagues in the Cabinet were also defeated. 
 There was a net Liberal gain of 213 seats. The position 
 of parties at the end of the election was : 
 
 Liberals . . ) 
 
 Labour . . . f 4 " 9 
 Nationalist . . 83 
 
 512 
 
 Unionists . . 158 
 
 Majority . 354 
 
 106 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 107 
 
 The Liberals had a large majority over all possible 
 combinations. After long sojourn in the wilderness they 
 had returned to power with a Government rich in able 
 men and supported by a magnificent majority. All the 
 indications were that there was before the new Govern- 
 ment the prospect of years of useful and beneficent 
 activity. The high hopes and expectations with which 
 it began its career were swiftly dashed to the ground. 
 From the outset the House of Lords displayed a malignant 
 desire to hamper and harass the work of Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman's Administration. In the first 
 session of the new Parliament the Lords threw out the 
 Plural Voting Bill and suffocated the Education Bill 
 under a load of hostile amendments. No Government 
 ever came into office with a more distinct mandate than 
 that which the Liberal Ministry of 1906 obtained for a 
 reform of the Education Act of 1902. To the fulfilment 
 of that mandate the Government first addressed its 
 energies. The Bill was in charge of Mr. Augustine 
 Birrell, a man of catholic sympathies and large tolerance, 
 whose genial wit and sunny temper made him a universal 
 favourite in the House of Commons. In its final form, 
 Mr. Birrell's Bill provided the basis for a fair and durable 
 settlement of a very vexed and difficult question. It 
 established the principle of public control over public 
 expenditure, abolished religious tests for teachers, and yet 
 safeguarded the interests of genuinely denominational 
 schools and ensured their continuance in our system of 
 national education. To the consternation of the Liberals 
 and the amazement of the country, the House of Lords 
 adopted a hostile attitude to the Education Bill. 
 It was sent back to the House of Commons with amend- 
 ments which had turned it inside out. On 12 December 
 the Lords' amendments were rejected in the Commons by 
 418 to 109, Government majority 309, the Nationalists 
 and the Labour members voting with the Liberals. 
 
108 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Undismayed by this overwhelming majority, the Lords 
 by 132 to 52 insisted on their amendments and killed 
 the Bill. Thus in the first year of the new Parliament the 
 chief Bill of the session, passed after heavy labours by a 
 huge majority fresh from contact with the people, was 
 destroyed by a second Chamber that was non-representa- 
 tive and irresponsible. 
 
 The circumstances under which this arrogant defiance 
 of the popular will took place aggravated the offence. 
 Two important measures were carried through the House 
 of Commons in the session of 1906 the Education Bill 
 and the Trade Disputes Bill. The latter measure, with 
 its immunities for Trade Unions, was intensely obnoxious 
 to Conservatives. Mr. Balfour, however, indicated 
 in the House of Commons that it ought to be passed and 
 the Education Bill rejected. The Lords submissively 
 carried out his instructions. Lord Halsbury furiously 
 raged against the Trade Disputes Bill in the Upper House, 
 and was only restrained from moving its rejection by the 
 earnest entreaties of the Opposition leader, Lord Lans- 
 downe. The Bill went through the House of Lords 
 unscathed. Thus, of two great Bills which they disliked, 
 the Lords in the same session, indeed, in the same month, 
 passed one because they feared Labour and rejected the 
 other because they despised Nonconformity. There 
 was no pretence that in either case they were acting in the 
 public interest. They were thinking only of the interests 
 of their order in the acceptance of the one Bill, only of the 
 interests of their party in the rejection of the other. 
 We must choose " favourable ground," said Lord Lans- 
 downe. It was " favourable ground " to defy the peaceful 
 chapels ; it was unfavourable ground to challenge the 
 truculent trade unions. Speaking on the Trade Disputes 
 Bill in the House of Lords on 4 December, 1906, Lord 
 Lansdowne said : " We are passing through a period 
 when it is necessary for the House of Lords to move with 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 109 
 
 great caution. Conflicts and controversies may be 
 inevitable. Let your lordships, as far as you are able, 
 be sure that if you are to join issue you do so upon 
 ground which is as favourable as possible to yourselves. 
 In this case the ground is unfavourable." The effect 
 on public opinion of the spectacle of the Lords cowering 
 before Labour and flouting Nonconformity was profound. 
 Nothing did more to destroy faith in the House of Lords 
 as a Second Chamber. Lord Lansdowne, by his cynical 
 tactics in connection with these two Bills, dealt the 
 prestige of the House of Lords a blow from which it never 
 recovered. 
 
 Mr. Balfour is commonly credited with the responsi- 
 bility for the destruction of the Education Bill. But 
 for him there would have been a settlement. The Duke 
 of Devonshire, when the Bill was before the House of 
 Lords, strongly pleaded for peace and supported the 
 Government in every critical division. Earnest appeals 
 for a settlement on the basis of the Birrell Bill were made 
 by the Times, the Spectator, and other powerful Unionist 
 journals. Neither the counsel of the Duke of Devon- 
 shire nor the fair-minded appeals of the Unionist Press 
 produced any effect. Mr. Balfour's fiat had gone forth 
 that the Bill must not pass. Author of the Act of 1902, 
 the attacks on that measure wounded his philoprogeni- 
 tive pride, and throughout the education controversy he 
 showed utter want of comprehension of the Noncon- 
 formist attitude. Wounded pride and the belief that it 
 would be to the disadvantage of the Liberals to keep the 
 education question unsettled were the motives that 
 inspired Mr. Balfour. The Cecil influence, which was and 
 is intensely ecclesiastical, encouraged him in the line he 
 was taking. A few days before the end, while the fate 
 of Mr. Birrell's Bill was still hanging in the balance, a 
 conference of the Unionist leaders in both Houses was 
 held in Mr. Balfour's room in the House of Commons. 
 
110 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Care was taken to prevent any invitation being sent to 
 the Duke of Devonshire. Though that great Whig was 
 absent, other influential colleagues of Mr. Balfour in- 
 geminated peace. Mr. Balfour was obdurate. A singular 
 story is told of this secret conclave. " Suppose the 
 Government dissolve ? " asked one of the counsellors of 
 peace. ** Ah ! " was Mr. Balfour's reply, " that's just 
 what they won't do." He was right. He knew that this 
 Government, with its immense progressive majority 
 (including many men of modest means), all aflame with 
 zeal for social reform, would not dissolve eleven months 
 after its election. This knowledge explains his bold but 
 not very scrupulous strategy in the closing months of 
 1906. The spirit which animated the wreckers of the 
 Education Bill was expressed by Lord Hugh Cecil, who 
 in a letter published in the Times on i December, 1906, 
 boasted that " the bloom is already off the present 
 majority." It was all very well for ecclesiastically 
 minded Tories to rejoice, but the more moderate members 
 of the Conservative party did not conceal their dismay. 
 Mr. Henry Chaplin, a veteran representative of rural 
 Toryism, lamented the loss of the Bill. So did an active 
 urban Conservative, Mr. Leverton Harris, who, writing 
 in the Times 2 January, 1907, said : 
 
 " Uncompromising dogma has doubtless gained a 
 precious victory, for which Lord Hugh Cecil and his 
 circle of extremists can claim the laurels. Politically, I 
 assert the Conservative party has made a profound 
 tactical blunder which is both recognized and regretted 
 by the majority of its followers. The important conces- 
 sions which Lord Crewe offered afforded to the vast 
 majority of moderate and peace-loving Churchmen a 
 solution which could have been accepted." 
 
 A sure-footed Nemesis pursues and punishes injustice. 
 The Nonconformists were trampled underfoot in De- 
 cember, 1906. A Liberal Government with an immense 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 111 
 
 majority fresh from the polls was prevented from fulfilling 
 one of its main purposes by the action of the House of 
 Lords instigated by the leader of a mere remnant in 
 the House of Commons. Mr. Balfour and the Lords 
 triumphed signally for the moment, but it was a triumph 
 that in the end cost them dear. 
 
 The destruction of the Education Bill produced feelings 
 of exasperation and anger in the Liberal party. Speaking 
 at Tiverton early in 1907, Lord Crewe complained 
 that the House of Lords l ' had been used as an instru- 
 ment by the Conservative minority in the country and 
 in the House of Commons." Scotland was not directly 
 interested in the education question, as the Education 
 Bill only applied to England and Wales j but Scottish 
 Liberals were deeply stirred by the controversy and were 
 alive to the necessity of combating the pretensions of the 
 peers in politics and the claims of the sacerdotalists in 
 education. A speech delivered in Edinburgh in January, 
 1907, by the then Lord Advocate, Mr. Thomas Shaw, 
 now Lord Shaw, attracted considerable attention by its 
 disclosure of a plan to limit the veto of the Lords in 
 legislation to a single session. Mr. Shaw advocated 
 proceeding in the first instance by resolution and then 
 by Bill. Reduction of the veto of the Lords to a single 
 session would, he pointed out, still leave to them " all 
 their functions as a revising and advisory body," and 
 every service which the position and experience of the 
 peers enabled them to give to the State would still be 
 afforded. 
 
 Consciousness that the Lords' question had advanced 
 into the forefront of the political stage was shown by the 
 peers themselves ; and a debate took place in the House 
 of Lords in May on a Bill brought in by Lord Newton 
 for a reform in the constitution of the Second Chamber. 
 The chief feature of that Bill was a proposal that the 
 possession of a peerage by descent should not of itself 
 
112 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 give any right to a seat in the House of Lords. Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman, in a speech in Manchester in 
 May, denounced the aggression of the peers. 
 
 " The present House of Commons," he said, " was not 
 elected to pass only such Bills as commend themselves 
 to the House of Lords. None of His Majesty's Ministers 
 appealed for support on the ground that the programme 
 they laid before the country was subject to whatever 
 discount might be placed on it in another House. This 
 is a Liberal Government and a Liberal House of Commons, 
 elected by an overwhelming Liberal and Progressive 
 majority to pass Liberal measures, and we should be 
 unworthy of the confidence placed in us if, in the desire 
 to pass legislation of some sort, we allowed ourselves to 
 forget who placed us where we are, and whence we derive 
 the authority, the sanction, and the impetus for our 
 proposals. We do not intend to be a Government on 
 sufferance, or to act as caretakers in the house of a party 
 which the country has rejected. We protest against the 
 doctrine that we are to be stultified by the leader of a 
 small and discredited minority who has only to beckon 
 to his legions in the House of Peers and our work is un- 
 done, and the votes of the electors are treated as though 
 they had never been recorded. We know by bitter ex- 
 perience that the education question and the franchise 
 question will never be solved as long as the majority 
 of the Commons can be turned into a minority by the 
 Lords, and we have taken our measures for ending this 
 state of things, and in due time, which shall be the time 
 of our own choice, we will produce them." (May 9, 1907.) 
 
 The Government decided to proceed first by the 
 traditional method of resolution, and accordingly, on 
 24 June, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman proposed : 
 
 " That, in order to give effect to the will of the people 
 as expressed by their elected representatives, it is neces- 
 sary that the power of the other House to alter or reject 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 113 
 
 Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by 
 law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parlia- 
 ment the final decision of the Commons shall prevail." 
 In moving the resolution the Prime Minister said he was 
 inviting the House to " follow the notable precedent of 
 the famous resolutions of 1678 and 1860." How the 
 destruction of the Education Bill rankled in the minds 
 of Liberals is revealed by a passage in Sir Henry's speech. 
 Referring to Mr. Balfour, he said : " The situation has 
 been aggravated by the part taken by the right honour- 
 able gentleman opposite. He speaks for a comparatively 
 small minority here, and he has affected to dispose of the 
 other House for the purpose of dominating us in a manner 
 that I venture to say is without precedent. I cannot 
 conceive of Sir Robert Peel or Mr. Disraeli treating the 
 House of Commons as the right honourable gentleman has 
 treated it. Nor do I think there is any instance in which, 
 as leaders of the Opposition, they committed what I 
 can only call the treachery of openly calling in the other 
 House to override this House. Those great statesmen 
 were House of Commons men. I venture to say that if 
 Bills were mutilated and rejected elsewhere when Sir 
 Robert Peel sat upon that Bench, it was not done at his 
 instance. The right honourable gentleman's course has, 
 however, had one indisputable effect. It has left no 
 room for doubt, if it had ever existed before, that the 
 Second Chamber was being utilized as a mere annexe 
 of the Unionist party. . . . One begins to doubt in 
 fact I certainly doubt whether he or his party have ever 
 fully accepted representative institutions." 
 
 The debate lasted for three days. Mr. Balfour laid 
 down the proposition : " You must have within the 
 limits of the constitution some authority which shall be 
 able not to resist the will of the people, but to see that the 
 will of the people is obeyed what I may call the con- 
 sistent and persistent will of the people, not the will of 
 8 
 
114 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the people as exhibited at a particular moment and in a 
 particular place, because we are all agreed that the people 
 make mistakes." Lord Robert Cecil argued that the 
 decisions of the House of Commons did not express the 
 will of the people. To say that they do was, in his 
 judgment, " an astounding proposition." 
 
 The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Lloyd George, 
 now rapidly advancing in reputation and authority, 
 spoke in the debate with trenchant power. He described 
 the House of Lords as Mr. Balfour's " poodle." " It 
 fetched and carried for him, barked at and bit anybody 
 he set it on to. That was the great revising Chamber, 
 the safeguard of the country's liberties ! Of all the 
 mockeries and shams was there ever such a sham as 
 that ? " 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's resolution was 
 carried by 434 to 149, a Government majority of 285. 
 An amendment by Mr. Arthur Henderson, leader of the 
 Labour party, calling for the abolition of the House of 
 Lords on the ground that it was " representative only of 
 interests opposed to the general well-being " and a 
 " hindrance to national progress," had been previously 
 defeated by 317 to 102. To carry out the purposes of the 
 resolution, the Prime Minister proposed the following 
 plan to meet cases of disagreement between the two 
 Houses : 
 
 First stage. A conference to take place between a small 
 number of nominated representatives of the two 
 Houses. Conference to sit in private ; its object to find 
 some " common measure of agreement." If agreement 
 were reached the Bill would be saved unless it had been 
 thrown out by the Lords on second reading. In the 
 latter case it would have to be reintroduced in the next 
 session. 
 
 Second stage. If the conference failed to agree, the 
 Bill would be lost for a time, but only for a limited time. 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 115 
 
 For the Government might reintroduce it, with or 
 without amendment, after a " substantial interval" 
 period of at least six months. The reintroduced Bill 
 would be quickly passed through the Commons " under 
 limitations of time adapted to the circumstances of the 
 case," that is, under the closure, except in so far as the 
 second edition of the Bill differs from the first. If, when 
 the Bill went to the Lords, they again refused to pass it 
 in the form in which the Commons sent it up, and the 
 Commons refused to accept the Lords' amendments, to 
 which the Lords decided to adhere, a second conference 
 of the same kind to take place. 
 
 Third stage. Should this second conference fail to 
 secure agreement, the Bill to be reintroduced once 
 more in the Commons (making the third time) and 
 passed swiftly through all its stages. It would then go 
 to the Lords with the intimation that unless they 
 passed it it would be carried over their heads. Even 
 at this stage there would be opportunity for a third 
 conference, and only on failure to agree would the Bill 
 become law without the assent of the Lords. 
 
 This plan is notable as containing the germ of the 
 Parliament Bill, 1911. Nothing came of the resolution 
 or the plan at the time, the Government evincing no 
 desire to come to grips with the Second Chamber. 
 Appetite comes with feeding, and the destructive energy 
 of the Lords was now very evident. Emboldened by 
 their success over the Education Bill, the Lords in 1907 
 wrecked the Scottish Small Land Holders Bill, rejected 
 the Scottish Land Values Bill, and eviscerated the Irish 
 Evicted Tenants Bill. 
 
 Fortunately for the Empire the Lords were powerless 
 to mar or disfigure the Bills brought in by the Government 
 in 1907 giving full rights of self-government to the 
 Transvaal and the Orange Free State, the two Colonies 
 added to the British Empire as the result of the South 
 African War. The Lords were impotent because 
 
116 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the bestowal of these free Constitutions was an 
 executive act, and over the executive they had no 
 control. In the pacification of South Africa the Govern- 
 ment were able to use the prerogative of the Crown and 
 to proceed by Letters Patent. To-day it is univer- 
 sally admitted that the gift of free institutions to the 
 white inhabitants of the old Boer Republics was a 
 magnificent act of Imperial statesmanship. It healed 
 the wounds of war ; it brought to South Africa a peace 
 based not on conquest, but on liberty ; it prepared the 
 way for that South African Union in the upbuilding of 
 which Boer and Briton have participated with emulous 
 zeal and equal honour. Its effect on foreign opinion, 
 too, was profound. Professor Brent ano, the eminent 
 political economist, told the author of this book at 
 Munich : "It has rehabilitated the moral authority 
 of England in the sight of mankind. It is a noble 
 act of reparation of which no other country would 
 be capable." Had the Lords the power they might 
 have wrecked, they would certainly have imperilled, 
 this blessed work of reconciliation and appeasement. 
 The Conservatives in the House of Commons opposed 
 the Bills bestowing responsible government on the 
 Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, and Mr. 
 Balfour solemnly washed his hands of all responsi- 
 bility for them. Two years before, in 1905, the South 
 African policy of the Conservatives was disclosed in the 
 halting and faltering Lyttelton constitutions. Never 
 was bold and wise statesmanship more necessary than in 
 South Africa after the war. The Tory policy was neither 
 bold nor wise. Timorous and hesitating, it was penetrated 
 through and through by a deep and ill-concealed distrust 
 of the Dutch population. That Lord Milner himself was 
 deeply infected by this mood was proved by his actions 
 in South Africa during the closing stages of the war, 
 and by the bitter spirit and hard temper of his speeches 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 117 
 
 in the House of Lords when the post-war settlement was 
 being discussed. Lord Kitchener showed himself a wiser 
 Imperialist than Lord Milner at a critical period in South 
 African history. The soldier wanted peace through a 
 settlement by consent ; the statesman wanted the un- 
 conditional surrender of the Boers. Mr. Erskine Childers 
 (in the chapter " South Africa and Ireland "), in his 
 book on Home Rule, justly says that Lord Kitchener 
 was " a truer judge of human nature and a better Im- 
 perialist at heart in realizing that the self-respect of the 
 Boers was a precious asset, not a dangerous menace to 
 the Empire, and that the whole fate of South Africa 
 depended on a racial reconciliation on the basis of equal 
 political rights, which would be for ever precluded by 
 compelling the Boers to pass under the Caudine Forks." 
 Equally Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in the gift of 
 freedom to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, 
 showed himself a better Imperialist and a wiser statesman 
 than Mr. Balfour. It was a happy circumstance that the 
 Liberal victory at the general election of 1906 enabled 
 a new Government to fling the Lyttelton constitutions 
 into the limbo of abortive schemes, and to substitute a 
 South African policy based on confidence for a policy 
 based on distrust. It was, too, a signal piece of good 
 fortune for the British Empire that the House of Lords 
 was unable either to withhold or to mar the gift of full 
 responsible self-government. The constitutions were 
 the gift of the Crown and the Bills introduced into 
 Parliament were only necessary to clothe the grant 
 with the form of law. Incidentally their passage served 
 to bring home to the nation the powerlessness of the 
 House of Lords over the wide domain of Imperial policy. 
 The power of the Lords to impede progress in domestic 
 affairs remained unchecked, and it was exhibited in 
 striking fashion over the Licensing Bill in the session of 
 1908. On 5 April of that year Sir Henry Campbell- 
 
118 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Bannerman, whose health had been failing for some 
 months, resigned the Premiership and was succeeded 
 by Mr. Asquith, whose place as Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer was taken by Mr. Lloyd George. The ex-Prime 
 Minister died on 22 April, and one of Mr. Asquith's 
 earliest duties as head of the Government was to pro- 
 nounce a fine eulogium on his predecessor, a man who had 
 been steadfast to the Liberal cause in the low valley of 
 defeat and disaster and had risen with it to the top- 
 most height of victory. Notwithstanding the changes at 
 the Exchequer, Mr. Asquith himself, on 7 May, intro- 
 duced the Budget, a natural proceeding, for it was his 
 own handiwork. This Budget laid the foundation of a 
 national non-contributory scheme of State pensions for 
 aged men and women, five shillings weekly to be payable 
 as from i January, 1909, to persons in indigent circum- 
 stances who had attained the age of 70 years. It was 
 left to Mr. Lloyd George in the succeeding year to finance 
 old-age pensions, but nothing can rob Mr. Asquith of the 
 credit for the authorship of this beneficent scheme of 
 social reform, which has brought sunshine into the grey 
 lives of so many of the aged veterans of industry. Mr. 
 Asquith went to the Exchequer with two ambitions- 
 one to effect a large reduction of the National Debt ; 
 the other to establish a system of old-age pensions on a 
 non-contributory basis. He was able to realize both 
 objects before he resigned the Chancellorship. The 
 Budget of 1908 was also notable for a reduction in 
 the sugar duty from 45. 2d. to is. lod. per cwt. This 
 meant a loss of revenue to the extent of nearly 3,500,000. 
 As sugar is both a food commodity and a raw material, 
 the reduction in duty was warmly welcomed by Free 
 Traders. But this voluntary sacrifice of revenue in 
 the actual circumstances was improvident, and proved 
 a great embarrassment to Mr. Lloyd George in the 
 following year. Ancillary to the Budget of 1908 was the 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 119 
 
 Old Age Pensions Bill, which prescribed the conditions for 
 the grant of a pension and set up the necessary machinery. 
 Mr. Lloyd George guided this Bill through the House of 
 Commons with tact and ability. The House of Lords 
 did not disguise its dislike of the Pensions Bill, and en- 
 deavoured to amend its provisions and limit its duration. 
 In so doing it infringed the privileges of the House of 
 Commons in finance, and on that ground the obnoxious 
 amendments introduced by the peers were all expunged 
 by the Speaker. " Never," said Lord Lansdowne, " has 
 privilege been asserted in so aggressive a form as it has 
 been in connexion with this Bill." With this protest 
 the peers acquiesced in the Speaker's ruling. During 
 the progress of the Bill through the House of Lords its 
 proposals were adversely criticized by two cross-bench 
 peers, Lord Cromer, the pro-consul who did so much for 
 the regeneration of modern Egypt, and Lord Rosebery, 
 both of whom wanted a contributory system of pensions. 
 Lord Lansdowne denounced the Pensions Bill. " It will," 
 he said, " cost the nation as much as a great war would 
 cost. There will be this difference, that you can pay off 
 your war debt by making sacrifices in order to do so. 
 But this is a liability from which I don't believe that the 
 country will ever be able to emancipate itself. There is 
 this further difference, that a war, terrible as are its conse- 
 quences, has at any rate the effect of raising the moral 
 fibre of the country, whereas this measure, I am much 
 afraid, is one which will weaken the moral fibre 
 of the nation and diminish the self-respect of our 
 people." 
 
 The Unionist record on old-age pensions had been none 
 too happy, and this infelicitous utterance by the Unionist 
 Leader in the House of Lords made the democratic Tories 
 furious. In the same session (1908) Lord Lansdowne com- 
 mitted an error of judgment in summoning a party meeting 
 at Lansdowne House to decide the fate of the Licensing 
 
120 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Bill. Many Conservatives deplored the want of respect 
 for the decent forms and usages of the Constitution shown 
 by the action of this party conclave, which, meeting " in a 
 famous house in a famous square," decreed the doom of 
 a great legislative proposal. On 27 November, 1908, on 
 the motion for second reading, the Licensing Bill was 
 thrown out in the House of Lords by 272 to 96. Fore- 
 seeing the defeat of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor, in a 
 brave speech just before the division was taken, said : 
 " It will be the triumph of a trade over the community, a 
 victory of wrong over right." In the minority with the 
 Government voted several Unionist and Independent 
 peers, among them the Marquis of Bute, Lord Rosebery, 
 Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord Esher, Lord Kinnaird, 
 Lord Knollys, Lord Lytton, Lord Milner, Lord Peel, 
 Lord Ritchie, Lord De La Warr, and Lord Dundonald. 
 The Bill was supported by the two Archbishops and by 
 fifteen Bishops. 
 
 By rejecting the Licensing Bill the House of Lords 
 swept away at a stroke the result of long months of 
 weary labour in the House of Commons. Every session 
 since the Liberals had come back to office had seen one or 
 more of the chief measures of the Government destroyed 
 or mutilated by the House of Lords. It was now obvious 
 to all observers that social progress was impossible as 
 long as a hostile Second Chamber straddled like Apollyon, 
 vast, sinister, and menacing, across the path along which 
 the Liberal party was seeking to advance. Temperance 
 reform, electoral reform, land reform, the remedy of 
 education grievances, the abolition of plural voting all 
 these things were barred to the Liberal party by the 
 antagonism of a hostile Second Chamber. Either Liberal- 
 ism must perish as an organized political force and if 
 it perished the only effective bulwark in this country 
 against revolutionary ideas would be destroyed or the 
 House of Lords must be subdued. The year 1909 opened 
 
LORDS AND THE LIBERAL REVIVAL 121 
 
 auspiciously for the Lords. Having successfully baffled 
 the Government time after time, they had now reduced it 
 almost to impotence. Nothing has a more depressing 
 effect on a party than the powerlessness of its Ministers. 
 The successive blows dealt by the House of Lords at 
 Liberal projects of legislation, and the apparent submis- 
 siveness of Ministers under these rebuffs and humilia- 
 tions, had seriously damaged the Government's prestige. 
 Ministers were disheartened ; the loyal majority in the 
 House of Commons was dismayed ; the Liberal party in 
 the country was dispirited. Writing in 1876, Sir George 
 Trevelyan said : 
 
 " Those who have joined in the idle jubilation over the 
 impotence and helplessness of the House of Lords with 
 which, in our own day, triumphant partisans celebrated 
 the downfall of the Irish Church and the abolition of 
 purchase in the Army, would do well to study the history 
 of the decline and fall of Lord Melbourne's Administra- 
 tion. There they would learn how substantial and how 
 formidable is the power of Conservative statesmen, who, 
 surveying the field of action from the secure stronghold 
 of an assembly devoted to their interests, can discern 
 through all the dust and clamour of a popular movement 
 the exact strength and attitude of the hostile forces. 
 An Upper Chamber which will accept from Ministers 
 whom it detests no measure that has not behind it an 
 irresistible mass of excited public opinion has, sooner or 
 later, the fate of those Ministers in its hands. For, 
 on the one hand, the friction generated by the process 
 of forcing a Bill through a reluctant House of Lords 
 annoys and scandalizes a nation which soon grows tired 
 of having a revolution once a twelvemonth ; and, on the 
 other hand, the inability of a Cabinet to conduct through 
 both Houses that continuous flow of legislation which 
 the ever-changing necessities of a country like ours de- 
 mand, alienates those among its ardent supporters who 
 
122 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 take little account of its difficulties and see only that it 
 is unable to turn its Bills into Acts." 
 
 Here in these words was an exact description of the 
 political situation as it presented itself to the eyes of the 
 country at the close of 1908. Liberal discontent in the 
 constituencies was extreme. " We put you in office 
 with an immense majority," said the Liberal militants, 
 " Y e * y u allow the Lords to prevent you doing your 
 work/' Thus the year 1909 opened with the House of 
 Lords exultant, the Liberal party discouraged, the 
 Conservatives full of hope. A hostile Second Chamber 
 had worn down the strength of the greatest majority 
 the House of Commons had ever known. More than that, 
 it had succeeded in taking the heart out of the Liberal 
 party in the country. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE 
 
 ANEW figure, small, slight, alert, debonair, now 
 advances into the foreground with cheerful com- 
 posure and bright -eyed hopefulness. It was that 
 of a man destined to be the hero of an exciting political 
 year. Before the summer of 1909, Mr. Lloyd George had 
 succeeded in transforming the political situation. The 
 blast of his horn roused the martial spirit of a discouraged 
 army. He enheartened the Liberal party, fired them 
 with a new zeal, and led them forth exulting out of the 
 valley of humiliation. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George had won his spurs in opposition 
 during the ten years of Tory ascendancy. A quick- 
 witted Welshman, with a musical voice, a fluent tongue, 
 a gift of spontaneous eloquence as fresh and natural as 
 a mountain rivulet, he had made his reputation by his 
 ability and courage as an Independent Radical. He 
 first made his mark on Welsh questions, and Wales 
 retains an unalterable place in his heart. Mr. Silvester 
 Home once described him as " the uncrowned Prince 
 of Wales." That was not an empty compliment. No 
 Welsh leader since the days of Owen Glendower has 
 inspired so much enthusiasm among his countrymen. 
 It was the South African War that made Mr. Lloyd 
 George's name a household word outside the Principality. 
 Popular feeling in favour of that war ran like a tidal 
 wave, sweeping almost everything before it. Mr. Lloyd 
 George was one of the few politicians who breasted that 
 
 123 
 
124 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 tide of popular passion. He fought it like a strong 
 swimmer, and almost sank beneath the tumultuous 
 waves. Honestly persuaded that the war might have 
 been avoided, he staked his career on his conscience. 
 The British people are not resentful, and they admire 
 courage in their public men. To a man who is honest 
 and fearless they will forgive much. And so, when the 
 war fever subsided, Mr. Lloyd George was generally 
 accepted as a politician with a future. 
 
 In the 1900-5 Parliament he increased his reputation. 
 The Liberals were dispirited and disunited, and the 
 Front Bench was often ineffective in criticism. Opposi- 
 tion was only kept alive by some of the ardent spirits 
 below the gangway. Conspicuous among these was the 
 young member for Carnarvon. From his corner seat 
 Mr. Lloyd George frequently poured lively fusillades 
 into the Unionist camp. Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamber- 
 lain often winced under the slings and arrows hurled 
 by this clever and redoubtable Radical. In the long 
 debates on the Education Bill of 1902, Mr. Lloyd George 
 distinguished himself by the persistency and pungency 
 of his criticisms. The measure was repugnant to his 
 notions of citizenship as well as to his Nonconformity, 
 and he fought it at every stage. Mr. Balfour hand- 
 somely acknowledged his skill. Throughout that Parlia- 
 ment Mr. Lloyd George was a dauntless free-lance. 
 He had new opportunities for the exercise of his gifts 
 on the adoption by Mr. Chamberlain of a Protectionist 
 policy and Mr. Balfour's consequent game of hide-and- 
 seek in the House of Commons. By this time he had 
 become a force in the country. 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when forming his 
 Ministry in December, 1905, offered Mr. Lloyd George 
 the choice between two offices Postmaster-General or 
 President of the Board of Trade. The member for 
 Carnarvon chose the latter. He thus began his Minis- 
 
ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE 125 
 
 terial career in the same office as Mr. Chamberlain did. 
 It was an appointment that caused some surprise. 
 People who call themselves " safe and prudent " gravely 
 shook their heads. The idea of entrusting British trade 
 and commerce to the oversight of this fiery young Welsh- 
 man ! Mr. Lloyd George had not been long in office 
 before he allayed all these fears. People saw with 
 amazement the audacious political gladiator transformed 
 into a calm, prudent, and sagacious Minister the 
 dashing free-lance ripened into a wise and patient ad- 
 ministrator. 
 
 No more forceful personality, none richer in dynamic 
 energy, had been at the head of the Board of Trade since 
 Mr. Chamberlain's day. Unlike Mr. Chamberlain, 
 whose quarrel with Professor Tyndall was only one of 
 several incidents that marred the harmony of his career 
 at the Board of Trade, Mr. Lloyd George had tact and 
 persuasiveness. His sweet reasonableness in negotia- 
 tion and his charm of manner conquered antagonisms. 
 Still more valuable were the qualities of initiative and 
 constructive ability that he displayed. Three valuable 
 measures the Merchant Shipping Act, the Patents 
 Act, and the Port of London Act stand as enduring 
 monuments of his work at the Board of Trade. In 
 addition to infusing life into a great public department, 
 he displayed remarkable arts of parliamentary manage- 
 ment in getting his measures through the House of 
 Commons. Two years at the Board of Trade had won 
 for him the unreserved confidence of the business com- V 
 munity. It is well known, too, that his magnetic per- 
 sonality, his accessibility to new ideas, and his freedom 
 from bondage to formulas greatly impressed the statesmen 
 from the British Dominions who participated in the 
 Imperial Conference of 1907. In the autumn of that 
 year he won the gratitude of the nation by averting the 
 menace of a national railway strike. His prestige now 
 
126 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 was second to that of no other member in the Cabinet, 
 and on the reconstitution of the Government on the 
 retirement of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in the 
 spring of 1908, he succeeded Mr. Asquith as Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer. 
 
 Thus at forty-five this talented Welshman, sprung 
 from a peasant stock, had reached the second place in 
 the Government. Twenty years before he became 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George was a 
 solicitor with a modest practice in a sequestered little 
 town in North Wales. There is not an instance in our 
 political history of a rise from obscurity to eminence so 
 swift and dramatic. Pitt had attained a greater position 
 at a still earlier age, but Pitt was the son of a Prime 
 Minister, and had been reared in the atmosphere of 
 great affairs. Disraeli's rise was romantic, but, though 
 he had won dazzling success in literature before he was 
 thirty, he arrived slowly in politics. The complete 
 conquest of the British aristocracy by that Israelite of 
 genius was an achievement the wonder of which will 
 never fade. But neither Pitt nor Disraeli started with 
 the odds so heavily against him as did David Lloyd 
 George, who was reared in a cottage home where the 
 pinch of poverty was sometimes felt, and who received 
 his whole education at the Church of England elementary 
 school in a remote Welsh village. The son of a school- 
 master who died when the future Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer was a child, Mr. Lloyd George with his 
 brother and sister were reared by a bachelor uncle, a 
 man with a Puritan outlook on life, who is a shoemaker 
 on weekdays and a preacher for the Welsh Baptists on 
 Sunday he has preached for half a century without fee 
 or reward. A noble old character is this Richard Lloyd, 
 with his fine stature, strong features, and patriarchal 
 air a character such as George Eliot would have loved 
 to portray. To him Mr. Lloyd George owes more than 
 
ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE 127 
 
 to anyone else. Uncle and nephew toiled together 
 through the Latin Grammar ; it was he who encouraged 
 the bright, high-spirited boy to qualify for the legal 
 profession j who revealed to him the treasures of the 
 humble, and taught him to appreciate the priceless 
 value of simplicity in life. Such was Mr. Lloyd 
 George's up-bringing, not a very propitious start for 
 a Cabinet Minister. Yet this cottage home, far away 
 amid the Welsh mountains, with its severe plainness, 
 its hard life, simple joys, and Puritan atmosphere 
 was a fine school for a training in manhood. Richard 
 Lloyd himself is an inspiring personality, a Puritan 
 untouched by the modern spirit of scepticism and 
 materialism, whose mind, to borrow Macaulay's words, 
 " had derived a peculiar character from the daily con- 
 templation of superior beings and eternal interests," 
 and who " habitually ascribed every event to the Will 
 of the Great Being, for whose power nothing was too 
 vast, for whose inspection nothing was too minute." 
 Mr. Lloyd George and this grim and pious uncle are 
 united by the bonds of a beautiful affection. In all the 
 preoccupations and anxieties of a busy life, the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer has never failed to communicate 
 daily with the old man, usually by letter, but when the 
 press of work forbids the writing of a letter, by telegram. 
 On the day when Mr. Lloyd George unfolded his first 
 Budget, a tall, gaunt, white-bearded man of venerable 
 aspect, clad in homespun, occupied a seat in the Dis- 
 tinguished Strangers' Gallery. It was Richard Lloyd, of 
 Criccieth, who had made one of his very rare journeys to 
 London to listen to the first Budget speech of the nephew 
 whose youthful steps he had guided, and whose boyish 
 enthusiasms he had kindled. 
 
 A politician dowered with all the advantages of birth, 
 education, and wealth finds it no easy task to force his 
 way into that inner Ministerial circle whose portals have 
 
128 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 long been jealously guarded by a governing caste. In 
 these days, when the plebeian's toe kibes the courtier's 
 heel, the great offices of State are not, it is true, monopo- 
 lized by the aristocracy. But our governing classes are 
 still chiefly recruited from men who, if not of aristocratic 
 birth, have either wealth or academical distinction to re- 
 inforce the power of their natural talents. Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Asquith 
 were not of aristocratic origin, but Sir Henry had always 
 been opulent and had assimilated the culture of two 
 great universities ; Mr. Chamberlain was a rich man 
 before he was forty, and came into parliamentary life 
 with the prestige of a great municipal reputation ; 
 while in Mr. Asquith was seen the fine flower of Oxford 
 culture. 
 
 Compared with these statesmen Mr. Lloyd George 
 was heavily handicapped. He owes nothing whatever 
 to adventitious aids. He has risen to the seats of the 
 mighty by the native force of his own unaided gifts. 
 What is the explanation of his success ? Is it in his 
 oratory ? No ; he is an accomplished speaker with a 
 voice of singular sweetness ; but mere charm of speech, 
 though it assisted him in making a name, could not by 
 itself have achieved for him his reputation. Not in his 
 oratory must we seek the secret, but in his character, 
 so strong and simple and shrewd. He has dauntless 
 courage, and true courage is a very rare quality in 
 parliamentary life. He is at once fearless and sincere. 
 Temperamentally he has kinship with the zealot, but 
 he has one quality that zealots usually lack. He is 
 always able to distinguish clearly between the non- 
 essential and the essential. On non-essentials he will 
 concede anything ; though for the essential thing he 
 will fight with fierce tenacity. Like many of his country- 
 men, he has great intellectual nimbleness. He has all 
 the imaginativeness and quickness and intuitions of 
 
ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE 129 
 
 the Celt. His mental processes are lightning-like in their 
 rapidity. A magnetic personality, alive in every fibre, 
 and a silvery voice help to explain the success of his 
 oratory. These qualities cannot be transferred to the 
 printed page. His speeches are better heard than read. 
 Their distinguishing characteristic is a warm humanity. 
 Their literary quality is not high, though now and again 
 there are eloquent passages in which fine ideas are 
 expressed in graceful language. If for the most part 
 the stuff of the speeches is homespun, yet it is a homespun 
 gleaming with golden threads. Mr. Lloyd George has 
 the poetry and the imagination of his race. A son of 
 the mountains, he has, too, an intense love of liberty. 
 He has not read widely or deeply. He very seldom 
 makes a quotation. If he does it is usually from a Welsh 
 poet. He has not the copious vocabulary and the rush 
 of noble ideas of a Gladstone ; he cannot use the English 
 language as did John Bright, with whom it became an 
 instrument through which he blew divinest music. Of 
 our modern speakers he most resembles Mr. Chamberlain. 
 His political outlook, his ideas, and his language curiously 
 resemble those of Mr. Chamberlain in his Radical days. 
 Like Mr. Chamberlain, his style is simple, terse, and 
 forcible. Mr. Chamberlain's speeches ring with a more 
 virile note, but Mr. Lloyd George has a livelier wit, and 
 the poetic glow that always lights up his oratory is 
 more winning than the hard and metallic glitter of 
 Birmingham. Concerned more about ends than about 
 principles, he is not rigidly bound by formularies or 
 by creeds. He is as little of a political philosopher as 
 Mr. Chamberlain. Like him, he is proud of being a 
 practical man. His idealism is subtly mingled with a 
 cunning practicality. Inborn tact and much experience 
 of the world have made him adept in the art of managing 
 men. In private life he is a man of winning qualities, 
 with a charm of manner to whose magical spell his 
 9 
 
130 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 political opponents are not irresponsive. His nature 
 is large and spacious, entirely free from bitterness and 
 pettiness. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George is a democrat from the crown of 
 his head to the soles of his feet. There has never been 
 a Cabinet Minister more sympathetic to the needs and 
 claims of those whom Carlyle called " the dim millions." 
 His sympathies flow out to the toilers in the field, the 
 factory, the mine. His heart is full of compassion for 
 the poor and needy ; the vision of the wounded, worn, 
 and broken soldiers of industry is ever before his eyes. 
 The nation, said John Bright, lives in its cottages. 
 Brought up in a cottage himself, Mr. Lloyd George is 
 proud of his identity in experience, knowledge, and 
 feeling with the mass of the people. He once said : 
 
 " I cannot boast, like Mr. Hyndman, the Socialist, 
 that I belong to a different class from the audience I 
 address. I am a man of the people, bred amongst them, 
 and it has been the greatest joy of my life to have had 
 some part in fighting the battles of the class from whom 
 I am proud to have sprung." 
 
 It was as a son of the people that he drew that pathetic 
 picture of the old workman who has to " find his way 
 to the gates of the tomb, bleeding and footsore, through 
 the brambles and thorns of poverty." It was as a man 
 of the people he pleaded in these words for the unem- 
 ployed workman : 
 
 " During years of prosperity the workman has helped 
 to create these enormous resources of wealth which 
 have accumulated in the country since the last period 
 of depression. Hundreds of millions are added to the 
 national wealth during the cycle of plenty. Surely a 
 few of these millions might be spared to preserve from 
 hunger and from torturing anxiety the workmen who 
 have helped to make that great wealth ? " 
 
 His knowledge of the simple joys and harassing anxieties 
 
ARRIVAL OF MR. LLOYD GEORGE 131 
 
 of the labouring classes is a source of strength to Mr. 
 Lloyd George as a statesman. It has enlarged his sym- 
 pathies and given simplicity and directness to his out- 
 look. To his credit, be it said, he is quite unspoilt by 
 his marvellous political success. He lives as simply as 
 Cabinet Minister as he did as an obscure Welsh member. 
 
 Society and " the City " still exert powerful influences 
 in the political world. Mr. Lloyd George is wholly un- 
 affected by them. He does not care for Society, or for 
 Society's opinion ; he is utterly indifferent to the City. 
 Even Mr. Gladstone, who feared no man, stood in awe 
 of the mandarins of high finance in the City of London. 
 He was afraid to appoint Mr. Chamberlain Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in 1885, because he thought the City would 
 take umbrage at the appointment, Mr. Chamberlain's un- 
 authorized programme having aroused the anger of many 
 vested interests. But the attacks of financiers, brewers, 
 and landowners leave Mr. Lloyd George smiling and un- 
 perturbed. In spite of foolish detraction he is no enemy 
 of Capital. Labour and Capital, he holds, have reciprocal 
 obligations. He is not a mere visionary. His passion of 
 pity is harnessed to strong common sense. He is no be- 
 liever in a class war. He has always advocated a pro- 
 gressive Liberalism, and has eloquently enforced the 
 moral to be drawn from the failure of continental 
 Liberalism, which perished of inanition because it had 
 ceased to be receptive to new ideas. Let the Liberal 
 party do its duty and keep abreast of the new needs of 
 the time, and we shall have nothing to fear from Socialism. 
 " Let Liberalism proceed with its glorious work of 
 building up the temple of liberty in this country, but let 
 it also bear in mind that the worshippers at that shrine 
 have to live." 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George has himself helped to enlarge the 
 boundaries of Liberalism. No man has done more to 
 fire the Liberal party with zeal for social reform. 
 
132 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Such was the man who, in 1908, was called to be 
 custodian of the national finances. He had given no sign 
 of special aptitude for finance, and had not displayed any 
 particular interest in economics. But he was very re- 
 ceptive, he had genius, he had courage. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 
 
 SELDOM has a new Chancellor of Exchequer found 
 confronting him so formidable a task as that which 
 faced Mr. Lloyd George in the spring of 1909. 
 A gaping deficit yawned before him, the bridging of 
 which would have imposed a severe strain on the resource- 
 fulness of a practised financier. The main causes of the 
 deficit were old-age pensions and a large increase in the 
 Navy Estimates. Old-age pensions had been originally 
 estimated to cost 6,500,000 for the first year. This 
 estimate was largely exceeded. Under the Act of 1908 
 pensions became payable as from i January, 1909. As 
 the financial year runs from April to April, Mr. Lloyd 
 George had thus three months' actual experience to guide 
 him as to the provision that would be necessary for the 
 full year. Instead of 6,500,000, he found he would have 
 to raise for pensions 8,000,000 a great excess over the 
 original estimate, due chiefly to the unexpectedly large 
 number of pensioners in Ireland, where the statisticians 
 had omitted to allow for the fact that whereas Ireland's 
 population in 1909 was 4,000,000, they had to deal with 
 the aged residue of what in 1840 was a population of 
 8,000,000. It was unfortunate that the maturing of the 
 Bill for old-age pensions coincided with a huge increase 
 in the Navy Estimates, viz. 3,000,000. Here in these 
 two extra items was a new burden of 11,000,000. The 
 loss of revenue on the sugar duty swelled the deficit. 
 Mr. Asquith in his last Budget had reduced the tax on 
 
134 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 imported sugar from 45. 2d. to is. lod. per cwt. Only one 
 quarter of the previous financial year had been affected 
 by the reduction in the sugar duty, but now for the full 
 year 1909-10 Mr. Lloyd George found that the reduced 
 sugar duty meant an addition of 3,250,000 to his deficit. 
 Altogether he had to find 15,762,000 of new revenue, in 
 order to balance the year's accounts. In the winter of 
 1908-9 Mr. Lloyd George gave anxious attention to the 
 preparation of the Budget. He determined to seize the 
 occasion for a bold advance. The very magnitude of the 
 deficit inspired him with daring. By firmly grasping the 
 nettle Danger he plucked the flower Safety. On April 29, 
 1909, before a crowded House of Commons roused to the 
 highest pitch of expectancy, the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer unfolded his Budget. Its bold sweep astonished 
 the audience, but astonishment quickly gave way to 
 admiration. Free Traders were enthusiastic over a 
 Budget which raised a huge revenue without transgressing 
 a single canon of Free Trade finance, which imposed not a 
 single farthing of new taxation on the necessaries of life, 
 and which laid no burden on industry. Radicals who had 
 grown grey in the public service rejoiced to see old Radical 
 ideas about taxation of land figuring in a Budget . Temper- 
 ance reformers, still cherishing in their hearts resentment 
 against the House of Lords for the rejection of the 
 Licensing Bill, were delighted by the scheme of high 
 license duties. " To adapt the burden to the broadest 
 back " ; "to tax luxuries, not necessaries " these were 
 the principles that guided Mr. Lloyd George in framing 
 his Budget. The working classes must pay their share to 
 the national needs, but their contribution would come not 
 through a tax on food, but through taxes on beer, spirits, 
 and tobacco. Wealth and the monopolies of land and 
 liquor must pay in direct taxation. The Chancellor 
 found his new sources of revenue in (i) an increase of 2d., 
 that is from is. to is. 2d., in the on the general rate of 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 135 
 
 income tax, but the rates on earned incomes up to 2000 
 to remain at gd., and between 2000 and 3000 at is. ; 
 (2) a super-tax of 6d. in the on incomes above 5000 a 
 year, the super-tax only to be payable on the amount by 
 which the income exceeds 3000 ; (3) increases in the 
 death duties ; estates above 1,000,000 to pay 15 per cent; 
 (4) the duty on tobacco to be raised from 35. to 35. 8d. 
 per Ib. ; (5) an additional duty of 33. gd. per gallon on 
 spirits ; (6) tax on motor-cars, and 3d. per gallon on 
 petrol or motor-spirit ; (7) instead of the old registration 
 duty on brewers, a tax of 3d. per barrel on beer brewed ; 
 (8) a new system of high license duties on public-houses, 
 working out at about one-half the annual value of the 
 licensed premises ; (9) new land taxes. 
 
 The most novel features of the Budget were the land 
 taxes, and these soon became the centre of controversy. 
 Any one who takes the trouble to read the speeches in 
 which, during the years 1883-4-5, Mr. Chamberlain, then 
 the rising hope of Liberalism, expounded his " un- 
 authorized programme," will be impressed by the em- 
 phasis which is laid in them on the necessity of taxing 
 " unearned increment." The urbanization of England 
 and Wales in the past sixty years has enriched beyond 
 the dreams of avarice many owners of land in industrial 
 districts. Unlike the rural landowners, who realize that 
 property has its duties as well as its rights, the urban 
 landowners seldom recognized their obligations to the 
 busy communities which created their wealth. This was 
 the class Mr. Chamberlain had in mind when he inveighed 
 against those " who toil not, neither do they spin." Mr. 
 Lloyd George shared Mr. Chamberlain's views on this 
 subject, and also agreed with him that property owed a 
 " ransom " to society. To the delight of Radicals he 
 now translated some of the ideas of the " unauthorized 
 programme " into the sphere of taxation. The taxes 
 imposed by the Budget on the owners of land were : 
 
136 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 (1) Increment Value Duty. A tax of 20 per cent on all 
 future increments in the value of land which are not due 
 to the enterprise or the expenditure of the owner. 
 
 (2) Reversion Duty. A tax of 10 per cent on the value 
 accruing to a lessor on the determination of a lease. 
 
 (3) Undeveloped Land Duty. A tax of Jd. in the on 
 the capital value of undeveloped land, that is, land suitable 
 for building, but which has not yet been built upon ; the 
 intention of the tax being to force building-land into the 
 market, and to deter owners from withholding it in order 
 to enhance its price. 
 
 (4) Mineral Rights Duty. A tax of is. in the on 
 royalties and wayleaves. 
 
 A chorus of approval welcomed the proposed increment 
 duty and the reversion duty. From the economic point 
 of view objections were raised to (3) and (4). It was 
 argued that the increment duty rendered the tax on un- 
 developed land unnecessary, since if land is deliberately 
 withheld from the market for the purpose of forcing up its 
 price, its owner will have to pay additional increment 
 duty in respect of its enhanced value. It was urged, too, 
 that an owner of land may be eager to sell or lease, and 
 yet fail to find a purchaser or lessee. His land may there- 
 fore be simply a source of annual loss to him. Was it 
 right to tax a man on a loss ? With regard to (4) it was 
 contended that this was virtually a new income tax on 
 royalty owners, that is, on one species of property. The 
 voice of criticism on these points was drowned in the loud 
 chorus of popular approbation. It was the increment duty 
 and the reversion duty that attracted most attention, and 
 these had the sanction of every reputable authority on 
 taxation and economics. They were both taxes on wind- 
 falls. For the increment duty Mr. Lloyd George could 
 invoke the high authority of John Stuart Mill. In Mill's 
 Principles of Political Economy will be found the following 
 passage : 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 137 
 
 " Suppose that there is a kind of income which con- 
 stantly tends to increase, without any exertion or sacrifice 
 on the part of the owners ; those owners constituting a 
 class in the community whom the natural course of things 
 progressively enriches, consistently with complete passive- 
 ness on their own part. In such a case it would be no 
 violation of the principles on which private property is 
 grounded, if the State should appropriate this increase of 
 wealth, or part of it, as it arises. This would not properly 
 be taking anything from anybody ; it would merely be 
 applying an accession of wealth, created by circumstances, 
 to the benefit of society, instead of allowing it to become 
 an unearned appendage to the riches of a particular class. 
 
 " Now this is actually the case with rent. The ordinary 
 progress of a society which increases in wealth is at all 
 times tending to augment the incomes of landlords ; to 
 give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion 
 of the wealth of the community, independently of any 
 trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow 
 richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, 
 or economizing. What claim have they, on the general 
 principle of social justice, to this accession of riches ? 
 In what would they have been wronged if society had, 
 from the beginning, reserved the right of taxing the 
 spontaneous increase of rent, to the highest amount re- 
 quired by financial exigencies ? I admit that it would be 
 unjust to come upon each individual estate, and lay hold 
 of the increase which might be found to have taken place 
 in its rental ; because there would be no means of dis- 
 tinguishing, in individual cases, between an increase 
 owing solely to the general circumstances of society, and 
 one which was the effect of skill and expenditure on the 
 part of the proprietor. The only admissible mode of 
 proceeding would be by a general measure. The first step 
 should be a valuation of all the land in the country. The 
 present value of all land should be exempt from the tax. 
 
138 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 But after an interval had elapsed, during which society 
 had increased in population and capital, a rough estimate 
 might be made of the spontaneous increase which had 
 accrued to rent since the valuation was made." 
 
 The courage shown by Mr. Lloyd George in including 
 these new land taxes in his Budget was the more laudable 
 for the reason that they could not possibly assist him in 
 meeting the deficit. From their very nature these taxes 
 could not bring much grist to the Treasury mill in the 
 early years of their imposition. A condition-precedent 
 was a valuation of all the land in the United Kingdom, 
 and the compilation of this new Domesday Book was a 
 gigantic operation that could not be completed for years. 
 In years to come the new land taxes would bring in a rich 
 revenue, but at the outset their contribution to the 
 Treasury must necessarily be negligible. The Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer was entitled to credit for looking in his 
 first Budget beyond the needs of the moment and his own 
 immediate necessities. He carried the land taxes in the 
 face of bitter opposition, though he knew full well that it 
 was not his own Budgets that would benefit from them. 
 
 The landowning classes and the licensing trade joined 
 in outcry against the Budget proposals, and the clamour 
 was loud and deep. In the House the Conservative 
 Opposition fought them tenaciously but not fiercely. 
 Mr. Austen Chamberlain, son of the author of the doctrine 
 of " ransom," was the ablest critic of the Budget. Two 
 other Conservatives, Mr. Pretyman on the land taxes, and 
 Mr., now Sir George, Younger on the liquor and licensing 
 duties, won their spurs in this long battle. The Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer showed patience, courtesy, and adroit- 
 ness in conducting his voluminous Budget through the 
 House. 
 
 Meanwhile, the anti-Budget agitation outside had con- 
 tinued without pause or check. The possessing classes, 
 conspicuous among them the Dukes, carried their woes 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 139 
 
 into the public places, and shouted their lamentations and 
 maledictions from the house-tops. So vehement was the 
 outcry of the rich against the new taxation that at last it 
 produced a recoil. Ordinary men became impatient of the 
 selfishness that lay behind most of these protests that were 
 being raised by the richest members of the community. 
 A change in public feeling soon made itself evident. A 
 Budget League, superbly organized by Sir Henry Norman, 
 helped to focus public opinion in favour of the Budget, 
 and Mr. Lloyd George used his unique powers of popular 
 appeal in a speech to an East End audience at Limehouse 
 on 30 July. He made great play in this speech with the 
 opposition to taxation of those rich classes who had been 
 clamouring for heavy expenditure on the Navy. Here is 
 a quotation from the Limehouse speech : 
 
 " They are now protesting against paying their fair 
 share of the taxation of the land, and they are doing so 
 by saying, ' You are burdening the community ; you are 
 putting burdens on the people which they cannot bear.' 
 Ah ! they are not thinking of themselves. Noble souls ! 
 It is not the great dukes they are feeling for, it is the 
 market gardener, it is the builder, and it was, until 
 recently, the smallholder. . . . Why should I put burdens 
 on the people ? I am one of the children of the people ; 
 I was brought up amongst them. I know their trials, 
 and God forbid that I should add one 'grain of trouble 
 to the anxiety which they bear with such patience and 
 fortitude. When the Prime Minister did me the honour 
 of inviting me to take charge of the National Exchequer, 
 at a time of great difficulty, I made up my mind in framing 
 the Budget which was in front of me, that at any rate no 
 cupboard should be bared, no lot would be harder to bear. 
 By that test I challenge them to judge the Budget." 
 
 In the Limehouse speech the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer denounced as " blackmail " the system of fines 
 and exactions imposed by urban landlords on lessees 
 
140 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 desiring to renew a lease. This denunciation added fuel 
 to the already blazing fire of anger which the Budget had 
 kindled among the landowning classes. Mr. Lloyd George 
 was denounced in every mood and tense. As against the 
 fierce denunciation of the Budget by the vested interests, 
 the Chancellor could point with satisfaction to the support 
 which it was winning among the masses, and with pride 
 to the emphatic verdict of approval pronounced upon 
 it by our greatest living political economist, Professor 
 Marshall, who described it as " a Budget of social welfare." 
 It soon became evident that the agitation against the 
 Budget had overreached itself by its very vehemence. 
 On 4 August The Times referred to the change in the 
 popular mood. ' The Government/' it said, " feel them- 
 selves to be in a stronger position to-day than two months 
 ago," and it noted a decided alteration in the political 
 atmosphere, " that curious sense of change which may be 
 felt by those sensitive to impressions, a change comparable 
 only to the turn of the tide upon an estuary, when the 
 moored boat swings slowly round." The tide had indeed 
 turned, and The Times on the following day came out 
 with a dignified protest against the action of those persons 
 who go about proclaiming that " they will reduce their 
 expenditure on wages or their charities, to get even with 
 the Government." None the less, the agitation against 
 the Budget continued, though it was now counteracted 
 by a strong popular movement in its favour. 
 
 Late in the summer it was rumoured that the House 
 of Lords, very sensitive to the fears of the landed in- 
 terests and the pull of the liquor trade, meant to reject 
 the Finance Bill in which the Budget proposals were 
 embodied. At first, responsible politicians could hardly 
 credit that the peers would be guilty of so reckless an 
 irruption into the domain of finance. But the rumour 
 grew, and it derived support from a statement that Mr. 
 Chamberlain, the old enemy of the House of Lords, was 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 141 
 
 strongly in favour of the Lords rejecting the Budget, so 
 as to force a dissolution and give Tariff Reform a chance 
 at the polls. Owing to a breakdown in health early in 
 1907, Mr. Chamberlain had withdrawn for a couple of 
 years from active participation in political life, but from 
 his sick-room he followed the progress of political events 
 with undiminished zest. To him, in his Birmingham 
 retreat, his Tariff Reform lieutenants often repaired for 
 counsel, and from Highbury they often returned with 
 renewed zeal. Mr. Chamberlain's interests were now all 
 concentrated on one political end. That was the success 
 of the Tariff Reform policy on which he had staked his 
 political fortunes in the last stage of his very diversified 
 career. At a Unionist meeting in Birmingham addressed 
 by Mr. Balfour, on 22 September, a letter was read from 
 Mr. Chamberlain, in which the veteran political warrior 
 said, with characteristic bluntness : " I hope the House 
 of Lords will see their way to force an election." The 
 desire of the Tariff Reformers for the rejection of the 
 Budget was quite natural. They had been proclaiming 
 in season and out of season that Free Trade finance was 
 played out, and that the simple needs of revenue must 
 compel resort to the taxation of imports. Mr. Lloyd 
 George, in his first Budget, had confuted these prophets 
 by showing that it was possible to raise a vast additional 
 revenue without inflicting any burden on industry, or 
 imposing any tax on the necessaries of life. In their , 
 chagrin at this revelation, the Tariff Reformers were 
 eager to wreck a Budget whose passage, they feared, 
 would give Protection the coup de grace. Probably 
 neither Mr. Balfour nor Lord Lansdowne was at the out- 
 set favourable to the rejection of the Finance Bill. They 
 were supposed to share the sentiments expressed by the 
 late Lord Salisbury, when he said, in 1894, that " Budgets 
 come, and Budgets go." But the fact that both Mr. 
 Balfour and Lord Lansdowne were Laodicean on the 
 
142 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 subject of Tariff Reform, weakened their influence with 
 their party, which was now thoroughly Protectionist in 
 spirit. When therefore Mr. Chamberlain issued his in- 
 structions Tariff Reformers were enheartened, and the 
 waverers were overborne. Land, liquor, Tariff Reform 
 a formidable triplication of interests represented power- 
 ful forces in the Tory party, and their combined pressure 
 proved irresistible. The Lords, too, were encouraged by 
 reports from the Conservative organizers that, if a General 
 Election were precipitated, it would end either in a 
 Conservative victory, or in leaving the Liberals dependent 
 on the Irish party. In either event the Lords stood to 
 gain, as the Liberals could not possibly repeat their 
 amazing triumph of 1906. Some diminution in their 
 majority was inevitable. Miracles don't recur, and the 
 election of 1906 was in the nature of a miracle. 
 
 In the meantime the Budget was moving gallantly for- 
 ward through its stages in the House of Commons, Mr. 
 Lloyd George, firm and conciliatory, guiding it through 
 committee with consummate skill. Throughout the 
 long fight in the Commons, the Government supporters 
 showed a splendid spirit of devotion. In the final 
 division on the motion for third reading, which took place 
 on 4 November, the majority reached the highly satis- 
 factory figure of 230, despite the abstention of the Irish 
 members, the figures being : 
 
 For the Budget . . . 379 
 Against . 149 
 
 Government majority . . 230 
 
 During the long battle important concessions had been 
 made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The most 
 important of these was the entire exemption of agri- 
 cultural land from the new land taxes. Valuable con- 
 cessions had also been made to the licensing trade, 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 143 
 
 especially in Ireland, where the prevalence of the mixed 
 business the sale of intoxicants being often a side line in 
 a general store established a case for differential treat- 
 ment. These concessions, however, did not touch the 
 whisky tax, and it was the fear of the effect of this tax 
 on Irish opinion that was responsible for the decision of 
 the Nationalists to abstain from the division on the 
 third reading. 
 
 The last day's debate on the third reading of the Finance 
 Bill was enriched by several speeches of high quality. 
 Mr. Balfour, as always, was easily first on his own side, 
 with Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who had added greatly 
 to his reputation during the Budget battle, a good second. 
 On the other side Mr. Asquith was massive, trenchant, 
 convincing ; Mr. Lloyd George dashing and sweet- 
 tempered. But these speeches, great as they were, did 
 not eclipse the triumph won on the preceding night by 
 Mr. Ure, Lord Advocate, who brilliantly vindicated his 
 personal honour, and severely castigated Mr. Balfour 
 who had assailed it. Mr. lire's speech with its scorn of 
 scorn and its burning and passionate sentences was an 
 oratorical effort that profoundly stirred and touched 
 the House of Commons, and will live in the memory of 
 all who heard it. Three other speeches which stand out 
 in the debate were those of Mr. McKenna, Mr. Harold 
 Cox, and Mr. Snowden, the last a little gem of eloquence, 
 shining with sympathy for the poor. 
 
 Rising to make his final speech in the House of Commons 
 on the Budget, Mr. Lloyd George was greeted by an en- 
 couraging cheer. He bore no traces of fatigue after his 
 gigantic labours through all these weary months. He 
 came up fresh and fit and smiling for the last round in the 
 ring. He began in gentlest accents. A claim that no 
 Budget had ever been so carefully examined before and 
 since its presentation to the House ; a tribute to the 
 ability and fairness with which Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 
144 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 had fought the Budget ; some pleasantry on the changes 
 which it had undergone, and its enlarged bulk, due to 
 the " forcible feeding " to which it had been subjected. 
 The numerous concessions made he described as " sops 
 to Cerberus." " But I am told there is still considerable 
 doubt as to whether my poor Bill will get out of Hades." 
 (Roars of laughter.) 
 
 He passed on to a review of the causes of the increased 
 national expenditure. The increase is to continue next 
 year, as he made abundantly plain for more money would 
 be wanted for the Navy, for extending old-age pensions to 
 aged paupers, for insurance against unemployment and 
 invalidity, for the development fund. The deficit of 
 16,000,000 this year would swell to 20,000,000 next year. 
 It was with an eye to these vast sums that Mr. Lloyd 
 George had to frame his first Budget. What was the 
 contribution of the Opposition to this problem ? A 
 vague suggestion of taxing the foreigner a proposal 
 which the Chancellor characterized as " most futile and 
 fatuous." 
 
 He proceeded to vindicate the new taxes on licences 
 and on land, dwelling lightly on the former and at some 
 length on the latter, for, as he truly said, the real challenge 
 of the Opposition was on the land taxes. First as to the tax 
 of |d. in the on the capital value of undeveloped land. 
 This, he contended, was a much more moderate proposal 
 than that embodied in Mr. Trevelyan's Land Values Bill, 
 which was supported by many Conservatives, including 
 four ex-Ministers. How inconsistent of Lancashire 
 Tories like Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Watson Rutherford 
 to oppose this tax, when they are committed neck-deep 
 to the rating of vacant urban land ! The increment 
 tax was justified by an appeal to the authority of John 
 Stuart Mill, and by telling object-lessons from the growth 
 of Sheffield and the industrial expansion of Briton Ferry, 
 in South Wales. Than this increment duty, " I cannot 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 145 
 
 conceive a more just tax ; I cannot conceive a more 
 shabby opposition." (Loud Liberal cheers.) 
 
 A remarkable citation followed, and the Chancellor 
 used it with dramatic effect. He quoted from a Conserva- 
 tive Campaign Guide, issued in 1904, certain " hints to 
 Unionist speakers." The passage quoted was a whole- 
 hearted advocacy of the rating of vacant urban land. 
 " No policy could be more fatuous," says this official 
 Unionist handbook, " than to meet these aspirations 
 (more room to live, more air and sunshine, some relief 
 from the burden of local rates and house rent) with a 
 blank non possumus or the cry of robbery." Liberal and 
 Labour members greeted this officially inspired Conserva- 
 tive statement with shouts of laughter. 
 
 " It is certainly not robbery," went on the passage, " to 
 require the owner of vacant land to make contribution 
 to the revenues of the community (Ministerial cheers) 
 on whose growth and prosperity he relies for the enhanced 
 value." Here Mr. Lloyd George stopped in the quotation 
 to remark : " That sounds like a passage from the Lime- 
 house speech." (Much laughter.) The quotation pro- 
 ceeded to say that the effects of rating vacant urban land 
 would be to bring revenue to the rates, to bring building 
 land into the market on reasonable terms, to encourage 
 building, check overcrowding, and lower rents. " They 
 have all got the points," interjected the Chancellor. 
 Talk of robbery ! His Bill was only petty larceny in 
 comparison with the counsel of this Unionist handbook ! 
 
 Turning to Mr. Walter Long, the Chancellor invited 
 him, as head of the Anti-Budget League, to burn his 
 " spoliation " and " robbery " leaflets, and to circulate 
 instead these passages from the guide, philosopher, and 
 friend of the Unionist candidates who survived the 
 debacle of 1906. 
 
 No quotation was ever more skilfully used. The 
 Conservatives sat crestfallen, a strange contrast to the 
 
 10 
 
146 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 exultant Liberals. Mr. Lloyd George made his points 
 deftly and with sparkling wit. Each point was punctuated 
 by an outburst of delighted cheering. Crash upon crash 
 they came like so many salvos of artillery. 
 
 Mr. Balfour rose at 10.10 in a crowded House. Not a 
 seat was vacant. He was welcomed by his followers with 
 a resonant cheer. He complained that Liberal speakers 
 had devoted most of their time to criticism of a hypo- 
 thetical Tariff Reform Budget. Tariff Reform, he said, 
 is not the subject. Mr. Balfour always glides swiftly 
 over the thin ice of Tariff Reform, and he quitted the 
 topic with obvious relief. Then he launched forth into 
 an ingenious defence of the men of great possessions. The 
 nominal owner often gets small enjoyment out of a large 
 estate. The Budget may not be Socialism, but it strikes 
 at the security of property. That is why it is supported 
 by the Socialists. On the question of unearned increment 
 Mr. Balfour was ingenious and casuistical. He refused to 
 recognize any differences between unearned increment in 
 land and in other forms of property. To seek to establish 
 such a distinction is " perfect madness." 
 
 A mighty cheer greeted the Prime Minister when he 
 rose at 10.55. His speech was exactly attuned to the 
 mood of the House. When he said that the Budget 
 would soon receive, by an overwhelming majority, the 
 approval of the only authority in this country which has 
 any constitutional competence to deal with or regulate 
 our finance, there rose from the Liberal and Labour 
 benches an outburst of passionate cheering, sustained 
 for some moments. Mr. Asquith contrasted the real 
 with the fictitious Budget, which does duty for the 
 Conservatives outside. In a few perfectly chiselled 
 sentences, he defended the equity of the increased duty 
 on licences and the new taxes on land values. Every 
 economist of repute had recognized the differentia which 
 distinguish land from other forms of property. He 
 
BATTLE OF THE BUDGET 147 
 
 appealed to Mill, a great Individualist, against those 
 opponents of the Budget who call it " socialistic " and 
 " confiscatory." 
 
 Mr. Asquith was at the top of his form. He was 
 alternately grave and gay. His badinage of Mr. Balfour 
 on the subject of Tariff Reform was delightful. Sooner 
 or later, he said, Mr. Balfour will have to show his hand, 
 and it will be a hand that must please the Tariff Reformers. 
 There are two ways of meeting the nation's financial needs 
 by the taxation of monopolies and accumulated wealth, 
 as in this Budget, or by taking a toll on the prime neces- 
 saries of life and surrounding our markets with a tariff 
 wall. 
 
 Mr. Asquith's final passage was in the nature of a 
 warning to the House of Lords. If to the alternative of 
 the Budget or Tariff Reform is to be added another 
 which Mr. Asquith declined to believe viz. the choice 
 between the maintenance and the abandonment by this 
 House of its ancient constitutional supremacy over all 
 matters of national finance, " there is not a man who 
 sits here who is not ready to join the issue." 
 
 This bold and defiant note was acclaimed by such a 
 volume of applause as has seldom been heard in the 
 House of Commons. Loud, long-sustained, and passionate, 
 these cheers were a presage of the coming battle. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 
 
 "The Lords are not very wise, but there is sometimes profit to the 
 people in their unwisdom." JOHN BRIGHT, 1869. 
 
 A soon as it was realized that the House of Lords 
 meant to reject the Budget, an animated contro- 
 versy was conducted in the Press and on the plat- 
 form as to the relative powers of the two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment in finance. For the Lords, it was argued that they 
 had an incontestable right to reject even a Finance Bill; 
 that non-user had not deprived them of their right, and 
 that they were still entitled to use it in a grave emergency. 
 To this it was replied that, while the House of Lords 
 had a legal right of rejection, that right had been ren- 
 dered nugatory by the act of Mr. Gladstone in 1861 in 
 combining all the financial proposals of the year in one 
 comprehensive Bill. That precedent had since been 
 followed by Chancellors of the Exchequer of both political 
 parties, and a Budget could not be rejected without 
 plunging the national finances into confusion. On the 
 Liberal side great use was made of the declaration by Lord 
 Salisbury on the Harcourt Budget in 1894, namely : 
 " This House has not the power of changing the executive 
 government ; and to reject a Finance Bill, and leave 
 the same executive government in its place, means to 
 create a deadlock from which there is no escape." Many 
 prominent Unionists publicly protested against the 
 impolicy of rejecting a Budget, but, in the whirlwind of 
 
 148 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 149 
 
 prejudice and passion that had now been aroused, the 
 peers could not hear the still small voice of reason. 
 And so, on 16 November, Lord Lansdowne formally 
 gave notice of the intention of the Tory peers to refuse 
 to pass the Budget. He announced that, when the motion 
 was made on the following Monday for the second reading 
 of the Finance Bill, he would move the following amend- 
 ment : 
 
 " That this House is not justified in giving its consent 
 to this Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment 
 of the country." 
 
 Couched in this form, the resolution was intended to 
 convey the idea that the Lords were not really rejecting 
 the Budget, but only referring it for arbitrament to the 
 people. The debate on the second reading had been 
 fixed for 22 November. Two days before that Lord 
 Courtney, a stern Independent and an authority on 
 constitutional practice and law, set forth in The Times 
 powerful reasons against the course on which Lord 
 Lansdowne was inviting the House of Lords to embark. 
 Appended is an extract from Lord Courtney's letter : 
 
 ' The House of Commons, under the advice of the 
 Ministers of the Crown, have framed a Bill to supply 
 the necessary funds. The Crown asks the representa- 
 tives of the people to undertake this office and thanks 
 them for having done it. In the Bill itself the most 
 ancient form is followed, and the Commons do ' freely 
 and voluntarily ' give and grant the supplies which the 
 King, Lords, and Commons enact shall become com- 
 pulsory. So much is common form. What is it that 
 follows as a matter of course ? The unbroken usage 
 has been for the House of Lords to read the Bill thus 
 sent up to it a second time, and, suspending its Standing 
 Orders, to pass it through all its stages in the same 
 sitting. We need not cite textbooks or rehearse what 
 this or that Minister of State, Liberal or Conservative, 
 
150 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 has said to enhance the significance of this settled pro- 
 cedure. The House of Lords did once, nearly fifty years 
 ago, reject a Bill repealing an existing tax. It has never 
 proposed, it never could propose, a new tax. It has 
 never amended, it has never tried to amend, a Finance 
 Bill. Although its sanction is required to give enacting 
 force to the grants of the Commons, the Commons, 
 and the Commons alone, offer these grants, and if any 
 instance can be cited of hesitation on the part of the 
 Lords to concur in these grants it is so far behind the 
 settled parliamentary life of the nation as to possess no 
 more than an antiquarian interest. 
 
 ' The Lords may never have abandoned a tittle of 
 their power, but their practice has fallen in with the 
 utmost claim of the Commons to exclusive adjustment 
 of taxation. The doctrine of the authority of the Com- 
 mons over finance has been inwoven with our political 
 principles so as to become what we describe as con- 
 stitutional. It finds no express definition in the Statute 
 Book ; it finds habitual recognition in practice. A 
 hundred familiar phrases embody it, and will spring to 
 the lips at the suggestion of any attack on the power 
 of the Commons over the purse. This it is which pre- 
 vents, were it otherwise possible, any appeal to the 
 nation on the character of a Budget. Its merits or de- 
 merits will be lost in the larger question of the power 
 of the Lords to interfere. I do not dwell on the funda- 
 mental principle to which appeal will be made in this 
 great controversy, but I may point to subsidiary yet 
 important reasons why, in the absence of transcendent 
 disturbing causes, the management of the taxes of the 
 country by the Commons through Ministers whom they 
 support is properly exclusive. From the nature of the 
 case it must within the limits of an annual service 
 be prompt, clear, and decisive. Taxes are raised under 
 resolutions as soon as they are passed, and all financiers 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 151 
 
 agree that this must be so, though full legal authority 
 is wanting and may sometimes never be acquired. 
 So the annual service of supplies cannot be bandied 
 about between branches of the Legislature and suspended 
 by appeals to the country. The King's Government 
 has to be carried on, and what the King's Ministers ask 
 and the Commons grant for the service of the nation 
 must be endured until in due course a new House of 
 Commons and new Ministers may appear." 
 
 Lord Courtney was not the only Unionist who viewed 
 with grave misgiving the Lansdowne policy. But the 
 extremists, spurred on by the Tariff Reformers, had their 
 way. 
 
 There was a great muster of peers on 22 November 
 for the debate on the second reading. In normal times 
 the sittings of the House of Lords are very sparsely 
 attended; in fact, it may be said that the ordinary 
 work of the Second Chamber is performed by less than 
 fifty peers. A group of elderly gentlemen meeting 
 together for half an hour or so, and speaking in low 
 subdued tones such was the normal aspect of a normal 
 sitting of the House of Lords. As has been caustically 
 said, " the cure for admiration of the House of Lords 
 is to go and look at it at work." 
 
 But since the Liberal victory of 1906 the nation had 
 grown accustomed to seeing noble Lords from time to 
 time flocking to town in their hundreds in order to vote 
 down Liberal Bills. This recurring spectacle had pro- 
 voked mordant comment from Liberal speakers. Mr. 
 Lloyd George applied the expression " backwoodsmen " 
 to these peers who emerged ever and anon from their 
 rural solitudes for the purpose of resisting the progress 
 of Liberal legislation. The expression took the popular 
 fancy and passed into political currency. In November, 
 1909, the " backwoodsmen " came to town in large 
 numbers, some of them redolent of the countryside, 
 
152 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 bucolic in aspect, many of them wearing the early 
 Victorian stock, and in their antique dress and old- 
 fashioned manners recalling a bygone generation. The 
 splendid apartment in which the Lords meet for debate 
 was crowded in every part when Lord Lansdowne rose 
 to move his amendment for the rejection of the Budget. 
 He defended the policy which he was inviting the Lords 
 to adopt in an adroit speech. He enlarged upon the 
 danger of an unchecked House of Commons, and argued 
 that his notion was simply asking the people to pronounce 
 upon a Budget of a novel and an unprecedented char- 
 acter. He made it a ground of objection to the Budget 
 that it included a scheme for Land Valuation, which was 
 not germane to the finance of the year. As to the serious 
 financial consequences which would follow from the 
 rejection of the Budget, he dismissed them with an airy 
 nonchalance. " We have considered them, and we are 
 ready to face them. We prefer temporary dislocation, 
 temporary chaos, if you choose to call it so, to the per- 
 manent dislocation and permanent chaos which I 
 honestly believe would arise out of the passage of this 
 Bill." As for the consequences to the House of Lords : 
 " You have threatened us before. There was the egre- 
 gious scheme of the late Prime Minister." Whatever 
 happened, a struggle between the House of Lords and 
 the House of Commons was bound to come. " I would 
 venture," said Lord Lansdowne, " to ask those noble 
 Lords who may doubt whether we are wise in facing 
 it now, shall we stand better or shall we stand worse 
 when the struggle comes, if we shirk our responsibilities 
 now ? " 
 
 The Lord Chancellor made a powerful reply to the 
 speech of the Leader of the Opposition. His statement 
 of the law and custom of the Constitution was terse 
 and telling. The Crown limited in authority, and its 
 powers tempered by Ministerial responsibility ; the 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 153 
 
 Commons with the supreme control of the purse ; the 
 Lords with the supreme jurisdiction in the administration 
 of justice, and a full share in all legislation save finance 
 " such is the ancient and famous balance of powers in 
 our Constitution, the envy of other nations, which your 
 Lordships are now being invited to overthrow." A deep 
 impression was created by Lord Loreburn's statement 
 that no Liberal Government will ever again bear the 
 burden of office unless it is secured from the treatment 
 meted out to the measures of the Campbell-Bannerman 
 and Asquith Governments in the past four years by the 
 House of Lords. " If," he said, " we fail in the coming 
 fight, it will only be the beginning of a conflict that can 
 end only in one way. If we succeed, I hope we shall not 
 flinch from what we have to follow. We have not pro- 
 voked this conflict " (loud cries of " Oh ! Oh ! " from 
 the Tory peers) " we have not provoked this conflict, 
 but we are not afraid of it. My Lords, the action you 
 are about to take is unprecedented, subversive of the 
 traditions of Parliament, impossible in practice. Lawful 
 it may be, but constitutional, emphatically no ! " 
 
 Never had Lord Loreburn spoken with greater earnest- 
 ness. His voice rang through the chamber like a silver 
 bell. 
 
 The debate was continued for six days, and was 
 maintained throughout on a high plane. Two Unionist 
 peers, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord James of 
 Hereford, dissociated themselves from their party. 
 Lord James was the depositary of the political views of 
 the late Duke of Devonshire, and his wise counsel had 
 been a valuable help to the Unionist party for a quarter 
 of a century. He was now eighty-one years of age, and 
 spoke with all the authority of his long experience and 
 high character. He declared that the conclusive balance 
 of authority was against the competence of the action 
 which the House of Lords was about to take. Another 
 
154 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Unionist peer renowned for fairness and moderation of 
 view, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, earnestly dissuaded the 
 peers from the course which was being urged upon them. 
 " The abstract right," he said, " of the House of Lords 
 to reject a Budget I don't deny, but usage, precedent, 
 national convenience are arrayed against its exercise. 
 My Lords, if you win, it will be a fleeting triumph ; if 
 you lose, the position and the power of this House will 
 be grievously impaired." One who heard it described 
 Lord Balfour's speech as " an able, manful, nobly sincere 
 utterance, delivered without the least touch of bitterness." 
 At its close gloom hung like a pall over the Tory benches. 
 The views of Lord Balfour and Lord James were known 
 to be shared by Lord St. Aldwyn, the only Conservative 
 ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Lords. 
 Lord St. Aldwyn had not concealed his opinion that the 
 rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords would be 
 unwise, but rather than speak openly against his party 
 in the House of Lords, he absented himself from the 
 debates. A distinguished Liberal Unionist, Lord Cromer, 
 the regenerator of Egypt, ranged himself against Lord 
 Lansdowne, as did also a young Conservative peer of 
 promise, the Earl of Lytton. 
 
 The newly appointed Archbishop of York, Dr. Lang, 
 made a highly successful first speech in the debate. 
 Speaking with measured deliberation and in grave, 
 earnest tones, he besought their Lordships not to reject 
 the Budget. " Never before," he said, " has this House 
 rejected a Finance Bill sent up by an overwhelming 
 majority in the other House. Never before has it refused 
 supply to the King's Government." 
 
 Far and away the most eloquent speech of the debate 
 came from Lord Rosebery. No man had denounced 
 the Budget more vehemently than Lord Rosebery did 
 in a speech which he delivered at Glasgow in September. 
 Averse as he was from the Budget, he begged the Lords 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 155 
 
 not to reject it, not because of constitutional reasons, 
 but for fear of the consequences that might ensue. The 
 existence of a Second Chamber was at stake. Rather 
 than place that in jeopardy he would pass the Budget, 
 convinced that its operation would work disenchant- 
 ment. " The Budget in operation/' said Lord Rosebery, 
 " would give you a victory which would surprise you. 
 An anti-Socialistic Government would then be called 
 into being, which would put the national finances on a 
 sound basis, and by reforming the constitution of the 
 House of Lords, make it less vulnerable to attack." 
 
 The speech was a remarkable oratorical performance. 
 To listen to it was a sheer delight. Lord Rosebery 
 played on the feelings of his audience like a skilled player 
 on a stringed instrument. Now his voice, so rich and 
 flexible, sank to a sepulchral whisper as he spoke of the 
 " awful gravity of the situation, by far the gravest that 
 has occurred in my lifetime." Now it fell upon the ear 
 like the solemn tones of a warning bell sounding over 
 angry waters. Then, with swift alternation of mood, the 
 tension of the audience would be relieved by laughter 
 at an amusing quip or an ironic shaft. Again the voice 
 would rise, loud, clear, menacing, ringing in full diapason 
 through the Chamber. All this to the accompaniment 
 of free and ample gestures, arms now outstretched, 
 eyes flashing, figure extended to a heroic attitude, then 
 in graceful ease negligently resting against the table, or 
 standing stiffly with hands clasping the lapels of the 
 coat, or fist meeting palm in violent impact. 
 
 Only a step separates the sublime from the ridiculous. 
 Lord Rosebery took this step when he suggested with 
 all seeming gravity to the Lords who thronged the 
 Opposition benches that they should not all vote in 
 favour of Lord Lansdowne's amendment. His suggestion 
 was that the host of obscure undistinguished peers 
 the " backwoodsmen," as they were known should 
 
156 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 abstain from voting, leaving the amendment to be 
 carried by, so to speak, the elite of the assembly, say 
 150 peers, who, carefully selected, Lord Rosebery thought 
 would match any corresponding 150 that could be 
 chosen from the House of Commons. His idea was 
 that the popular resentment against the House of Lords 
 for flinging out the Budget would be minimized if it 
 were seen that the supporters of the Lansdowne amend- 
 ment included only the creme de la creme of the here- 
 ditary assembly. Such a suggestion on such an occasion 
 and at such a time was really grotesque. It amazed the 
 House, and produced a buzz of conversation that checked 
 for a moment the progress of the speech. 
 
 Lord Rosebery's speech was marred by the vein of 
 exaggeration running through it. Nothing was in 
 measure. The Budget " threatens to sap the sources of 
 national wealth." It has the " unpleasant aspect of 
 being both crude and vindictive." " Never has such a 
 mass of raw material been dumped down at any one 
 time in any one Bill." " It has done incalculable mis- 
 chief " not even the Pretorian guard of the Govern- 
 ment can deny that. Since its introduction this country 
 is no longer " the strong-box and the safe of Europe," 
 where every man who desired security placed his savings. 
 European capitalists and investors have withdrawn 
 their millions. Millions more of our home wealth are 
 fleeing the country. " Ships going westward are carrying 
 bonds and stock certificates as ballast." There is no 
 confidence anywhere. " Every avenue of commercial 
 enterprise is locked up." Over the whole country there 
 is spreading a great pervading fog or miasma the disease 
 of want of confidence and want of credit. There was 
 much more to the same purpose, all in the same vein, 
 wild and whirling words. 
 
 One sincere moment of emotion affected the audience. 
 Not for the first time Lord Rosebery gave expression 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 157 
 
 to the fear ever haunting him, that, owing to the lust 
 for armaments, Europe is marching to an inevitable 
 catastrophe. He spoke of the pressure of great arma- 
 ments which are eating out the heart of civilization 
 " owing to the insane competition in armaments Europe 
 is hurrying headlong to bankruptcy." The disaster 
 may not come in Lord Rosebery 's life, but in his judg- 
 ment come it surely will. 
 
 Lord Rosebery said he was a convert to the referendum. 
 Without the machinery of the referendum we could 
 never arrive at an adjustment of the differences between 
 the two Houses. A referendum is an appeal to the nation 
 on a single issue. " You cannot get a single issue in a 
 general election. Whatever the merits of general 
 elections may be, they are not conducted in the Palace 
 of Truth." Their Lordships should remember that there 
 is " a considerable body of public opinion extremely 
 hostile to this House." Its hereditary constitution lent 
 itself to unjust satire and criticism. " If you had re- 
 formed this House you would be able to bear the strain 
 that is now to be placed on its vitality." Lord Rosebery 
 feared the peers had not chosen the best battlefield in 
 which to risk the attributes, perhaps the existence, of 
 the House of Lords. He distrusts the " new type of 
 statesmen." They belong, he said, to a school of opinion 
 eminently revolutionary in essence, if not in fact. Never 
 were the functions of the House of Lords more necessary 
 than in these days of hurried legislation. The methods 
 of to-day are not the wise methods of Mr. Gladstone ! 
 
 Lord Rosebery was followed by Lord St. Davids, a 
 newly created peer, holding an influential position in 
 the City, and who has extensive interests in Argentina. 
 His indomitable cheerfulness and resolute belief in the 
 present and future of British industries and commerce 
 came as a refreshing tonic after the dismal vaticinations 
 of Lord Rosebery. He gave an emphatic denial to the 
 
158 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 charge that British commercial enterprise is at a stand- 
 still. Some people, no doubt, are frightened at the 
 Budget. What wonder when they read alarmist speeches 
 like Lord Rosebery's ? 
 
 Lord St. Davids boldly asserted the supremacy of the 
 Commons in finance. He told the peers to their face 
 that by their action over the Budget they were grasping 
 at one of the prerogatives of the Crown and striking 
 down the chief privilege of the people. If the Lords 
 succeeded in establishing their new claim, the House of 
 Commons need not waste its time over a Budget. It 
 could leave that duty to the House of Lords, and then 
 everybody will be taxed except the publican and the 
 landlord ! 
 
 Lord Milner criticized the Budget with a severity 
 that was the greater for the restraint of his language. 
 As Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue in 1894, 
 he assisted Sir William Harcourt in the preparation of 
 his famous Budget. Big, difficult, and complicated as 
 that measure was, it was, he said, a model of simplicity 
 in comparison with that of Mr. Lloyd George. The 
 Chancellor had endeavoured to compass too much at 
 one time. Lord Milner approved of the increment tax 
 as sound in principle, but the tax on undeveloped land 
 was '' wholly bad." He is alarmed at the inroads which 
 the death duties are making into the capital of the 
 country. He did not think that serious financial con- 
 sequences would follow from the loss of the Budget. 
 This aspect of the question he dismissed very cava- 
 lierly. With enviable optimism Lord Milner thought 
 that 13,000,000 could easily be provided by import 
 duties without detriment to business or employment. 
 Thus we came back on every road to the old un- 
 escapable antagonism taxes on monopolies and the 
 superfluities of wealth on the one hand ; or, on the other, 
 taxes on industry and the necessaries of life. 
 
THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET 159 
 
 On the Conservative side the best speeches came from 
 Lord Lansdowne, Lord Salisbury, and Lord Curzon. 
 Said Lord Salisbury, " The people are our masters, and 
 your masters too " (pointing at the Government bench) ; 
 " by their judgment we will abide." Lord Curzon bitterly 
 complained of Lord Rosebery's inaction. " Lord Rose- 
 bery," he said, " does not realize the great responsibilities 
 he assumed at Glasgow. He was not a recluse thinking 
 aloud in his study ; he was an ex- Prime Minister speaking 
 aloud to his countrymen." Lord Morley of Blackburn, 
 the Nestor of English Liberalism, spoke with incisive 
 eloquence. " What," he asked, " lies beneath Lord 
 Lansdowne's amendment ? 
 
 " (i) It arrogates to this House control of the taxing 
 power. (2) It assumes the power of forcing a penal 
 dissolution by refusing supplies. (3) There must be a 
 new Parliament whenever an old Parliament displeases 
 the House of Lords. (4) You are changing the repre- 
 sentative supremacy into an oligarchic and non-repre- 
 sentative supremacy. (5) You are throwing out of 
 gear the whole financial machinery of the year." 
 
 To the cry that the Government had no mandate for 
 the Budget, Lord Morley replied, " The Government 
 have the duty of governing." He had always been 
 opposed to the theory of mandate. " Election ad hoc, 
 referendum, plebiscite, mandate these are opposed 
 to the wholesome usage of this country. Parliament 
 cannot be fettered, finance by plebiscite is impossible. 
 If there is one thing that cannot be wisely submitted to 
 a plebiscite, it is a Budget." 
 
 The debate was concluded by Lord Crewe on the night 
 of 30 November. Lord Ridley, a Tariff Reform champion, 
 who wanted the Budget thrown out in order to " make 
 the foreigner pay," was wittily compared by Lord 
 Crewe to Caesar Augustus, who issued a decree that the 
 whole world should be taxed. The Lords did not relish 
 
160 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the ironical observation of Lord Crewe that they were 
 forming themselves into a Committee of Public Safety 
 to refuse supplies. 
 
 Then came the division, and the Budget was rejected 
 by 35O to 75. There was thus a majority of 275 peers 
 against a Bill that had been carried through the Commons 
 by a majority of 230. Lord Rosebery abstained from 
 taking part in the division, but eight Unionists voted in 
 favour of the Government, including the venerable 
 Viscount Peel, ex-Speaker of the House of Commons. 
 
 Many of the peers who voted in the majority must 
 have had ringing in their ears, as the dense crowd emerged 
 from the Opposition Lobby, Lord Morley's warning 
 words : " The more triumphant your majority, the more 
 huge the disparity between your numbers and ours, 
 the more flagrant the political scandal, the more flagrant 
 in the public eye the breach in the Constitution." The 
 rejection of the Budget created a profound sensation. 
 Its immediate result was to bring the life of Parliament 
 to a close and to precipitate a general election. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 THE LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 
 
 THE rejection of the Budget was at once an en- 
 croachment on the rights of the Commons and on 
 the privileges of the Crown. One of the few royal 
 prerogatives in the exercise of which the Sovereign still 
 retains a large personal discretion is that of decreeing a 
 Dissolution. By rejecting the Budget and compelling 
 an appeal to the people, the Lords arrogated to themselves 
 a right belonging to the Sovereign. The Crown was 
 affected in another way. Rejection of the Budget was 
 equivalent to a withholding from the Crown of the 
 supplies loyally voted to its service by the " faithful 
 Commons." It was an act without precedent in our 
 history. As far as the House of Commons was concerned 
 the rejection of the Budget was a blow dealt right at the 
 heart of its authority. However its nakedness might be 
 clothed by euphemistical phrases, the Lords' action 
 really amounted to an attempt to get the last word in 
 taxation. Were they to succeed in this, the centre of 
 gravity in the Constitution would inevitably shift from 
 the representative to the non-representative Chamber. 
 Ministries thereafter would hold office at the mercy of 
 the peers ; every recurring Liberal Budget would be 
 liable to rejection, and a Government faced with the 
 disagreeable necessity of raising taxation for the revenue 
 of the year might at any moment, by the capricious decree 
 of a non-representative assembly, be driven to face an 
 exasperated electorate swept by a momentary gust of 
 ii 161 
 
162 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 passion. No one likes to be taxed, and the most flawless 
 Budget from the national and economic point of view 
 might excite unreasonable popular discontent. From 
 grave responsible statesmen in the Council Chamber the 
 last word in taxation would pass to the uninstructed 
 and irresponsible man in the street. Few dangers to 
 which a democratic country is exposed can equal those 
 which reside in a regime of plebiscitary finance. 
 
 We may be sure that all these considerations were 
 present to the mind of King Edward VII and his sagacious 
 private counsellors. That His late Majesty viewed the 
 action of the House of Lords with misgiving is generally 
 accepted. Before the rejection of the Budget, while 
 the deed, though notoriously designed, was as yet un- 
 accomplished, King Edward commanded the presence 
 at Balmoral of the chief Opposition peers. It is under- 
 stood that they informed the King that the Lords did 
 not mean to destroy the Budget. They only claimed the 
 right of referring to the people a Bill introducing novel 
 principles of taxation. The Opposition Leaders gave the 
 King an assurance that if the general election resulted 
 in the return of the Liberals to power the House of Lords 
 would pass the Budget without delay. 
 
 There was a certain astuteness in the policy pursued 
 by the Lords in the late autumn of 1909. They had 
 broken the strongest Government that had ever held office 
 in this country. They had driven it to face the country 
 with an enormous deficit. They knew it was impossible 
 that the Government could come back with its tremendous 
 majority unimpaired. They knew that the heavy new 
 taxation imposed in the Budget would excite strong 
 antagonism in many quarters. They counted, too, on 
 the discontent among the Nonconformists, redress of 
 whose grievances the Lords had themselves prevented, 
 but whose resentment would naturally be directed against 
 the Government to whom they had looked for justice. 
 
LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 163 
 
 Then there was the notorious dislike of the Irish people 
 to the Budget. In short, the omens from the Conserva- 
 tive standpoint were by no means unfavourable. The 
 organizers of the Tory party were quite justified in 
 predicting that the general election would result either 
 in a Conservative majority or in such a diminution 
 of the Liberal majority as would leave the Irish Nation- 
 alists masters of the situation. " We may win," thought 
 the Lords ; " \ve cannot possibly lose." Encouraged 
 by this comforting reflection they plunged into the 
 tremendous gamble. 
 
 The House of Commons met in very combative mood 
 on Thursday, 2 December, to protest against the usurpa- 
 tion of which the House of Lords had been guilty. Seldom 
 had the historic chamber been so densely crowded. 
 Seldom had its members met in a mood of grimmer 
 determination. An indescribable thrill of excitement 
 was in the air. It was perceptible through all the con- 
 fused murmur of voices at question time. In moments 
 of silence it persisted like a loud heart-beat. It sang 
 through the applause and touched it with an almost 
 poignant emotion. The Prime Minister was greeted on 
 his arrival with a terrific shout of welcome. It was the 
 salutation of warriors to a trusted Leader whom they were 
 eager to follow in the oncoming battle. Mr. Asquith 
 promptly rose to move : " That the action of the House 
 of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial pro- 
 vision made by this House for the service of the year is a 
 breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights 
 of the Commons." As the familiar and dignified figure 
 with the strongly carved face, strangely reminiscent some- 
 times of Gladstone's, stood at the table, there was an out- 
 burst of loud and long-continued applause. Mr. Lloyd 
 George entered after Mr. Asquith had been speaking for 
 five minutes, and took his seat on the Government bench 
 at the very moment when the Prime Minister was de- 
 
164 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 daring that the House of Commons would be unworthy 
 of its great traditions if it allowed another day to pass 
 without making it clear that it does not mean to brook 
 the gravest indignity and the most arrogant usurpation 
 to which for more than two centuries it had been asked 
 to submit. Approving cheers greeted this sentiment, 
 and they were continued as a shout of welcome to the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister 
 spoke with passion and eloquence. A master of the 
 art of public speech, his oratory is adequate to every 
 occasion. But it is not every occasion that stirs him. 
 On this memorable day he was genuinely and deeply 
 moved. He is in the apostolical succession of that long 
 line of great Commoners which extends from Pym and 
 Selden down through Walpole, Pitt, Burke, Fox, and 
 the younger Pitt to Canning and Russell and Gladstone. 
 To him the attack made by the House of Lords on the 
 very source and fountain-head of the authority of the 
 House of Commons was an act of sacrilege against the 
 Constitution. The influence of these feelings was dis- 
 cernible in his speech. Some passages in it, declaimed 
 in a voice rich and deep like the note of an organ, sent 
 strong emotions surging through the House. 
 
 Mr. Asquith began by announcing that the Govern- 
 ment meant to avail themselves of the borrowing powers 
 conferred by the Appropriation Act in order to tide 
 over the embarrassments in the national finance caused 
 by the rejection of the Budget. The Government had 
 decided not to continue to collect the new taxes on the 
 strength of the financial resolutions passed by the House 
 of Commons last May. But persons desiring voluntarily 
 to pay might deposit with the revenue authorities the 
 duties payable under the Finance Bill. Lord Lansdowne's 
 offer to help the Government out of the financial chaos 
 which the loss of the Budget would create was scornfully 
 dismissed by the Prime Minister. It amounted, he said, 
 
LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 165 
 
 to an invitation to the Government to bring in a new 
 Budget trimmed and pruned to suit the prejudices of 
 the House of Lords. In burning accents Mr. Asquith 
 repelled the suggestion of " so gross a humiliation." 
 It would have been " treachery to the House of Com- 
 mons," he said, " to give it a moment's consideration." 
 
 The Prime Minister then passed on to deal with the 
 constitutional arguments. He asked the House to 
 vindicate the first principles of the Constitution, and to 
 assert its immemorial rights. Mr. Austen Chamberlain 
 in a speech in the country had sniffed at the constitu- 
 tional arguments employed by the Liberals as " mere 
 legal pedantry." " Sir," said Mr. Asquith, " it was 
 legal pedantry of this kind that made and saved the 
 liberties of England." (Prolonged Ministerial cheers.) 
 " It was pedants like Pym and Selden and Somers who 
 rescued this House, largely through the power of the 
 purse, from the domination of the Crown. We need not 
 be ashamed to be called by the same name and to bear 
 the same reproach if in the same spirit and using 
 largely the same weapons we put an end to the usurpation 
 of the House of Lords." This fine passage, breathing 
 the authentic spirit of the House of Commons, evoked a 
 storm of applause. 
 
 The Prime Minister spoke disdainfully of the " new- 
 fangled Caesarism," which converts the House of Lords 
 into a plebiscitary organ ; and as to the claim of the 
 Lords to interpret the will of the people, asked if an 
 hereditary chamber contains within itself an instinct of 
 divination. He spoke bitterly of the unfairness of a 
 system under which, when the Tories are in office, 
 we have an omnipotent House of Commons, and when 
 the Liberals are in office an omnipotent House of Lords. 
 ' We are living," he said, " under a system of false 
 balances and loaded dice." The first principles of 
 representative government were at stake, and the 
 
166 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Government asked the House of Commons, by adopting 
 the resolution he had moved, as they would ask the 
 country, to declare that the organ and voice of a free 
 people are to be found in the elected representatives of 
 the nation. Mr. Asquith announced that the Government 
 had advised the Crown to dissolve Parliament at the 
 earliest possible moment. 
 
 Mr. Balfour had not an easy task in following the Prime 
 Minister, whose eloquence had stirred the pride of the 
 House of Commons. But he is a dexterous debater, 
 and his cool scepticism brought members swiftly down 
 from the heights to which they had been transported by 
 Mr. Asquith. What a fuss about nothing at all, was the 
 burden of his speech. ' You are going to try and per- 
 suade the people of this country that they are suffering 
 from some great wrong and indignity by having their 
 opinion asked about the Budget." According to Mr. 
 Balfour, the Prime Minister and his party have a perfect 
 passion for abstract resolutions. " I doubt whether they 
 encourage anybody. I am sure that they do not frighten 
 anybody." " I greatly regret that we should, so to 
 speak, go down to our political graves uttering so gross 
 a misrepresentation. I really think our last act might 
 be more dignified than misrepresenting the whole course 
 of the constitutional history of this country." Thus did 
 Mr. Balfour, from the copious fount of his eloquence, 
 pour a stream of ice-cold water on Liberal ardour. 
 
 Mr. Asquith's resolution was carried by 349 to 134 ; 
 Government majority, 215. The Nationalists took no 
 part in the division. To Liberals this aloofness of the 
 Irish members at a critical moment in the last hours of a 
 Parliament that had done much for Ireland was a keen 
 disappointment. 
 
 From Parliament the fight was now transferred to the 
 constituencies. Mr. Lloyd George struck the first blow 
 in the campaign by a trenchant and sparkling speech 
 
LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 167 
 
 at the National Liberal Club on 3 December, in which he 
 said of the Lords : " For all their cunning, their greed 
 has overborne their craft and we have got them at last." 
 Mr. Churchill made an oratorical tour in Lancashire, the 
 delinquencies of the Lords and the virtues of Free Trade 
 providing rich themes for his inspiring eloquence. " A 
 new strength," he said, " has come into political life and 
 has filled it with a reality and a sincerity which departed 
 when Mr. Gladstone died. We have left the clouds of 
 phrases and formulas and cut-and-dried theories, and 
 have broken violently into the world of constructive 
 action." 
 
 The lines of Liberal policy were laid down by the 
 Prime Minister at an immense meeting on 10 December 
 in the Albert Hall, London, where representative Liberals 
 from all parts of the country had foregathered. It was 
 in the same hall in December, 1905, that Sir Henry 
 Campbell-Bannerman gave the memorable exposition 
 of Liberal policy which preceded the overwhelming 
 triumph of January, 1906. Now, four years later, the 
 flower of Liberalism was gathered again in the hall, 
 and again it had come to hear from a Liberal Leader a 
 declaration of policy in anticipation of a general election. 
 In the course of a powerful speech Mr. Asquith said : 
 
 ' We are suddenly confronted with no less than three 
 constitutional innovations. In the first place, we have 
 the claim of the Upper House not as an archaic legal 
 survival, but as a living and effective right, to control 
 the levying of taxation. In the second place, we have the 
 claim of the same House, a body which cannot itself be 
 dissolved, to compel a dissolution of the popular chamber. 
 And lastly, as a consequence and a corollary of the 
 other two, we have the assertion of its power to make or 
 unmake the executive Government of the Crown. 
 
 ' We shall demand authority from the electorate to 
 translate ancient usage into an Act of Parliament, 
 
168 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 and to place upon the Statute Book the recognition, 
 explicit and complete, of the settled doctrine of our 
 Constitution that it is beyond the province of the House 
 of Lords to meddle in any way, to any degree or for any 
 purpose, with our national finance. 
 
 " So far we are on the defensive. But at the same time 
 and by the same action the House of Lords has not 
 indeed raised but has hurried on a larger issue still. 
 I tell you quite plainly, and I tell my fellow-countrymen 
 outside, that neither I nor any other Liberal Minister, 
 supported by a majority of the House of Commons, is 
 going to submit again to the rebuffs and the humiliations 
 of the last four years. We shall not assume office and we 
 shall not hold office unless we can secure the safeguards 
 which experience shows us to be necessary for the legisla- 
 tive utility and honour of the party of progress. 
 
 " Here again what has to be done is to be done by 
 Act of Parliament. The time for unwritten convention 
 has unhappily gone by. We are not proposing the 
 abolition of the House of Lords or the setting up of a 
 Single Chamber system, but we do ask, and we are 
 going to ask, the electors to say that the House of Lords 
 shall be confined to the proper functions of a Second 
 Chamber. The absolute veto which it at present possesses 
 must go. The powers which it claims from time to 
 time of, in effect, compelling us to choose between a 
 Dissolution and so far as legislative projects are con- 
 cerned legislative sterility that power must go also. 
 The people in future, when they elect a new House of 
 Commons, must be able to feel, what they cannot feel 
 now, that they are sending to Westminster men who 
 will have the power not merely of proposing and debating, 
 but of making laws. The will of the people, as deliber- 
 ately expressed by their elected representatives, must, 
 within the limits of the lifetime of a single Parliament, 
 be made effective." 
 
LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 169 
 
 The Prime Minister's Albert Hall speech struck the 
 key-note of the campaign. 
 
 On the Conservative side the Leaders showed no 
 alacrity in taking the field, but all the powerful forces 
 of reaction and the massed battalions of the interests 
 wounded by the Budget silently drew together, and it 
 was soon evident that Toryism would give a good account 
 of itself at the polls. The only effective declaration 
 on the Tory side before Christmas was Mr. Balfour's 
 manifesto, issued on 10 December. " May there not," 
 he asked in that document, " be occasions on which 
 an appeal to the people on matters of finance is necessary ? 
 Is not this one of them ? Does any other machinery 
 exist for securing this appeal except that which has been 
 set in motion by the House of Lords ? " He declared 
 that the present attack on the House of Lords was the 
 " culmination of a long-drawn-out conspiracy." The 
 Budget gave Ministers " the opportunity of manoeuvring 
 the House of Lords into the position of either abandoning 
 its functions as a Second Chamber or of taking action 
 which might give new life and hope to the Single Chamber 
 plot." 
 
 As the campaign progressed it was evident that the 
 urban Tories had no zest for a fight on the House of 
 Lords, and they welcomed rapturously the diversion 
 provided by a fantastic naval scare which was industri- 
 ously worked by the less reputable organs of the Tory 
 party. That scare cost the Liberal party over a dozen 
 seats, including all the naval ports except Pembroke, 
 where the Liberal atmosphere of Wales acted as a pro- 
 phylactic against mephitic ideas. But even on general 
 issues the Conservatives were not badly placed for the 
 fight. They were able to alarm the timid by suggestions 
 that the Government were aiming at a Single Chamber 
 tyranny, and to cover the aggression of the Lords with 
 the seductive plea that the peers were only seeking to 
 
170 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 ascertain the will of the people. It is true the Liberals 
 had in the phrase " Peers v. People " the stimulus of a 
 popular cry. As against this the Conservatives had the 
 prestige of a unique achievement to encourage them. 
 They had driven out of office a powerful Government 
 and compelled it to go to the country on a Budget im- 
 posing heavy taxation. It was fortunate for Liberalism 
 that the Budget had behind it the support of a great 
 volume of popular opinion. But though the new land 
 taxes were warmly approved in the towns, they were 
 eyed askance in the rural districts. The cry " Tax land, 
 not food " was music in a townsman's ear. It filled the 
 countryman with grave foreboding. Agricultural land 
 was specifically exempted from the new taxation, but 
 the exemption did not allay the misgivings of the agri- 
 cultural interest. 
 
 Never did the territorial magnates exert themselves 
 as they did in this election. Never did the plural voters 
 flock in such numbers to the polls. In the event the 
 towns stood staunchly by the Government, but when the 
 county pollings began to pour in Liberal losses had daily 
 to be registered, and soon there was a long list of seats 
 captured by the Conservatives. When the election was 
 over a broad line of geographical demarcation separated 
 the two parties. The North of England, with its busy 
 hives of industry, was predominantly Liberal ; the 
 South of England as decisively Tory. England's work- 
 shop was for the Government ; England's garden against 
 it. The feudal interests and the county gentlemen 
 had won back in the counties nearly all the positions 
 which they had lost in the great upheaval of 1906. 
 Scotland and Wales demonstrated afresh their unalterable 
 fidelity to the Liberal cause. Ireland remained as 
 Nationalist as the sea is salt. The pollings were over 
 by the end of January. In the result the Conservatives 
 had a net gain of 105 seats, but the Government were 
 
LORDS v. CROWN AND COMMONS 171 
 
 left with a majority of 124, including the Nationalists, 
 the new House of Commons consisting of 
 
 Liberals 275 
 
 Labour members . . . . .40 
 Nationalists . 82 
 
 397 
 Conservatives . . 273 
 
 Coalition Majority ..... 124 
 
 After the battle Mr. Asquith, worn out by labour 
 and anxieties, went to the South of France to recuperate 
 and to meditate upon his future plans. It is no secret 
 that several members of the Cabinet were acutely dis- 
 appointed with the result of the general election. They 
 had anticipated losses, but hoped for a majority of at 
 least 150. One of the effects of the triumph of 1906 
 had been to alter the standard of electoral values. Though 
 small in comparison with the record majority of 354 in 
 1906, a majority of 124 was decidedly above the average 
 majority of British Governments since 1832. Looking 
 at all the attendant circumstances, the victory of January, 
 1910, must be pronounced a remarkable one. That a 
 Government which went to the country with a proposal 
 to impose upon it an enormous new burden of taxation 
 should have been confirmed in power testified to the depth 
 and strength of feeling against the House of Lords. 
 Ministerial disappointment at the large reduction in the 
 Government majority was, however, keen, and this feeling 
 influenced the action of the Cabinet in the early months 
 of 1910, when its policy was neither bold nor clear. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 
 
 IT will be convenient at this stage to describe the 
 principal figures in the parliamentary drama which 
 was now moving swiftly to its culmination. The 
 Liberal party were fortunate in possessing as their 
 Leader in the constitutional struggle a man uniquely 
 fitted for the role. The hour had brought the man. In 
 his mental and moral equipment Mr. Asquith was exactly 
 suited to the great part he had to play. A man of in- 
 tellect rather than a man of feeling, he is seldom carried 
 away in political controversy by any ecstasy of fervour. 
 But there are some questions which move him to the 
 depths of his being. One of these was the conflict between 
 Free Trade and Protection. The moral and economic 
 issues involved in that conflict stirred his emotions and 
 gave to his oratory a fire it often lacked. It was the 
 same with the House of Lords question. The aggression 
 of which the peers had been guilty deeply offended his 
 respect for law and his reverence for the Constitution. 
 He saw in the rejection of the Budget a blow aimed at 
 the heart of the House of Commons, whose fame was as 
 dear to him as life ; and in the general policy of the peers 
 he detected a subtle attempt to undermine the majestic 
 fabric of our free institutions. To vindicate the supremacy 
 of the House of Commons, to preserve the hard-won 
 liberties of England, to repel an audacious encroachment 
 on the domain of representative government : these were 
 the objects which he set out to achieve. The great task 
 
 172 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 173 
 
 had an inspiriting effect upon him. A constitutional 
 frigidity yielded under the compelling influence of a 
 strong and generous emotion. His eloquence began to 
 warm with feeling ; his leadership became more authorita- 
 tive. He inspired his followers with devotion, and led 
 them forth to battle with the air of a born commander. 
 
 Mr. Asquith was reared in the bracing atmosphere of 
 Yorkshire Congregationalism, and he brought into 
 political life the virile spirit, the love of liberty, the keen 
 sense of justice, and the exalted ideals of public duty 
 which have honourably distinguished the Nonconformist 
 middle classes. The culture of Oxford enriched, and the 
 personal influence of Jowett fortified a character naturally 
 austere and direct. Law and practice at the Bar gave 
 precision to his speech, but communicated to it also a 
 nisi prius hardness, which only yielded with larger ex- 
 perience of the realities of life. For years Mr. Asquith 
 enjoyed the repute of being a rhetorician without feeling. 
 His native austerity and an innate shyness did not make 
 for popularity with an assembly so human as the House 
 of Commons. He was respected rather than loved. As 
 Prime Minister he ripened and mellowed, but retains a 
 certain aloofness which forbids intimacy between him 
 and his followers. Mr. Asquith has the English reticence 
 and reserve. Only those who, like his colleagues in the 
 Cabinet, have been brought into close touch with him, 
 know the true nobility of his character, the warmth of 
 his affections, his unselfishness and freedom from vanity, 
 his scrupulous sense of honour, the pure flame of 
 patriotism that burns with a steady light in his heart. 
 
 Gladstone early discerned the promise of Mr. Asquith. 
 So did Sir Henry James, afterwards Lord James, who en- 
 couraged him in his early days at the Bar. It was during 
 the Parnell Commission that Mr. Asquith first earned 
 national distinction. The barrister rapidly developed 
 into the statesman. He seemed to find his native 
 
174 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 atmosphere in the House of Commons, and his earliest 
 speeches proved that he was a born Parliamentarian. 
 Home Secretary in the 1892-5 Government, he breathed 
 new life into the Home Office, developed its activities, 
 improved the efficiency of the factory and mines in- 
 spectorate, and appointed the first women inspectors of 
 factories. His refusal to release the dynamitards in 
 spite of pressing appeals from the Irish members dis- 
 played the stern side of this character. " He closed the 
 gates of mercy with a bang," was the comment of an 
 angry Nationalist. What Mr. Asquith firmly declined to 
 do was promptly done a year later by his more compliant 
 successor at the Home Office, Sir Matthew White Ridley. 
 In the schism caused by the South African War, Mr. 
 Asquith took the Liberal Imperialist view, and was the 
 most conspicuous figure in the group that gathered round 
 Lord Rosebery. But he remained on terms of amity 
 with the Liberals who opposed the war, and acted as a 
 sort of bridge of connexion between the two wings of 
 the party. Throughout those troublous years he main- 
 tained the friendliest relations with Sir Henry Campbell- 
 Bannerman, and, unlike some other members of the 
 Liberal Imperialist group, did nothing to add to Sir 
 Henry's embarrassments as leader in a situation of the 
 greatest difficulty. When Mr. Chamberlain started forth 
 on his Tariff Reform crusade, Mr. Asquith threw himself 
 with energy and determination into the defence of Free 
 Trade. He was the most formidable and the most un- 
 wearying of all Mr. Chamberlain's opponents. When 
 in 1903 and 1904 Mr. Chamberlain conducted his first 
 oratorical campaign in the constituencies on behalf of his 
 new fiscal policy, Mr. Asquith pursued him from one end of 
 England to the other, and the masterly speeches in which 
 he exposed the sophisms of the new Protection produced 
 a great effect on the electorate. When the Liberals re- 
 turned to power in 1905, Mr. Asquith became the right- 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 175 
 
 hand man of the Prime Minister. A warm friendship 
 grew up between him and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, 
 and it was strengthened by Mr. Asquith's unfaltering 
 loyalty and delicate personal consideration for his chief 
 when Sir Henry's health began to fail. In his relations 
 with his colleagues, whether as the second or the first 
 man in the Government, Mr. Asquith has always been the 
 soul of honour ; no Cabinet has ever had a more loyal 
 chief. Entirely free from the vice of envy, he is un- 
 grudging in his appreciation of the gifts and achievements 
 of his colleagues. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he 
 added greatly to his reputation. He was only responsible 
 for three Budgets, but in three years he paid off over 
 45,000,000 of the National Debt, abolished the wasteful 
 system of borrowing money for naval and military ex- 
 penditure, which had been so lavishly practised in the 
 " spacious days of Joseph and Arthur," laid the founda- 
 tions of a national system of old-age pensions, reduced 
 the taxation on tea and sugar, and by differentiating 
 between earned and unearned incomes brought welcome 
 relief to the vast majority of income-tax payers. When 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned the office of 
 Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith stepped naturally into the 
 vacant place. His claims were pre-eminent ; never was 
 there a succession less disputed or less disputable. One 
 of the most notable things about Mr. Asquith's Premier- 
 ship has been his success in winning the entire confidence 
 of the advanced Liberals, who once feared that the effect 
 of " C.-B.'s " retirement would be to weaken the Cabinet 
 on its Radical side. That anticipation has been utterly 
 falsified. To-day all sections of the Liberal party join 
 in homage to the Prime Minister, and none more willingly 
 than the Radicals. 
 
 Mr. Asquith is an effective platform orator, but his 
 eloquence, though sonorous, often leaves a popular 
 audience cold. He is an argumentative, not a declama- 
 
176 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 tory speaker. He is at his best in the House of Commons. 
 The greatest Parliamentarian since Gladstone, like Glad- 
 stone he loves the atmosphere and glories in the traditions 
 of that great assembly. If his oratory has not Gladstone's 
 fire and passion, neither has it Gladstone's copiousness 
 and diffuseness. Mr. Asquith is the greatest master of 
 concise statement that the House of Commons has ever 
 known. No man can compress more ideas into fewer 
 words. The style is finished, but never florid. A speech 
 of Mr. Asquith's with its massive argument, smooth 
 structure, and clear-cut phrasing, suggests the cold per- 
 fection of chiselled marble a marble veined and coloured 
 here and there by a faint flush of emotion. His oratory 
 has gained perceptibly in richness since his accession to 
 the Premiership. He has been fortunate in that his 
 leadership synchronized with the dominance of a question 
 on which he feels deeply, and on which he can speak with 
 unmatched authority. Instinctively he is a man of 
 cautious mind and moderate temper ; like many a man of 
 this typically English disposition, slow to anger, but once 
 roused, implacable. On the House of Lords question he 
 was roused effectually. The rejection of the Budget, 
 completing the destructive work of the peers since 1906, 
 convinced him that there could be no peace in the com- 
 monwealth, no security for British freedom, until the 
 House of Lords had been subdued. To bring about that 
 subordination became now the supreme object of his 
 political ambition. Animated and sustained by this 
 high purpose, tenacious, inflexible, unperturbed, he led 
 the hosts of Liberalism against the last stronghold of 
 feudalism in much the same spirit that Cromwell led his 
 Ironsides against the despotism of the Stuarts. The 
 popular victory owes more to Mr. Asquith than to any 
 other man. 
 
 The Leader of the Conservative party in the constitu- 
 tional battle was not an unworthy antagonist. If Mr. 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 177 
 
 Asquith personified the efficiency, the practicality, and 
 the intellectual vigour of the middle classes, in Mr. 
 Balfour was seen the exquisite flower of aristocratic 
 culture. By descent and by interest he belonged to the 
 landowning classes, but his sympathies were intellectual, 
 and he would be more at home in the company of philo- 
 sophers than in an assembly of country gentlemen. 
 Elegant, fastidious, and refined, his personality exhaled 
 a fragrance that captivated even his political opponents. 
 His gracious manners had almost a feminine softness and 
 charm. Beneath this polished exterior and this flowing 
 courtesy lay a will of iron and a high, proud spirit. 
 Many a time during his political career, notably when he 
 was Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Balfour gave evidence 
 of the possession of great courage. But on not a few 
 occasions he showed that he could be hard and unjust. 
 Two instances may be cited. He took as a personal affront 
 the passionate resentment of the Nonconformists against 
 his Education Act, and peremptorily forbade the redress 
 of their grievances ; and the manner in which he jockeyed 
 out of his Cabinet his Free Trade colleagues in 1903 
 displayed a callousness that shocked the honest soul of 
 the late Duke of Devonshire. 
 
 For the best part of his political career Mr. Balfour was 
 a favoured child of fortune. He ascended to eminence 
 along a primrose path. The resignation of Lord Randolph 
 Churchill in 1886, at the summit of his renown, removed 
 the only man who could dispute Mr. Balfour's claim to 
 the leadership of the Conservative party ; and when Lord 
 Salisbury retired in July, 1902, the nephew stepped 
 naturally into his uncle's place, and became Prime 
 Minister with the warm approval of his party. Then 
 commenced the least happy epoch in his career. He 
 committed himself to reactionary courses, and the 
 legislative achievements by which he is best remembered, 
 the Education Act 1902 and the Licensing Act 1904, 
 
 12 
 
178 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 masterly and ingenious though they are, bear on their 
 face the mark of bias for private interest as against 
 public right. These measures seriously affected the 
 popularity of the Government. But it was Mr. Chamber- 
 lain's Tariff Reform propaganda that completed the 
 undoing of Mr. Balfour. When a Radical, Mr. Chamber- 
 lain caused some embarrassment to Mr. Gladstone in the 
 'eighties by his " unauthorized programme." That em- 
 barrassment was as nothing compared to the difficulties 
 in which he involved Mr. Balfour twenty years later by 
 his second unauthorized programme. Evincing neither 
 fidelity to Free Trade nor zeal for the new Protectionism. 
 Mr. Balfour devoted all his energies to an attempt to 
 preserve a semblance of unity in his distracted party. 
 In this task he exhibited amazing ingenuity in tactics, 
 and a dialectical skill, a power of equivocation and a 
 subtlety in debate which were the despair alike of his 
 friends and his foes. All these manoeuvres and stratagems 
 were in vain, and at the General Election of 1906 Mr. 
 Balfour met his Sedan. 
 
 His cool courage as leader of a dispirited remnant in 
 the 1906-9 Parliament extorted universal admiration. 
 But Tory prospects did not improve under his leadership. 
 Apart from the Church and the vested interests, which 
 naturally shelter under the banner of Conservatism, the 
 Tory party derived its strength from two main elements. 
 On one side were the country- gentlemen, who hated 
 democracy, and who saw in Tariff Reform a means of 
 relief from the growing burden of direct taxation. On 
 the other were the urban Tories, democratic in sympathy, 
 anti-Puritans, with a sort of jolly pagan outlook on life, 
 to whom Tariff Reform, with its animus against the 
 foreigner and its crude promises of work for all and 
 higher wages, made a strong appeal. Mr. Balfour was 
 out of harmony with both elements in his party. Emanci- 
 pated from the prejudices of the territorial interest, he 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 179 
 
 had lost the capacity to be its spokesman. In debate in 
 the House of Commons it was pathetic to watch the 
 faces of the honest country gentlemen sitting behind 
 him as Mr. Balfour, spreading his pinions, soared high 
 into the empyrean. The simple squires were bewildered 
 by their leader's speculative philosophy, and confused by 
 his tendency to examine every political proposition in the 
 light of broad principles. Mr. Balfour spoke in a language 
 they comprehended not. Nor had he the bold colouring 
 that the urban Tories loved. He was too remote for them 
 to follow, and from the point of view of popular effect his 
 habit of abstract reasoning ruined many of his platform 
 utterances. In truth, he had none of the arts of popular 
 appeal. Critical, negative, sceptical, and analytic, Mr. 
 Balfour was an ideal exponent of true Conservatism. But 
 mere resistance to change was not enough for Conservatism 
 to live on in a democratic age. Mr. Disraeli perceived 
 this, so did Lord Randolph Churchill, so did Mr. Chamber- 
 lain. Not so Mr. Balfour. Lord Randolph, who knew his 
 man, made a characteristic comment in 1891, shortly 
 after Mr. Balfour became Conservative leader in the House 
 of Commons : " So Arthur Balfour is really leader, and 
 Tory Democracy, the genuine article, is at an end ! " 
 It was a shrewd and penetrating observation. Mr. 
 Balfour's career illustrates its truth. Mr. Balfour looked 
 on at the Tariff Reform movement with a quizzical 
 detachment. His knowledge of economics and his sense 
 of proportion were offended by the crudities of the 
 preachers of the new Protection. He did not believe 
 that British industries were being led like lambs to the 
 slaughter ; he was sure the Empire was in no danger of 
 falling to pieces ; he smiled at the ingenuous simplicity 
 of those among his followers who believed we could 
 make the foreigner pay our taxes. Something was to be 
 said in these days of heavy national expenditure, when 
 the pinch of direct taxation was beginning to be acutely 
 
180 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 felt, in favour of a revenue duty on imported goods ; and 
 much for some fiscal arrangement which would give 
 preferential treatment to the products of the British 
 Empire. Diluted to this degree, he would accept and 
 even advocate Tariff Reform ; only he would prefer to 
 call it by the colourless phrase " broadening the basis of 
 taxation." This was not the strong meat and the heady 
 wine of the gospel according to Birmingham. Mr. 
 Balfour's innate Conservatism and his sanity of outlook 
 prevented his plunging with Mr. Chamberlain into Pro- 
 tection. All violent change was hateful to him. On the 
 other hand, Mr. Chamberlain, who had never been a 
 Conservative, liked bold innovations. " He has been a 
 revolutionist at every stage of his career," said the Bishop 
 of Hereford of Mr. Chamberlain. Torn by a divided 
 allegiance between Hat field and Birmingham, the Tory 
 party fell to pieces. It is one of the ironies of politics 
 that in this crisis the majority of the Conservatives chose 
 to follow the ex-Radical in preference to their own 
 natural leader. 
 
 While he disliked violent change and was sensitive to 
 the glamour of the past, Mr. Balfour never played the 
 part of the laudator temporis acti. The present, with all 
 its defects, is in his judgment better than the past. He 
 had unfaltering faith in the future both of his country 
 and of the British Empire. Time after time he rebuked 
 those who talked about our national decadence. True 
 Conservative as he is, he shares neither the dullness nor 
 the prejudices of the average Tory. When, during the 
 debate on the Parliament Bill, Lord Hugh Cecil bewailed 
 the decline and fall of the House of Commons from its 
 high estate, Mr. Balfour threw over his dogmatic kinsman, 
 and said with emphasis that the House of Commons now 
 is better than he ever remembered it, and he had sat in 
 it for over thirty years. 
 
 Nowhere did Mr. Balfour's gifts shine with such 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 181 
 
 splendour as in the House of Commons. He has the 
 melodious voice of his race, and is able to speak on the 
 spur of the moment on every conceivable topic. But 
 he has a curious incapacity to deal with figures, and 
 blunders over the simplest arithmetical problems. For 
 sheer intellectual enjoyment there is no speaking in the 
 House of Commons so agreeable to listen to as Mr. 
 Balfour's. None is so bold and skilful in attack ; so 
 dexterous in defence ; so suave in manner, and yet so 
 piercing ; so adroit in retiring from an untenable position 
 in a covering cloud of words. Mr. Gladstone himself 
 was not a greater master of every dialectical device. To 
 opponents Mr. Balfour was elaborately courteous. He 
 had the intellectual's delight in a clever speech, even 
 when it was directed against himself. Three able 
 Liberals (two of them are now in the Government), 
 Sir John Simon, Mr. J. M. Robertson, and Mr. Arthur 
 Sherwell, always commanded, even as private members, 
 the respectful attention of Mr. Balfour whenever they 
 spoke. Indeed, any member who had something definite 
 to say, and who added to the common stock of know- 
 ledge, was always sure of a sympathetic hearer in Mr. 
 Balfour. A more fascinating personality has never 
 played a part in our political arena. Without distinction 
 of party, the House of Commons was, and is, proud of 
 Mr. Balfour. 
 
 In the House of Lords the principal figure was Lord 
 Lansdowne, who had succeeded the Duke of Devonshire 
 as leader of the Upper House in 1903, when, in protest 
 against Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal policy, the Duke quitted 
 Mr. Balfour's Cabinet. Lord Lansdowne himself had 
 been for years a subscriber to the Cobden Club, and has 
 never shown any ardour for Tariff Reform. He is the head 
 of an historic Whig house, being the grandson of that 
 enlightened man and pensive outsider, who, incapacitated 
 by ill-health from active political work, watched, with 
 
182 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 eager interest, the unfolding of the political drama in 
 the second quarter of the nineteenth century, and many 
 of whose sage reflections are recorded by Greville in his 
 famous Memoirs. Lord Lansdowne commenced his 
 political career at twenty-three in Mr. Gladstone's 
 Government, 1868-74, first as Lord of the Treasury, and 
 afterwards as Under-Secretary for War, with Mr. Card- 
 well as his chief. In Mr. Gladstone's second adminis- 
 tration, Lord Lansdowne was Under-Secretary for India, 
 the Marquis of Hartington at the time being head of the 
 India Office. Like another Whig noble, the Duke of 
 Argyll, Lord Lansdowne resigned in 1881, because he 
 disliked Mr. Gladstone's Irish land policy. Two years 
 later, Mr. Gladstone nominated him Governor-General 
 of Canada. In due time he left Ottawa for Calcutta to 
 become Viceroy of India. Both these great offices he 
 filled with efficiency, if not with distinction. It is singular 
 to note, as indicative of the attachment of men to party 
 labels after they have ceased to signify for them their 
 old meaning, that when in 1886 Lord Lansdowne, then 
 Governor-General of Canada, was, after the Home Rule 
 schism, offered a high post in Lord Salisbury's adminis- 
 tration, he could not bring himself to sit in the same 
 Cabinet as Tories. Lord Salisbury had offered him the 
 office of Colonial Secretary. " The temptation," wrote 
 Lord Lansdowne to Lord Hartington, " was great," 
 but he did not wish to give up his work in Canada so 
 soon, nor did he like the idea of sitting among the Con- 
 servative peers. In the Unionist Government of 1895 
 Lord Lansdowne was Secretary of State for War, and 
 shared the odium which fell upon everybody associated 
 with the War Office for the mismanagement of the South 
 African War. He succeeded Lord Salisbury as Foreign 
 Secretary in 1902, and the Duke of Devonshire as Leader 
 of the House of Lords in 1903. Thus the Tory peers had 
 to submit for the second time to be led by a Whig noble. 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 183 
 
 Without being a commanding personality, Lord Lans- 
 downe is able and accomplished, animated by a pure and 
 an elevated patriotism, with high ideals of personal 
 conduct and public duty. He is an excellent specimen 
 of the best type of English nobleman. There is a strong 
 strain of French blood in his veins ; and his slender and 
 dapper figure, the correctness of his air, the precision 
 and lucidity of his speeches, testify to his French ancestry. 
 He is not an illiberal-minded man, and has no instinctive 
 sympathy with the reactionaries. Yet he is mainly 
 responsible for having precipitated the struggle between 
 an aristocracy, old and weak, and a democracy, new and 
 powerful. He it is who has led the House of Lords through 
 the blunders and disasters of the last five years. Had he 
 followed the guidance of his own intuitions, he would 
 have acted more prudently. But his consciousness that 
 he was suspect on account of his Whiggism weakened his 
 power to resist reactionary counsels. And so this able, 
 upright, fair-minded man allowed his own views to be 
 overborne by considerations of party expediency. But 
 for Mr. Balfour, Lord Lansdowne would have striven for 
 a settlement of the education problem in 1906. But for 
 the counsels of the veiled prophet of Birmingham, he 
 might have resisted the pressure of the interests that 
 were demanding the rejection of the Budget in 1909. 
 Had he played a more courageous part in respect of these 
 two measures, the Parliament Act would not have been 
 necessary. Never has the House of Lords been more 
 partisan than under the leadership of Lord Lansdowne. 
 That is a sinister distinction for a Whig nobleman. It 
 is the measure of the failure of an estimable man when 
 confronted with a great emergency. 
 
 Since 1906 the onerous burden of Leader of the 
 House of Lords has fallen on Lord Crewe. Of all the 
 hard tasks in parliamentary life there is none more 
 trying than that of Leader of the diminutive minority of 
 
184 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Liberal peers. A Liberal Leader in the House of Lords, 
 whether in or out of office, is confronted permanently 
 by a large hostile majority, coldly critical of all he does, 
 impervious to all he says, ready always to vote him down 
 without compunction. He must naturally take pride in 
 the House and in the order to which he belongs, yet he 
 has often to take action which has the appearance of 
 want of respect for both. Lord Crewe knew what it was 
 to sit in the House of Lords through the long years of 
 Tory ascendancy. When the Liberals returned to power 
 in 1906 his situation as official Leader of the House 
 became mortifying in the extreme. Lord Crewe had to 
 look on in impotence while the Opposition were mutilating 
 or destroying the Bills of his Government. It speaks 
 much for his gifts of temper and character that he was 
 able to sustain the difficult role of Leader in these circum- 
 stances in a manner that won the admiration of his 
 followers, and compelled the respect of the embattled 
 legions of the Opposition. Lord Crewe is a polished 
 speaker, with a fine gift of irony, but his delivery is not 
 good. Though his words do not flow freely in a copious 
 stream, they are always admirably chosen. His speeches 
 are salted with epigram, and have an agreeable literary 
 savour. Few speakers in either House excel him in firm 
 grip of the facts of a Bill or of the realities of a situa- 
 tion. Most courteous and urbane, he is withal a most for- 
 midable antagonist. A Liberal without phrase, he is not 
 rash in counsel or headlong in action, but is always ready 
 to advance with calm courage. 
 
 The Marquis of Crewe is the son of Richard Monckton 
 Milnes, the first Lord Houghton, who is depicted to the 
 life by Disraeli in Tancred as the charming and versatile 
 Mr. Vavasour, " travelled, sweet-tempered, good-hearted, 
 with catholic sympathies and an eclectic turn of mind," 
 whose " life was a gyration of energetic curiosity ; an 
 insatiable whirl of social celebrity " ; who was " every- 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 185 
 
 where and at everything," " who had gone down in a 
 diving-bell, and had gone up in a balloon, who had dined 
 with Louis Philippe and gave dinners to Louis Blanc." 
 
 The weakness of the Government Bench in the House 
 of Lords threw a gigantic burden on Lord Crewe. He 
 had himself to take charge of the chief Government Bills. 
 This involved the necessity of getting up all sorts of 
 subjects,- superadded to the task of leading the House 
 and conducting the business of a great department of 
 State. The triple burden proved too much for Lord 
 Crewe's strength, and in the spring of 1911 he had a 
 serious breakdown in health. 
 
 Thereafter, and until the battle on the constitutional 
 question had been brought to a close, the leadership of 
 the House of Lords devolved upon Lord Morley of Black- 
 burn, who, as John Morley a quarter of a century before, 
 had, with reference to the assembly of which he is now 
 an ornament, coined the phrase " Mend or end them." 
 Six months earlier, on account of advancing age he had 
 turned seventy Lord Morley had resigned the office of 
 Secretary for India, after five years of heroic and signally 
 successful work, which will leave an enduring mark on 
 our Indian Empire. He would have withdrawn from the 
 Cabinet also but for the earnest entreaties of his col- 
 leagues, by whom he was persuaded to take the sinecure 
 office of Lord President of the Council. Half a year's 
 respite from the fatiguing labours of the India Office 
 wrought a wondrous change in Lord Morley. His 
 strength was re-established, and his whole nature seemed 
 to be rejuvenated. Hence, when Lord Crewe fell out of 
 action, Lord Morley was ready to take his place both in 
 the India Office and as Leader of the House of Lords. 
 In each capacity he rendered admirable service to the 
 Government. He led the House of Lords through the 
 most stirring six months in its history with superb 
 ability. The Nestor of Liberalism renewed his youth to 
 
186 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 perform a last service to the cause of democracy. His 
 rare gifts of intellect and character were seen to perfection 
 in this historic drama on this historic stage. Never 
 have the principles of representative Government been 
 more powerfully vindicated than by Lord Morley during 
 the debates on the Parliament Bill. Never had he spoken 
 with more eloquence than in these memorable sittings. 
 He rose to the full height of a great opportunity, and by 
 his masterly conduct of operations in the House of Lords 
 added new laurels to the chaplet of his fame. He was 
 ably supported by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Haldane, 
 the latter of whom had only recently been translated to 
 the Upper House. Against this triumvirate, who held 
 the bridge as Horatius and his comrades did in the brave 
 days of old, the hosts of Toryism made their onset in 
 vain. 
 
 Ever since 1906 the Lord Chancellor had been a tower 
 of strength to Liberalism in the House of Lords. As Sir 
 Robert Reid, peppery and petulant, but a staunch 
 Liberal, he had cut no great figure in the House of 
 Commons. But removed to the House of Lords his whole 
 nature seemed to enlarge and expand. Among other 
 things he became an eloquent and impressive orator. By 
 common consent no man in the last half-century has pre- 
 sided over the House of Lords with more dignity, urbanity, 
 and efficiency. The late Lord James used to say unhesi- 
 tatingly that Lord Loreburn had never been excelled as 
 Lord Chancellor. Liberals transferred to the House of 
 Lords are often affected by the genius loci, and the fibre 
 of their Liberalism is relaxed. This was not the case with 
 Lord Loreburn. He is the same indomitable Liberal to- 
 day that he ever was. He and Lord Morley preserve the 
 pure Gladstonian tradition, and are unfaltering in their 
 allegiance to the ideals of peace, humanity, liberty, and 
 economy which Gladstone always kept before his eyes 
 ideals to which it is to be feared some modern Liberals 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 187 
 
 offer only a formal lip-service. The Lord Chancellor has 
 never concealed his convictions from the House of Lords. 
 Time after time he has boldly confronted the Tory peers 
 with unpalatable truths. His speeches on the Education 
 Bill, the Licensing Bill, and the Finance Bill of 1909 
 stand out like landmarks in the recent records of the 
 Upper House. For all his uncompromising directness 
 and his unflinching Radicalism, Lord Loreburn is ex- 
 ceedingly popular among the peers. They respect an 
 honest opponent, and Lord Loreburn is honesty incarnate. 
 It is mere justice to acknowledge that the peers individu- 
 ally are amiable, tolerant, and fair-minded men. Acting 
 together, by some sinister influence of association, they 
 become unamiable, intolerant, unfair. The House of 
 Commons is said to be wiser than any one in it. Certainly 
 the House of Lords is more unfair than any individual 
 peer. 
 
 Lord Rosebery was a prominent figure in the contro- 
 versy between Lords and Commons. For several years 
 he had occupied a detached position, surveying the world 
 political from the seclusion of his library, or enjoying the 
 irresponsible freedom of the front cross-bench in the 
 House of Lords. A man of dazzling gifts and fascinating 
 personality, he had through some perversity of disposition 
 succeeded in cutting himself away from the direction of 
 affairs. None of his contemporaries could approach him 
 in eloquence. Few of them could match his knowledge 
 of affairs. On questions of foreign policy no one could 
 speak with the same degree of authority since the death 
 of Lord Salisbury. He was a keen student, too, of the 
 problems of domestic policy. Averse from extremes, he 
 always liked to walk in the middle way. In foreign affairs 
 he was mildly sympathetic to the old Liberal traditions 
 of liberty and humanity, but would not allow these 
 generous emotions to influence the course of his policy. 
 In home affairs he was for quiet, peaceable progress on 
 
188 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the lines of the mild Liberalism of 1868, dreading the 
 influence of Labour and leaning for support on the middle 
 classes and Nonconformity. 
 
 An Imperialist long before Mr. Chamberlain, his saving 
 moderation prevented him from following Mr. Chamber- 
 lain in his headlong descent into Tariff Reform. Lord 
 Rosebery was willing to make sacrifices for the sake of 
 Imperial unity, but he was not prepared to offer up as an 
 oblation at the shrine that system of Free Trade which 
 had made Great Britain the bank and emporium of the 
 world. It was the Irish question that was mainly re- 
 sponsible for Lord Rosebery 's separation from the 
 Liberal party. He had been Prime Minister of a Home 
 Rule Cabinet, and had delivered powerful speeches in 
 favour of Home Rule, but his faith in the principle of 
 self-government for Ireland weakened as the years went 
 by. He had always lacked sympathy with national 
 spirit, and the very boldness of Home Rule filled his 
 timid soul with misgiving. Nor did the argument for 
 Home Rule from the Imperial standpoint, which had 
 powerfully influenced great empire-builders like Sir 
 George Grey and Cecil Rhodes, quiet his apprehensions. 
 Caution is a good quality in a statesman, but in Lord 
 Rosebery caution had degenerated into timidity. He 
 grew fearful of the new democratic tendencies in our 
 politics. His imagination was so oppressed by the vague 
 and dire perils it conjured up that he stood still, irreso- 
 lute, almost petrified, the victim of his own fears. He had 
 become too reflective to be a man of action. A morbid 
 sensitiveness to criticism exaggerated this defect in a fine 
 though not a strong character. The most trivial and con- 
 temptible critic could always wound Lord Rosebery. 
 With him, as with the famous " trimmer " Halifax, every 
 scratch festered into a sore. From one cause and another 
 the most eloquent and one of the most accomplished and 
 genuinely patriotic of living men had disabled himself 
 
PRINCIPALS IN THE DRAMA 189 
 
 for active political work. It was a national misfortune 
 that splendid talents which ought to have been employed 
 in the service of the State and the Empire were allowed 
 to run to waste. We have not so many men of pre- 
 eminent ability that we can afford to dispense with the 
 aid in public affairs of so richly dowered a personality as 
 Lord Rosebery. 
 
 It is a curious fact that Lord Rosebery's estrangement 
 from Liberalism only dated from the accession to the 
 Premiership of Mr. Asquith, his old comrade and friend 
 of the Liberal League. While Sir Henry Campbell- 
 Banner man was at the head of the Government, Lord 
 Rosebery, though detached, was not unfriendly, and 
 gave the Government invaluable support on the Educa- 
 tion Bill of 1906 and the Licensing Bill of 1908. With 
 the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Bill he adopted 
 a different attitude, and from that time onward began to 
 criticize his old political friends with asperity. It was 
 Mr. Lloyd George's Budget that drove the ex-Prime 
 Minister into open hostility to his old party. In the ex- 
 citing events of 1910 and 1911 Lord Rosebery was a 
 conspicuous though not always an effectual figure. For 
 twenty-five years he had preached to the House of Lords 
 the necessity of a reform in its composition. His appeals 
 all went unheeded until 1910, when, under the com- 
 pulsion of fear, the Lords displayed an intense zeal for 
 self-reform, and at Lord Rosebery's initiative resolved 
 that the possession of a peerage should not of itself 
 entitle a man to be a Lord of Parliament. The resolution 
 came too late, and, in any case, it was no remedy for 
 the present discontents. The fault of the House of Lords 
 was not its hereditary composition, but its partisan 
 character. In the House of Lords were many men of 
 high principle and great ability and experience. As a 
 whole it was an average assembly of average English- 
 men. The individual peer is an upright, fair-minded 
 
190 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 English gentleman. Yet the peers collectively acting in 
 the House of Lords were content to be hewers of wood 
 and drawers of water for the Tory party. That, and 
 not the hereditary character of their House, was the 
 cause of the popular resentment against them in their 
 legislative capacity. 
 
 All through the long fight over the Lords' veto the 
 country remained steadfast as a rock in support of the 
 Government. Convinced that the House of Lords had 
 not acted justly by the Liberal party, the nation was 
 determined to put an end to a system that shocked its 
 instinct of fair play. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 
 
 THE new Parliament met for the first time on 
 21 February, 1910, and was opened in person 
 by King Edward, who was accompanied by 
 Queen Alexandra. The King's Speech, in a passage 
 dealing with the relations between the two Houses of 
 Parliament, contained a significant allusion to the 
 reform of the House of Lords : 
 
 " Recent experience has disclosed serious difficulties 
 due to recurring differences of strong opinion between 
 the two branches of the Legislature. Proposals will be 
 laid before you, with all convenient speed, 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. These 
 measures, in the opinion of my advisers, should provide 
 that this House " (meaning the House of Lords) " should 
 be so constituted and empowered as to exercise impar- 
 tially, in regard to proposed legislation, the functions of 
 initiation, revision, and, subject to proper safeguards, 
 of delay." 
 
 From this it was evident that the Government were 
 contemplating the reform and reconstitution of the 
 House of Lords. At the General Election very little 
 was heard of the reform of the House of Lords ; the 
 whole fight was concentrated on the limitation of the 
 Lords' veto. Animated by that common aim, moderate 
 Liberals and Radicals, Labour members and Irish 
 
 191 
 
192 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Nationalists fought with perfect solidarity. The question 
 of the reform of the Second Chamber raised an entirely 
 different problem. On this, the widest diversity of 
 view prevailed among the supporters of the Government. 
 The Labour members and many of the Radicals believed 
 in Single Chamber Government. Not a few Liberals 
 wanted a brand-new Second Chamber on an elective 
 basis. Other Liberals feared that an elective Second 
 Chamber would draw to itself some of the power now 
 possessed by the House of Commons. There were many 
 Liberals who had no objection whatever to the hereditary 
 principle, and who, if the peers were shorn of their 
 power of absolute veto, would be content that the House 
 of Lords should stand, preferring the House of Lords, 
 with a restricted veto, to an assembly of notables chosen 
 by popular election or nominated by the Crown. Alone 
 among Ministers, Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, 
 had consistently, in his speeches during the election 
 campaign, given prominence to the question of House 
 of Lords' reform. But, broadly speaking, the election 
 had been fought all along the line on the limitation of 
 the veto of the House of Lords, and not on any proposal 
 for changes in its composition. It was therefore with 
 deep misgiving that the Government supporters found 
 in the King's Speech that prominence was given to the 
 question of reform. The disquietude caused by the 
 King's Speech was, later in the day, intensified by a 
 speech from the Prime Minister. It had been widely 
 assumed in Liberal circles that Ministers would not have 
 taken office without obtaining an assurance from the 
 Crown that they would be empowered to carry their 
 legislative projects into law in spite of the opposition 
 of the House of Lords. " We shall not assume office," 
 said Mr. Asquith in the Albert Hall in the previous 
 December, " and we shall not hold office unless we can 
 secure the safeguards which experience shows us to be 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 193 
 
 necessary for the legislative utility and honour of the 
 Party of Progress." Taking this declaration au pied de 
 la lettre, not a few Liberals inferred from Mr. Asquith's 
 continuance in office after the General Election that he 
 had obtained what were called popularly " the Royal 
 Guarantees." These fond hopes were dashed to the 
 ground on the first day of the Session. Supporters of 
 the Government listened in chilly silence to the following 
 statement by the Prime Minister in the debate on the 
 Address : 
 
 "I see that in some quarters, not at all unfriendly 
 quarters, I am supposed to have intended to convey 
 what I certainly never said, that the Liberal Ministry 
 ought not to meet a new House of Commons unless it 
 had secured in advance some kind of guarantee for the 
 contingent exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I have 
 been engaged now for a good many years in political 
 life, and I do not think that even among gentlemen 
 who sit opposite there is one who will deny that I am 
 a man of my word. If I had given such a pledge as that 
 I should not be standing at this box at this moment. 
 I tell the House quite frankly that I have received no 
 such guarantees, and that I have asked for no such 
 guarantees. In my judgment it is the duty of statesmen 
 and of responsible politicians in this country, as long as 
 possible and as far as possible, to keep the name of the 
 Sovereign and the prerogatives of the Crown outside 
 the domain of party politics. If the occasion should arise, 
 I should not hesitate to tender such advice to the Crown 
 as in the circumstances the exigencies of the situation 
 appear to warrant in the public interests. But to ask 
 in advance for a blank authority for an indefinite exercise 
 of the Royal Prerogative in regard to a measure which 
 has never been submitted to or approved by the House 
 of Commons is a thing which, in my judgment, no con- 
 stitutional statesman can properly make, and it is a 
 
194 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 concession which the Sovereign cannot be expected to 
 grant." 
 
 These words fell like a cold douche on the glowing 
 ardour of Liberal expectation. Liberal members wan- 
 dered about the Lobby and the corridors exclaiming, 
 " He hasn't got the guarantees," and lamenting that a 
 great electoral battle had been fought and won in vain. 
 Chagrin and disappointment were the characteristics that 
 marked the Liberal party in these early days of the new 
 Parliament. The absence of guarantees and the deter- 
 mination of the Cabinet to reform the House of Lords 
 had reduced a victorious party to despair on the very 
 morrow of victory. There were rumours, too, of divided 
 counsels in the Cabinet, and Mr. Asquith's air in the 
 House was certainly not that of a confident commander. 
 As the days went by, thoughtful Liberals became re- 
 conciled to the absence of guarantees, feeling the force 
 of Mr. Asquith's argument that the time for demanding 
 them had not arrived. But now it became all the more 
 necessary to concentrate the forces of the Cabinet and 
 the party on the restriction of the Lords' veto, instead 
 of dissipating energy on the baffling problem of a reform 
 of the Second Chamber. In March Sir Edward Grey, 
 speaking in London, declared strongly for House of 
 Lords' reform. He warned the Liberal party that if 
 they did not undertake the task, the Second Chamber 
 would be reformed by their political opponents. " I 
 say that to confine ourselves to a Single Chamber issue, 
 and to leave the policy of reform of the Second Chamber 
 to leave all that ground unoccupied for the other side 
 would result for us, politically speaking, in disaster, 
 death, and damnation." While there was force in this 
 reasoning, it was not an argument for putting House of 
 Lords' reform in the foremost place. As the session 
 went forward, Liberals of every shade of opinion realized 
 more and more clearly that the emergent duty of the 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 195 
 
 Government was to address themselves to the limitation 
 of the veto. 
 
 It happened that the Nationalists held the keys of 
 the situation. The 1909 Budget rejected by the Lords 
 had not yet been passed into law. It had to be re- 
 introduced into the House of Commons, and it could not 
 go through that House without the concurrence of the 
 Nationalist members. " No Veto, no Budget," was the 
 policy of the Nationalist Leader. This became crystal- 
 lized into a formula expressing Liberal no less than 
 Nationalist conviction. Through these early troubled 
 weeks of the new Parliament Mr. John Redmond played 
 a statesmanlike role. Amid the shifting sands of doubt 
 and uncertainty, he stood firm as a rock, and became 
 the rallying point for Liberal opinion in and out of 
 Parliament. Mr. Redmond's post-bag in these days 
 was heavy with letters from leading Liberals in all parts 
 of the country expressing grateful appreciation of his 
 steadfast attitude. There can be no doubt that the 
 Nationalist Leader was a powerful factor in modifying 
 the tactics of the Cabinet, and in assisting the concen- 
 tration of the whole Liberal army on the limitation of 
 the Lords' veto. The cloud of depression that had 
 weighed heavily on the spirits of the Government's 
 supporters vanished on the discovery that the Cabinet 
 and their followers were again in harmony. 
 
 On 29 March Mr. Asquith announced that the Govern- 
 ment had determined to concentrate in the present 
 session on the veto, leaving to a future year the reform 
 of the constitution of the Second Chamber. After 
 stating that Government resolutions dealing with the 
 Lords' question would shortly be introduced, the Prime 
 Minister said : 
 
 " These resolutions will be both few and simple. ; 
 They will affirm the necessity of excluding the House 
 of Lords from the domain of finance. They will ask this 
 
196 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 House to declare that, in the sphere of legislation, the 
 power of veto at present possessed by the House of 
 Lords shall be so limited in its exercise as to secure the 
 predominance of the deliberate and considered will of 
 this House within the lifetime of a single Parliament. 
 Further, it will be made plain that these constitutional 
 changes are without prejudice to, and contemplate in a 
 subsequent year, the substitution in our Second Chamber 
 of a democratic for an hereditary basis." 
 
 Thus, after much uncertainty and hesitation, the 
 Cabinet abandoned the attempt to pursue simultane- 
 ously two separate lines of policy which would have 
 meant failure for both. As soon as the decision of 
 Ministers to concentrate on the limitation of the veto 
 became known, a loyal and enthusiastic party at once 
 swung into line behind them. 
 
 The veto resolutions were published at the end of 
 March. They were in the following terms : 
 
 Money Bills 
 
 (1) 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 appro- 
 priation, control, or regulation of public money ; the raising 
 or guarantee of any loan, or the repayment thereof ; or 
 matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. 
 
 Bills other than Money Bills 
 
 (2) That it is expedient that the powers of the House of 
 Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 197 
 
 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 ; Pro- 
 vided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the 
 date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Com- 
 mons 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. 
 
 Duration of Parliament 
 
 (3) That it is expedient to limit the duration of Parliament to 
 five years. 
 
 These resolutions differed in two respects from the 
 plan for dealing with the House of Lords adumbrated by 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907. That plan 
 provided, in case of disagreement, for a conference 
 between the two Houses before the overriding power 
 came into play. It also provided that a Bill was to 
 become law after passage in three successive sessions 
 of the same Parliament. Mr. Asquith's resolutions laid 
 it down that the three successive sessions need not 
 be sessions of the same Parliament, and they contained 
 no allusion to the proposal of a Conference between 
 the two Houses. It was both a simpler and a 
 more scientific plan than that of Sir Henry Campbell- 
 Bannerman. 
 
 On 29 March the Prime Minister moved that the 
 House " immediately resolve itself into a committee to 
 consider the relations between the two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment and the question of the duration of Parliaments." 
 
198 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 To this Sir Robert Finlay, on behalf of the Opposition, 
 moved an amendment : " That in the opinion of this 
 House a strong and efficient Second Chamber is neces- 
 sary ; that this House is willing to consider proposals 
 for the reform of the constitution of the existing Second 
 Chamber, but declines to proceed with proposals which 
 would destroy the usefulness of any Second Chamber, 
 however constituted, and would remove the only safe- 
 guard against great changes being made by the Govern- 
 ment of the day, not only without the consent, but against 
 the wishes of the majority of the electors." On 4 April 
 the amendment was rejected by 357 to 250 ; Government 
 majority, 107. A striking observation was made during 
 the debate by Mr. Asquith : " The absolute veto of the 
 Lords must follow the veto of the Crown before the road 
 can be cleared for the advent of a full-grown and an 
 unfettered democracy/' The first of the veto resolu- 
 tions was carried on 7 April by 339 to 237, majority 102 ; 
 the second on 14 April by 351 to 246, majority 105 ; 
 and the third, also on 14 April, by 334 to 236, majority 
 
 9 8. 
 
 Following upon the last division, Mr. Asquith, on the 
 motion for adjournment, pointed out that the three veto 
 resolutions had been approved in principle by the late 
 House of Commons with an enormous majority ; had 
 been prominently before the country at the last general 
 election ; had been supported in every stage of their 
 progress through the present House of Commons by 
 majorities which had rarely fallen short of 100. " It is 
 for these reasons," he went on, " and on behalf of the 
 Government that I think it not only convenient but 
 necessary to give notice to the House and to the country, 
 now that these resolutions are passing into the control 
 of other people, of our future intentions. If the Lords 
 fail to accept our policy, or decline to consider it when 
 it is formally presented to that House, we shall feel it 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 199 
 
 our duty immediately to tender advice to the Crown as to 
 the steps which will have to be taken if that policy is to 
 receive statutory effect in this Parliament. What the 
 precise terms of that advice will be it will, of course, 
 not be right for me to say now, but if we do not find our- 
 selves in a position to ensure that statutory effect will 
 be given to this policy in this Parliament, we shall then 
 either resign our offices or recommend a dissolution of 
 Parliament. And let me add this, that in no case would 
 we recommend dissolution except under such conditions 
 as will secure that in the new Parliament the judgment 
 of the people, as expressed in the election, will be carried 
 into law." This declaration was received with loud 
 Liberal cheers. Mr. Balfour's comment on it was, 
 ; ' The Prime Minister has bought the Irish vote for his 
 Budget and has bought it successfully. The price he 
 has paid is the price of the dignity of his office and of 
 all the great traditions which he, of all men, ought to 
 uphold." 
 
 Mr. Asquith then introduced the Parliament Bill, 
 which was read a first time amid a great demonstration 
 from the Government supporters. The Bill, which was 
 backed by Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Churchill, 
 Mr. Haldane, Mr. J. A. Pease, and Mr. Attorney-General 
 (Sir Rufus Isaacs), was in the following terms : 
 
 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 to make such provision as in this Act 
 
200 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of 
 Lords : 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent 
 Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present 
 Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as 
 follows : 
 
 I. (i) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House 
 of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one 
 month before the end of the session, is not passed by the 
 House of Lords without amendment within one month after 
 it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House 
 of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His 
 Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal 
 Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of 
 Lords have not consented to the Bill. 
 
 (2) A Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the 
 Speaker of the House of Commons, 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 pro- 
 vision of money by Parliament ; Supply ; the appropriation, 
 control, or regulation of public money ; the raising or 
 guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof ; or matters 
 incidental to those subjects or any of them. 
 
 (3) When a Bill to which the House of Lords has not 
 consented is presented to His Majesty for assent as a Money 
 Bill, the Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of the 
 Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill. 
 
 (4) No amendment shall be allowed to a Money Bill which, 
 in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, is 
 such as to prevent the Bill retaining the character of a Money 
 Bill. 
 
 II. (i) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by 
 the House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether 
 of the same Parliament or not) and, having been sent up to 
 the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the 
 session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those 
 sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 201 
 
 the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to 
 the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an 
 Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, 
 notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not consented 
 to the Bill : Provided that this provision shall not take 
 effect unless two years 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. 
 
 (2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of 
 Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without 
 amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed 
 to by both Houses. 
 
 (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former 
 Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding session 
 if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical 
 with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are 
 certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be neces- 
 sary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of 
 the former Bill, or to represent amendments which have been 
 made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding 
 session. 
 
 Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think 
 fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the 
 second or third session, suggest any further amendments 
 without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such 
 suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of 
 Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as 
 amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by 
 the House of Commons ; but the exercise of this power by 
 the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this 
 section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House 
 of Lords. 
 
 III. Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Com- 
 mons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, 
 and shall not be questioned in any court of law. 
 
 IV. Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the 
 existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons. 
 
 V. Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the 
 
202 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under 
 the Septennial Act, 1715. 
 
 VI. This Act may be cited as the Parliament Act 1910. 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing text of the Parlia- 
 ment Bill that the question of the reform of the House 
 of Lords had been relegated to the preamble. 
 
 While these events had been happening in the Com- 
 mons the Lords had not been idle. For half a dozen 
 days in March their lordships gave their attention to 
 the following resolutions moved by Lord Rosebery : 
 
 " (i) That a strong and efficient Second Chamber 
 is not merely an integral part of the British Constitution, 
 but is necessary to the well-being of the State and to 
 the balance of Parliament. 
 
 " (2) That such a Chamber can best be obtained by 
 the reform and reconstitution of the House of Lords. 
 
 " (3) That a necessary preliminary of such reform 
 and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principle 
 that the possession of a peerage should no longer, of 
 itself, give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords." 
 
 These resolutions were adopted by the peers. It was 
 admitted by all the speakers on the Conservative side 
 that there was urgent need for a reform in the constitu- 
 tion of the House of Lords. " However sincere and 
 impartial we may be," said Lord Lansdowne, " the 
 country is profoundly unconvinced that we are not 
 impartial." Lord Crewe said : 
 
 " During all the time that we have been in office, the 
 majority of this House has worked in absolute rhythm 
 with the leaders of the Opposition in another place. 
 Are you going to turn this House into something of 
 which that can in no way be said ? . . . Are you going 
 to create a Second Chamber, which, by any conceivable 
 possibility, could deal with a Tariff Reform measure 
 sent up by a large Conservative majority in another place 
 in the same manner as you have dealt with our land 
 
THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 203 
 
 valuation proposals ? " No answer was given to these 
 pointed questions. 
 
 On 28 April, 1910, the 1909 Budget, rejected by the 
 Lords in the preceding November, was accepted by 
 their Lordships without demur and promptly passed into 
 law. All was now ready for the fight on the Parliament 
 Bill. 
 
CHAPTER XIX 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 
 
 BOTH political parties were getting ready for the 
 next stage in the constitutional conflict when, 
 like a thunderbolt descending from a blue, un- 
 clouded sky, came the alarming news that King Edward 
 had been stricken with serious illness. His Majesty's 
 death on 6 May, 1910, hushed the noise of political strife. 
 The whole nation was plunged into sorrow by the passing 
 of that gracious and winning personality. That was a 
 solemn and impressive moment on 17 May, when Lords 
 and Commons, united in the bonds of a common sorrow, 
 met together in Westminster Hall to receive the coffin 
 of the late King. It was like a gathering of foes in a temple 
 of reconciliation. King Edward's death and burial pro- 
 foundly affected the nation. Men of every rank and 
 degree felt that the resumption of violent political strife 
 after these moving events would have jarred on the 
 sensibilities of the nation. There was a universal feeling 
 that a strong effort should be made to arrive at a settle- 
 ment of the constitutional question by consent. Re- 
 sponsible statesmen on both sides shared to the full the 
 prevailing sentiment. They were patriotically anxious 
 not to trouble the early days of the new reign and em- 
 barrass an inexperienced monarch by a sudden renewal 
 of the constitutional quarrel. King George V rightly 
 interpreted the feelings of statesmen and the spirit of the 
 nation when he suggested that representatives of the 
 two political parties should meet together and endeavour 
 
 204 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 205 
 
 by friendly negotiation to arrive at an accommodation. 
 The royal wish was promptly acted upon, and on 17 June 
 the first meeting of the negotiators took place at the 
 Prime Minister's official residence in Downing Street. 
 The representatives of the two parties at the Conference 
 were : 
 
 Liberal. Conservative. 
 
 Mr. Asquith. Mr. Balfour. 
 
 Lord Crewe. Lord Lansdowne. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Austen Chamberlain. 
 
 Mr. Birrell. Lord Cawdor. 
 
 Whenever there is talk of compromise and an effort to 
 find a middle way zealots on both sides are always 
 fearful lest their cause should be betrayed in secret 
 conclave. That was the case in this instance. But the 
 presence at the Conference of so unwavering a friend of 
 Ireland as Mr. Birrell served to allay the misgivings of 
 the Nationalists, while Earl Cawdor 's participation in the 
 deliberations reassured the extreme Tories. Lord Cawdor, 
 who was in the same house as Mr. Balfour at Eton, had 
 recently come into prominence as Leader of the Tory 
 stalwarts in the House of Lords. He had given evidence 
 of high business capacity as Chairman of the Great 
 Western Railway and as First Lord of the Admiralty. 
 A tenacious and determined man, with opinions that 
 never lingered in the twilight of dubiety, his confident 
 manner and truculent oratorical style delighted the 
 backwoodsmen. As for the Radicals, they did not like 
 the Conference idea, but they had unbounded faith in 
 Mr. Lloyd George, and felt that a Conference of which he 
 was a member would give nothing material away. 
 
 Before Parliament rose for the autumn recess twelve 
 sittings of the Conference had been held. The meetings 
 were strictly private. Naturally there was intense 
 
206 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 curiosity to know whether there was any hope of a 
 settlement being reached. On 29 July, a few days before 
 Parliament rose, Mr. Asquith made the following an- 
 nouncement in reference to the Conference : 
 
 " The representatives of the Government and the 
 Opposition have held twelve meetings, and have carefully 
 surveyed a large part of the field of controversy. The 
 result is that our discussions have made such progress, 
 although we have not so far reached an agreement, as to 
 render it in the opinion of all of us not only desirable, but 
 necessary, that they should continue. In fact I may go 
 further, and say that we should think it wrong at this 
 stage to break them off. There is no question of their 
 indefinite continuance, and if we find as a result of our 
 further deliberation during the recess that there is no 
 prospect of an agreement that can be announced to 
 Parliament in the course of the present session, we shall 
 bring the Conference to a close." 
 
 This statement was regarded as an indication that the 
 prospect of a settlement by consent was by no means 
 hopeless. In the autumn a sensation was caused by signs 
 within the Unionist party of a new attitude towards 
 Home Rule. Mr. J. L. Garvin, one of the ablest writers 
 in the Conservative Press, powerfully pleaded in the 
 Observer for recognition by Unionists of the fact that a 
 new Ireland had arisen in a new world, and that the time 
 had come for re-examination of the facts of the Irish 
 problem. It was pointed out that a settlement of the 
 Irish question would be hailed with rejoicing in our 
 over-sea dominions, and would pave the way to a per- 
 petual pact of peace between this country and the U.S.A. 
 These considerations had an appreciable effect on Con- 
 servative opinion. It was evident that if you called 
 Home Rule by the name Devolution, the Unionist 
 party was by no means irreconcilable on the Irish ques- 
 tion. At this psychological moment The Times gave 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 207 
 
 prominence to a series of able letters from a correspondent 
 signing himself " Pacificus " which powerfully influenced 
 public opinion. " Pacificus " wrote with imagination 
 and insight and with complete detachment from party 
 prepossessions. In Canada, in Australia, in South Africa, 
 the British people had solved the problem of reconciling 
 local autonomy with national unity. Why could not the 
 same thing be done in the Mother Country ? Concede to 
 Ireland self-government as part of a scheme for federal- 
 izing the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and in- 
 stead of making for separation it would make for unity. 
 There are four natural divisions in the United Kingdom : 
 England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales. Why not devolve to 
 each the management of its own distinctively local affairs ? 
 These national or provincial Parliaments would be entirely 
 independent of each other, but all would acknowledge 
 the full and absolute sovereignty of the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment at Westminster, which would continue to consist 
 of the two present historical chambers the House of 
 Commons and the House of Lords, both, however, 
 reduced in numbers. " The Imperial Parliament would 
 be something different from and greater than the Do- 
 minion Parliament of Canada, or the Commonwealth 
 of Australia, or the Union Parliament of South Africa, 
 for, in addition to the important powers which it would 
 exercise with regard to the United Kingdom, it would also 
 be charged, as at present, with the whole affairs of the 
 British Empire." The anonymous correspondent of The 
 Times was anxious that the constitutional conference 
 should evolve into a great representative convention to 
 meet in the following year (1911), which would be marked 
 by the Coronation of King George and the assembly of the 
 Imperial Conference. ' The opportunity of settling the 
 question of Ireland as well as the question of the House 
 of Lords in the year of national rejoicing would appeal 
 to the popular imagination as few other things would. 
 
208 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 And it would appeal not only to the hearts of the people 
 at home, but as much and perhaps more to the hearts of 
 our people in the Dominions." Such was the argument 
 of " Pacificus." Its practicability, its breadth and its 
 elevation sensibly affected thinking men. It failed of its 
 immediate purpose, but the seed sown by " Pacificus " 
 did not all fall on stony places. Some of it fell into 
 receptive soil and may yet bear rich fruit. 
 
 Meanwhile the Constitutional Conference had renewed 
 its labours, having assembled before the end of the 
 Parliamentary Recess. After twenty-one sittings it 
 finally separated without coming to an agreement. 
 On 10 November the following announcement was issued 
 from the Prime Minister's official residence : 
 
 " The Conference which has been sitting to consider 
 the Constitutional question has come to an end without 
 arriving at an agreement. 
 
 "It is the opinion of all the members of the Conference 
 that the conditions under which its proceedings have been 
 held preclude any disclosure as to the course of the negotia- 
 tions or the causes which led to their termination. 
 
 " 10 DOWNING STREET, WHITEHALL, S.W. 
 Nov. 10, 1910." 
 
 No one, not even King George to whose initiative 
 this noble effort at conciliation was due regretted the 
 failure to find a peaceful way out more than the members 
 of the Conference themselves. Every member of it left 
 the Treasury board-room after the final meeting on the 
 morning of 10 November with a feeling of keen disap- 
 pointment in his heart. The discussions were cordial, 
 courteous, unreserved. Between all the negotiators the 
 happiest personal relations subsisted, and they parted 
 with expressions of sincere mutual regard. On both sides 
 there was a genuine effort to reach a harmonious settle- 
 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 209 
 
 ment in the interests not of party, but of the nation and 
 the Empire. In the same spirit on both sides there was a 
 readiness to make concession. Yet, after mutual con- 
 cessions and compromises, an insuperable difficulty dis- 
 closed itself which could not be surmounted without the 
 sacrifice of principles held to be vital. 
 
 Thus ended in disappointing fruitlessness one of the 
 most hopeful and persistent efforts made in our political 
 history by rival statesmen to settle amicably a great 
 issue of domestic controversy. The moral of the failure 
 is that the best temper and the most conciliatory spirit 
 cannot obliterate deep-seated divisions of party conviction. 
 Mr. Asquith, for all his desire for peace, could not be 
 recreant to Liberal principles. Mr. Balfour, equally 
 anxious for peace, could not abandon what he believed 
 to be precious Conservative interests. 
 
 No statement was issued at the time, nor has any 
 since been made, as to the nature of the protracted 
 negotiations. It is obvious that, when men are negotiating 
 for a peaceful solution of a dispute, there may be a readi- 
 ness on both sides to give way here or make a concession 
 there. But if, after all, war is to result, all these com- 
 promises must necessarily be sponged off the slate. 
 A concession made in order to arrive at peace would only 
 be an embarrassment when there is reversion to a state 
 of war. 
 
 The failure of the Conference gave rise to a widespread 
 feeling of disappointment. Nowhere was regret more 
 keen than among the All-Round Home Rulers, who had 
 been looking forward to a convention on non-party lines 
 to work out the details of a plan for federalizing the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Responsible statesmen would not have conferred 
 together for nearly six months unless some measure of 
 common agreement had been reached. How nearly the 
 negotiators came to agreement we do not know. One 
 
210 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 thing is certain. The Conservatives were willing to 
 acknowledge the financial supremacy of the House of 
 Commons, subject only to precautions against " tacking." 
 Two main proposals dominated the deliberations of the 
 Conference, viz. (i) a joint sitting of Lords and Commons 
 to consider Bills rejected by the House of Lords ; (2) an 
 attempt to draw a distinction between organic and 
 ordinary laws. A joint sitting of Lords and Commons 
 would be an assembly of unmanageable dimensions : 
 640 peers plus 670 Commoners. It was impossible on 
 other grounds. The overwhelming Tory majority in the 
 Upper House 552 out of 640 members would overbear 
 any Liberal majority in the Commons, even the record 
 majority of 1906. A full joint session was therefore out 
 of the question. The difficulties could be obviated by a 
 large reduction in the number of Lords of Parliament, 
 or if, without any such reduction, the existing peers 
 would consent to delegate their powers to, say, a hundred, 
 or fifty picked men appointed to serve on a Joint Com- 
 mittee of both Houses. Conferences between the two 
 Houses of Parliament, " managers " being appointed to 
 negotiate a settlement in cases of dispute, formed part 
 of the machinery of the Constitution in bygone days. 
 One of the features of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's veto 
 proposals in 1907 was a proposal to revive this system of 
 Conferences. 
 
 The idea of a Joint Committee of both Houses to con- 
 sider disputed Bills commanded favour on both sides at 
 the Constitutional Conference. Such a Committee might 
 be composed of one hundred members, fifty chosen 
 by the House of Commons according to the distribution 
 of parties in that House, and fifty members from the 
 House of Lords drawn in equal numbers from the Liberal 
 and the Conservative peers. A Joint Committee of this 
 nature would succeed in effecting a settlement on most 
 disputed Bills. For example, had such a Committee 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 211 
 
 been convoked in 1906 a settlement would doubtless 
 have been reached on the Birr ell Education Bill. The 
 occasions on which a body so composed the prevailing 
 type of mind of the peer delegates being " cross-bench " 
 would fail to arrive at agreement would be few and far 
 between. 
 
 There was a division of opinion at the Conference as 
 to the representation which should be given to the peers 
 at the Joint Committee. The Conservatives feared to 
 entrust full powers to deal with all Bills to a Joint 
 Committee in which the Government of the day would 
 have a small but effective majority. Hence a proposal 
 that certain Bills should not go to the Joint Committee 
 unless they had been passed through the House of 
 Commons in their last stage by a majority of 100. Not 
 satisfied with this precaution, the Conservatives de- 
 manded in addition that large measures of organic change 
 should be excluded entirely from the purview of the Joint 
 Committee. For these Bills of " great gravity " their 
 suggestion was, in case of rejection by the House of Lords, 
 not that they should be referred to the Joint Committee, 
 but that they should be submitted directly to a poll of the 
 people. The Joint Committee for ordinary Bills on which 
 the two Houses were in disagreement and the Referen- 
 dum for extraordinary Bills such was the proposal. 
 Obviously it involved the creation of a distinction hitherto 
 unknown in this country, but familiar enough in some 
 European countries, between ordinary and fundamental 
 laws. If large measures of organic change were to be 
 excluded from the Joint Committee, Home Rule for 
 Ireland would come within the prohibitory definition 
 and be made subject to a referendum after rejection by 
 the House of Lords. 
 
 It was impossible for the Liberal representatives at the 
 Conference to accept these proposals. Assuming the 
 introduction of the referendum to be desirable, who was 
 
212 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 to decide when it should be put into operation ? If the 
 House of Lords, then it would be applied only against 
 Liberal Bills. The Lords would subject Home Rule to a 
 referendum, though it has been a leading issue in 
 British politics for a generation. But they would not 
 apply it to Tariff Reform, a new and a more revolu- 
 tionary policy. Moreover, the suggested distinction 
 between ordinary and fundamental laws was entirely 
 unknown to our Constitution. Together with the 
 referendum it would mean the imposition of a new 
 disability on the Liberal party, besides which the re- 
 ferendum would tend to undermine the principles of 
 representative government. It was on this rock of diffi- 
 culty that the Conference went to pieces. 
 
 The Conference, as we have seen, held its final sitting 
 on 10 November. Some light on its deliberations was 
 shed by the Prime Minister in a speech delivered by him 
 at Hull a fortnight later. On this occasion Mr. Asquith 
 said : 
 
 " I have always thought, and have more than once said 
 that, given a Second Chamber moderate in size and 
 constituted on popular lines that is a very important 
 qualification I would not exclude, certainly would not 
 brush aside, procedure by Conference and joint session 
 as a possible and even hopeful expedient for the avoidance 
 of deadlocks. But the crucial question here is left 
 entirely and purposely untouched in Lord Lansdowne's 
 proposals. Under what condition is this joint session 
 going to take place ? In what relative proportions are 
 the two Houses going to sit in it ? And remember, the 
 whole thing only comes into operation when you have a 
 Liberal majority in the House of Commons. When a 
 Tory majority is there the whole machinery falls into 
 abeyance. The whole question is this : it goes to the 
 very root-foundation of the whole scheme. The question 
 I ask is, What kind and what size of Liberal majority 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 213 
 
 in your scheme is to have an effective voice in legislation ? 
 Is it to be a 50, or must it be a 100, or must it be 150 ? 
 Until this is settled, the proposal for a joint session from 
 our point of view is wholly meaningless and nugatory. 
 It is, in effect, nothing more than an invitation to sub- 
 stitute one set of risks for another when the nation has 
 deliberately decided at the polls to entrust its fortunes 
 and the shaping of its legislation to the party of progress. 
 
 " There comes in here a doubt it is more than a doubt 
 what is meant by the exception from the operation of 
 joint sessions of ' questions of great gravity ' ? They 
 are not to be decided by a joint session, but they are 
 to be submitted by referendum to the people. What 
 are questions of great gravity ? Who is going to decide ? 
 Obviously neither one House nor the other. What may 
 seem to be grave to the House of Commons may seem to 
 be trivial to the House of Lords, and vice versa. Are 
 you going to call in a judicial tribunal ? Are you going 
 to bring in the courts of law ? I earnestly trust no one 
 will suggest that. And if not you must condescend to 
 particulars, and you must tell us what is the criterion 
 and what are the categories of questions of ' great 
 gravity.' I presume Home Rule is a question of ' great 
 gravity.' Is Disestablishment ? Well, I do not know I 
 mean in the opinion of Lordr Lansdowne and his friends. 
 Is the abolition of plural voting ? Above all, and most 
 important of all, is the question of a tariff ? 
 
 ' There are three grounds on which I base my protest 
 against the referendum. In the first place, in effect it 
 would, as regards all important legislation these ques- 
 tions of * great gravity ' by statute, give to the House 
 of Lords the power, which it already claims and which 
 we strenuously deny to it, to compel, when it differs from 
 the popular House, what would be to all intents and 
 purposes a dissolution and a general election. Of course, 
 on trivial matters, if you had a referendum, as has 
 
214 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 been found in America, in Canada, and in Australia, 
 people would not take the trouble to vote, and the result 
 of such an appeal would be no index to the true state of 
 popular opinion. If you come to really great questions, 
 questions like Home Rule, or the Tariff, does any one 
 suppose that such an appeal would not be attended by 
 all the tumult of a general election ? The parliamentary 
 machine would be set at work, members and intending 
 candidates would come down to their constituencies 
 to address meetings ; canvassing, placarding, the circula- 
 tion of literature, all the operations of an electoral 
 campaign such as we are contemplating, some of us with 
 mixed feelings, would be in full swing, and the country 
 would be, to all intents and purposes, involved in all 
 the turmoil of a general election. And then suppose, 
 on a vital question like that, the decision went against the 
 Government of the day. Could the Government continue 
 in office ? Clearly not. They must either resign or dis- 
 solve. If they resigned and their opponents came into 
 power, they would have to dissolve, and you would have 
 two dissolutions, two general elections, two appeals 
 to the electorate in regard to every vital question of 
 national policy and legislation. 
 
 " But I have an even stronger objection to the use of 
 the referendum as a part of the Constitution than that. 
 It would impair, if it would not entirely destroy, the 
 sense of parliamentary responsibility. You send your 
 members to the House of Commons to give there the 
 best of their judgment and the best of their ability to the 
 transaction of the affairs of the nation, on the lines and 
 within the limits of the opportunities and pledges which 
 they have professed to you, and on which they sought 
 your confidence ; but you do not want a member of 
 Parliament to go there, an irresponsible item, to say, 
 ' I will vote against this or for that, because my vote 
 does not matter, because the thing has got to go back 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE 215 
 
 to the electorate, and I am here as an irresponsible 
 delegate, and not here to represent, to the best of what I 
 believe to be the considered judgment of the nation.' 
 You are striking a blow at the venue of responsibility, 
 which is the very soul of Parliamentary Government. 
 
 " At the same time and this is the third point you 
 are really destroying the law of government by representa- 
 tion that is the great invention of the modern world. 
 Democracy without representation very soon degenerates 
 literally into anarchy or Csesarism one or the other. 
 The only machinery which the genius of man has yet 
 discovered which will enable democratic government 
 to be made into a working concern is the adoption, the 
 amplification and development of that principle of 
 representation. I speak not as a party man for a moment, 
 but as a convinced democrat, and one who wishes to see 
 democratic government made increasingly efficient and 
 capable. When the Tory party are tumbling over 
 one another, helter-skelter, pell-mell, in their zeal and 
 affection for this new-fangled discovery of the referen- 
 dum, I ask my fellow-countrymen, in the interests not 
 of one party or another, but in the interests of those 
 larger and more permanent concerns which are the 
 common property of us all, to hesitate before, in order to 
 find a plausible way to escape from difficulties which 
 can be otherwise solved, they strike a deadly blow 
 at the very foundation of representative government in 
 this country." (Hull, 25 Nov., 1910.) 
 
 Reading between the lines of the Prime Minister's 
 speech, one can see clearly the causes that broke up 
 the Conference. The failure of the Conference was 
 deplored by men of every shade of opinion. A unique 
 opportunity to bring about the settlement by consent 
 of the Irish problem had been lost. What a glory for 
 British statesmanship, what resounding shouts of jubila- 
 tion would have rung from end to end of the Empire if 
 
216 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the Coronation year could have been marked by the 
 burial, with the consent of both political parties, of the 
 age-long Anglo-Irish feud, and by the uprising of a new 
 Ireland, regenerate, buoyant, loyal, proud of her own 
 freedom, and proud also of her place in a free Empire ! 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 
 
 A soon as the Conference had failed, the Cabinet 
 decided to prepare for a fresh appeal to the 
 constituencies. But first of all there were im- 
 portant negotiations to be transacted with King George. 
 A new election could not be fought without some clear 
 understanding from the Crown that the verdict of the 
 nation would be accepted as decisive. Speaking in the 
 House of Commons on 14 April, Mr. Asquith had said : 
 " In no case would we recommend dissolution except 
 under such conditions as will secure that in the new 
 Parliament the judgment of the people, as expressed in 
 the election, will be carried into law." The first duty of 
 the Prime Minister on the eve of the dissolution was, 
 therefore, to obtain from the Crown the necessary 
 guarantees that the will of the people should be made to 
 prevail in spite of opposition from the House of Lords. 
 Mr. Asquith set about this duty with prompt energy. 
 On Friday, n November, the day after the break-up of 
 the Conference, he journeyed to Sandringham to have 
 audience of the King, returning to Downing Street on 
 the Saturday. On the following Monday, Lord Knollys, 
 the trusted friend and counsellor of the late King Edward, 
 called at Downing Street and remained for two hours 
 with the Prime Minister. On Tuesday, Lord Knollys, 
 who arrived at Downing Street while a Cabinet Council 
 was in progress, had two interviews with Mr. Asquith, 
 one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. On 
 
 217 
 
218 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Wednesday the King travelled expressly to London and 
 gave audience to the Prime Minister and Lord Crewe. 
 It was during these fateful days that the necessary 
 assurances were given by the Sovereign that if the 
 election confirmed the Government in power, the Royal 
 Prerogative would be used, should it be necessary, to 
 ensure the passage of the Parliament Bill into law. 
 There can be little doubt that His Majesty stipulated 
 for two things : (i) that the present Parliament should 
 not be dissolved before the House of Lords had an oppor- 
 tunity of pronouncing on the Parliament Bill, which had 
 not yet been submitted for its consideration ; (2) that 
 the guarantees must be contingent upon the Government 
 coming back with an " adequate majority." 
 
 The Government had intended an immediate appeal 
 to the constituencies, but the negotiations with the Sove- 
 reign, supplemented by the Fabian tactics of the House 
 of Lords, delayed the dissolution for nearly a fortnight. 
 As soon as the Government's intention to go to the 
 country was revealed, Lord Lansdowne made a skilful 
 move. He announced in his blandest manner on Tuesday, 
 15 November, that on the following day he would move 
 a resolution inviting the Government to submit to the 
 House of Lords " without further delay the provisions 
 of the Parliament Bill." There was subtlety in this 
 manoeuvre. No one seriously imagined that the Lords 
 were going to accept the Parliament Bill when a more 
 moderate version of it had just been rejected by the 
 Tory representatives in the Conference. But Lord 
 Lansdowne had masked the real character of his man- 
 oeuvre very dexterously. Superficially it appeared fair 
 and just. The Lords invited the Government to submit 
 to them not the Veto Resolutions, which the House of 
 Commons had passed by large majorities in April, but 
 the Parliament Bill, which the House of Commons had 
 not considered at all ! That Bill, moreover, contained in 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 219 
 
 its preamble a declaration in favour of a reformed Second 
 Chamber a declaration which recalled the troubled 
 phase of doubt and perplexity through which the Liberal 
 party passed in the spring of 1910. Plainly the Lords 
 meant to do what they could to postpone the election. 
 And if an election came, they were resolved that their 
 alternative plan of reform should be put before the 
 people side by side with the Parliament Bill. 
 
 On Tuesday, 15 November, the House of Commons 
 was densely crowded in expectation of an important 
 statement on the dissolution from the Prime Minister. 
 To the surprise of the House, Mr. Asquith was not in 
 his place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promptly 
 moved that the House should adjourn until Thursday, 
 when, he said, the Prime Minister would make a state- 
 ment on public business. 
 
 Mr. Balfour, welcomed by a loud, prolonged, defiant 
 cheer from his followers, speaking in his most affable 
 manner, reminded the House that he had an engagement 
 in Nottingham on the Thursday in connexion with the 
 annual conference of the National Union of Conserva- 
 tive Associations. Could not the Government postpone 
 the statement until Monday next ? It promised to be 
 an historic occasion, and he would like to be there. Mr. 
 Lloyd George, whose manner is sometimes honey-sweet 
 to his political opponents, at once admitted the reason- 
 ableness of Mr. Balfour's suggestion, and after conferring 
 with Mr. Haldane and the Master of Elibank, asked if 
 Friday would suit the Opposition. " Yes," was Mr. 
 Balfour's answer. Compliments flitted like butterflies 
 to and fro across the table between Mr. Balfour and 
 Mr. Lloyd George. These pretty politenesses, prelude 
 to a grim political battle, amused the House. 
 
 At 4.30 M.P.'s betook themselves to the gilded chamber. 
 Here the peers had assembled in large numbers. Stroll- 
 ing in a few minutes before the ha If -hour, Lord Rosebery, 
 
220 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 on his way to the cross-benches, lingered at the Govern- 
 ment bench, where he chatted with Lord Morley. Of 
 necessity in the peculiar circumstances of the hour, Lord 
 Crewe was unable to make any statement as to public 
 business. He was rallied by Lord Lansdowne on his 
 complete inability to throw light on the situation, and 
 then the Opposition Leader gave notice of his intention 
 to move on the following day his motion requesting the 
 Government to submit to the House of Lords the pro- 
 visions of their Parliament Bill. 
 
 Speaking in his crisp, emphatic way, Lord Lansdowne 
 went on to refer to the Conference and to statements made 
 in reference to its secret deliberations. He defended the 
 " absolute secrecy " to which the Council of Eight had 
 bound themselves as a " wise decision/' and added with 
 emphasis that it was the more necessary to preserve 
 silence because " other Conferences may be held in the 
 future, and may be more successful." The one condition 
 that opens out promise of good results from them is that 
 such Conferences should be " under the seal of absolute 
 secrecy." After this exordium Lord Lansdowne gave 
 emphatic denial to a statement that the recent Conference 
 had broken down because the Unionist peers, refusing to 
 allow Mr. Balfour to accept a compromise, took the line : 
 " If we are to be deprived of our powers, let it be done by 
 the constituencies, and not by any Conference." His 
 contradiction of this statement was categorical and 
 absolute. 
 
 When Wednesday came Lord Lansdowne moved the 
 resolution of which he had given notice. " Bring in 
 your Parliament Bill," he said ; "let us show you how 
 ready we are to reform ourselves. Let us discuss it at 
 leisure ; let the House of Commons then discuss it at its 
 leisure ; the Conference has failed, it is true, but let us 
 have an opportunity of discovering in public debate 
 what measure of agreement there is between us." And 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 221 
 
 so on, with the air of sweet reasonableness which on 
 occasion Lord Lansdowne adopts so skilfully. He found 
 unsuspected virtues in the Government proposals as 
 embodied in the Parliament Bill ; in fact, his speech was 
 that of a man " almost persuaded " to give it a second 
 reading. A visitor from Mars or some other planet, with 
 no previous knowledge of the facts, would have thought 
 that Lord Lansdowne was pronouncing a cordial blessing 
 on a great and promising measure of statesmanship. Yet 
 these specious words masked in reality a double design : 
 (i) to entrap the Government in the meshes of a reform 
 scheme, and (2) to delay the general election in the in- 
 terests of Toryism. 
 
 Lord Crewe made handsome acknowledgment of the 
 conciliatory tone of Lord Lansdowne's speech, but would 
 on no account be lured by his wiles. These professions 
 come too late ; we cannot be parties to any purposeless 
 waste of time. We must choose our time for battle, not 
 yours. The Conference has shown it is hopeless to settle 
 this question by agreement between the two political 
 parties. One party must have the general shaping of the 
 outlines. A long debate at this stage with an impotent 
 conclusion certain beforehand would be regarded by the 
 country " as an absolute waste of time/' " But, of course, 
 your Lordships are entitled to express your opinions ; and 
 to enable you to place an alternative policy before the 
 country, we are willing to give facilities for a debate on 
 the Parliament Bill and a division on the motion for its 
 second reading ; and we will allow you to fix the time 
 that should be given to this second reading debate/' 
 Lord Crewe spoke very politely, but also very firmly. 
 He had come to the House of Lords straight from a 
 Cabinet Council. 
 
 A dialogue between Lord Crewe and Lord Rosebery 
 elicited the fact that the Government will not accept 
 amendments to the Parliament Bill. Then Lord Balfour 
 
222 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 of Burleigh put a poser to the Leader of the House. 
 Suppose the House of Lords pass the second reading of 
 the Parliament Bill, won't you allow it to go into Com- 
 mittee ? "If the second reading is carried," said Lord 
 Crewe, " I shall be prepared to make an announcement." 
 
 The Parliament Bill was then read a first time on Lord 
 Crewe's motion. 
 
 On Thursday, 17 November, the House of Lords de- 
 bated Lord Rosebery's reform resolutions, and carried 
 them with alacrity. Lord Rosebery spoke only for 
 twenty minutes in moving 
 
 " That in future the House of Lords shall consist of 
 Lords of Parliament : (a) Chosen by the whole body of 
 hereditary peers from among themselves and by nomi- 
 nation by the Crown, (b) Sitting by virtue of offices and 
 of qualifications held by them, (c) Chosen from outside." 
 
 Lord Rosebery admitted that his resolutions were 
 vague, but claimed for them that they supplied a basis 
 on which a good Bill could be built up. He contrasted 
 the professions of the Government as contained in the 
 preamble of the Parliament Bill with their refusal to 
 move a step in the direction of House of Lords* reform. 
 For the adjustment of any differences that may arise 
 between a reformed House of Lords and the House of 
 Commons he relied upon a Conference. This would be 
 followed, in case of failure to agree, by submission of the 
 measure to the people through the referendum an idea 
 now very popular in Tory circles, for which Lord Rosebery 
 claimed the paternity. Lord Curzon supported the 
 resolutions in a speech marked by moderation of tone 
 and elevation of spirit. He was emphatic that in the 
 reformed House of Lords the hereditary element should 
 not exercise the preponderating influence. 
 
 Into the suave atmosphere created by these two 
 speeches Lord St. Davids broke with some insistent in- 
 quiries that disconcerted Lord Rosebery. Under the 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 223 
 
 Rosebery resolutions, he contended that, even if the 
 hereditary element were only 20 per cent of the whole, 
 the House of Lords would still be thoroughly Tory. 
 Was it not certain that the new Lords of Parliament, to 
 be elected by the whole body of hereditary peers, would 
 be Conservative to a man ? 
 
 From Lord Lansdowne came the sensational announce- 
 ment that the Conservative leaders were willing to con- 
 sent to a substantial reduction in the number of the 
 House of Lords and to a reconstitution of the Second 
 Chamber on the basis that half of it only shall be repre- 
 sented by the hereditary element, the other half to 
 consist of elected members and members nominated by 
 the Government of the day. Nor was this all. Lord 
 Lansdowne expressed the gloomy conviction that in the 
 future these two elements, the hereditary and the non- 
 hereditary, would come into conflict, and that it would 
 be the hereditary element which must eventually be 
 eliminated. 
 
 With his usual detachment, Lord Courtney blamed 
 Lord Rosebery for vagueness and the Government for 
 precipitancy. The Rosebery scheme is a phantom ; the 
 Government are wrong in assuming that because the 
 Conference failed, therefore Parliament, working in the 
 light and under the influence of public opinion, would 
 also fail. 
 
 One of the notable speeches of the debate came from 
 Lord Selborne, not long returned from South Africa. 
 His eloquence, as Lord Crewe aptly said, has been 
 warmed by the southern sun. In the days of his youth 
 Lord Selborne, then a Commoner, was an ardent House 
 of Lords' reformer. He took strong exception to Lord 
 Crewe's statement that this question can only be settled 
 in its main lines by one party. The contrary, he argued, 
 was the fact. " One-half the nation cannot permanently 
 coerce the other half." " We cannot settle this question 
 
224 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 according to our ideas ; you cannot settle it according to 
 your ideas." Settlement can only come by agreement 
 among reasonable men on both sides. Speaking with a 
 note of passion in his voice, he virtually declared that 
 the Lords would not accept as final the verdict of the 
 next election. Instead of being the end, that would only 
 be the beginning of a bitter and prolonged struggle. 
 
 Lord Ribblesdale, with his complaint that the Lords 
 have been a little too muscular in recent years, and Lord 
 Newton, who asked the House to face the " brutal fact 
 that a lot of us have to go," relieved the gloom by a little 
 gaiety. 
 
 After such a debate Lord Crewe was justified in saying 
 that discussion of the Government proposals would be 
 futile. Looked at in the abstract, there was much to be 
 said in favour of the Rosebery resolutions, and he would 
 not divide against them. Lord Rosebery wound up the 
 discussion in magniloquent style. Late it may be much 
 later than he should have liked they had made a sub- 
 stantial attempt to avert the " incredible dangers and 
 tyranny of Single-Chamber Government." 
 
 On Monday, 21 November, Lord Crewe moved the 
 second reading of the Parliament Bill. Instead of 
 debating the measure, Lord Lansdowne, annoyed at the 
 refusal of the Government to accept any amendment of 
 the Bill, moved the adjournment of the debate until the 
 Wednesday following, and gave notice of a series of 
 resolutions in favour of House of Lords' reform. These 
 resolutions were believed to embody the case presented 
 by the Conservative delegates at the Constitutional 
 Conference. Appended is the text of them : 
 
 " That it is desirable that provision should be made for 
 settling the differences which may arise between the House 
 of Commons and this House reconstituted and reduced in 
 numbers, in accordance with the recent resolutions of this 
 House. 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 225 
 
 " That as to Bills other than Money Bills, such pro- 
 vision shall be on the following lines : If a difference arises 
 between the two Houses in regard to any Bill other than 
 a Money Bill in two successive sessions, and with an in- 
 terval 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. 
 
 " That as to Money Bills such provision shall be on the 
 following lines : The Lords are prepared to forgo their 
 constitutional right to reject or amend Money Bills of a 
 purely financial character, provided that effectual pro- 
 vision is made against tacking, and provided that if any 
 question arises as to whether a Bill or any provisions 
 thereof are of a purely financial character, that question 
 shall be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, 
 with the Speaker of the House of Commons as chairman, 
 who shall have the casting vote only. If the Committee 
 hold that the Bill or provisions in question are not purely 
 financial in character, they shall be dealt with forthwith 
 in a joint sitting of the two Houses." 
 
 Lord Crewe's speech in moving the second reading of 
 the Parliament Bill was admirable. His position, address- 
 ing this hostile assembly on such a subject, was one of 
 extreme delicacy and difficulty. Yet he was equal to the 
 emergency, and spoke with urbanity and serene courage. 
 Explaining the Government proposals, he said that 
 conference between the two Houses was of the very 
 essence of them. He claimed for them that they would 
 leave to the House of Lords large powers of revision and 
 delay. 
 
 ' We want to substitute opportunities for delay and 
 revision for hurried party rejection." We do not desire 
 '5 
 
226 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 rash legislation. There is really no danger in this country 
 of cataclysmic changes ; they are foreign to our national 
 temperament. A limited veto would still leave honourable 
 functions to the House of Lords. He quoted Mr. F. E. 
 Smith as having said that both political parties ought to 
 have an equal chance of passing their Bills through the 
 House of Lords. " Our proposals still leave Tory Govern- 
 ments with an advantage ; for Tory Bills would still run 
 through the Lords on rubber tyres." As for the referen- 
 dum, its application bristled with difficulties. 
 
 The peroration showed that the iron has entered into 
 Lord Crewe's soul. Surveying the serried hosts opposed 
 to him, he told them in language of uncompromising 
 directness that this Bill has been forced upon the Govern- 
 ment by their unfairness. " You have rejected our 
 measures on purely party grounds, in the hope that 
 something may turn up to your party advantage." It 
 was a true saying, and it seemed as if the Tory peers 
 flinched under the gaze of their courteous adversary as he 
 gave utterance to it. " My Lords, it is a disastrous game 
 to play ; it is a game that cannot be played for ever." 
 
 Lord Salisbury, loud and vehement, said : " You have 
 placed us in an intolerable position." Lord Beauchamp 
 replied with great animation, and incensed the Opposition 
 by speaking of " a death-bed repentance." 
 
 Then Lord Rosebery solemnly rebuked the Government. 
 ' You don't seem to realize what you are doing ! You are 
 attempting to do away with an estate of the realm." A 
 barbed allusion followed to Mr. Asquith, whom Lord 
 Rosebery reproached with levity. The House of Lords 
 was a culprit to be hacked without shrift ! To this little 
 outburst the Lord Chancellor made appropriate reply. 
 How was it that the question of reforming the House of 
 Lords had slept all these years ? He defended the Govern- 
 ment scheme. " We cannot usefully carry on the business 
 of the country while the relations of the two Houses 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 227 
 
 remain as they are. We must cease to be Ministers of the 
 Crown or else we must be endowed with power." 
 
 Lord Lansdowne was master of the legions in the House 
 of Lords, and his motion to postpone consideration of 
 the Parliament Bill was adopted, the Government being 
 powerless to resist it. 
 
 The debate on the Lansdowne resolutions opened on 
 Wednesday, 23 November, when a persuasive speech in 
 their support was delivered by Lord St. Aldwyn, a great 
 Moderate who had dissociated himself in marked manner 
 from the excesses of partisanship of which the House of 
 Lords had been guilty in the past five years. When the 
 Budget was flung out, Lord St. Aldwyn was conspicuous 
 by his absence from the House. Now, when the Lords 
 were anxious to present attractively their alternative 
 policy to the Parliament Bill, he was placed in the fore- 
 front of the stage. Lord St. Aldwyn admitted that the 
 Lansdowne resolutions represented substantially the 
 contribution towards the settlement of the constitutional 
 crisis which the Lords' representatives offered at the 
 Conference, and he suggested that the Liberal representa- 
 tives at the Conference offered terms more satisfactory to 
 their opponents than the proposals contained in the 
 Parliament Bill. He implored the Government even now 
 to try to come to terms with their opponents on the basis 
 of a thorough overhauling of the House of Lords. He said 
 with the utmost frankness that the Liberal party had a 
 grievance in the existing condition of affairs, and ex- 
 pressed his earnest desire to see it remedied. The Lord 
 Chancellor had said that the reconstitution of the House 
 of Lords would take twelve months. Very well. Could 
 twelve months be more profitably spent ? This immense 
 question could never be permanently settled on merely 
 party lines. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne also spoke with marked moderation, 
 and declared that he was most anxious that the refer- 
 
228 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 endum should be worked fairly as between the two 
 political parties. These seductive allurements did not 
 affect Lord Crewe. The Opposition, he said, had pro- 
 posed these resolutions as an alternative to the Parliament 
 Bill. Coming from such a quarter they were certainly a 
 startling novelty. " They contemplate sweeping changes 
 at least on paper." But the question of the moment 
 was the Parliament Bill. The Opposition peers evidently 
 meant to destroy that Bill. It was immaterial, therefore, 
 whether they cut its throat or smothered it in cotton wool. 
 
 In the second day's debate the case for the Government 
 was ably stated by the Lord Chancellor. After enlarging 
 on the hardship inflicted on Liberal Governments by a 
 hostile House of Lords always ready to pounce upon 
 Liberal Bills, Lord Loreburn declared that, " hard as is 
 our grievance," he would upon the whole prefer to bear 
 the ills we have than to fly to those others that we know 
 not of which lurk in the Lansdowne resolutions. All this 
 paraphernalia of joint sittings and referenda would only 
 be called into play when a Liberal Government is in 
 power. When the Tories are in office there is perfect 
 identity between the two Houses. Not a single Tory Bill 
 has been rejected by the House of Lords in a hundred 
 years. Yet even in the small space of five years, look at 
 the record of slaughtered Liberal Bills. 
 
 Lord Loreburn is not afraid of change, but he has a 
 deep distrust of the Referendum, and thinks that people 
 who talk lightly of introducing it into our constitutional 
 system do not realize all that it would involve. Only in 
 very rare cases such as woman's suffrage, a question 
 that cuts across the ordinary party lines could the 
 referendum be really useful. The Referendum would have 
 to be supplemented by the Initiative. Once this new 
 device was introduced into our system, it would be neces- 
 sary to provide that outsiders should have an opportunity 
 of appealing against both Houses of Parliament to the 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 229 
 
 people. We would then have government by plebiscite, 
 not government by Parliament. Would not that destroy 
 the sense of responsibility in the House of Commons ? 
 He characterized the Referendum as a revolutionary 
 change. As to the present controversy, the method of 
 Conference as a means of reaching a solution having 
 failed, no alternative was left the Government but to 
 appeal to the nation. " Our differences are irreconcilable; 
 we can do nothing further in the way of accommodation." 
 If we delayed a dissolution we might spend another twelve 
 months in perfectly fruitless negotiation, and at the end 
 find ourselves where we are to-day. Hence the appeal, 
 once and for all, to the people. 
 
 The Lansdowne resolutions, argued the Lord Chan- 
 cellor, would consolidate and strengthen the Tory ele- 
 ments in the House of Lords by taking away from the 
 Crown the only power that exists of checking the action 
 of the peers. There is at present in the balance of our 
 Constitution a check on the Crown through Parliament, a 
 check on the Commons through dissolution, a check on 
 the Lords through the Royal Prerogative of creating 
 peers. It is incredible that the country will allow the 
 House of Lords to exist without check of any kind. 
 
 To this manful, clear-sighted oration, Lord Curzon 
 replied in a long and diffuse speech, marked here and 
 there by felicity of phrase and a shimmer of wit. Lord 
 Curzon defended the referendum, and protested that the 
 Opposition, in their scheme of reform, did not mean to 
 " queer the pitch," but were sincerely anxious to meet 
 the Liberal grievance. 
 
 Lord Courtney criticized the Government plan and the 
 Lansdowne resolutions with equal impartiality. A 
 young Liberal peer, Lord Nunburnholme, bluntly de- 
 scribed the Lansdowne resolutions as a scheme to take 
 the eyes of the country away from the real question 
 before it. 
 
230 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 In his big, impressive way, Lord Balfour of Burleigh 
 set himself to answer the Lord Chancellor. Speaking as 
 a man on whom party ties sit lightly, he said that what 
 is wanted in the Second Chamber is a fair balance of 
 parties and a reasonable amount of independence. 
 Neither of these points is secured by the Government 
 proposals, whose fatal effect, he argued, is to grasp un- 
 limited power for the House of Commons. An old advo- 
 cate of the referendum, Lord Balfour urged its adoption 
 on the ground that the House of Commons has lost in 
 dignity and representative character. Whatever the 
 defects of the referendum, it had one distinct and out- 
 standing virtue it would enable a straight issue to be 
 placed before the people at large. It was at once demo- 
 cratic and conservative. 
 
 From the Bishop of Birmingham came an expression of 
 astonishment at the alacrity with which the Conservative 
 party had committed itself to the principle of the refer- 
 endum, a constitutional device which he described as a 
 " perversion of democracy." Of the difficulties attendant 
 on the referendum, Dr. Gore spoke with a luminous 
 power that won upon the whole House. One effect of it 
 would be to swallow up all local interests. To take another 
 case, the interests of agriculture would be lost in the over- 
 whelming vote of the urban districts. He endorsed Lord 
 Crewe's argument that the referendum was a negation of 
 the representative principle, and would destroy Ministerial 
 responsibility. This fresh, vivid, thought-compelling 
 speech produced a visible effect on the House. It was 
 warmly eulogized by Viscount Morley. Lord Morley has 
 always repudiated the doctrine of mandate. He is 
 strongly averse to the referendum, and spoke, as one 
 would expect a disciple of Burke to speak, emphatically 
 in favour of the representative principle. With regard to 
 the veto of the Lords, he recalled his old saying that the 
 House of Lords must be mended or ended. This is not 
 
THE LORDS' ALTERNATIVE PLAN 231 
 
 a question of abstract principles, but simply one of 
 machinery. He expressed his amazement at the levity 
 and recklessness with which the Conservative party had 
 committed itself to vast unknown changes. 
 
 In an allusion to the Conference Lord Morley said he 
 does not despair of seeing future Conferences. The Lans- 
 downe resolutions are empty in themselves. How are 
 they to be filled in ? " We fear that, under pretence of 
 reforming yourselves, you are endeavouring to checkmate 
 the House of Commons. The House of Commons is 
 elected by the people. With all respect, who are you to 
 stand between the people and the House of Commons ? " 
 As for the Rosebery resolutions, they were a schoolboy 
 sketch. 
 
 After Lord Morley had done, Lord Rosebery sprang to 
 his feet. He insisted that it was the duty of a Govern- 
 ment, not of the Opposition, or of a humble member on 
 the cross-benches, to produce a detailed plan. The 
 resolutions were then adopted, after a vigorous speech by 
 Lord Salisbury. 
 
 Thus the Lords, after asking for its introduction, had 
 refused to consider the Parliament Bill. They met it 
 with a dilatory motion for indefinite postponement, and 
 had taken the opportunity to bring their alternative policy 
 to the notice of the country. 
 
CHAPTER XXI 
 THE APPEAL TO C^SAR 
 
 MEANWHILE, at a memorable sitting ol the 
 House of Commons on Friday, 18 November, 
 the Prime Minister had announced that Parlia- 
 ment would be dissolved on 28 November. Many 
 supporters of the Government were strongly averse to 
 another election. They argued that the election of 
 January ought to have been conclusive, especially after 
 the emphatic pronouncement of the Prime Minister in 
 the Albert Hall in December, 1909. Why go to the 
 trouble and expense of a fresh appeal to the people ? 
 The Government's case was that the new reign had 
 brought in a new factor ; that it would be unfair to 
 King George to urge the exercise of the Royal Prerogative 
 until every effort had been made to show that the country 
 had made up its mind on the question of the powers of 
 the House of Lords ; that at the last election the 1909 
 Budget played a considerable part, and that a new 
 election on the issue of the Lords pure and simple 
 would resolve all misgivings. Still, it was a great 
 risk to run voluntarily, this fresh appeal to the 
 people within eleven months of the last general 
 election. The Cabinet was encouraged to take the 
 risk by the Master of Elibank, the chief Liberal Whip, 
 a man of charming personality, great knowledge of the 
 world, iron will, and silken grace of manner, who had 
 acquired deservedly an influence in Ministerial circles 
 
 232 
 
THE APPEAL* TO CAESAR 233 
 
 such as "no^ Whip before had ever exercised. Mr. Murray 
 loves bold ^courses, and conducts his electoral campaigns 
 with consummate generalship. He played a big and 
 courageous part in these critical days. 
 
 The speech in which the Prime Minister announced 
 the dissolution illuminated the whole political landscape. 
 It brought out the realities of a situation that had puzzled 
 many people. In the changing fortunes of an epoch- 
 marking week, even intelligent men had mistaken 
 phantoms for the real thing. For instance, they believed 
 the House of Lords to be seriously in earnest when it 
 was only playing an ingenious tactical game with the 
 object of luring the Cabinet to participate in it, to the 
 Government's destruction and the resultant eclipse of 
 Liberalism for a generation. A subtle temptation was 
 resisted by the Cabinet. This Government was chosen 
 by the people not to reform the House of Lords, but to 
 limit the powers of the peers. That fact was never 
 lost sight of by Mr. Asquith, who managed a difficult 
 situation with courage and coolness. His language at 
 this notable sitting of the House rang with the note 
 of command. He was in high spirits, lapsed now and 
 again into playful mood, but when he came to the serious 
 business of his statement, was stern, confident, emphatic. 
 Not a word was said by Mr. Asquith on the question of 
 guarantees. He did not say what advice he had given 
 or might give to the King. A sound and loyal constitu- 
 tionalist, nothing would induce him to drag the Crown 
 into the arena of party strife. Reticent as he was on this 
 very delicate and yet very vital subject of guarantees, 
 it was not difficult to understand the meaning of his 
 carefully chosen language. Any lingering doubt on the 
 subject was removed by his clear and unequivocal 
 answer later in the debate to a Radical member, Mr. 
 Wedgwood. Amid loud cheers from his supporters, 
 the Prime Minister stated with emphasis that the Govern- 
 
234 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 ment stood by every word uttered by him (Mr. Asquith) 
 on 14 April. 
 
 A loud shout of welcome from the Opposition greeted 
 the arrival at 12.15 of Mr. Balfour, who entered the House 
 with Mr. Austen Chamberlain, having come direct from 
 Nottingham. The Prime Minister had not then arrived. 
 In the meanwhile, on Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Lloyd 
 George, Mr. Haldane, and Mr. Churchill a perfect hail- 
 storm of interrogatories fell. The Liberals were not so 
 preoccupied with the crisis as to forget Mr. Harcourt's 
 promotion to the Colonial Office, and when he rose for 
 the first time to answer a question relating to the colonies 
 he was greeted with a cordial cheer. 
 
 A significant incident of this early part of the sitting 
 was the appearance at the Bar of the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, who called out in a loud voice, " A message 
 from the King." As Mr. Lloyd George advanced up the 
 floor, members everywhere were agog with expectation. 
 When he announced that the King's message related to 
 the necessity of making provision as from i January, 
 1911, for the removal of the bar disqualifying aged 
 paupers from the receipt of State pensions, a 
 rapturous shout uprose from the Liberal and Labour 
 benches. 
 
 At 12.40 the Prime Minister took his seat on the 
 Front Bench amid thunderous cheers. Appropriately 
 enough, the first question he had to answer bore on the 
 coming battle in the constituencies. " It is impossible," 
 he said, " to provide for the acceleration of the register 
 this year." Before the long-expected declaration of 
 Government policy could be made, the Liberals had two 
 other moments of rich emotion. That was when the 
 victors of Walthamstow and South Shields advanced 
 successively up the floor. Sir John Simon (Solicitor- 
 General) and Mr. Russell Rea, both of whom had been 
 elected by huge majorities, were cheered with gusto. 
 
THE APPEAL TO C^SAR 235 
 
 Their re-entry into the House seemed like the harbinger 
 of a coming Liberal triumph. 
 
 Exactly at one o'clock Mr. Asquith was on his feet 
 to make the statement that everybody was impatient to 
 hear. He spoke for twenty minutes. As Mr. Balfour 
 truly said, the Prime Minister is " a great master of 
 concise statement." His gifts of concision and precision 
 of expression were never more happily exhibited. Into 
 a twenty minutes' speech he compressed a momentous 
 declaration of policy. Its salient points were : 
 
 An expression of regret at the delay in communicating 
 the intentions of the Government to the House. But 
 the delay was unavoidable. Only a week has passed 
 since the failure of the Conference ; and in the interval 
 " many grave considerations " had to be passed in 
 review. 
 
 The Government's mind has been fixed ever since 
 the Conference broke down. There has been no change 
 of plan, no vacillation. " We have never intended to 
 abandon the Budget " ; " it is to be passed next week." 
 
 Before Parliament is dissolved it is essential that 
 legislation should be passed to make provision for the 
 removal of the bar disqualifying paupers from old-age 
 pensions. 
 
 In the next Parliament the Government, if in power, 
 will introduce a Bill providing for the payment of mem- 
 bers and of official election expenses. 
 
 The Government have advised the King to bring 
 this session and this Parliament to an end. It is the 
 intention to dissolve Parliament on Monday, 28 Novem- 
 ber. 
 
 Such was the pith and substance of this historic 
 declaration. Mr. Asquith's allusions to the Conference 
 won a generous tribute from Mr. Balfour. It appears 
 that the Prime Minister hoped almost to the last that 
 the Conference would end in agreement. " Never was 
 
236 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 a more honest and persistent attempt made by men of 
 strong and conflicting convictions to understand each 
 other's point of view and to find an underlying basis 
 of agreement." Agreement having been found im- 
 possible in these circumstances, it is idle to suppose that 
 agreement can be hammered out in this Parliament 
 amid the strife and din of party contention. The Con- 
 ference having failed, "we revert to a state of war." 
 One thing, and one thing only, will stave off a dissolution. 
 That is the acceptance by the Lords of the Government 
 proposals. It is no longer a question of amendment. 
 It is now a question of acceptance or rejection. Can 
 anyone doubt, asked the Prime Minister, what the decision 
 of the Lords will be ? "I am speaking of realities, 
 not of forms." What is left but to send this controversy 
 for final arbitrament to the tribunal of the nation ? 
 
 Mr. Balfour's reply was almost benignant in tone, 
 with here and there a searching phrase. Talk about 
 passing the Budget, you only propose to pass certain 
 fragments of the Budget that are not likely to embarrass 
 you ! The Government's action was absolutely unpre- 
 cedented. The ill-success of the Conference did not 
 justify this rashness. Like Mr. Asquith, the Tory leader 
 deeply regretted the failure of the Conference. " Although 
 its labours have been in vain, the precedent will not be 
 in vain." Moderate men of both parties may yet seek 
 through this method of Conference to find a way out. 
 Why does the Government dissolve ? Are they running 
 away from the possibility of action by the Lords ? 
 There were one or two characteristic gibes, e.g. " you 
 regard your Parliament Bill as verbally inspired " 
 but for all its ability the speech lacked pungency and 
 the note of combat. Nothing could be more un warlike 
 on the threshold of a hard campaign. 
 
 In the course of the debate Mr. Barnes, Leader of the 
 Labour party, made a speech somewhat unfriendly to 
 
THE APPEAL TO C^SAR 237 
 
 the Government. He saw no necessity for an election ; 
 thought the Conference was a mistake ; wanted the Os- 
 borne judgment reversed, and would not accept payment 
 of members in substitution. To this maladroit utterance 
 on the eve of a battle fraught with such importance to 
 the democracy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied 
 with much spirit and some degree of asperity. No one 
 can speak so plainly to the Labour members as Mr. 
 Lloyd George. A great democrat and a sincere champion 
 of the working classes, he talks to Labour members 
 with a candour not permissible to the average Minister. 
 Turning round so as to face the Labour Leader, he re- 
 minded him that the settlement of the Lords question 
 is an essential preliminary to nearly all the great social 
 problems of the hour. We are committed to a great 
 struggle, full of difficulties ; yet this is the occasion for 
 Mr. Barnes to show a spirit of " nagging futility." 
 
 A speech from Mr. Belloc, a Liberal Catholic, was ir- 
 radiated by some happy phrases. The Conference 
 having missed a supreme opportunity of settling the 
 Irish question, Mr. Belloc has become tired of parties 
 and will never fight again except as an Independent. 
 He spoke of the happy change and smiling prosperity 
 that has come over Ireland. ' You cannot prevent 
 the resurrection of Ireland ; the tomb is open, the soul 
 has stolen away." 
 
 All through the long debate Mr. John Redmond (who 
 had only returned from his American tour a few days 
 before) sat silent in his corner seat. Two dissident 
 Irishmen, Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Timothy Healy, 
 did their utmost to make the Irish Leader speak, 
 but to no purpose. When the member for Cork said 
 that the " dictator of England " was the " destroyer 
 of Ireland," a smile overspread Mr. Redmond's Roman 
 features. Mr. Healy spoke like a statesman when 
 he appealed to both political parties to use the present 
 
238 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 blessed opportunity for a national settlement of the 
 Irish question. But the statesman was swallowed up 
 by the partisan when he began to fling his darts at 
 the Nationalist Leader. Calm and unperturbed, Mr. 
 Redmond listened to his caustic critic. In spite of 
 provocation and misrepresentation, still he held his 
 tongue. It is a great art to know when to be silent. 
 Mr. Redmond's silence through all this long debate 
 was more eloquent than words. 
 
 The Liberal leaders plunged with enthusiasm into 
 electoral battle. Mr. Asquith led the way on Saturday, 
 19 November, at the National Liberal Club, where he 
 declared : " We are back where we were in April, 
 with this difference, that we must now put aside the 
 method of compromise as a thing which has been tried 
 and has failed. Negotiations are over ; war is declared." 
 In the following week Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill 
 began a vigorous oratorical campaign in London. " If 
 we get a majority this time," said the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer at Mile End, " it will be a final one." 
 
 On the Conservative side energetic efforts were made 
 to stir up the old prejudice against Home Rule. Mr. 
 Redmond was represented as the " dollar dictator," 
 who had returned from the United States with his 
 pockets bulging with " foreign gold," with which he 
 meant to corrupt British politics. Mr. Asquith and the 
 Liberal party were merely the tools of this arch-enemy 
 of the British Empire ; and so on in the familiar old 
 Tory vein. Perhaps the most remarkable incident in 
 the campaign was the jettisoning of Tariff Reform from 
 the labouring vessel of Toryism. At a great Conservative 
 demonstration at the Albert Hall on 29 November, 
 Mr. Balfour announced that, if the Conservatives were 
 returned to office, they would not introduce Tariff 
 Reform proposals without submitting them in the first 
 place to a poll of the people by referendum. " I frankly 
 
THE APPEAL TO C^SAR 239 
 
 say," declared Mr. Balfour, " that without question 
 Tariff Reform is a great change. I admit that this 
 election, or any election, perhaps certainly this election 
 cannot be described as taken upon Tariff Reform 
 simply ; but I have not the least objection to submit 
 the principles of Tariff Reform to a referendum." 
 This declaration was received with tumultuous cheering. 
 It was surely one of the strangest features in the history 
 of political campaigning that the action of a Leader in 
 withdrawing the chief plank from the party programme 
 should have been greeted with this storm of enthusiasm. 
 " It has won us the election," was the ecstatic declaration 
 of many of those who listened to Mr. Balfour's dramatic 
 recession. The promise to submit Tariff Reform to a 
 referendum was intended to propitiate the working 
 classes, who had an invincible repugnance to food taxes, 
 and to win the support of the Free Trade Unionists. 
 The Spectator, naturally from its point of view, warmly 
 applauded it. What was surprising was the alacrity 
 with which the Conservatives throughout the country 
 consented to the relegation to a subordinate place of 
 the policy on which it was understood that all loyal 
 Tory hearts were set. Only the Morning Post, faithful 
 among the faithless, protested against an opportunism 
 which it believed to be as unwise as it was disloyal. 
 
 The election campaign was fought with the greatest 
 vigour on both sides. Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour 
 were the outstanding figures in the battle. On the 
 Unionist side it was fought almost exclusively on Home 
 Rule. The Government were accused of being the tools 
 of the Irish party, and of selling the Constitution for 
 American gold. Mr. John Redmond himself was carica- 
 tured as the " dollar dictator " in flaring colours on ten 
 thousand hoardings. 
 
 The Tories did better at the election than was antici- 
 pated. As the result of a careful estimate of the prospects 
 
240 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 in all the constituencies, the Master of Elibank had 
 counted on an increase of twenty in the Liberal majority. 
 His anticipation was not realized because of serious 
 defections in Devonshire and South-East Lancashire. 
 In both these areas old antipathies to Home Rule linger, 
 and the suspension of Tariff Reform plus the " dollar 
 dictator " cry wrought havoc with Liberal prospects. 
 Against these losses the Liberals could place gains in 
 other parts of the country. The final result gave the 
 Government a majority of 126, 4 better than at the 
 dissolution : 
 
 Liberals 272 
 
 Labour members .... 42 
 Irish Nationalists .... 84 
 
 398 
 Conservatives ..... 272 
 
 Majority ...... 126 
 
 To have achieved this result in spite of the referendum 
 dodge, the anti-Irish campaign, and an unprecedented 
 rally of plural voters, was decidedly satisfactory. In 
 three successive general elections the Liberals had now 
 been triumphant at the polls a feat without parallel 
 in our electoral annals. That the Government exposed 
 itself to peril in voluntarily going to the country in 
 December after only eleven months of office was apparent 
 from a disclosure made during the electoral campaign by 
 Lord Rosebery. Speaking in Edinburgh on 3 December, 
 Lord Rosebery said : "If the Government lose but 
 five seats on balance they cannot proceed with their 
 proposals." That observation proved that Lord Rose- 
 bery knew what had gone on behind the scenes. His 
 statement, though not quite accurate, had close relation 
 to the facts. There can be no doubt that the Government 
 
THE APPEAL TO CAESAR 241 
 
 would have felt itself disabled from proceeding with its 
 policy of " limiting the Lords' veto " unless the election 
 had given it a decisive majority in Great Britain. This 
 condition was implied in the term " adequate majority," 
 which was used in the negotiations with the King in 
 November. The condition was amply fulfilled. In Great 
 Britain the Government had a majority of sixty over the 
 Conservatives. Encouraged by this decisive expression 
 of national confidence, the Government were now able 
 to go straight ahead. The legislative road had been 
 cleared, and the Government was in a position to ensure 
 that within the limits of a single Parliament the will of 
 the people should prevail. 
 
 16 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 
 
 THE new Parliament was opened on Monday, 6 
 February, 1911, by King George in person. His 
 Majesty was accompanied by Queen Mary. The 
 King and his gracious Consort were enthusiastically 
 greeted on their appearance at the first State ceremony 
 since the death of King Edward. In the King's speech 
 there was a significant allusion to the " settling " of the 
 relations between the two Houses ; no longer was the 
 word " adjusting " employed. On 16 February the 
 Prime Minister announced that the Government were 
 anxious to get the Parliament Bill to the House of Lords 
 early in May, so as to have the last stage of the constitu- 
 tional conflict over before the solemnity of the King's 
 Coronation in June. This hope was not destined to be 
 realized. 
 
 The Parliament Bill was introduced into the House 
 of Commons by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 21 
 February. The Bill was identical with that which was 
 read a first time in the House of Commons in April, 1910. 
 It was the same Bill, preamble and all, and now came 
 back with the emphatic stamp of the nation's approval 
 upon its face. 
 
 The Prime Minister, in moving the first reading once 
 more, spoke of the tendency under our unwritten Constitu- 
 tion for a divergence between legal powers and constitu- 
 tional practice. The Veto of the Crown remains existent 
 in law, but not in fact. Similarly there is a divergence 
 
 242 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 243 
 
 between the legal powers and the constitutional rights 
 of the House of Lords. The Lords have long since ceased 
 to exercise control over policy or administration. Why ? 
 Because of the concentration of financial power in the 
 House of Commons. If the precedent created by the 
 House of Lords in rejecting the Budget in 1909 had 
 been allowed to stancl it would have meant a revolution 
 in our constitutional practice, for it would always be 
 open to the Lords, by destroying the financial provision 
 made for a given year, to compel either the resignation 
 of the Government or a dissolution. Passing to the 
 domain of legislation, the Prime Minister showed that 
 even here it is a maxim of the Constitution that the House 
 of Lords must yield at some point to the wishes of the 
 electors. 
 
 The Prime Minister is strongly in favour of a two- 
 chamber system, but could there be a worse Second 
 Chamber than the House of Lords ? A body hereditary 
 in origin, irresponsible in the exercise of power, over- 
 whelmingly partisan in composition. Such a paradox 
 could only be reconciled to the actual working of demo- 
 cratic government by an almost supernatural endowment 
 of insight and self-abnegation. No democratic country 
 could trust its fortunes to the hazards of such a Chamber. 
 ' The chapter of accidents is the Bible of fools.' 1 In 
 emphatic terms Mr. Asquith denied that the Government 
 propose to set up a Single Chamber system. The Liberal 
 party knows what it is to suffer from the unchecked 
 domination of a Single Chamber. In vivid phrases the 
 inaction of the House of Lords during the Tory regime 
 1895-1905 was recalled and contrasted with their male- 
 ficent activity ever since the Liberals came into power 
 in 1906. The rejection of the Budget Mr. Asquith 
 characterized as the most stupendous act of political 
 blindness ever perpetrated. A crash of cheers like a dis- 
 charge of artillery greeted this declaration, and they rang 
 
244 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 out again, loud, long, and defiant, when Mr. Asquith 
 added that " on 30 November, 1909, the House of Lords 
 as we have known it committed political suicide." 
 
 A passing allusion to the preamble made it plain that 
 the Government mean to reform the House of Lords 
 after its powers have been reduced. Mr. Asquith holds 
 that the power of suspensory veto provided by the 
 Parliament Bill will be exercised against one political 
 party only by the House of Lords as at present 
 constituted. It could only be used with safety to the 
 State by a reformed Second Chamber. But this ques- 
 tion of reform is not immediate. Are we to wait and 
 leave progressive legislation to the mercies of a hostile 
 and partisan House of Lords ? ' We say No. The 
 country has said No twice in twelve months." A present 
 remedy is wanted for present evils. 
 
 After reviewing the clauses of the Parliament Bill the 
 Prime Minister spoke of the adoption by the Tory party 
 of the referendum. Instead of a representative system 
 the Conservatives now want a plebiscitary one, the old 
 device of the Jacobins and the Napoleons. To this pass 
 Toryism has come. Something was to be said for the 
 referendum in very rare and exceptional cases, but 
 as a normal part of our constitutional machinery it would 
 make the Ministry merely the clerks and the Legislature 
 merely the registrars of the electorate. 
 
 Mr. Balfour began by harping on his familiar theme 
 that owing to the multiplicity of issues at general 
 elections it is impossible to know what the voice of the 
 people really desires. He confessed that there are dim- 
 cult ies attendant on the referendum, but argued that 
 at any rate a referendum does isolate a question. Then, 
 in his blandest vein, he spoke of the universal desire 
 for a reform of the House of Lords. We all agree that 
 there is need for far-reaching change. We all agree 
 that there ought to be a change in the composition 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 245 
 
 of the Upper House and a change in the relations of the 
 two Houses. We all agree that the House of Commons 
 should be the dominant Chamber. With so large a 
 measure of agreement, why cannot we come to a settle- 
 ment ? Here is a question with no theological poison 
 to embitter it. Why can't we settle on peaceful terms ? 
 Because, said Mr. Balfour, the Government, after re- 
 ducing the powers of the House of Lords, want to leave 
 us for an interval of unknown duration without anything 
 that can be described as a Second Chamber. They want 
 to use this interval for the passing of a Home Rule Bill 
 that the country doesn't want. " Much as I desire peace/' 
 said Mr. Balfour in conclusion, " there are some issues so 
 great that no compromise is possible upon them " a 
 sentiment greeted with hearty Opposition cheers, followed 
 by loud, ironical applause from the Government sup- 
 porters. In the course of his speech Mr. Balfour put in a 
 plea for the retention in some form of the hereditary 
 principle. The proposal of the Government for an 
 elective Second Chamber he condemned on the ground 
 that such a Chamber would not be found consistent with 
 the dominance of the House of Commons. 
 
 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Leader of the Labour party, 
 avowed himself a Single Chamber man, but held that the 
 country wants a bi-cameral system. Strongly averse 
 to the creation of a new Second Chamber, he does not 
 want a plutocracy of rich men dominating a Senate. 
 Labour prefers the old feudalism to the new wealth. 
 " I don't like the preamble, but I am going to take the 
 Bill with the preamble rather than have no Bill." 
 
 The debate on the first reading of the Bill was con- 
 tinued for two days. Mr. F. E. Smith was the chief 
 speaker on the Opposition side on the second day. 
 Mr. Smith confessed that the Liberal party under Mr. 
 Asquith's leadership had in its long fight against the 
 House of Lords carried the battle further towards success 
 
246 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 than it was taken either by the eloquence of O'Connell 
 or the genius of Gladstone. Be content, he said, with 
 this success, do not press your advantage too far ; use 
 it to get a settlement by consent ; build on the rock of 
 national agreement, not on the shifting quicksands of a 
 party triumph. Such was the argument pressed by the 
 brilliant young Member for Walton, in a speech to which 
 the House listened with delight. Against the background 
 of mediocrity on the Tory benches, Mr. F. E. Smith, 
 with his facile cleverness, mental quickness, adroit speech, 
 and aptitude for phrase, shines out with something like 
 splendour. It is not a rich mind or a deep- veined nature. 
 But Mr. Smith has talent, fluency, and boundless au- 
 dacity. 
 
 Mr. Churchill, who concluded the debate, recalled the 
 situation in 1906, when, after an unprecedented defeat at 
 the polls, Mr. Balfour, through his control over the House 
 of Lords, still retained the mastery of the situation, 
 and almost succeeded in reducing a powerful Liberal 
 Government to impotence and ruin. Looking straight 
 at Mr. Balfour, the Home Secretary, with an obvious 
 allusion to the rejection of the Budget, said : " It is 
 always difficult to know, when you embark on the path 
 of wrongdoing, where to stop." Mr. Balfour, by using the 
 veto of the House of Lords to prevent the redress of 
 grievances, had succeeded in stopping the swing of the 
 pendulum. He had embroiled an old aristocracy in an 
 attempt to baffle a modern democracy. He had marched 
 his army down with drums beating and flags flying for 
 the third time to a total disaster. 
 
 Few men in public life have Mr. Churchill's capacity 
 for vivifying a controversy and stimulating an audience. 
 His speech was punctuated almost at every sentence with 
 laughter or applause. As to Mr. Wyndham's invitation 
 to the Government to join with the Tory party in re- 
 forming the House, if the Government entered into such a 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 247 
 
 conference, said Mr. Churchill, " we should not have 
 fifty supporters." (Loud and prolonged cheers, con- 
 tinued for many moments.) 
 
 Indignant scorn marked Mr. Churchill's allusion to 
 the adoption by the Tory party of the Jacobin device of 
 the referendum. He did not spare Mr. Balfour, and de- 
 clared that the policy of referendum was the crowning 
 blunder of the eight years of unrelieved disaster for the 
 Conservative party that had followed the death of the 
 late Lord Salisbury. Lord Randolph's son has not for- 
 gotten the injuries his father suffered. 
 
 The Parliament Bill was read a first time by a majority 
 of 124. Then, as Mr. Asquith, a striking figure in evening 
 dress, advanced up the floor bringing in the Bill, Liberal, 
 Labour, and Nationalist members sprang to their feet 
 in an ecstasy of enthusiasm, cheering and waving hats, 
 handkerchiefs, or order papers. The Chairman of the 
 Scottish Liberals, Mr. Eugene Wason, a massive son of 
 Anak, stood forth in this scene a conspicuous figure, 
 with a huge expanse of shirt-front, and fluttering a 
 handkerchief vast as a banner. 
 
 On the same day, 21 February, Lord Lansdowne gave 
 notice of a Bill to alter the composition of the Upper 
 House, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh of a Bill to provide 
 for the submission of certain measures in given circum- 
 stances to a referendum. 
 
 On 2 March the motion for the second reading of the 
 Parliament Bill was carried by a majority of 125 a 
 proof of the steadfastness of the Coalition supporting the 
 Government. Owing to ill-health and preoccupation 
 with the preparation of the National Insurance Bill, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer took no active part in the 
 work of the House of Commons for several weeks in 
 the spring of 1911, and the duties of first lieutenant to 
 the Prime Minister were efficiently discharged by Mr. 
 Churchill. 
 
248 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 There is no necessity to deal exhaustively with the 
 debates on the Parliament Bill. The story of its progress 
 is told in the following extracts from a private diary 
 kept by a parliamentary observer who was present at 
 every sitting : 
 
 " 28 February. Meeting of Conservative M.P.'s to-day 
 to discuss plans for House of Lords' Reform. Sir A. 
 Acland-Hood attended. Outline of Lansdowne Reform 
 Bill submitted. Meeting approved same, and expressed 
 confidence in Unionist leaders. Balfour annoyed at 
 action of young Tories in pushing principle of Second 
 Chamber on elective basis and trying to force his hands. 
 Revolt nipped in the bud to-day. Tory reform Bill to 
 follow broad lines of Lord Curzon's published scheme. 
 This provided for reduction of Lords from 675 to 300 ; 
 100 to be elected from and by hereditary peers ; 50 
 qualified by service ; 50 nominated by Prime Minister 
 of the day ; 100 to be chosen by county and borough 
 councils. 
 
 " In debate on second reading of Parliament Bill to- 
 day Colonel Seely effectively replied to Alfred Lyttelton 
 on Colonial analogies of Second Chamber and Joint 
 Session. Seely spoke with authority, as he had piloted 
 South African Union Bill through Commons. 
 
 " Ryland Adkins, private member, made extremely 
 able speech, full of ripe historical knowledge, in support 
 of Parliament Bill. Quoted Duke of Wellington's 
 statement in 1846, ' without the House of Commons 
 and the Crown, the House of Lords can do nothing.' 
 Pointed out there is no instance of House of Lords 
 rejecting a first-class Government measure for more than 
 two years running. Everything done by Conservative 
 Opposition from 1846 to 1852, from 1858 to 1865, from 
 1868 to 1874, and from 1880 to 1885, could be done by 
 House of Lords under Parliament Bill. 
 
 " i March. Runciman, Minister of Education, princi- 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 249 
 
 pal speaker to-day. Analysed Tory Reform schemes 
 with deadly effect. Showed that Lansdowne's scheme 
 on best possible showing would give permanent Tory 
 majority of 100 ; Curzon's a Tory Majority of 50. Is this 
 fair play ? Favours two Chambers, both accountable 
 to people. Runciman made great point of fact that 
 under Tory Reform schemes the Royal Prerogative of 
 making peers would be destroyed. Strongly condemned 
 referendum, which Sir William Anson defended as a 
 means of preventing violent inroads on the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 " 2, March. Second reading of Parliament Bill carried 
 to-night by majority of 125 amid scene of great excite- 
 ment. Balfour's speech spread dismay among Tories. 
 Nailed hereditary principle to the mast. Defended 
 Lords as an almost ideal Second Chamber. Wants 
 Reform simply to strengthen it. This avowal of desire 
 to chain the democracy by stronger links drew fierce 
 ironical cheers from Liberal and Labour members. 
 
 " Balfour's chief argument that Government meant to 
 utilize delay between passage of Parliament Bill and 
 reform of the House of Lords to smuggle through Home 
 Rule Bill. Expressions ' fraud on the electorate ' and 
 ' coercion of Parliament ' caused angry scene. Prime 
 Minister in fine debating form : * So you want to 
 strengthen House of Lords against chosen representa- 
 tives of people ' ; vigorously denied that policy of Parlia- 
 ment Bill was dictated by Irish party ; it dates from 1907, 
 when Liberals had an independent majority greater than 
 that of all other parties combined ; replied effectively to 
 A. J. B.'s remark about hereditary crown as bond of 
 Empire ; yes, but the Crown has renounced its veto ; 
 reform of Lords must be subordinate to Veto Bill ; our 
 first and permanent duty to pass Veto Bill into law. 
 
 " Lord Hugh Cecil says if 500 peers are created it will 
 be a sham Parliament passing sham laws. 
 
250 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " Herbert Samuel concluded debate in a speech of 
 great brilliancy ; trenchant, mordant, crushing. 
 
 " 3 March. At Lord Morley's dinner to-night at 
 Claridge's Hotel, Lord Crewe, seized with sudden faint- 
 ness, fell and struck his head violently on the floor. 
 Spent night at hotel, John Burns keeping company with 
 him. Crewe suffering from overwork. Heavy strain 
 of last two years told heavily on him. Other Cabinet 
 Ministers also feeling the strain George, Haldane, 
 Harcourt, and McKenna, all very unwell. 
 
 " 3 April. In Commons committee stage of Parlia- 
 ment Bill begun. P.M. in charge, with Churchill and 
 Herbert Samuel as lieutenants. End of day still finds 
 House on line i. A. J. B. talks of ' obligation of honour ' 
 on Government's part to reform the Lords. Will limita- 
 tion of veto apply equally to reformed Second Chamber 
 as to present House of Lords ? Two Radicals, George 
 Harwood, a racy speaker and keen Lancashire manu- 
 facturer, and Sir Henry Dalziel, insistent that limitation 
 of veto must apply to any and every Second Chamber. 
 P.M. says reform belongs to the future. Present duty to 
 limit veto of present House of Lords. 
 
 " 4 April. Committee on Parliament Bill. Many 
 ingenious Tory amendments. Sir Arthur Grimth- 
 Boscawen's amendment that voting on third reading of 
 a Bill in House of Commons be by ballot. Hugh Cecil 
 painted gloomy picture of the decadence of the House, 
 independence has vanished, whips and caucus all-power- 
 ful. Secret voting now as necesary to protect members 
 against illegitimate pressure as it was in the old days to 
 protect members from pressure of the Court. 
 
 " Churchill said Lord Hugh was unnecessarily gloomy. 
 Equally opposed to referendum and to secret voting, 
 Government stand by representative institutions. 
 
 " Balfour opposed Tory amendment, and while paying 
 tribute to Cousin Hugh's sincerity, shattered his argu- 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 251 
 
 ment. Speaking with knowledge of the House since 
 1874, A. J. B. emphatically denied that it has suffered 
 any deterioration. Said Sir Charles Dilke, with whom 
 he was talking on this subject some time before Dilke's 
 death, agreed with him. A. J. B.'s speech, so full of 
 pride in the House, so charming, so eloquent, enraptured 
 the House. Loudly applauded, especially by Liberal 
 members. Young Tory forwards very chastened. P.M. 
 said he agreed with every word uttered by Balfour and 
 paid warm compliment to his speech, which he said was 
 the finest vindication of the representative character 
 of the House of Commons that had ever been made in 
 the House. None the less, eighty-four Tories followed 
 Lord Hugh into the Lobby. 
 
 " 5 April. Very slow progress. Herbert Samuel said 
 Government will not resist amendments calculated to 
 fulfil purpose of Bill. Lord Hugh Cecil : ' So there 
 will be a report stage/ 
 
 " P.M. absent to-night owing to severe cold. Lord 
 Hugh annoyed Liberals by speaking of P.M.'s idleness 
 and the * vicarious insolence of his deputy ' (Churchill). 
 
 ' Three first days in Committee have yielded three 
 lines ! 
 
 " 10 April. P.M. to-day, after allowing long debate 
 on trivial Tory amendment on Parliament Bill, moved 
 kangaroo closure amid terrific display of Liberal enthu- 
 siasm, and shouts of ' Gag ! Gag ! ' from Tories. Whole 
 aspect of House changed by firm action of P.M. Only 
 three and a half lines of Parliament Bill had been passed 
 in three days, but to-night by 10.30 five more lines 
 were added, the Chairman sweeping away over three 
 pages of amendments. 
 
 " P.M., whom Lord Hugh accused of idleness last 
 Thursday night, almost inaudible to-day owing to effect 
 of a severe cold on his voice. 
 
 " Lord Hugh made offensive attack on Churchill, 
 
252 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 and was sharply reproved by Chairman, who told him to 
 eschew personalities and talk to the amendment. Lord 
 Hugh, white with anger, in a voice tremulous with 
 excitement, said, ' If you are referring to the propriety 
 of my conduct, Mr. Emmott, of that I am the best 
 judge/ 
 
 " Deal between Churchill and Balfour to-night. 
 Promise by Government to let discussion to-morrow be 
 concentrated on ' What is a Money Bill ? ' and ' What 
 is the tribunal which shall decide on Money Bills ? ' 
 
 " ii April. P.M., still very hoarse, spoke on definition 
 of Money Bill ; said Government do not want to widen 
 the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution ; simply 
 to make clear the absolute supremacy of Commons in 
 Finance. Indulged in historical retrospect, showing 
 steady growth of Commons' power in Finance, until 
 in 1 86 1 even the power of rejection was virtually lost 
 to the Lords. Invited the Opposition to join in making 
 the definition of a Money Bill accurate and precise ; 
 showed that the Opposition amendments fall far below 
 the usage and practice of the Constitution. 
 
 " Balfour said that P.M. up to 1860 spoke as historian, 
 afterwards as a partisan. A. J. B. holds that Lords, 
 while having no power to amend, have power to reject 
 Money Bills, and will retain this power until this Bill 
 passes into law, ' if it ever does/ 
 
 " Long discussion, after which P.M. promised to ex- 
 pressly exclude ' rates ' from purview of sub-section. 
 
 " Tory objections to making Speaker the authority to 
 pronounce on Money Bill powerfully answered by P.M., 
 who scouted idea of the law and privileges of Parliament 
 being determined by any external tribunal. Balfour 
 thinks Government proposal will weaken impartiality 
 of Speaker, is as hostile as P.M. to external tribunal, but 
 suggests a Joint Committee of both Houses with the 
 Speaker in the chair. H. Samuel replied brilliantly to 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 253 
 
 Balfour and argued that new function imposed on the 
 Speaker is in complete harmony with his historic duties. 
 
 " 20 April. House of Commons began the considera- 
 tion of Clause 2 of Parliament Bill, which gives power to 
 override Lords in ordinary legislation after a Bill has 
 been passed three times in three successive sessions 
 by the House of Commons. Numerous amendments 
 on the paper to exclude various categories of legislation 
 from operation of the clause. The P.M. showed that the 
 British Constitution never has distinguished between 
 classes of Bills. Government proposal based on the 
 presumption that the House of Commons represents 
 for time being the opinion of the electors. That pre- 
 sumption may be weakened by time. As safeguards 
 against a House carrying great changes after its authority 
 is exhausted the Bill (i) shortens duration of Parliament, 
 and (2) provides that after a second session Government 
 will not be able to take advantage of machinery for over- 
 riding House of Lords. With these precautions, why 
 seek to limit authority of the House in plenitude of its 
 power and freshness ? By these amendments, Tories 
 are seeking to introduce a distinction wholly unknown 
 to British Constitution ; they are invoking an outside 
 authority to say whether Parliament has or has not 
 exceeded its functions. 
 
 ' Taunt that Government means to use power be- 
 stowed by Parliament Bill to pass Home Rule leaves 
 P.M. unperturbed. Parliament Bill not an end in itself. 
 What folly to invent a machine simply to exhibit in a 
 museum ! 
 
 " Balfour upset by breadth and power of P.M.'s speech. 
 Accused him of holding doctrine of absolute Single 
 Chamber Government. ' What has become of the 
 preamble ? ' He argued Home Rule not in issue last 
 election, but admitted he tried to arouse the nation to the 
 danger. ' Unfortunately, I could not persuade them.' 
 
254 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " 25 April. Amendment by Sir Philip Magnus to 
 exempt from operation of Clause 2 measures which have 
 not passed the Commons by a majority of 100 or over. 
 Balfour supported amendment. P.M. pointed out that 
 amendment would perpetuate gross inequality under 
 which Liberal measures are hindered and Tory measures 
 have a free run. Gently spirited by P.M., kangaroo 
 took a long leap and Chairman selected for discussion 
 Sir Alfred Cripps's amendment in favour of joint session 
 for settlement of difference between the two Houses. 
 P.M. strongly resisted amendment. Something to be 
 said for joint session if we had two Chambers on a demo- 
 cratic basis with a proper numerical relation. But in 
 the circumstances a patent absurdity. Joint session in 
 present conditions would give dominant party in Lords 
 last word on every reform. Appealed to the House to 
 fall back on simple, fair, logical plan of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 " Balfour angry and scornful. ' Your Parliament 
 Bill only a child's effort. It is simply taking out a wheel.' 
 Not a sign of statesmanship ! If joint session is good 
 with two Chambers on a democratic basis, why not 
 start by reforming the House of Lords ? You are be- 
 ginning at the wrong end. 
 
 v Sir H. Dalziel's amendment reducing period of delay 
 from three to two sessions shows that a section of Radicals 
 regard Parliament Bill as too moderate. 
 
 " 26 April. Discussion to-day on referendum. P.M. 
 pulverized Cave, who moved an amendment providing 
 that every Bill rejected by the Lords may be sent to a 
 poll of the people. Last April Cave strongly opposed 
 the referendum as alien to our system of Government. 
 Lees Smith, a young pale-faced Radical, spoke ably ; 
 said referendum would need to be supplemented by 
 initiative, enlarged on its perils to richer classes. No 
 doubt, on some questions the nation is more conservative 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 255 
 
 than the House of Commons, but on questions of distribu- 
 tion of wealth it is far more extreme. 
 
 " Balfour's speech extraordinarily interesting and 
 disconcertingly candid. Believes strongly in referendum, 
 but only to be used very rarely. George Barnes, a Labour 
 member, asked how in that case could we hope to pass 
 Bills of sectional interest, e.g. Scotch House Letting 
 Bill rejected by Lords. Balfour genially replied ' by 
 joint session.' Joint sittings for differences on ordinary 
 Bills, referendum for exceptional occasions and Bills. 
 Balfour does not think adverse verdict on referendum 
 need impair the position of a Government. It could go 
 on as if nothing had happened. Enlarged on tyranny 
 of Government, the growing rigidity of party lines, 
 power of machine. At a referendum, knowing fate of 
 Government not dependent, voters would be encouraged 
 to defy the machine ; they could vote without regard 
 to local, to personal, or to party considerations, and we 
 would have a true reflection of the national will. Poor 
 Tariff Reformers ! 
 
 " P.M. denies that at a referendum it would be possible 
 to isolate issues, takes his stand by the representative 
 system, which is the masterpiece of political invention 
 of modern world. Referendum would destroy Ministerial 
 responsibility and humiliate House of Commons. Elo- 
 quent vindication of representative government. Chaffed 
 Tories on their love for revolutionary principles, their 
 policy far more revolutionary than Parliament Bill. 
 Let us stand by the old ways (derisive Tory cheers). 
 * Yes, I am using the language of Toryism, for (looking 
 at the Opposition) I am addressing a revolutionary 
 party.' Majority against referendum, 122. 
 
 " i May. On Parliament Bill to-day Prime Minister 
 announced a concession. The two years to date from 
 second reading of Bill, not from first introduction. A.J.B., 
 while grateful for concession, thought it ought to be 
 
256 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 extended to third reading, as Bills sometimes are trans- 
 formed in committee, e.g. Mr. Disraeli's Franchise 
 Bill, 1867. 
 
 " 2 May. P.M. absent to-day, owing to death of 
 Lady Ribblesdale. Rapid progress made with Parlia- 
 ment Bill. Committee stage concluded except preamble. 
 Long discussion on Clause 2. Walter Long flung at 
 Home Secretary extracts from Winston's election address 
 in 1900 at Oldham. Home Secretary replied he had only 
 just left the Army, and had to rely on the Tory electioneer- 
 ing claptrap of the moment. Eloquently defended 
 Clause 2, essentially a moderate remedy. Parliament 
 Bill would establish supremacy of Commons, but would 
 still leave Liberals in a position of inequality as long as 
 the House of Lords is constituted as at present. Fear 
 that Lords may use factiously large powers left to them 
 under Parliament Bill makes reform of Second Chamber 
 necessary sooner or later. 
 
 " Balfour replied in clever, good-tempered speech. 
 What evil have the Lords done ? Laughs at Churchill's 
 allusion to deadlock ; it is purely imaginary. Argued 
 that Lords now have only power of delay. Parliament 
 Bill simply an ad hoc measure to carry certain Bills, 
 especially Home Rule, without consulting the people. 
 An elective Second Chamber will claim equality with 
 and eventually secure predominance over the House of 
 Commons. A. J. B. censured Government for postponing 
 to indefinite future reform of House of Lords. Govern- 
 ment majorities very satisfactory. 
 
 " 3 May. Committee stage of Parliament Bill con- 
 cluded. Final majority 118. Declaration of figures 
 received with enthusiastic cheers. Preamble discussed 
 on Barnes's motion for its exclusion. Labour party 
 strongly in favour of Single Chamber. They regard 
 Second Chamber, said Barnes, as ' an insult to a free 
 people.' 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 257 
 
 " P.M. said that Parliament Bill, preamble and all, 
 was approved by electorate. Government had consis- 
 tently advocated reform of Second Chamber after removal 
 of absolute veto of the Lords. An obligation, in this 
 Parliament, if time permits, to undertake reform. Parlia- 
 ment Bill will still leave Liberals at a disadvantage. 
 Can we trust the exercise of the large powers left to 
 the Lords to a body so partisan, so unrepresentative ? 
 Again, excellent as is the Parliament Bill, it provides 
 no safeguard against evil of Single Chamber Government 
 when Tories are in office. 
 
 " Balfour, alluding to Barnes's remark about Scotch 
 exodus, asked, ' Where are they flying to ? ' To countries 
 that have strong Second Chambers. Nonplussed by 
 Barnes's query: 'Do you mean to say Canada has a 
 strong Second Chamber ? ' Barnes having said that some 
 Second Chambers in Australia were more reactionary than 
 House of Lords, Balfour called this an admission that 
 heredity works better than election in a Second Chamber. 
 Like P.M., he wants Second Chamber to be subordinate, 
 and he does not quarrel with his definition of a Second 
 Chamber's duties as those of consultation, revision, and 
 delay. But these powers must involve power in some 
 cases to compel a referendum to the people of questions 
 on which the people's will has not been declared. 
 
 " Ramsay Macdonald's speech able, but too abstruse. 
 Made out powerful case against preamble. We have 
 had no experience of Second Chamber working under 
 Parliament Bill conditions. Why not wait for such 
 experience before rashly undertaking reform of the House 
 of Lords ? A reformed Second Chamber might be much 
 worse than the House of Lords. 
 
 " 10 May. Final day of report stage of Parliament 
 Bill. Debate turned entirely on proposal to omit Clause 
 2. Strong speeches full of alarm from the Tories. A 
 young Welsh member, Edgar Jones, ridiculed alarmist 
 
 17 
 
 
258 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 observations of Tories. Parliament Bill relatively a 
 small affair of domestic interest. Excellent speeches by 
 Dr. Chappie (who said referendum and joint session in 
 Australia went with Adult Suffrage and elective Second 
 Chamber), Sir Alfred Cripps (very fervid and eloquent), 
 R. W. Essex (who said Bill was only a coat of mail for 
 the Liberals against unjust attacks of Lords). Herbert 
 Samuel, on reform, said, ' Solvitur praeambulando.' 
 
 " In Mr. Balfour's absence, Walter Long led Opposi- 
 tion, and indulged in lamentation over Single Chamber 
 Government. 
 
 "15 May. Parliament Bill read a third time in House 
 of Commons ; majority 121. Scene of great enthusiasm. 
 Asquith received a great ovation, Liberal, Labour, 
 and Nationalist members rising and cheering vocifer- 
 ously, waving hats and handkerchiefs. Opposition very 
 dejected. Feature of debate speech of Prime Minister. 
 Excellent in form, firm in tone, eloquent in delivery. 
 He replied effectively to F. E. Smith, who had moved 
 rejection of Bill. P.M. said Government mean to reform 
 House of Lords in present Parliament. But Parliament 
 Bill must be passed into law as essential first step. No 
 Bill ever went to House of Lords with a better title to be 
 placed on Statute Book. Parliament Bill stamped and 
 sealed with popular approval at two general elections. 
 When reform of House of Lords is taken in hand, large 
 field will be opened for the co-operation of both political 
 parties. 
 
 " Balfour's speech an acknowledgment of defeat. 
 Admits there is virtue in the three sessions and two 
 years' delay, but described this as a bad form of referen- 
 dum. Why not adopt a good form of referendum so 
 as to ascertain people's views clearly on a clear issue ? 
 A general election is too confused. Accused P.M. of 
 sacrificing to party exigencies the two-chamber system 
 in which our fathers gloried. 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE COMMONS 259 
 
 " Churchill wound up for Government in a speech of 
 dazzling brilliancy which moved the whole House. A 
 densely crowded audience surging with emotion. Winston 
 said that Parliament Bill represented territory won from 
 classes which will never be surrendered. Spoke sym- 
 pathetically of the aristocracy. They had been too 
 docile to their leaders, and were now to be flung on the 
 dust-heap (allusion to Lord Lansdowne's Reform Bill). 
 ' The peers have a keen and bitter grievance, but not 
 against us, who have only given blow for blow. There 
 (pointing at front Opposition bench) sit the recipients 
 of their reproaches/ ' 
 
 Thus the Parliament Bill was carried through the 
 House of Commons with the full strength of the Govern 
 ment majority. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII 
 THE LORDS' DILEMMA 
 
 THE scene now changes to the House of Lords. 
 Their Lordships had not been idle during the 
 progress of the Parliament Bill through the 
 Lower House. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, acting un- 
 officially, had brought forward a Referendum Bill, and 
 Lord Lansdowne had introduced a Bill for a drastic 
 alteration in the composition of the House of Lords. 
 Reform of the Upper House had suddenly become in 
 Conservative quarters a burning question. A difficulty 
 in the way of House of Lords' reform was that 
 nearly every scheme necessitated an invasion of the 
 Royal Prerogative. In 1856, in the Wensleydale case, 
 the Lords had successfully resisted the introduction of 
 life peers. The proposal of the Crown to bestow on Sir 
 James Parke, one of the Barons of the Court of Ex- 
 chequer, a peerage as Baron Wensleydale " for and during 
 the term of his natural life " was referred by the peers 
 to a Committee of Privileges. This committee reported 
 that " neither the letters patent, nor the letters patent 
 with the usual writ of summons in pursuance thereof, can 
 entitle the grantee to sit and vote in Parliament." The 
 difficulty was overcome by making Lord Wensleydale an 
 hereditary peer. In the matter of the Wensleydale peerage 
 the Lords showed conspicuous lack of wisdom, for the 
 creation of life peers by Royal Prerogative would have 
 brought an infusion of new blood into the House of Lords, 
 
 260 
 
THE LORDS' DILEMMA 261 
 
 and checked the tendency to dissonance and discordance 
 between the two Houses of Parliament. " The House of 
 Lords," to quote Bagehot, " rejected the inestimable, the 
 unprecedented, opportunity of being tacitly reformed. 
 Such a chance does not come twice. The life peers who 
 would then have been introduced would have been 
 among the first men in the country." It may be noted 
 that the Law Lords (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary), who 
 sit in the Upper House as life peers, were created under 
 the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts 1876 and 1887. By the 
 later Act these life peers are entitled to sit and vote in 
 the House of Lords even after they have ceased to fill 
 the office of Lord of Appeal. In fact, they are Lords of 
 Parliament for life, with no descendible dignity. 
 
 While the peers successfully resisted the exercise of the 
 Royal Prerogative in the Wensleydale case, prerogative 
 now barred the way to the desire of Lord Lansdowne and 
 his colleagues to effect a change in the composition of the 
 House of Lords. Every scheme of House of Lords' 
 reform, except the substitution of an elected Second 
 Chamber, involved restrictions on the free action of the 
 Crown in the creation of the peers. These restrictions 
 could not even be discussed academically without the 
 prior assent of the Crown. As the Crown acts on the 
 advice of its Ministers, Lord Lansdowne was therefore 
 under the disagreeable necessity of requesting the Govern- 
 ment's permission to produce a scheme which he was 
 bringing forward as a counter-proposal to the Govern- 
 ment's Parliament Bill. Like Lord Lansdowne's scheme, 
 the earlier reform proposals associated with the names of 
 Lord Newton and Lord Rosebery were also marred by the 
 defect that they interfered with the Crown as the free- 
 flowing fountain of honour. In 1907 Lord Newton 
 introduced a Bill whose objects were : 
 
 (i) To reduce the preponderance of the hereditary 
 element in the House of Lords. " For this purpose it is 
 
262 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 proposed to enact that the possession of a peerage by 
 descent shall not, of itself, give any right to a seat in the 
 House, and that a peer entitled by descent shall have a 
 right to sit only if he possesses certain specified qualifica- 
 tions, or if he is elected as a representative peer under the 
 Bill." The representative peers would be elected for a 
 Parliament, and not for life. 
 
 (2) To give to the Crown the power to appoint life 
 peers to a number not exceeding 100. 
 
 (3) To effect a reduction in the number of Bishops 
 sitting in the House, proportionate to the reduction 
 proposed in the case of the hereditary peers. 
 
 (4) To assimilate the system of electing Scotch and 
 Irish representative peers to the system proposed by 
 the Bill for the peerage of England. 
 
 (5) To enable any hereditary peer who does not desire 
 to become a representative peer, or to sit in the House of 
 Lords as a qualified peer, to stand as a candidate for 
 election to the House of Commons. 
 
 Lord Newton withdrew his Bill on an assurance that 
 its proposals would be considered by a committee ap- 
 pointed on the motion of Lord Cawdor. This committee 
 presented an elaborate report in 1908. It proposed a 
 reduction in the number of Lords of Parliament to about 
 350, of whom 200 would be elected by the hereditary 
 peers, and 130 would serve as hereditary peers who had 
 qualified by distinguished service. The remainder 
 would be made up of 3 peers of the Blood Royal, 10 
 Archbishops and Bishops, 5 Lords of Appeal, with a 
 " possible annual increment of 4 peers for life up to the 
 number of 40, thus bringing the total number of the 
 House to something under 400." With regard to the 
 Royal Prerogative the committee disavowed any " desire 
 to limit the prerogative of the Crown as regards the 
 creation of hereditary peers ; but they wish, by dis- 
 sociating the right of legislation from the possession of a 
 
THE LORDS* DILEMMA 263 
 
 peerage, to secure a more compact, efficient, and re- 
 sponsible body for parliamentary purposes." 
 
 Once before in our history the Lords made an attempt 
 to encroach on the Royal Prerogative of creating heredi- 
 tary peers. In 1719 the Duke of Somerset brought in a 
 Bill to restrain the Crown from the creation of more than 
 six peerages beyond the then existing number of 178. As 
 a Bill affecting the rights of the Crown could not be 
 introduced without the Crown's assent, Lord Sunderland 
 managed beforehand to obtain the acquiescence of 
 George I. The Bill and a successor of it in the following 
 session provoked popular resentment, and Sir Robert 
 Walpole, in one of his most eloquent speeches, denounced 
 the proposal as an attempt to narrow the avenues of 
 honour. " It was, in truth, an audacious attempt to 
 limit the prerogative of the Crown and discourage the 
 granting of just rewards to merit, for the sake of per- 
 petuating a close aristocratic body independent of the 
 Crown and irresponsible to the people." (Erskine May, 
 The Constitutional History of England.) 
 
 Let us now return to the Lansdowne Bill for the reform 
 of the House of Lords brought forward in 1911. As we 
 have seen, an essential preliminary was an address to the 
 Crown, praying for consent to its introduction. Without 
 such prior consent of the Crown the proceedings on a Bill 
 affecting the Royal Prerogative would be " null and void." 
 This practice has obtained without any break since the 
 historic case of 1719. The address of which Lord Lans- 
 downe gave notice was in form an address to the Crown. 
 In fact, it was an appeal to the Government, for the 
 Crown acts only through the Cabinet. It was within the 
 competence of the Cabinet to withhold the Crown's assent 
 to Lord Lansdowne's prayer, but Ministers wisely decided 
 to put no obstacle in the way of the production of his 
 scheme for reform of the House of Lords. 
 
 The march of events in the Upper House during this 
 
264 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 eventful session will be made clear by the following 
 extracts from the diary of a parliamentarian : 
 
 " 28 March. Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved second 
 reading of Reference to People Bill, which provides for 
 referendum on any Bill, except one of Ways and Means. 
 To safeguard minorities proposal in Bill, to allow refer- 
 endum to be demanded by 200 M.P.'s, even in case 
 of a Bill passed by both Houses. Lord Balfour said his 
 Bill would prevent log-rolling. Amid fervent ' Hear, 
 hears/ from noble Lords, he said that idea that 
 the House of Commons represents the people is a 
 myth. 
 
 " Lord Morley, now Leader of the House, attacked Lord 
 Balfour of Burleigh's Bill in eloquent speech, magnificent 
 vindication of representative system. Passionately op- 
 posed to rule by plebiscitary decree. Referendum would 
 enfeeble both Houses, destroy Ministerial responsibility, 
 weaken stability of the electorate. It was as though the 
 shade of Burke had arisen to solemnly warn the Tory 
 party of danger of laying profane hands on our repre- 
 sentative system. 
 
 " Lansdowne, looking rather worn, could not conceal his 
 vexation at Morley's lofty speech ; denied that referendum 
 is a fad or crotchet, said that in some form its introduction 
 into our representative system is inevitable ; thinks the 
 Bill of Lord Balfour, to whom, personally, he paid high 
 compliments, too wide; would encourage too frequent 
 resort to referendum. Angry at Lord Morley's taunt that 
 Tories are adopting revolutionary expedients ; what is 
 the Parliament Bill but a revolution ? 
 
 " At opening of sitting sensation caused by Lansdowne 
 giving notice of motion for Thursday of an address to the 
 Crown, praying for the Crown's assent to the introduction 
 of a Bill infringing the Royal Prerogative Lansdowne's 
 own Bill for Reform of House of Lords, which, by reducing 
 and fixing number of Lords of Parliament, will destroy 
 
THE LORDS' DILEMMA 265 
 
 Royal Prerogative of creating Lords of Parliament. A 
 very inauspicious beginning on Referendum Bill. 
 
 " 29 March. Second day's debate on Referendum Bill 
 also went against Lord Balfour. A Conservative peer of 
 independent mind, Lord Newton, strongly opposed to it. 
 Instead of stopping log-rolling, it would increase it. 
 Thinks referendum utterly at variance with Conservative 
 principles. Lord Ancaster, another Tory peer, vigorously 
 assailed Bill ; said it would lead to constant friction. He 
 himself much preferred Parliament Bill to the referendum. 
 Weak speech in favour of Bill from Lord Northcote, and 
 strong one from Liberal peer, Weardale, who thinks 
 House of Commons is dominated too much by caucus. 
 Lord Donoughmore moved indefinite adjournment of 
 debate. So passes first part of Tory reform scheme. 
 
 " 30 March. In reference to Lord Lansdowne's 
 motion re Royal Prerogative, Lord Morley said : ' Govern- 
 ment will interpose no technicalities or formalities in way 
 of introduction of Lansdowne's Bill, but they reserve 
 entire freedom of action, and will be no parties 
 to any attempt to impede progress with Parliament 
 Bill.' 
 
 " Lansdowne said precedent justified his action. An 
 Opposition, unlike a Government, cannot get Royal 
 consent when it pleases. So it is compelled to seek it 
 before introducing its Bill. Lansdowne, wise in this, 
 as at any stage, without the prior assent of the Crown, 
 Government could treat all proceedings on such a Bill 
 as null and void. 
 
 " Rosebery dissuaded Lansdowne from going on with his 
 Bill. It can't pass ; it will create more enemies than 
 friends. It is only an air balloon. Reform of House of 
 Lords ought to be taken in hand by Government. An 
 Opposition is powerless. What about preamble of Parlia- 
 ment Bill ? Perhaps Haldane (who took his seat in 
 House of Lords for the first time to-day) might be able to 
 
266 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 enlighten them. Rosebery very gloomy, very eloquent. 
 Accused Government of aiming at Single Chamber rule ; 
 some of them desire to reform House of Lords, but their 
 followers won't let them. Marvels at apathy of nation, 
 which is talking about Coronation and. playing football 
 when the ancient Constitution is being overturned. 
 Flung Burke back at Lord Morley. Appealed personally 
 to Asquith and Morley to think what posterity will say if 
 they force a ' fanatical one-sided settlement on the 
 country.' An entrancing piece of eloquence, but, as usual 
 with Rosebery, leading nowhere. What gifts of oratory, 
 what a voice ; what a presence, what nobleness of mien ! 
 fine face set in a noble head of silver-grey hair. Yet how 
 pathetically ineffectual ! No light, no counsel, no guidance, 
 only eloquent lamentations." 
 
 " 13-18 April. Easter recess." 
 
 " On 8 May Lord Lansdowne introduced his Bill for 
 the reconstitution of the House of Lords. His proposals 
 were : 
 
 " (i) Reduction in numbers. The present House of 
 Lords consists of about 660 members. This number is 
 to be reduced to 350. 
 
 " (2) Peers will have no right in future to occupy 
 seats in the House of Lords in virtue of hereditary 
 right. 
 
 " (3) One hundred ' Lords of Parliament ' to be elected 
 by the whole body of the hereditary peerage from their 
 own number. Peers to be eligible as Lords of Parliament 
 must have undertaken some public duty or have served 
 the Crown in high positions in the Army, Navy, or Civil 
 Service. Viceroys will be eligible, so will Governors of 
 Presidencies in India, men who have held Ministerial 
 office at home, members of the Privy Council, men who 
 have served as permanent heads of public departments, 
 as Lord Mayor, Provost, Chairman of County Council, 
 Chairman of Quarter Sessions. 
 
THE LORDS' DILEMMA 267 
 
 " Lord Lansdowne estimated that there are 300 
 qualified peers out of whom the 100 Lords of Parliament 
 would be elected. Provision would be made for minority 
 representation, so that the small band of Liberal peers 
 will not be entirely ignored. 
 
 " (4) One hundred and twenty Lords of Parliament to 
 be chosen by M.P/s. The idea of direct election for the 
 House of Lords has been abandoned ; so also has the 
 suggestion that they should be chosen by county and 
 borough councils. It was feared that this might draw 
 the county councils into political entanglements, from 
 which most of them are now free. Lord Lansdowne 
 proposed that the country should be divided into electoral 
 districts. To each district will be assigned a certain num- 
 ber of Lords of Parliament, not fewer than three and not 
 more than twelve. The electoral college for each district 
 will be the M.P.'s representing the constituencies lying 
 within its area. One hundred and twenty Lords of 
 Parliament elected by M.P.'s will reflect the current 
 opinion of the people. 
 
 " (5) One hundred Lords of Parliament to be nominated 
 by the Crown on the recommendation of the Government 
 of the day. These nominations to be made in correspond- 
 ence with the strength of parties in the House of Commons. 
 Thus in this category the Labour party and the Irish 
 members might have equivalent Lords of Parliament. 
 Lord Lansdowne pointed out that nomination would 
 allow the Government of the day to recognize merit and 
 conspicuous service in any branch of public life. 
 
 " (6) Spiritual peers : The present number of bishops 
 (26) to be reduced to seven namely, the two archbishops, 
 to sit ex officio, and five bishops to be elected by the full 
 episcopate. 
 
 " (7) Law Lords (16) : Men who have held high legal 
 office, such as Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice, 
 who have served as law officers of the Crown or are Lords 
 
268 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 of Appeal, will have the right to sit for life as Lords of 
 Parliament. 
 
 " All the other Lords of Parliament, elected and 
 nominated, to serve for twelve years, subject to triennial 
 retirement. 
 
 " (8) Of the 350 members of the reformed House, 343 
 are now accounted for. Princes of the blood will account 
 for the remainder. 
 
 " (9) Peers not elected as Lords of Parliament will be 
 eligible for election as members of the House of Commons. 
 
 " (10) The number of new hereditary peers created by 
 the Crown to be limited to five per annum." 
 
 Lord Lansdowne went to the pains of working out the 
 party representation in the House of Lords reformed on 
 these lines, based on the strength of parties in the then 
 existing House of Commons. His calculation yielded 
 the following results : 
 
 C. L. 
 
 Elected by hereditary peers . . 80 20 
 
 Nominated by the Government . . 41 59 
 Chosen by the M.P.'s in the electoral 
 
 colleges . . . . 48 72 
 
 169 151 
 
 This would show a Conservative majority of eighteen, 
 but Lord Lansdowne claimed that the prevailing type 
 of member would be the peer with a cross-bench mind. 
 Supplementary to these proposals was a suggestion for 
 the revival of the old practice of conference between the 
 two Houses, of joint sittings in case of disagreement ; and 
 finally the referendum to be invoked on exceptional Bills 
 of great gravity on which it is impossible for the two 
 Houses to reach an agreement. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne had not entirely recovered from the 
 effects of his recent illness, and he looked haggard and 
 
THE LORDS' DILEMMA 269 
 
 careworn. His manner and his oratory harmonized with 
 his theme. It was a gloomy speech, spoken to a very 
 dejected audience. 
 
 The beautiful chamber in which the Lords meet was 
 crowded in every part. But there was none of that 
 cheerful animation which is the note of a large assembly. 
 Peeresses, their attire now that the Court mourning is 
 over brightened with the first touches of spring, occupied 
 the galleries, and golden sunlight streamed through the 
 painted windows, glorifying the whole scene. Nothing, 
 however, could chase away the all-pervading gloom. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne, who is a practised speaker and knows 
 the value of light and shade, indulged in one or two 
 humorous observations, but they were listened to with 
 stony indifference. It was like joking at a funeral. It 
 was obvious that Lord Lansdowne's audience found his 
 proposals extremely distasteful. He himself did not 
 attempt to belittle their significance. Turning round to 
 address his own supporters, and speaking with an emotion 
 whose sincerity dignified the orator and touched the 
 assembly, he admitted that he was making a very serious 
 demand upon them. To some his proposals would have 
 almost the appearance of a betrayal. He acknowledged 
 that they meant a death-blow to the House of Lords as 
 we have known it. He wished the duty of proposing 
 these changes had fallen to the lot of some one else, and 
 not to himself, who owed so much to the House of Lords. 
 This sombre peroration, with its fatalistic spirit, pro- 
 duced a perceptible impression on the peers, and evoked 
 a faint approving cheer, which sounded like a muffled 
 reverberation from a vault. 
 
 Lord Morley dismissed as entirely out of the question 
 the acceptance of this Bill as a substitute for the Govern- 
 ment's own proposals. " It cannot be a substitute or an 
 alternative to the Parliament Bill." This was said in 
 loud, emphatic tones, with many an impressive gesture. 
 
270 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 On the other hand, the Lansdowne proposals " may, or 
 may not, prove to be a complement or a supplement to 
 the Parliament Bill." 
 
 One other thing Lord Morley made plain, and that is, 
 that the limitation of the veto of the House of Lords con- 
 tained in the Parliament Bill will apply to any Second 
 Chamber, reformed or unreformed. " Our principles and 
 our plan have been fully approved by the nation at two 
 general elections. The people's decision is that the Lords' 
 veto should be made suspensory, not absolute. Whether 
 the House of Lords is reformed or unreformed, this 
 limitation must apply." 
 
 Lord Morley emphatically denied that the Government 
 have " precipitated this catastrophe." The responsi- 
 bility belongs to the Lords. It was their actions, cul- 
 minating in the rejection of the Budget in November, 
 1909, that had created the situation. He expressed the 
 opinion that the nation is not so much interested in Lord 
 Lansdowne's proposals as in the attitude of the House of 
 Lords to the Parliament Bill. On that point alone is 
 there public anxiety. Lord Morley argued that the 
 powers of the Second Chamber should be settled before 
 we discussed its composition. It is absurd to call into 
 existence a new body until you have settled what it is 
 to do and within what limits it is to work. 
 
 "15 May. Lord Lansdowne moved second reading 
 of his Bill. Very subdued in tone. Pleaded for compro- 
 mise. Said Lords did not claim an absolute veto. Morley 
 insisted that the first essential of the situation is to pass 
 the Parliament Bill. Lord Bathurst, a Tory peer, 
 strongly opposed to the Lansdowne Bill ; said he had 
 not met a single peer who is in favour of it. 
 
 " 32 May. Lansdowne's Bill read a second time with- 
 out a division. House of Lords again in sombre mood. 
 Haldane aptly epitomized the whole debate in the phrase, 
 ' sombre acquiescence and cries of pain.' The Lans- 
 
THE LORDS' DILEMMA 271 
 
 downe Bill without a friend. Condemned to-day by the 
 Duke of Marlborough, Duke of Somerset, Lord Saltoun, 
 Lord Bray, Lord Killanin, all Conservative peers, and 
 very feebly defended that is, without heart or spirit 
 by Lords Lytton, Goschen, and Fortescue. 
 
 " Haldane very suave, courteous, and firm. Con- 
 stitution has broken down. Government mean to repair 
 it, and make it stable. Criticized Lansdowne's Bill, but 
 acknowledged that it is a big step forward. Hopes that 
 when reform of Lords is undertaken, both parties may 
 co-operate, but passage of Parliament Bill indispensable 
 first step. Necessary to give Liberal Government equality 
 so that we may negotiate on equal terms. Lords have 
 doubtless been conscientious, but what mischief has been 
 done by conscientious men ! 
 
 " Lansdowne admitted imperfections in his Bill, but 
 what better can be produced ? Marlborough and Somer- 
 set and others had extolled hereditary system ; yes, but 
 some sacrifices are necessary in order to ensure the 
 continued existence of a Second Chamber. In these 
 democratic days an undemocratic House open to attack. 
 Adroit appeal to backwoodsmen, ' Do you prefer Govern- 
 ment Bill to this Bill ? ' The Government will either 
 leave you without power under the Parliament Bill, or 
 else propose an elective Second Chamber. Complained 
 bitterly of Government policy. Haldane talked of 
 equality. His notion of equality is to hit the enemy below 
 the belt, and then, having got him down, begin to talk to 
 the enemy in the gate. Strongly supported Rosebery's 
 suggestion to get rid of Law Lords. Speech of a 
 vanquished man, mild in tone, but full of bitter 
 mortification. 
 
 " Backwoodsmen's courage failed them at the last 
 moment, and they did not challenge a division. A very 
 melancholy and chastened assembly." 
 
 The debate demonstrated to the whole country that 
 
272 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Lord Lansdowne's Bill as an alternative to the Govern- 
 ment scheme was a failure. Even in the House of Lords 
 it had not half a dozen sincere friends. Whatever its 
 defects, the Parliament Bill held the field. It had many 
 enemies ; it had not a single rival. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV 
 PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS 
 
 ON 23 May Viscount Morley moved the second 
 reading of the Parliament Bill in the House 
 of Lords. The wind of English freedom blew 
 through his virile and eloquent speech. It was not long 
 it occupied about three-quarters of an hour in delivery 
 but it was entirely adequate to the occasion. In stately 
 language the greatest of living English men of letters 
 sketched the origin and development of the controversy 
 between Lords and Commons. He was the pink of 
 courtesy, but the Tory peers have never been confronted 
 by a more formidable foe. Row upon row, they sat 
 facing the orator, very quiet, very silent, very sombre. 
 They seemed to be hypnotized by this slender, ascetic 
 intellectual, so venerable from his years and his achieve- 
 ments, who swayed to and fro under the stress of his 
 emotion. Thumping the table with vigour to accentuate 
 his remark, he exclaimed in a loud voice, " This Bill 
 stands." One was conscious of a poignant emotion seizing 
 the assembly when Lord Morley told the peers that by 
 adopting Lord Lansdowne's Bill they had themselves 
 admitted that as at present constituted they had no 
 longer any moral authority to act. He reminded the 
 House that the proposals in the Government Bill were 
 first advocated in 1836 by " one of the chief Utilitarians," 
 James Mill, and that they were advocated in 1884 by a 
 great orator and " one of the soundest and truest English- 
 18 273 
 
274 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 men that ever lived," John Bright. Then came a reasoned 
 plea for the Parliament Bill on its merits. Lord Morley 
 is amazed at Mr. Balfour's efforts to whittle away the 
 significance of a general election. Are we to be told 
 that a general election is like " a tale told by an idiot, 
 full of sound and fury, signifying nothing " ? That view 
 has never been taken before by an English statesman. 
 
 Lord Morley said it was the prolonged and obstinate 
 resistance of the Lords to Liberal measures that had 
 made the Government determine that this unfair system 
 shall come to an end. Lord Morley is a reluctant convert 
 on the subject of House of Lords' reform. Speaking 
 for the Cabinet, he suggested that both parties might 
 unite in that work of reconstruction. The speech ended 
 with an eloquent appeal. " No men are held in greater 
 honour than those who have by wise and prudent coun- 
 sels avoided bringing things to extremities." The Tory 
 peers had been almost petrified with astonishment as 
 they listened to Lord Morley's words, but they ironically 
 applauded this sentiment. Allusion was made by Lord 
 Morley to the wise Conservative leaders of the past 
 the Duke of Wellington, Lord Cairns, the late Lord 
 Salisbury. Finally, speaking very impressively, he 
 urged the Lords to avoid a course which may land the 
 country in circumstances of great difficulty and perhaps 
 of great confusion. 
 
 Lord Midleton, Mr. St. John Brodrick in his House of 
 Commons days, began in a combative tone, but ended 
 up with a mild entreaty for negotiation. He comforted 
 himself with the reflection that even if the Parliament 
 Bill was placed on the Statute Book, it would be possible 
 for a Tory Government in the future to repeal it. " This 
 Bill will leave a rankling sense of injustice. Are you 
 wise in pressing us so hard to-day ? " Speaking^ for the 
 Opposition leaders, he counselled the House to give the 
 Bill a second reading although that was making " a 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS 275 
 
 very heavy demand on the forbearance of noble lords." 
 If the Bill were rejected at this stage an issue of grave 
 magnitude would instantly be created. The Opposition 
 leaders do not want to close the door ; they are willing 
 even now to negotiate. He added that it was the inten- 
 tion of the Opposition to introduce " grave amendments " 
 in committee. 
 
 Lord Eversley, better known as Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, 
 a Liberal peer with a distinguished record of public 
 service, recalled some of Lord Rosebery's sayings on the 
 Lords' question in 1894. The first of Lord Rosebery's 
 speeches in that campaign was made at Bradford, the 
 constituency for which Lord Eversley, as Mr. Shaw- 
 Lefevre, sat in the House of Commons. Lord Rosebery's 
 speeches then were approved by a Cabinet containing 
 Lord Spencer, Lord Kimberley, and Lord Ripon, three 
 great Whig noblemen. Of sixty Bills rejected by the 
 Lords since 1832, fifty-eight have become law, said Lord 
 Eversley, Home Rule being one of the two exceptions. 
 Lord Willoughby de Broke, a Conservative peer, said 
 he would have voted for the rejection of the Parliament 
 Bill on second reading but for the entreaties of his 
 leaders. 
 
 The progress of the Parliament Bill through the House 
 of Lords is shown by the following extracts from the 
 diary of an observer : 
 
 " 24 May. Lords continued debate on Parliament 
 Bill. Archbishop of Canterbury made a very earnest 
 appeal for a peaceful settlement and urged need for 
 wise compromise. Very firm reply by Lord Chan- 
 cellor. No compromise possible. Parliament Bill un- 
 alterable. Room for arrangement between parties in 
 regard to ulterior measures. Hint that when Lords are 
 reformed it may be possible to devise means for passing 
 legislation which will involve less delay than two years 
 provided in Parliament Bill, meaning, no doubt, joint 
 
276 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 session. Lord Chancellor's speech very powerful and 
 telling. Spoke with real bitterness of the way in which 
 Lords have destroyed Liberal measures, and boldly 
 unfurled Home Rule banner. Lord Salisbury complained 
 that Lord Chancellor had banged, barred, and bolted 
 the door against conciliation. Duke of Northumber- 
 land's antique Toryism ; almost claimed Divine right 
 for peers, and would like Parliament Bill to be rejected 
 outright. 
 
 " 25 May. Lord Selborne chief speaker in Lords 
 to-day. Spoke temperately, but feels bitterly. Caus- 
 tic allusions to Lloyd George's ' vituperation ' and 
 Churchill's ' insults,' but thinks it expedient to read the 
 Bill a second time because of ' dreadful gravity of crisis ' 
 that would otherwise be precipitated. Unionists would 
 not be responsible for slamming the door against a 
 national settlement. 
 
 " Pent land for the Government, heavy but sound. 
 Newton full of dry humour. Admits that Lords have 
 been outmanoeuvred ; they were goaded and jockeyed 
 into rejecting Budget. Lament over the indifference of 
 the country. 
 
 " Montagu of Beaulieu thought Parliament Bill might 
 have been far worse. World governed by the inevitable 
 drift of things. The Liberal party had been driven to 
 this Bill. A collision between the Houses was bound to 
 come. It might have come in far more dangerous form. 
 
 ' The aged Earl of Halsbury present, listening intently 
 to debate, leaning forward with hands on knees. He 
 was absent all through debate on Lansdowne's Bill. 
 St. Aldwyn and Balfour of Burleigh never present these 
 days in the House of Lords. 
 
 " 29 May. The Lords to-day read the Parliament 
 Bill a second time without a division. Lansdowne fore- 
 shadowed large amendments in committee, including one 
 dealing with finance (Clause i), on the ground that 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS 277 
 
 Prime Minister's language about danger of tacking had 
 not been effectively translated into the clause. 
 
 " Rosebery's speech at once gloomy and witty. Lament 
 over the association of the food tax with the constitu- 
 tional question. Sneers at the Master of Elibank and 
 his regiment of 500 peers. Attacked Government 
 for not accepting Lansdowne's offer to join in rebuilding 
 Second Chamber. They preferred party triumph to 
 national settlement. Cooked the dove and served it 
 up with the olive branch. Rosebery is frightened at the 
 future of national finances, foresees decay of the landed 
 gentry, et cetera. Would like to vote against the second 
 reading to compel the Government to fall back on their 
 last resource and make them ridiculous. But fears 
 consequences, and therefore agrees with Lord Lansdowne 
 that Bill ' should pass ' hastily adding, ' pass its second 
 reading.' Haldane very firm. Parliament Bill the only 
 way. Government are only following out policy advocated 
 by Rosebery with great eloquence in 1894. 
 
 " 28 June. Committee stage of Parliament Bill opens 
 in House of Lords. Lord Cromer proposed official 
 Opposition amendment to Clause i. This amendment 
 provided for creation of a Joint Committee of fifteen 
 members seven peers, nominated by the Lord Chan- 
 cellor, seven Commoners by the Speaker. Speaker to 
 preside and have the casting vote. An earlier amend- 
 ment by Lord Galway, providing that Judges should be 
 called in to define Money Bills, withdrawn. Lansdowne, 
 following Balfour's lead in House of Commons, against 
 calling in judiciary. Cromer's amendment carried by 
 183 to 44. 
 
 " 29 June. Long debate on Lord Cromer's amend- 
 ment, giving power to Joint Committee to rule that 
 Money Bills whose governing purpose is not financial 
 shall be brought under operation of Clause 2 of Parlia- 
 ment Bill. Haldane and Lord Chancellor amazed at 
 
278 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 this amendment. Lord Chancellor : ' You are laying 
 hands upon the ark of the covenant of the Commons/ 
 St. Aldwyn said Cromer's amendment won't do. Under 
 it, Lords are claiming a power over finance they have 
 never before exercised. Yet Lansdowne and Midleton 
 supported it. Amendment carried by huge majority. 
 St. Aldwyn, O'Hagan, and Lytton voted in the minority. 
 
 " Grave error in tactics for Lords to pass this amend- 
 ment. Under it the Joint Committee would have domi- 
 nating power over the Commons in finance. 
 
 " 3 />tfy Committee on Parliament Bill. Back- 
 woodsmen restive. Avebury asked, When have Lords 
 stood out against people's declared will at general election? 
 ' You are doing it now/ said Earl Russell ; ' the country 
 approved of the Parliament Bill at the last election.' ' 
 
 On 4 July Lord Lansdowne moved an amendment, 
 drafted carefully by the Unionist leaders, to exclude 
 from the operation of the Parliament Bill certain measures 
 of exceptional importance. The measures to be excepted 
 included Bills dealing with the Crown or the Protestant 
 succession thereto ; Bills to establish Parliaments or 
 National Councils in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and 
 England ; also other measures of " grave importance " 
 upon which, in the opinion of a Joint Committee composed 
 of members of both Houses, the judgment of the country 
 has not been sufficiently ascertained. Lord Lansdowne 
 proposed that instead of coming under the operation of 
 the Parliament Bill, all measures within the scope of 
 his amendment shall, after rejection by the House of 
 Lords, be referred to a direct vote of the people. 
 
 The Joint Committee to which Lord Lansdowne pro- 
 posed to give these large powers had already been endowed, 
 through an amendment of Lord Cromer's, with control 
 over Money Bills. 
 
 Lord Morley offered to the amendment on behalf of 
 the Government an uncompromising resistance. His 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS 279 
 
 criticism of it was brilliant and ruthless. This proposal, 
 he said, involves complete mistrust of the ultimate 
 judgment of the House of Commons. He proceeded 
 to analyse the powers to be given to this Joint Committee. 
 It would oust the responsible Ministers of the Crown, 
 it would override and supersede the House of Commons, 
 it would be clothed with the mighty power of compelling 
 a dissolution and a general election. And this Joint 
 Committee is to be responsible to nobody ! Lord Morley 
 could hardly contain his astonishment at this staggering 
 proposal. " My Lords," he said, " you are erecting an 
 impossible tribunal to decide impossible questions. 
 We are not dealing with words, but with things." 
 
 Lord Lansdowne spoke adroitly in moving his amend- 
 ment. His line was to represent the Government as 
 tyrants demanding all, and the House of Lords as a 
 much misunderstood body, anxious only for the public 
 good, and ready to go almost to any length in coming 
 to a compromise. " Why this revolution ? We admit 
 that some readjustment of the relations between the 
 two Houses is necessary. We are willing to meet you in 
 a reasonable spirit." He did not deny that the Joint 
 Committee might work unfairly against the Liberal 
 party. But safeguards are more necessary when the 
 Liberals are in power. 
 
 Lord Courtney spoke strongly in favour of the referen- 
 dum ; appealed to recent experience of Australia to 
 show that a House within a year of a general election 
 may exceed its mandate. Spoke of the decay of parlia- 
 mentary spirit, of the tyranny of caucus and closure. 
 No degradation in a legislative body, however illustrious, 
 appealing to its creator the people. Lord Curzon 
 eulogized Lord Courtney's speech. In past years he 
 admitted that he (Curzon) had written against referen- 
 dum ; but circumstances have changed ; no other 
 security left, nothing safe with an uncontrolled House 
 
280 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 of Commons. In answer to Lord Londonderry came a 
 fiery speech on Home Rule from Lord MacDonnell, 
 who served the Crown with such distinction in India. 
 He said the system of government in Ireland was in- 
 defensible. " Cut it down, why cumbereth it the 
 ground ? " Irish people not disloyal to the Crown. 
 Their quarrel with Governments. A most effective 
 reply to Londonderry's Ulsteria. MacDonnell's speech 
 struck a note never previously heard in the House of 
 Lords. The fervour and rugged eloquence of it very 
 impressive. Lord Faber, in otherwise undemocratic 
 speech, showed readiness to consider question of Irish 
 settlement. 
 
 " 5 July- Lansdowne's amendment carried in Lords 
 by 253 to 46. A Liberal peer, Weardale, spoke strongly 
 in favour of referendum, and warned Government that 
 when Tories are in power Liberals will be at their 
 mercy if they refuse this opportunity of getting referen- 
 dum. A veteran Liberal, Lord Sheffield (Mr. Lyulph 
 Stanley of past days), against referendum. Example 
 of Third Empire in France, showed dangers of plebiscitary 
 government. Haldane opposed to referendum and 
 Salisbury in favour. Latter spoke of * parrot-like cry 
 of representative institutions/ Selborne wound up in 
 able speech, ' The referendum has come to stay/ Im- 
 plied admission that the Opposition will be beaten on 
 Parliament Bill, but a time will come, etc. 
 
 " 6 July. Lords concluded to-day committee stage of 
 Parliament Bill in debate on Cromer's detailed amend- 
 ment for appointment of Joint Committee of fifteen 
 development of the first amendment moved in com- 
 mittee. Lord Morley said amendment cut at the root 
 of Government proposals. ' Conciliatory indeed ! ' 
 Why not ask us to withdraw our Bill ? As to Lord St. 
 Aldwyn's amendment for a smaller committee of six to 
 determine whether a Bill is a Money Bill and therefore 
 
PARLIAMENT BILL IN THE LORDS 281 
 
 to come under operation of Clause i, the Government 
 indifferent. The question one for the Opposition. As 
 between the two amendments the Government cannot 
 interfere. St. Aldwyn pointed out in able speech that 
 under his proposal the Joint Committee would have a 
 House of Commons majority. 
 
 " Sensation created by rising of Lord Peel (the vener- 
 able ex-Speaker) like a survivor from a past epoch, 
 very aged and infirm, but intellectual force unabated. 
 Greeted with warm cheers from every part of the House. 
 Recalled occasions when he had protected privileges of 
 the House of Commons from Lords' encroachments. 
 Spoke with pride of the illustrious office of Speaker, 
 and its reputation for impartiality. Fears that the 
 imposition of new duties under the Parliament Bill 
 may impair that reputation. But spoke with warm 
 appreciation of the personnel of House of Commons, 
 and does not believe it has deteriorated. 
 
 " Haldane, after warm tribute to Lord Peel's speech, 
 argued that no better tribunal to pronounce on Money 
 Bills could be desired than the Speaker. Courtney took 
 same line. Contended that Lord Peel's speech really 
 sustained this view. ' Keep the Joint Committee/ 
 said Courtney, ' for legislative measures. Let the Com- 
 mons and the Speaker alone in finance/ St. Aldwyn 's 
 amendment carried without a division. 
 
 " Newton's amendment that powers left to Lords 
 under the Parliament Bill should not be limited by means 
 of the Parliament Bill was not viewed in a hostile spirit 
 by Morley, but, entangled with Lansdowne's amend- 
 ments, it could not be accepted by Government. Lord 
 Lansdowne congratulated Newton on effect of his elo- 
 quence on the Government. He thought Morley 's 
 technical point could be met by the amendment being 
 withdrawn and brought up as a fresh clause on report. 
 Speaking of Morley's attitude to this amendment, 
 
282 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Lansdowne said, ' A ray of reason stole far through the 
 solid darkness of his soul.' 
 
 " 7 July. Daily Telegraph to-day strongly urged 
 Lords to give way, and not force a creation of peers. 
 ' The hemlock must be drunk.' 
 
 " 13 July. Report stage of Parliament Bill in Lords. 
 A tiresome, confused sitting. Lansdowne defiant for 
 one-half of sitting ; fatalistic and submissive for other 
 half. Lansdowne does not think Government will use 
 Parliament Bill to extend their powers in the next three 
 years. Moreover, Newton's amendment would hamper a 
 Tory Government which proposed to relax provisions 
 of Parliament Bill ! Morley would not look at Newton's 
 amendment, because it was still encumbered with the 
 Joint Committee proposal which the Government would 
 not touch in any shape or form. Newton ruefully with- 
 drew his amendment. 
 
 " Lord St. Aldwyn and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, two 
 Tory moderates, emerged from their seclusion. Tories 
 hope to profit by their reputation for fairness." 
 
 Now that the Parliament Bill had reached the final 
 stage, interest was quickened and excitement grew. It 
 was plain that the Lords had transformed the Bill : it 
 was certain that the Commons would not accept the 
 Lords' amendments. What then ? Would the Lords 
 hold out ? Would the authority of the Crown be brought 
 into play ? 
 
CHAPTER XXV 
 THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 
 
 IN July a movement, of which Lord Willoughby de 
 Broke was the animating spirit, sprang up in Tory 
 circles to encourage the House of Lords to stand 
 by its amendments to the Parliament Bill, and insist 
 on adhesion to them, whatever the consequences. Several 
 Conservative peers loudly declared that they would 
 hold out to the last. They were prepared, so to speak, 
 to die in the last ditch in defence of their privileges. A 
 writer in the Daily Chronicle, referring to these " No 
 Surrender " peers, described them as " Die-Hards. " 
 The name captured the popular fancy, and came into 
 general use as a descriptive term. The " Die-Hards ',, 
 were also dubbed " Ditchers." In contradistinction, the 
 peers supporting Lord Lansdowne in reluctant acquies- 
 cence to the passage of the Parliament Bill became known 
 as " Hedgers." As the controversy developed the warfare 
 between " Hedgers " and " Ditchers " raged hot and 
 furious. But in these early days, the cloud in the political 
 sky, presage of the impending storm, was no larger than 
 a man's hand. At the outset the " Die-Hards " were few 
 in number. Under the stimulating influence of excited 
 appeals in the extreme Tory organs, the little band that 
 had gathered round Lord Willoughby de Broke soon 
 gained recruits. His warmest friends would not claim 
 that Lord Willoughby was a great parliamentary figure. 
 His knowledge of politics was by no means profound. He 
 had shown no special devotion to political affairs, and 
 
 283 
 
284 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 was quite unknown to fame until he suddenly sprang 
 into prominence by his opposition to the Budget of 1909. 
 A man in the prime of life, spruce and well groomed, 
 with a strong, good-humoured, clean-shaven face, he 
 brought into the political sphere a whiff from the kennels 
 and the high spirits of the hunting field. He had become 
 by practice a fluent speaker, though the stock of his 
 political ideas remained very meagre. This unlikely 
 person suddenly found himself, to his own amazement, a 
 political leader. There has been no such metamorphosis 
 since Lord George Bentinck, in his indignation at the 
 adoption of Free Trade principles by Sir Robert Peel, 
 sold his racing stud, took to politics, and became leader of 
 the Protectionist rump. The rise of Lord Willoughby de 
 Broke was a fresh proof that in politics a man whose 
 opinions are never in a state of fluid haze, and who goes 
 unerringly to his goal like an arrow from the bow, will 
 always command support. It seemed at one time that 
 Lord Willoughby de Broke would gather to his banner 
 only a score of peers from the " backwoods," with the 
 addition of a few patricians like the Duke of Northumber- 
 land, whose archaic Toryism belonged to the antedi- 
 luvian age. But there were soon signs that peers of 
 weight and substance would fight under the " Die-Hard " 
 banner. Earl Selborne, not long back from South Africa, 
 where his judicious temper and moderate views did much 
 to facilitate the smooth working of the post-war settle- 
 ment, gave the sanction of his respected name to the 
 " No Surrender " group. Lord Milner, the Duke of 
 Bedford, the Duke of Marlborough, and the Marquis of 
 Salisbury also joined the backwoodsmen. 
 
 But the man who stood out pre-eminent in the group 
 was the ex-Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, who, 
 in spite of the burden of eighty-four years, was a marvel 
 of intellectual and physical vigour his eye undimmed, 
 his intellect unclouded, the fire of his speech unquenched. 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 285 
 
 All his life, from the far-distant days when he was Mr. 
 Hardinge Giffard, of the South Wales Circuit, he had 
 been a stout Tory, unwilling to make any concession to 
 the spirit of the age, a sceptic about democracy, a foe to 
 all liberal ideas, standing fast in an age of change to the 
 old, harsh, unlovely, but virile Toryism of Lyndhurst 
 and Eldon. No greater contrast could be imagined 
 than that between Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord 
 Halsbury the former young, tall, spruce, jaunty, with 
 something of the air of a superior jockey, redolent of 
 horses ; the other redolent of the law-courts, bowed and 
 seamed by age, but with fresh and healthy colouring in 
 his cheeks, a short, squat, broad figure, leonine head and 
 mane, a face stern and full of pugnacity, a free swinging 
 carriage and an energy of movement that belied his years. 
 Lord Halsbury had none of the gifts of political leadership, 
 but now in his old age he became the rallying point for 
 the rebellious peers. The " Die-Hards " had support 
 in the Press from the Morning Post and the Observer, 
 but the great majority of the Conservative journals in 
 London and the provinces supported Lord Lansdowne. 
 Chief among them, the Spectator and the Daily Telegraph, 
 strongly counselled the House of Lords to acquiesce in 
 the passage of the Parliament Bill, rather than take 
 action which would compel a creation of peers. 
 
 It was rumoured that the " Die- Hards " would muster 
 in sufficient numbers to throw out the Bill on the motion 
 for third reading. To provide against tKat eventuality, 
 Lord Morley, on 16 July, issued an urgent whip to the 
 Liberal peers, begging them to be in their places. The 
 average number of noble Lords who had rallied to the 
 Government during the progress of the Parliament Bill 
 through the Upper House was only forty-five, and it was 
 known the " Die-Hards " numbered at least seventy. 
 Unless there was a better attendance of Liberal peers, 
 the Bill might consequently be thrown out on third 
 
286 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 reading. But the peril passed ; the Bill as amended by 
 the Lords was read a third time ; and it transpired that 
 the " Die-Hards " were reserving themselves for the 
 later stage when the Parliament Bill came back 
 from the Commons shorn of all the Lords' amend- 
 ments. 
 
 On 20 July Lord Morley moved the third reading of 
 the Bill in a crowded and excited House. His speech 
 was loftily eloquent and constitutional in the best sense. 
 The voice, often husky, was to-day bell-like in its clear- 
 ness. The Parliament Bill, he said, is a grave measure 
 with large consequences, but it is not so revolutionary 
 as Lord Lansdowne's Bill for the reform of the consti- 
 tution of the House of Lords. He warned their Lordships 
 that the rejection of the third reading would lead to 
 " tremendous dislocation of parliamentary business, 
 great exasperation of parliamentary and political opinion 
 and temper, and the necessity for starting again on a 
 thankless and wearisome journey." Speaking of the 
 amendments introduced into the Bill by the peers, he 
 denounced the proposals for a Joint Committee and a 
 referendum. " We," he said (speaking of the Liberal 
 party), " we hold to the principle of national opinion 
 working through parliamentary machinery. You," 
 pointing to the Opposition, " stand for a great innovating 
 principle with most innovating machinery." The Govern- 
 ment policy of changing the veto of the House of Lords 
 from an absolute to a suspensory one was not comparable 
 in magnitude of risk and possible dangers to Lord Lans- 
 downe's, which would deal a death-blow to the pres- 
 tige, the authority and responsibility of the House of 
 Commons. " At this stage of the crisis heroics are not 
 wanted, nor logic, though we are not afraid of either. 
 What is wanted is the spirit of wisdom and governance. 
 There is no question of humiliation. The House of Lords 
 is not asked to surrender to the House of Commons, nor 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 287 
 
 to the Government. It is asked to submit to the verdict 
 and judgment of the country." 
 
 Lord Lansdowne spoke with an affectation of reason- 
 ableness and moderation. " Even on this Parliament 
 Bill, dangerous as we think it, we have gone five-sixths 
 of the way to meet you." ' You have at your hands," 
 said Lord Lansdowne, " all the materials for an honour- 
 able settlement." It was inconceivable that the Govern- 
 ment should resort to other methods, " detestable to all 
 right-thinking men." The most significant observation 
 in Lord Lansdowne 's speech was the following : 
 
 " Some of the amendments that we have introduced 
 into the Bill are so essential that we should certainly not 
 be prepared to recede from their substance so long as we 
 remain free agents." 
 
 In other words, Lord Lansdowne was not prepared to 
 incur the responsibility of compelling the active inter- 
 vention of the Crown in this political quarrel. A charac- 
 teristically smoothing speech followed from the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury. He said the average man in a 
 third-class carriage thinks this is a struggle for supremacy 
 between the representative House of Commons and the 
 hereditary House of Lords. The Archbishop protested 
 that it was nothing of the kind, and blamed the popular 
 press for the prevalence of the popular impression. 
 
 Then came the venerable Lord Halsbury, full of fight 
 and speaking with great animation. He put the claims of 
 the House of Lords very high, and declared that it has a 
 right to interfere even with finance. " Decorous though 
 it was in language, Lord Mor ley's speech," he said, ' was 
 threats from beginning to end." No threats could shake 
 this dour inflexible old Tory. When the Parliament Bill 
 returns to the Lords with the Lords' amendments cut out 
 he is going to move their re-insertion. " I would be a 
 coward if I submitted without challenging a division." 
 His allusion to the " solemn duty I owe to God and my 
 
288 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 country " drew loud applause from the Tory extremists. 
 A temperate speech was delivered by the Earl of Durham, 
 in whose composition there is a strong dash of Liberalism. 
 Lord Durham believed that the action of the House of 
 Lords had compelled the Government to bring in the 
 Parliament Bill, and does not regard it as so dangerous 
 and revolutionary as it is painted. 
 
 The only other speech of note in the debate was that 
 of Lord Willoughby de Broke, who spoke with equal 
 impatience of the Parliament Bill and of Lord Lans- 
 downe 's Reform Bill. He wants things left alone. The 
 Constitution is not in need of doctoring. Speaking for 
 the backwoodsmen, Lord Willoughby said : " We will 
 only give way to main force. To create peers would be 
 just like bringing ships and guns and men into this 
 House." Lord Willoughby was disposed to concede to 
 the House of Commons supremacy in finance, but Lord 
 Lansdowne's amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill was 
 " the irreducible minimum." " We refuse to have that 
 amendment whittled away. We shall resist, whatever 
 the consequence, to the bitter end." 
 
 The Parliament Bill was then read a third time without 
 a division. With the Lords' amendments embodied in it, 
 which had turned it inside out, the Parliament Bill was 
 returned to the House of Commons. 
 
 It was evident from the speeches of Lord Halsbury 
 and Lord Willoughby on the third reading, and the 
 applause they evoked, that the " Die-Hard " movement 
 had now become a factor of which the responsible leaders 
 must take account. Accordingly a meeting of Unionist 
 peers was summoned for 21 July. The meeting was held 
 in Lansdowne House. Strong differences of opinion were 
 revealed as to the policy that ought to be pursued by the 
 Unionists. Lord Lansdowne addressed his supporters, 
 counselling acceptance of the Bill, and urging that it 
 would be unwise to prolong resistance to the point where 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 289 
 
 a creation of peers became inevitable. He read to the 
 meeting a letter which the Prime Minister had addressed 
 to Mr. Balfour, intimating that peers would be created 
 unless the Parliament Bill was passed in substantially 
 the same form in which it left the House of Commons. 
 This historic letter, when published in the newspapers on 
 22 July, created an unparalleled sensation. It was in 
 these terms : 
 
 10, DOWNING STREET 
 
 " 20 July, 1911 
 
 " DEAR MR. BALFOUR, 
 
 " I think it is 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 the House to disagree with the Lords' 
 amendments. 
 
 " In the circumstances, should the necessity arise, the 
 Government will advise the King to exercise his pre- 
 rogative 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. tt ^ 7 . , 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 " H. H. ASQUITH " 
 
 A copy of this letter had been sent by the Prime 
 Minister to Lord Lansdowne. Disclosure of its contents 
 at the meeting of Unionist peers did not quench the 
 revolt. It seemed rather to fan the flame of discontent. 
 Conservatives in both Houses of Parliament professed 
 virtuous indignation at what they regarded as the Prime 
 Minister's tyrannous threat. Many of them had per- 
 suaded themselves that the Prime Minister had not 
 19 
 
290 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 secured what were known as the Royal guarantees. The 
 discovery that he was armed with full power to make 
 the will of the people prevail infuriated them. 
 
 These feelings of exasperation led to a discreditable 
 scene organized by the Tory extremists in the House of 
 Commons on the ensuing Monday, 24 July, when the 
 Prime Minister was howled down. A description of the 
 scene by one who saw it is appended. 
 
 " No pen can adequately portray the discreditable scenes 
 which took place in the House of Commons on Monday 
 afternoon. For the first time in the. history of Parlia- 
 ment a man who is Prime Minister and Leader of the 
 House of Commons was refused a hearing. Verbal 
 insults were flung by the score like missiles at Mr. 
 Asquith's head, and he was treated with the greatest 
 discourtesy. Fortunately the Liberal members showed 
 signal self-restraint under much provocation, or the 
 scene would have developed into a wild orgy of disorder. 
 As it was, so much temper had been generated that it 
 was impossible for the House to proceed with its assigned 
 business the consideration of the Lords' amendments 
 to the Parliament Bill and the Speaker, acting under a 
 Standing Order which gives him authority to adjourn 
 the House in case of grave disorder, brought the sitting 
 to an abrupt close shortly after five o'clock. 
 
 " Mere interruption, however continuous, is not 
 regarded as disorder in a technical sense in the House of 
 Commons. This explains the large latitude allowed by 
 the Speaker to-day, first to the Opposition and after- 
 wards to the Ministerialists. Mr. Lowther never lost 
 command of the situation. He was cool, calm, and 
 collected in this whirlwind of passion. But it must be 
 said that some of the interrupters were allowed extra- 
 ordinary indulgence. Several Tories, easily identified, 
 repeatedly shouted out ' Traitor ' at the Prime Minister, 
 and were not rebuked. Two Tories more than once 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 291 
 
 shook their fists menacingly at Mr. Asquith. Another 
 very excitable person was Lord Hugh Cecil, who seemed 
 to be in a state of acute nervous tension, and all through 
 the Prime Minister's speech kept up a cry of ' 'Vide, 
 'vide, 'vide/ in a low and melancholy monotone, like 
 that of a devotee gabbling an invocation. Prominent 
 among the noisy interrupters were Mr. Remnant, Mr. 
 Goulding, Major Archer- Shee, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Page 
 Croft, and the * man from Shropshire,' Mr. Rowland 
 Hunt. 
 
 ' Through all the succession of trying scenes the Prime 
 Minister behaved with manly dignity. He kept his 
 temper under circumstances of unparalleled exasperation, 
 and showed great magnanimity in sending round the 
 word along the Liberal benches that Mr. Balfour should 
 be given a courteous hearing. 
 
 ' The House of Commons was densely crowded in 
 anticipation of the Prime Minister's speech. Every nook 
 and cranny was occupied. Scores of members unable to 
 find a place on the floor took refuge in the side galleries. 
 In the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery were Mr. Whitelaw 
 Reid and half a dozen other Ambassadors. The Peers' 
 Gallery was full to overflowing. Among the peers who 
 had come to watch the scene were Lords Curzon, Courtney, 
 Lytton, Londonderry, MacDonnell, Shaw, Robson, 
 Southwark, Glantawe, and the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury. 
 
 " Questions on the paper were sped through with 
 lightning rapidity, all the while the House buzzing with 
 conversation and simmering with excitement. When 
 Mr. Asquith entered the House at 3.30 p.m. he was 
 greeted with a loud and joyous shout of welcome. 
 Liberals, Labour members, and Nationalists sprang to 
 their feet and cheered for seconds together in an ecstasy 
 of enthusiasm. The Tories indulged in booing and 
 hisses, and from their crowded benches uprose cries of 
 
292 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 ' Traitor/ ' Redmond/ ' Dictator/ ' Patrick Ford/ and 
 other stupid exclamations. 
 
 " Mr. Asquith was again loudly cheered when he rose 
 at 3-35 to make his speech. It was soon evident that 
 a section of the Tory party had deliberately planned 
 to prevent him being heard. Standing at the Treasury 
 Bench, firm and resolute, the Prime Minister calmly 
 surveyed the turbulent and disorderly Opposition. 
 For a quarter of an hour he endeavoured vainly to go 
 on with his speech. Appeal after appeal was made 
 by the Speaker to the Opposition to behave in a manner 
 worthy of the traditions of the House of Commons, 
 and to remember that this was a serious occasion. But 
 the young bloods of the Opposition were not in a mood 
 to listen to any admonitions, even though backed by 
 the high authority of Mr. Lowther. They kept up an 
 indescribable tumult. It was a very unedifying ex- 
 hibition of manners, and there were ironical cries from 
 the Liberal benches, ' Oh, the British aristocracy ! '- 
 an allusion to the fact that several of the noisiest inter- 
 rupters were sons of peers. 
 
 " At length, after he had been on his feet for twenty 
 minutes, Mr. Asquith was able to make himself heard 
 through the din. In loud and resonant tones he reminded 
 the House that in Great Britain there is a majority of 
 nearly 60 in favour of the Parliament Bill, and in 
 the United Kingdom a majority of 120. He claimed that 
 no Bill in our parliamentary history had ever been so 
 clearly and unequivocally a main issue at a general 
 election. The nation not only approved of the principle 
 of the Bill, but also of its machinery. By their amend- 
 ments the Lords want to substitute for the Government 
 plan the alternative plan rejected by the nation. 
 
 " At this point the interruptions broke out afresh, and 
 with greater violence than ever, and at 4.15, with 
 a despairing gesture, the Prime Minister indicated that 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 293 
 
 he could not go on. Encouraged, however, by a hearty 
 demonstration on the Liberal benches, he made a fresh 
 attempt, but it was to little purpose, and at last he gave 
 up the impossible task, saying, ' I am not going to 
 degrade myself ' (loud Liberal cheers) ' by addressing 
 arguments to persons who are determined not to listen/ 
 ' A situation has been created,' he added, in a loud voice 
 that could be heard above the din, ' from which there is 
 only one constitutional way of escape. Unless the House 
 of Lords consent to restore this Bill (with reasonable 
 amendments consistent with its principle and pur- 
 pose) to its original shape, we shall be compelled to in- 
 voke the prerogative of the Crown.' Mr. Asquith then 
 sat down, amid long and loud continued cheering. 
 
 " Mr. Balfour, who had made no attempt to check the 
 ebullience of his followers, could not, in decency, with- 
 hold a word of reproof for their behaviour. * I frankly 
 regret/ he said, ' that I have not been able to hear the 
 speech of the Prime Minister ' ; but then the action of the 
 Government was bound to excite deep and passionate 
 feeling. He reproached the Prime Minister with having 
 ' misused the prerogative of the Crown, and destroyed 
 the independence of the Second Chamber/ What for ? 
 Not to end a great war, as was the case when peers were 
 created early in the eighteenth century ; not to pass a 
 measure passionately desired by the nation, as in 1832, 
 but simply to prevent the people of this country expressing 
 a new verdict on Home Rule. The Prime Minister was 
 putting the Crown under practical compulsion on an 
 excuse so trumpery and contemptible that it would 
 not justify the making of a single peer, not even a baron. 
 
 " Mr. Balfour was curious to know when Mr. Asquith 
 tendered his advice to the Crown. Had he a blank cheque 
 in his pocket all the time that the House of Commons and 
 the House of Lords were discussing the Parliament Bill ? 
 At this point Mr. Asquith rose and interrupted Mr. 
 
294 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Balfour. ' I was not allowed to speak/ said the Prime 
 Minister. ' I meant to give in detail the grounds for the 
 advice we tendered to the Crown. I was prevented by an 
 act of discourtesy never before paralleled. Never before 
 has the Leader of the House been denied a hearing.' 
 Mr. Asquith spoke with excusable warmth and bitterness. 
 
 " Adopting a now familiar device, Mr. Balfour said the 
 Lords had not rejected the Parliament Bill. Indeed, he 
 argued that the difference between the two Houses had 
 been narrowed down to one issue : * Shall the country be 
 consulted upon Home Rule ? ' ' Why,' he asked, ' not 
 adopt the Referendum to settle this specific difference 
 between the two Houses ? ' 
 
 " After Mr. Balfour had sat down there was a renewal 
 of uproar, but when Sir Edward Grey rose, looking tense 
 and stern, instantly a great stillness fell upon the House. 
 All the raucous cries of infuriated partisans suddenly 
 ceased at the rising of this majestic figure, whose loftiness 
 and integrity command universal respect. His inter- 
 vention was appropriate in this debate on the Consti- 
 tutional question. It called to mind irresistibly his 
 kinsman, Earl Grey, on whom, as Prime Minister in 1832, 
 fell the responsibility of subduing an intractable House of 
 Lords by employing the weapon of the Royal Prerogative. 
 
 " Sir Edward Grey lamented the discourtesy of which 
 the Prime Minister had been a victim. ' Never,' he said, 
 ' did any leader of a party have behind him more chival- 
 rous personal loyalty, more united political support.' 
 (Prolonged Liberal applause.) He rebuked the Opposition 
 for their behaviour. They listened to this commanding 
 man like naughty boys who are being reproved by a 
 schoolmaster for something mean and shabby. In 
 grave language, warmed with feeling, he said, amid loud 
 applause, ' So far as it meant personal discourtesy to the 
 Prime Minister, every one of us resents it.' He warned 
 the Opposition that by tactics such as these they were 
 
THE LORDS AND THEIR AMENDMENTS 295 
 
 undermining and destroying the House of Commons. He 
 himself was not going to argue the Constitutional question. 
 He agreed with all that Mr. Asquith had been allowed to 
 say. ' But if the Prime Minister's arguments are not to 
 be listened to, there is not one of us who will attempt 
 to take his place.' He ended a brief but very weighty 
 speech exactly attuned to the occasion by moving that 
 the debate should be adjourned. 
 
 " Mr. F. E. Smith then rose, only to be received with 
 derisive jeers from supporters of the Government. In 
 revenge for the treatment of the Prime Minister they 
 were determined not to listen to the member for Walton. 
 Time and again did this leader of the Tory forwards 
 begin a sentence, but all to no purpose. Failing to make 
 himself heard, he thought it consistent with his dignity 
 to indulge in exaggerated pantomimic gestures, first 
 turning round to the Nationalist Leader and indicating, 
 with a sweep of the right hand and many a beck and nod, 
 that Mr. Redmond's place was on the Treasury Bench. 
 This trivial piece of theatricality gave great delight to 
 the younger Tories. 
 
 " It was perfectly hopeless now to continue the debate, 
 and so, at ten minutes past five, the Speaker rose and 
 adjourned the House. 
 
 " All through the tumult the Irish Nationalists sat 
 quiet as mice, amused spectators of the surging passions 
 that heaved and stormed around them." 
 
 It was wisely decided by the Government that a week's 
 interval should elapse before the proceedings on the 
 Parliament Bill were resumed. The postponement would 
 give a chance for party passion to subside. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI 
 REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 
 
 THE discovery that the " Die-Hard " movement 
 had now reached formidable dimensions in- 
 duced Lord Lansdowne to take an extra- 
 ordinary step. Gravely concerned lest a situation might 
 develop in which the creation of peers would be 
 inevitable, the Opposition Leader was resolved to do 
 what lay in his power to avert that calamity. He was 
 animated by two motives solicitude for the Crown 
 and concern for the interests of the peerage. The rebel 
 movement could, of course, be beaten down by a rally 
 of Unionist peers to the side of the Government, but this 
 was a course Lord Lansdowne could not bring himself 
 to recommend. Abstain from voting he would, but vote 
 for a Bill which he detested he could not. Hence the 
 creation or the non-creation of peers would, in the last 
 resort, depend upon whether the " Die-Hards " could 
 muster sufficient peers to outnumber the Government's 
 ordinary supporters. The " Die-Hard " leaders jealously 
 concealed the number of peers who had pledged their 
 support to them. But their numbers could be gauged 
 once Lord Lansdowne and Lord Morley had ascertained 
 the number of their respective supporters. By a curious 
 turn of events the Government and the official Opposi- 
 tion, who had been waging bitter warfare for months, 
 were now taking concerted action with the object of 
 baffling the " Die-Hards, " and rendering unnecessary 
 the intervention of the Crown in the controversy. On 
 
 296 
 
REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 297 
 
 24 July Lord Lansdowne addressed to his supporters 
 in the House of Lords the following letter : 
 
 " LANSDOWNE HOUSE 
 
 " 24 July, 1911 
 
 " MY LORD, 
 
 " The announcement made by the Prime Minister 
 leaves no room for doubt that His Majesty's Govern- 
 ment are now empowered to force the passage of the 
 Parliament Bill through the House of Lords by means 
 of a practically unlimited creation of peers. We shall 
 therefore have to decide whether, by desisting from 
 further opposition, we shall render it possible for His 
 Majesty's Government to carry the Bill in the House of 
 Lords as at present constituted ; or, whether, by insisting 
 on our amendments, we shall bring about a creation of 
 peers in numbers which will overwhelm the present 
 House and paralyse its action in the future without in 
 any way retarding the passage of the Parliament Bill. 
 
 " I have come to the conclusion that the former 
 alternative is preferable in the interests of the House, 
 the Unionist party, and the country. Nor can I bring 
 myself to believe that our supporters will not realize 
 that we are no longer free agents, and that the course 
 which I have indicated involves no responsibility for 
 the Bill, and no complicity with those who are promoting 
 it. 
 
 "It is of the utmost importance that I should be 
 made aware of the views of those peers who usually 
 act with us, and I should therefore be grateful if your 
 Lordships would, with the least possible delay, let me 
 know whether you are prepared to support me in the 
 course which I feel it my duty to recommend. 
 
 " I have the honour to be, my Lord 
 " Yours faithfully 
 
 " LANSDOWNE " 
 
298 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 A furious controversy now arose within the ranks of 
 the Tory party. Like all internal conflicts, it was marked 
 by intense bitterness. The " Die-Hards " denounced 
 as a cowardly betrayal the policy for which Lord Lans- 
 downe and Mr. Balfour were now making themselves 
 responsible. Contrariwise, over a hundred Tory M.P.'s 
 met in one of the committee-rooms of the House of 
 Commons, and solemnly declared their confidence in Mr. 
 Balfour. But most of the younger Unionist M.P.'s, 
 with all the high spirit and gay insouciance of youth, 
 rallied to the side of the " Die-Hards, " who had the 
 countenance, too, of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Sir Ed- 
 ward Carson, Lord Hugh Cecil, and Mr. F. E. Smith. 
 The more sober elements of the Unionist party, in 
 Parliament as in the Press, supported the Lansdowne- 
 Balfour policy. Lord Curzon gave powerful help to it 
 by an able letter in The Times of 24 July. He wrote : 
 
 " We are told that the country will never realize 
 how tremendous a revolution is being perpetrated 
 unless it sees some overt act of violence, such as the 
 marching of 300 or 400 new peers into the House of 
 Lords. My answer is that if the country has not realized 
 it (and I agree that it has not) after the last two years 
 of elections and general elections, it will not be convinced 
 by such an act, however unconstitutional or even ridiculous 
 it may be. The act is much more likely to be regarded 
 as an incident in the warfare of parties (of which I 
 believe there is among the public a very widespread and 
 a not altogether unjustifiable suspicion) ; and the coun- 
 try, instead of going either into hysterics or into peals 
 of contemptuous laughter over an incident that might 
 indeed well provoke both, would more probably call 
 upon the Unionists to trump their opponents' hand by 
 playing a similar or superior card as soon as they get 
 the chance. 
 
 " But these calculations are, after all, hypothetical. 
 
REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 299 
 
 Let us take the concrete consequences of a large creation 
 of peers in its widest national aspect. I am one of those 
 who believe that the country is still opposed to Home 
 Rule, that it has never given its assent to the Disestab- 
 lishment of any portion of the Church of England, and 
 that it views with dislike many of the principal items 
 in the Radical programme. I believe it has only to see 
 the Parliament Bill in operation for a few years to be 
 convinced of its essential arbitrariness and injustice. 
 But if the peers are created, we do not postpone Home 
 Rule ; we expedite and render it certain. We do not 
 prevent Disestablishment ; we facilitate it. We do not 
 render the Parliament Bill odious or ridiculous. On 
 the contrary, we deprive the country of the luxury of 
 seeing it in operation ; for we replace it by a machinery 
 indefinitely more dangerous and despotic. We confer, 
 so far as I can see, no single benefit, present or prospective, 
 on the nation. We merely expose it to a new chapter of 
 Constitutional outrage. We do not even injure the 
 Government. We gratuitously increase their power 
 for mischief. It is bad enough that they already have 
 a large majority in the House of Commons. Where is 
 either the expediency, or the common sense, or the public 
 advantage of presenting them with a second majority 
 in the House of Lords ? " 
 
 Lord Curzon also reminded heated partisans of the 
 danger of dragging the Crown into the arena of conflict. 
 Concern for the position of the Crown weighed heavily 
 on the Prime Minister as well as on Mr. Balfour and Lord 
 Lansdowne. While the Prime Minister had been armed 
 with power to overcome the resistance of the House of 
 Lords, he and his colleagues were extremely anxious to 
 prevent the actual necessity for the exercise of the Royal 
 Prerogative. This known reluctance of the Cabinet to 
 create peers wholesale encouraged the " Die-Hards " to 
 resist and brave it out. A great rally of " Die-Hards " 
 
300 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 took place at a complimentary banquet given to Lord 
 Halsbury on 26 July. On the same day was published 
 a declaration by Mr. Balfour : " With Lord Lansdowne 
 I stand ; with Lord Lansdowne I am ready, if need be, 
 to fall." This phrase occurred in a letter written by 
 Mr. Balfour to Lord Newton : 
 
 " 4 CARLTON GARDENS, PALL MALL, S.W. 
 " 25 July, 1911 
 
 " MY DEAR NEWTON, 
 
 ' You ask me my opinion on the present situa- 
 tion ; and, in particular, on the course which the peers 
 should take when the Parliament Bill is sent back to 
 the Upper House. 
 
 " I have never conceived it to be part of my duty 
 actively to intervene in the affairs of a House to which I 
 do not belong ; nor have I, on the present occasion, 
 taken any share in the propaganda which is, I understand, 
 being vigorously conducted by some of its members. 
 But this is not because I have any doubts as to the 
 advice which I ought to give to those who seek it. On 
 the contrary, my views are clear. 
 
 " I think the majority in the House of Lords should 
 support its leader ; I agree with the advice Lord Lans- 
 downe has given to his friends. With Lord Lansdowne 
 I stand ; with Lord Lansdowne I am ready, if need be, 
 to fall. 
 
 " So far as your direct question is concerned, this is, 
 I suppose, a sufficient answer. But I should convey an 
 entirely wrong impression of my opinions on the present 
 situation if I allowed it to stand alone. For the present 
 situation is grave, even alarming, not merely because we 
 are in the power of an unscrupulous and revolutionary 
 Government, but because the real character of the peril 
 by which we are menaced, and the true methods of 
 meeting it are obscured in the eyes of so many Unionists 
 
REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 301 
 
 by the clouds of controversy which have arisen around 
 (what I consider) the quite secondary point on which 
 you have consulted me. 
 
 " We hear it said that the Lords should ' fight to the 
 last,' that they should be ready to ' perish, but not to 
 yield/ that they should ' do their duty irrespective of 
 consequences,' and so on. I agree. It is all quite true ; 
 but is it all quite relevant ? Is there anything that de- 
 serves to be called ' fighting ' in the course recommended 
 by those friends of ours who are canvassing against 
 Lord Lansdowne ? 
 
 "Is it heroic ? Is there the faintest resemblance 
 between the peer who proposes to vote for restoring the 
 Lords' amendments to the Parliament Bill and the 
 soldier who dies at his post fighting against overwhelming 
 odds? 
 
 " To suppose so is surely to misunderstand the whole 
 situation. I do not for one moment doubt that were 
 courage and self-sacrifice required, these virtues would 
 be forthcoming in abundance. But they are not required 
 either from those who propose to vote, or from those 
 who propose to abstain from voting. There is no fighting 
 in the matter. The crime of the Government is that by 
 a gross misuse of the prerogative they have made the 
 Second Chamber powerless, and fighting in any effective 
 sense impossible. 
 
 " Fighting means, or ought to mean, something real. 
 It means damaging the enemy, hampering his operations, 
 perhaps defeating him ; if he wins making even his 
 victories costly. I fail to see how the course proposed 
 by those who refuse to follow Lord Lansdowne is to 
 attain any of these objects. 
 
 " I fail to see that it resembles any serious military 
 
 operation, or requires the exercise of any military virtue. 
 
 ' There are some who talk as if Lord Lansdowne and 
 
 we who agree with him were in favour of a compromise. 
 
302 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 This is a delusion. A compromise may sometimes be a 
 most excellent thing, but there is no room for it here. 
 , The Government have destroyed, so far as the Parlia- 
 ment Bill is concerned, every real power which the Second 
 Chamber possesses. They have in their own fashion 
 imitated Cromwell without either his excuse or his genius. 
 The crime has been committed ; it can neither be quali- 
 fied nor condoned. Compromise is impossible. What, 
 then, ought the Unionist party to do ? Ought we, 
 amid the clatter of divided counsels, to quarrel over a 
 procedure within the House of Lords, which at the best 
 can be no more than ineffectual parade ? Or ought we 
 to prepare for the great struggle beyond its walls, which 
 the tyranny of the Government has made inevitable ? 
 Without doubt the latter. Let us, then, if we can, agree. 
 " Let the Unionists in the Upper House follow their 
 trusted leader. But if this is impossible, if differ we 
 must, if there be peers who on this occasion are resolved 
 to abandon Lord Lansdowne, if there be politicians 
 outside who feel constrained to applaud him, let us at 
 least remember that the campaign for the restoration of 
 Constitutional liberty is but just begun, and that unless 
 the forces conducting it possess unity and discipline, 
 ultimate victory is impossible. It would, in my opinion, 
 be a misfortune if the present crisis left the House of 
 Lords weaker than the Parliament Bill itself will make it, 
 but it would be an irreparable tragedy if it left us a 
 divided party. 
 
 ' Yours sincerely 
 
 " ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR " 
 
 The Lansdowne-Balfour policy was commending itself 
 more and more to the mass of reasonable Unionist 
 opinion. Unpalatable it might be, but the disagreeable 
 fact must be faced that at the last general election the 
 nation had approved the Parliament Bill, and that the 
 
REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 308 
 
 Government were armed with the Prerogative to ensure 
 the Bill's passage into law. Resistance was futile ; 
 it would only compel the creation of several hundred 
 peers ; and this would impair even the residue of power 
 left to the House of Lords by the Parliament Bill. Far 
 better to acquiesce in the passage of the Bill, but with 
 the determination to repeal it at the first opportunity. 
 Such was the reasoning with which the Lansdowne- 
 Balfour policy was supported. A letter from Lord 
 Camperdown, a Unionist peer, known to be on terms of 
 friendship with Lord Lansdowne, in The Times of 28 
 July, fell like a bombshell into the Tory camp. It inti- 
 mated the writer's intention to vote with the Government 
 in case of need. " I am prepared," wrote Lord Camper- 
 down, "to go to the length of voting for the Bill if this 
 be the only means of taking away from the Prime Minister 
 the excuse for calling upon the Crown to execute its 
 bond." So strong was the resentment caused among 
 Unionists by this letter that Lord Lansdowne was under 
 the necessity of publicly dissociating himself from it. 
 
 " My dear Camperdown," he wrote, " my advice has 
 been in favour of abstention from voting ; and in order 
 to make my position clear, I may add that in no circum- 
 stances should I consider myself justified in voting with 
 the Government when the Bill returns to our House." 
 
 Mr. Walter Long, a leader of the country gentlemen, 
 and Mr. Bonar Law, an able exponent of Conservative 
 commercial opinion, came out strongly on the side of 
 Lord Lansdowne. In a letter published in The Times 
 on 27 July, Mr. Bonar Law said : 
 
 " Phrases like ' Fight to the last/ ' The bold course is 
 always the wise course,' appeal to all of us with almost 
 irresistible force ; but such phrases only beg the question, 
 for, in my opinion, the bold course for any man is always 
 the course which he himself thinks right. And if our 
 supporters in the constituencies realized as clearly as we 
 
304 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 do how completely the position has been changed by 
 the announcement of the decision of the King, if they 
 realized that the citadel has already fallen, and that the 
 only question now left is not whether the Parliament 
 Bill will pass, but whether it will pass accompanied or 
 not accompanied by a Radical majority in the House of 
 Lords, then I believe that even now the majority of our 
 supporters would be in favour of retaining a Unionist 
 majority in the Upper House. And I am certain that 
 six months hence, if Lord Lansdowne had allowed the 
 House of Lords to be swamped, and the Government 
 were carrying in a single session Bills to establish Home 
 Rule, to disestablish the Church in Wales, and to gerry- 
 mander the constituencies, then the Unionists in the 
 country would not be praising the courage, but would 
 be cursing the folly of their leaders." 
 
 Another leading Unionist, and a great constitutional 
 authority to boot, Sir William Anson, threw his influence 
 into the same scale. The learned author of the Law 
 and Custom of the Constitution wrote : 
 
 " In all this talk of the ignominy of surrender, what 
 has become of the doctrine that the House of Lords has 
 never failed to acquiesce in the decision of the electorate 
 clearly expressed ? We may say that the last general 
 election was a snap-vote, taken before the people had 
 time to understand the issue ; but I doubt if there are 
 many Unionists who think that a general election this 
 month or next would appreciably alter the composition 
 of the House of Commons. And if we believe that the 
 electors would now return a majority in favour of the 
 Bill, the Lords will only follow the course adopted by the 
 Duke of Wellington, by Lord Cairns, and by Lord Salis- 
 bury if they accept, however reluctantly, the verdict 
 of the nation as it is now represented." 
 
 As the days sped by it was seen that numbers and 
 weight were ranged on Lord Lansdowne's side. Con- 
 
REVOLT OF THE "DIE-HARDS" 305 
 
 tinuous additions were made to the roll of his supporters, 
 and the final list published brought their number to the 
 large total of 325, about one-half the total membership of 
 the House of Lords, and much more than one-half its effec- 
 tive voting strength. Lord Morley's appeal to the Liberal 
 peers had elicited 80 promises of support for the Govern- 
 ment. No account was taken in these lists of the episcopal 
 bench, with a voting strength of 26. The unknown 
 factor was the number of " Die-Hard " peers. They 
 were estimated at 70, but Lord Willoughby de Broke, 
 who was organizing the rebel vote, met every effort to 
 discover its dimensions with a polite but decisive nega- 
 tive. This element of uncertainty imported piquancy 
 and excitement to the last stage of the conflict between 
 Lords and Commons. 
 
 20 
 
CHAPTER XXVII 
 MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 
 
 THE battle on the platform and in the Press between 
 " Hedgers " and " Ditchers " had demoralized 
 the Tory party. An attempt to unify the antagon- 
 istic forces was made by moving a vote of censure on the 
 Government in both Houses of Parliament in the follow- 
 ing terms : " That the advice given by His Majesty's 
 Ministers, whereby they obtained from His Majesty a 
 pledge that a sufficient number of peers should be created 
 to pass the Parliament Bill in the shape in which it 
 left this House, is a gross violation of constitutional 
 liberty whereby, among other evil consequences, the 
 people will be precluded from again pronouncing upon 
 the policy of Home Rule." The censure debate took place 
 in the House of Commons on 7 August. Mr. Balfour made 
 a vigorous attack on the Government. He complained 
 that the Prime Minister had extracted from the King a 
 promise eight months before it was required to be fulfilled, 
 " which from that moment rendered impotent every- 
 thing that could be done by one of the established 
 Chambers in our Constitution." During those eight 
 months Mr. Asquith, with this secret in his possession, 
 had been masquerading as a constitutional Minister. 
 The Prime Minister had used the prerogative "as no 
 Minister in this country has ever dared to use it before, 
 and as no King in the old days of the prerogative ever 
 dared to use it." Mr. Balfour spoke of the " great wrong " 
 that His Majesty's advisers have done both to the 
 
 306 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 307 
 
 King and the office which the King holds. " I should 
 have thought that His Majesty's advisers would have 
 been especially careful in dealing with this delicate 
 question of the prerogative when they had to advise a 
 Sovereign who had only just come to the throne, and who 
 in the very nature of the case had not, and could not have, 
 behind him that long personal experience of public affairs 
 which some of his great predecessors enjoyed." 
 
 Mr. Asquith, in reply, explained the whole course of 
 his negotiations with the Sovereign. He said : 
 
 " As it is most desirable that there should be no mystery 
 or misunderstanding over a perfectly simple and correct 
 transaction, it is I am allowed to say, at His Majesty's 
 strong desire, therefore, of course, with his express 
 commission that I am able, as I am about to do, to 
 disclose communications which up to this moment have 
 been treated both by the King and by his Ministers as 
 confidential. To make the matter clear, I must go back 
 to the month of April, 1910, when the so-called Veto 
 resolutions had been approved by large majorities in this 
 House, and the Parliament Bill founded upon them had 
 been introduced. King Edward VII was then on the 
 Throne I ask the House to remember that and there 
 was every reason to believe that his life and his reign 
 would be prolonged. It was notorious that our resolu- 
 tions as carried in the House of Commons, and which 
 were shortly to go before the House of Lords, would be 
 laid aside or rejected there, and the majority inside and 
 outside this House were beginning to ask with not 
 unnatural impatience whether the election just held was to 
 be reduced to a nullity, and if matters were once more to 
 result in a futile deadlock. It was in these circumstances 
 that on 14 April, 1910, after careful consultation with 
 my colleagues, in language approved by them and 
 communicated to the King, who was abroad, I used 
 these words to the House of Commons : 
 
308 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " ' If the Lords fail to accept our policy or decline to 
 consider it if it is formally presented to the House, we 
 shall feel it our duty immediately to tender advice to the 
 Crown as to the steps which will have to be taken if that 
 policy is to receive statutory enactment in this Parlia- 
 ment. What the precise terms of that advice will be it 
 will, of course, not be right for me to say now, but if we 
 do not find ourselves in a position to ensure that statutory 
 effect shall be given to that policy in this Parliament, we 
 shall then either resign our offices or recommend a dissolu- 
 tion of Parliament/ 
 
 " Now here come the important words : 
 
 " ' Let me add this, that in no case will we recommend 
 a dissolution except under such conditions as will secure 
 that in the new Parliament the judgment of the people, 
 as expressed at the elections, will be carried into law.' 
 
 ' That is very plain language. It is language which 
 represented, as I have said, the deliberate policy of the 
 Government, and it was so understood and accepted at 
 the time not only by our friends, but by our antagonists. 
 It is a policy which, as I have reminded the House by 
 reference to dates, was announced by me to the country 
 that is the only observation which I shall make in reply 
 to what I thought the very unhappy remarks of the 
 right hon. gentleman in reference to a new King as 
 head of the Government, while I was still King Edward's 
 Minister. Within a month his reign came to a premature 
 and a most unexpected end. A political truce followed, 
 and for the best part of six months an honest, continuous, 
 and, as I think, well-inspired endeavour was made by 
 leading representatives of both parties in the State to 
 arrive at a settlement by agreement. That experiment, 
 unhappily, as I shall always think, though I impute no 
 blame to anyone, finally broke down in the early part 
 of November, and we then reverted to the situation as it 
 stood in April. What was the first question which we, the 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 309 
 
 Ministers of the Crown, had then to determine ? It 
 was whether we should go on in the then existing Parlia- 
 ment or whether we should advise a dissolution, having 
 regard in both cases to my declarations of the preceding 
 April. In the circumstances, after very full consideration, 
 we thought it right to advise a dissolution of Parliament. 
 Nearly a year had passed since the general election. 
 We were in a new reign. There had been much discussion, 
 some of it not of an acrimonious kind, of the questions at 
 issue. Moreover, our plan was now actually formulated 
 in the shape of a Bill. On the whole, it appeared to us, 
 and I think so still, that the arguments for dissolution 
 were overwhelmingly strong. But we were clear, at the 
 same time, that it would be neither honourable nor 
 justifiable to go into another election blindfolded. In 
 the first place, there was my deliberate pledge, given 
 upon the floor of this House in the name of my colleagues 
 and the Government that which I read a moment ago 
 that in no case would we recommend a dissolution except 
 under such conditions as would secure in the new Parlia- 
 ment that the judgment of the people would be carried 
 into law. A great many hard words have been used 
 about me just now. I do not mind in the least. Harder 
 words would have been used words which I would have 
 minded, if, after that declaration of the Government 
 given by my colleagues and I, we had been false to the 
 trust reposed in us by thousands and millions in the 
 country. We have been accused of breaches of trust by 
 orators and pressmen of the party opposite of treachery 
 and trickery. I might have been accused, with reason, 
 both of treachery and of trickery had we done that. 
 But, secondly, quite apart from that distinct and de- 
 liberate pledge, we might have been so accused if we 
 had thought it right to plunge the country a second time 
 in the course of a single year into the cost, the turmoil, 
 and confusion of a general election, unless we could have 
 
310 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 felt sure that if it gave a decisive result it subject, of 
 course, to full parliamentary discussion would be 
 regarded as applying to a definite proposal. Accordingly, 
 sir, when we came to the conclusion to advise the King 
 to dissolve Parliament, we accompanied our advice, on 
 15 November, 1910, with this statement : 
 
 ' His Majesty's Ministers cannot take the responsi- 
 bility of advising a dissolution unless they may under- 
 stand that, in the event of the policy of the Govern- 
 ment being approved by an adequate majority in the 
 new House of Commons, His Majesty will be ready to 
 exercise his constitutional power, which may involve 
 the prerogative of creating peers if needed to secure 
 that effect shall be given to the desire of the Govern- 
 ment. His Majesty's Ministers are fully alive to the 
 importance of keeping the name of the King out of the 
 sphere of party and electoral controversy. They take 
 upon themselves, as is their duty, the entire and exclu- 
 sive responsibility for the policy which they will place 
 before the electorate. His Majesty will doubtless agree 
 it would be indefensible, in the interests of the State, 
 that any communication of the intention of the Crown 
 should be made public unless and until the actual 
 occasion should arise/ 
 
 " That was the communication made by the Cabinet 
 on 15 November. His Majesty after careful considera- 
 tion of the circumstances, past and present, and after 
 discussing the matter in all its bearings with myself 
 and with my noble friend and colleague, Lord Crewe 
 felt he had no alternative but to assent to the advice 
 of the Cabinet. Accordingly, on 18 November, 1910, two 
 days later, I announced to this House : 
 
 ' We have advised the King, and he has accepted 
 our advice, to dissolve Parliament.' 
 
 " We might have resigned. If we had resigned, the 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 311 
 
 King, no doubt, would have sent for the right honourable 
 gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition. He 
 might, or he might not, have taken the responsibility of 
 forcing a Government. If he had, it is a matter of 
 common knowledge that the Government so formed 
 could not have existed for a week in this House, for the 
 simple reason that the House would have refused to 
 grant supply. A dissolution was inevitable. 
 
 " I ask the particular attention of the House and the 
 country to this. A dissolution under these conditions 
 would have been held in circumstances which would 
 have made it impossible to keep the name and authority 
 of the King out of the arena of party politics. His 
 Majesty, no doubt, thought this was a matter which was 
 peculiarly incumbent upon him to safeguard. I have 
 never used in public or in private the word ' guarantee ' 
 or ' pledge ' in regard to this matter. They are words 
 which seem to me singularly inappropriate to describe a 
 conditional understanding such as this, which we pur- 
 posely left open because of certain contingencies which 
 might arise." 
 
 After this statement, listened to with the most intense 
 interest, the Prime Minister passed on to consider the 
 precedent of 1832. " We are dealing," he said, " with a 
 Bill, the principle of which has been thrice approved in 
 three successive Houses of Commons, and we are dealing 
 with a Bill in regard to which we have not asked for the 
 exercise of the Royal Prerogative until it had gone through 
 all its stages in the House of Lords. In Lord Grey's case 
 there had been one election and one election only when he 
 demanded the exercise of the Royal Prerogative before 
 the Bill had even been in Committee in the Upper House. 
 The truth is that this is a far stronger case in every one 
 of its details." 
 
 The Prime Minister concluded a powerful speech in 
 the following words : 
 
312 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 " I will once more cite a classical passage on the 
 subject, the language which was then used by Lord Grey. 
 Lord Grey said in the House of Lords : ' I ask what 
 would be the consequence if we were to suppose that 
 such a prerogative did not exist, or could not be con- 
 stitutionally exercised ? The Commons have a control 
 over the power of the Crown by the privilege, in extreme 
 cases, of refusing supply. The Crown has, by means of its 
 power to dissolve the House of Commons, a control upon 
 any violent and rash proceedings on the part of the 
 Commons. If a majority of this House ' that is, the 
 House of Lords ' is to have the power whenever they 
 please of opposing the declared and decided wishes 
 both of the Crown and the people without any means 
 of modifying that power, then this country is placed 
 entirely under the influence of an uncontrollable oli- 
 garchy.' That is the true constitutional doctrine. 
 There is nothing of novelty in its being applied to-day 
 in the same way in the case of extreme and overwhelming 
 necessity. I am accustomed, as Lord Grey in his day 
 was accustomed, to be accused of breach of the Constitu- 
 tion and even of treachery to the Crown. I confess, 
 as I have said before, that I am not in the least sensitive 
 to this cheap and ill-informed form of vituperation. 
 It has been my privilege, almost now, I think, unique, 
 to serve in close and confidential relations three successive 
 British Sovereigns. My conscience tells me that in that 
 capacity, many and great as have been my failures and 
 shortcomings, I have consistently striven to uphold the 
 dignity and just privileges of the Crown. But I hold my 
 office not only by favour of the Crown, but by the con- 
 fidence of the people, and I should be guilty indeed of 
 treason if in this supreme moment of a great struggle 
 I were to betray their trust." 
 
 This thrilling peroration electrified the House. Its 
 effect was to take the heart out of the Opposition. Mr. 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 313 
 
 F. E. Smith, after a caustic attack on the Government, 
 criticized the Lansdowne-Balfour policy in regard to the 
 Parliament Bill. " A different policy would have pro- 
 duced different results." He was effectively answered 
 with wit and satire by Mr. Ellis Griffith, Leader of the 
 Welsh party. Mr. Churchill's declaration that the 
 Government mean to pass Home Rule in this Parliament 
 was tempestuously received. The vote of censure was 
 defeated by a majority of 119. 
 
 On the following day, 8 August, the Lords' amendments 
 to the Parliament Bill were considered. On this occa- 
 sion the Opposition did far better than in the debate on 
 the vote of censure. 
 
 Mr. Asquith was absent from his place owing to a 
 recurrence of the throat trouble from which he had been 
 suffering off and on for some months. He has many 
 men of first-class ability as colleagues, but on the Con- 
 stitutional question there is no one in the Government 
 able adequately to fill his place. The Prime Minister's 
 absence had in itself an inspiriting effect on the Opposi- 
 tion. They had the advantage also of leading off in 
 the day's debate with two Tory speakers in succession, 
 Lord Hugh Cecil's motion for the rejection of the Parlia- 
 ment Bill requiring a seconder, a role filled ably enough 
 by Sir Edward Carson. Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir Edward 
 Carson had roamed at large, and until Mr. Churchill 
 spoke no uninstructed listener would have supposed 
 that the chief business of the sitting was the discussion 
 of the Lords' amendments to the Parliament Bill. 
 
 Mr. Churchill said the Government could not accept 
 any of the Lords' amendments. They were willing, 
 however, to associate two members of the House of 
 Commons, viz. the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is 
 always a nominee of the Government of the day, and the 
 Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, who is 
 always a member of the Opposition, to act with the 
 
314 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Speaker as a tribunal to pronounce when a Bill is or is not 
 a Money Bill. The announcement of this concession 
 met with little favour on the Liberal side, and, speaking 
 on behalf of the Radicals, Sir Henry Dalziel energetically 
 protested against it. 
 
 Mr. Churchill also accepted an amendment of Lord 
 Camperdown's providing for a new form of enacting 
 words, so that the old formula declaring the assent of the 
 King, Lords, and Commons should not be used in re- 
 ference to Bills passed without the concurrence of the 
 House of Lords. Further, he gave an assurance that the 
 powers of the Parliament Bill would not be exercised 
 for the purpose of extending the duration of Parliament 
 a duration which is actually reduced by the Bill from 
 seven to five years. 
 
 The Government would have nothing to do with Lord 
 Lansdowne's proposal for a Joint Committee to sit in 
 judgment on legislation, with a voice in finance and 
 with power to force a referendum on matters which this 
 " tribunal of superior men " might consider of " grave 
 importance." Mr. Churchill said that under the Lans- 
 downe amendment every Liberal Bill disliked by the 
 Conservatives would have to be passed in three successive 
 sessions in the House of Commons ; it would then have 
 to run the gauntlet of the Joint Committee, which would 
 have the power of referring the Bill to the electors on a 
 referendum. On the other hand a Conservative Bill 
 would suffer no delay, and would obtain the Royal Assent 
 in the first session after its passage. Amid approving 
 Liberal cheers Mr. Churchill said : " We reject the whole 
 apparatus of the Joint Committee." 
 
 The most notable feature of the day's debate was the 
 concentration of the Opposition on one subject, viz. 
 Home Rule. Lord Hugh Cecil had exhausted the 
 vocabulary of invective in denouncing the Parliament 
 Bill, but he professed his willingness to accept the 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 315 
 
 accursed thing, if only the Government would exempt 
 Home Rule from its operation. After many perturbations 
 and much tossing to and fro, the Tory party had once 
 more decided to stake its fortunes on an anti-Irish agita- 
 tion. In spite of the changed conditions of Ireland, in 
 spite of the new bonds of sympathy and interest between 
 the democracies of the two countries, in spite of the 
 Conservative party's momentary sympathy with devolu- 
 tion during the Dudley-Macdonnell-Wyndham regime, 
 in spite of the violent flirtation of the English Tory Press 
 with Federal Home Rule last summer the Conservative 
 party had moved swiftly back on its old position of im- 
 placable enmity to the government of Ireland according 
 to Irish ideas. It was a melancholy declension, this 
 reversion to the cruel, harsh, anti-Irish feeling which 
 represented the stock-in-trade of Toryism in the 'eighties 
 and 'nineties. Aghast at the prospect, Mr. William 
 O'Brien made a powerful plea for a settlement of the 
 Irish question by consent of all parties a plea to which 
 Mr. Balfour listened with bowed head and Mr. Wyndham 
 with eyes upturned towards the high western windows 
 bright with the glory of the afternoon sun. 
 
 Lord Hugh Cecil spoke with a geniality not expected 
 of him. His speech was marred by one or two offensive 
 observations. A suggestion that the Prime Minister 
 ought to be punished by criminal law made the Liberals 
 furious, and led to some tumult. But on the whole the 
 temper of the speech was not nasty, and to this fact and 
 Liberal good-nature was due the courteous and even 
 indulgent hearing given to a man who last week and the 
 week before had severely tried the patience of the 
 majority. Very late in the day Lord Hugh Cecil dis- 
 covered that the House of Lords is too partisan, but he 
 thinks the House of Commons has also been too partisan, 
 and he accused the Government of using the Crown as a 
 partisan instrument. " It makes us feel," he said, " that 
 
316 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 we have been very hardly used by the Monarch. ' ' (Liberal 
 cries of " Shame ! ") The Member for Oxford University 
 suggested that the difference between the two Houses 
 of Parliament should again be submitted to the people 
 by referendum. Taking up Mr. Churchill's observation 
 on the previous night that the Government mean to pass 
 Home Rule in this Parliament, Lord Hugh said, " I'll 
 wager that they do not carry Home Rule. That contest 
 will not be decided in the City of Westminster ; it will 
 be decided in the City of Belfast." Then followed an 
 incitement to Ulster to resist Home Rule by force, amid 
 derisive Liberal cries of " Who is the traitor now ? " 
 
 In a truculent speech, full of extravagant expressions, 
 Sir Edward Carson expressed the solemn hope that the 
 Government's " act of force " will be resisted by force in 
 Ulster. These incitements to rebellion amused the House, 
 but they have a serious side, and Mr. Churchill was well 
 justified in his warm condemnation of them. Nothing, he 
 said, could be more improper than the use of such ex- 
 pressions at a time like the present, when there was grave 
 labour unrest all over the country. If hungry and 
 suffering men, led away by such language, broke out into 
 riot, the Tory party would be the first to urge that 
 soldiers should be sent to the scene of disturbance. This 
 deserved castigation evoked a storm of cheering from 
 Liberal and Labour members. Undeterred by the 
 weighty protest of the Home Secretary, Mr. Bonar Law 
 joined in the incitements to Ulster. If the British people 
 definitely decide in favour of Home Rule the loyalists 
 of Ulster ought to submit, but Mr. Bonar Law argues that 
 this Government means to force through a Home Rule 
 measure against the wishes of the people. In these 
 circumstances, "If I were an Irish loyalist I would 
 never consent to such a system being forced upon me 
 as part of a corrupt parliamentary bargain " a senti- 
 ment loudly cheered by the Opposition. 
 
MR. ASQUITH AND THE KING 817 
 
 Mr. Bonar Law's speech was a highly successful 
 debating effort. In sheer ability it surpassed every other 
 speech on the Tory side in the two days, except Mr. 
 Balfour's. It was delivered with great energy and 
 intensity of feeling. The Lords' amendments to the 
 Parliament Bill were rejected in successive divisions by 
 majorities ranging from 106 to 144. Restored to its 
 original form, the Parliament Bill was then sent back 
 to the House of Lords. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII 
 THE CLOSING SCENES 
 
 WE now reach the last act in the moving drama 
 of the Parliament Bill. Never has the 
 House of Lords been the centre of so much 
 interest as in the three days : Tuesday, Wednesday, 
 and Thursday, 8, 9, and 10 August. On the Tuesday 
 the peers debated a vote of censure on the Government, 
 moved by Lord Curzon. The motion was in identical 
 terms with that moved the day before in the House of 
 Commons by Mr. Balfour. In the course of the debate 
 the Marquis of Crewe, making a welcome appearance 
 in the House after long absence, gave an account of 
 the negotiations with the King last November. At that 
 time Mr. Asquith was requesting a conditional exercise 
 of the Royal Prerogative if the electors confirmed the 
 Government in office. Lord Crewe reminded the peers 
 that if the Liberal Government had resigned in November, 
 1910, Mr. Balfour might have formed a Ministry, but a 
 dissolution must have followed. The inference would 
 then have been unescapable that the King had refused 
 to accept the advice of Liberal Ministers, and thus the 
 Crown would be dragged into the electoral arena, a 
 result that all statesmen must be anxious to avoid. 
 Lord Crewe said that while peer creation was odious to 
 him, the Government would not shrink from that step 
 if the lamentable necessity arose. Lord Loreburn 
 reminded the House that no alternative Government 
 was possible at the present time. 
 
 " My Lords," said Lord Lansdowne gloomily, " to- 
 night may be the last occasion on which you will be 
 
 318 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 319 
 
 able to vote as a free assembly." The vote of censure 
 was carried by 282 to 68. 
 
 The final debate on the Parliament Bill opened on 
 Wednesday, 9 August. Owing to the secrecy of the 
 " Die-Hards " as to the strength of their group, an 
 element of uncertainty as to the division contributed 
 to the intense popular interest in the debate. Lord 
 Lansdowne had published a list of his supporters, who 
 numbered 325, and Lord Morley had succeeded in ob- 
 taining promises of support from eighty Liberal peers. 
 If the " Die-Hards " exceeded the latter number, they 
 would defeat the Government at the final stage thus 
 compelling the creation of peers unless Unionists came 
 to the Government's rescue. This was a course that Lord 
 Lansdowne could not bring himself to take or to recom- 
 mend to others. He had announced his intention of 
 being neutral, but it was known that a number of Inde- 
 pendent Unionist peers were prepared to go into the 
 Lobby in support of the Government, if this should be 
 necessary, in order to defeat the " Die-Hard " conspiracy. 
 
 There was a crowded House when the historic debate 
 opened on Wednesday afternoon. The Strangers' Gallery 
 was packed, and in the space in front of the throne 
 Privy Councillors, peers' sons, and Cabinet Ministers 
 made a large throng. Many members of the House of 
 Commons surveyed the animated scene. The side galleries 
 were occupied by peeresses, whose presence and light 
 summer attire gave charm and colour to the animated 
 scene. Peers attended in large numbers, and for once 
 there was quite a good muster of Liberal peers on the 
 benches to the right of the throne. 
 
 The last act in the constitutional drama was opened 
 in a brief speech from Lord Morley, who, referring to 
 the rejection of the Lords' amendments by the Commons, 
 said Lord Lansdowne's proposals for the Joint Committee 
 and the referendum represented an insuperable barricade 
 
320 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 between the Government and the Conservative peers. 
 Lord Morley then moved " that the Lords do not insist 
 on their amendments." 
 
 A debate of uncommon interest followed, marked by 
 a speech from Lord Lansdowne, whose ability, modera- 
 tion, and statesmanlike wisdom compelled the admiration 
 even of those who differed from him. Not inferior to it 
 in quality was the remarkable utterance of Lord St. 
 Aldwyn. These two leading Unionists strongly coun- 
 selled the Conservative peers not to insist on their 
 amendments, and urged them to abstain from voting 
 in the final stage. On the other hand, Lord Halsbury, 
 more pugnacious than ever, sounded the No-Surrender 
 note in a defiant speech. The same line was taken by 
 Lord Salisbury, whose loud vehemence was cheered 
 by the mutinous peers. 
 
 The Archbishop of York said he meant to vote with 
 the Government in the final division. His Grace pro- 
 fessed no liking for the policy of the Government ; in 
 fact, he expressed the opinion that they had missed a 
 rare opportunity of settling the Constitutional question 
 by consent. But he holds that the country at the last 
 election gave its approval to the Parliament Bill ; that 
 if a general election were held now the popular verdict 
 would not be altered, and that it is unconstitutional for 
 the House of Lords any longer to resist the progress of 
 the Bill. As an independent member, and having regard 
 to the interests of the Crown and the country, Dr. Lang 
 said he meant to vote with the Government. The natural 
 man in him rebels against this necessity, but he comforted 
 himself with the reflection, " He that ruleth his spirit 
 is greater than he that taketh a city." 
 
 Only one Liberal peer spoke before the dinner-hour, 
 viz. Lord Ribblesdale, whom everybody was glad to 
 see back in the House after his long illness and his great 
 domestic sorrow. Lord Ribblesdale entered the House 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 321 
 
 on crutches, but he spoke with great spirit and with 
 much of the old bright play of fancy. He argued that 
 the significance of the last two general elections could 
 not be explained away. Whatever the merits or de- 
 merits of the Parliament Bill, " at this particular moment 
 the game is up." He added quite truly that the con- 
 stituencies have ceased to care very much for the House 
 of Lords. If the present Ministry resigned the Conserva- 
 tives could not form a Government a remark greeted 
 with cries of " Oh ! Oh ! " from the recesses of the back- 
 woods. Lord Ribblesdale stuck to his point, and told 
 the Opposition the blunt but unpalatable truth : " With 
 Tariff Reform round your neck and the House of Lords 
 on your back you will never win a general election." 
 
 Lord Lansdowne's defence of the policy of total 
 abstinence was irresistible in its reasoning. In view of 
 the threat to bring the Royal Prerogative into play, 
 the House of Lords could no longer offer effectual re- 
 sistance to the Government's policy. That being so, 
 Lord Lansdowne argued that it was wise in the public 
 interest for the Opposition to abstain from further 
 resistance, to assume no responsibility for the Bill, and 
 to make it clear that whenever the Conservatives came 
 back into office they would redress the balance of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 What he called the " pathetic story " told by Lord 
 Crewe showed that the course recommended by the 
 Government was one which His Majesty was most 
 reluctant to adopt. " We can force that course on the 
 Sovereign ; we can force the Government to something 
 that is hateful to them ; we can force an act that would 
 bring discredit on the country ; but to force these things 
 out of a feeling of petulance and vindictiveness would 
 not only be unpatriotic but contemptible in the highest 
 degree." (Cheers.) 
 
 Lord Lansdowne reasoned courteously but firmly with 
 
 21 
 
322 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 the " No-Surrender " peers. While doing justice to their 
 motives he exposed the futility and the unwisdom of 
 their tactics. Unlike them, he takes seriously the possi- 
 bility of a wholesale creation of new peers. Some noble 
 Lords contemplate that if the Government are defeated 
 " there will only be a pleasant little addition to the 
 House." Turning round to Lord Halsbury and speaking 
 for the first time with some asperity, Lord Lansdowne 
 said : " If it must be a small creation, to whom do you 
 owe it ? If only fifty and not five hundred peers are 
 created it will be due to the action of the great majority 
 of the Unionist peers. Lord Halsbury is in the delightful 
 position of getting all the glory, while we save him from 
 the risk and take all the ridicule and vituperation." 
 
 The closing sentences of Lord Lansdowne's speech 
 were spoken with sincere emotion. If these proceedings 
 were to be the end, then he would join Lord Halsbury, 
 and have one good fight ; " but it is not the end." 
 ' We are only at the beginning of a struggle that will 
 last for many years, and in which the Unionist party 
 will fight with unrelenting energy until they succeed in 
 rebuilding the Constitution." 
 
 The debate made it plain that there were yawning 
 fissures in the fabric of the Unionist party. Lord Lans- 
 downe referred to the " interruption of old political 
 friendships." Lord Salisbury was scarcely courteous 
 to Lord St. Aldwyn, and Lord Willoughby de Broke 
 openly defied the Unionist leaders. An impartial ob- 
 server could not fail to be impressed by the rank in- 
 gratitude shown by the rebel peers. Lord Halsbury 
 and his comrades dreaded the possibility of the swamping 
 of the House of Lords, but they were satisfied that, at 
 the worst, their action would only compel a small creation. 
 This assumption was based on the known reluctance of 
 the Government to go to extreme courses, and also on 
 the fact that the vast majority of the Unionist peers 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 323 
 
 would abstain from the division. Thus the rebels were 
 relying on the generosity of the Government and on the 
 chivalry of Lord Lansdowne and his followers. In truth, 
 it was only the action of those Unionist peers who meant 
 to abstain from voting that made possible the existence 
 of a platform on which the so-called No-Surrender peers 
 could strut as heroes. 
 
 Beyond its pugnacity, Lord Halsbury's speech was 
 utterly lacking in distinction. He warmly denied that 
 he was party to any conspiracy against Lord Lansdowne 
 and Mr. Balfour. " I will never abstain," said Lord 
 Halsbury, " from voting against a Bill that I consider 
 immoral." 
 
 In some ways the most notable speech of the debate 
 was that of Lord St. Aldwyn. He has an analytic mind, 
 and a power of clear and forcible statement surpassed 
 by few speakers in either House. He asked : " Will 
 insistence on our amendments prevent this Bill from 
 becoming law ? Will it have the effect of carrying our 
 amendments ? " His answer to both questions was an 
 emphatic " No." In December last the constituencies 
 accepted the main principles of the Parliament Bill. 
 The Bill had been passed in the Commons by large 
 majorities. Would the country give a different answer 
 now ? Is there any sign of change of opinion ? Lord 
 St. Aldwyn believes that a powerful section of the 
 Cabinet wants a large creation of peers. In its own 
 interest the Government will be driven to a large creation. 
 But the " exercise of the prerogative in this way has 
 killed the prerogative for the future." He does not 
 want to see the House of Lords swamped. When the 
 pendulum swings again and the Unionists come back 
 into power, he does not want Unionist legislation to be 
 thwarted by a Radical House of Lords. (Ironical Liberal 
 cheers.) Referring to these cheers, Lord St. Aldwyn said, 
 addressing the Government, " You will say that is 
 
324 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 precisely what you are suffering from at the present time. 
 Yes, but the functions of the two political parties are 
 different." 
 
 Always shrewd and witty, Lord Newton was listened 
 to with eagerness. Alluding to the beating up of the 
 backwoodsmen, he spoke of the strange fact that the 
 vast majority of the House was liable to be overridden 
 by men who put in a "fleeting and intermittent" 
 appearance in the House. In itself, that fact showed that 
 " some radical change in this assembly is absolutely 
 necessary." Dealing with the " No-Surrender " group, 
 he bantered them on their courage, which had much 
 increased from the moment that the prospect of a general 
 election had vanished. This caustic phrase greatly 
 irritated the " Forwards." Lord Selborne called out in 
 excited tones, " Not true ! " Lord Newton compared 
 the action of the " last ditch " men to that of the China- 
 man who revenges himself on the man who has done him 
 an injury by committing suicide on his doorstep. He 
 thought it a sheer delusion to suppose that the Govern- 
 ment would be ridiculed by the creation of peers. " We 
 shall have the ridicule and the Government will have the 
 peers." (Great laughter.) 
 
 Actuated by the same spirit as the Archbishop of 
 York, the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Talbot) announced 
 his intention of voting with the Government. Lord 
 Ampthill spoke with great vehemence in favour of the 
 " last ditch " policy. He is a scion of the house of Russell, 
 and like its present head, the Duke of Bedford, was 
 ranged on the side of the " Die-Hards." It was fitting 
 that he should be answered by Earl Russell, whose 
 speech in vindication of the Government policy was 
 extremely able. The debate was then adjourned to the 
 following day. 
 
 Seldom has there been so much excitement in the 
 political world as there was on Thursday, 10 August, 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 325 
 
 when the fate of the Parliament Bill was to be finally 
 decided. The street approaches to the House of Lords 
 were lined with spectators, and in the corridors and 
 lobbies noble Lords had difficulty in making their way 
 to the debating chamber owing to the press of people. 
 Excitement was intense, and it was added to by the 
 uncertainty that prevailed as to the result of the final 
 division. The " Die-Hards " were now openly exulting 
 in their strength, and counted confidently on being able 
 to defeat the Government. There can be no doubt that, 
 perhaps for the first time since the opening of the last 
 stage of the Parliament Bill, the Government were in 
 real peril of defeat. Consciousness of this danger evi- 
 dently weighed heavily on the responsible leaders of the 
 Opposition as well as on the occupants of the Government 
 bench. It had, too, an important influence on the course 
 of the day's debate. Lord Rosebery came in early and 
 took his corner seat on the front cross bench. His 
 presence was significant, for he had absented himself 
 from the House of Lords for some weeks. 
 
 The closing scenes of the great drama will live long 
 in the memory of all who witnessed them. Nothing in 
 modern parliamentary experience is to be compared to 
 them in high dramatic quality and sheer intensity of 
 expectation. Here we were on the verge of a momentous 
 division, and no one could foretell what its result would 
 be. Yet on that division hung immense consequences 
 to the King, to the Government, to the people, to the 
 peerage. Every person in this brilliant assembly alter- 
 nated between hope and fear and watched the unfolding 
 of events with a feverish interest. All through the 
 debate Lord Willoughby de Broke was flitting about 
 from place to place to inspirit the rebel legion. Another 
 peer of a very different stamp from Lord Willoughby 
 was also active in the background, the sage, courtly, and 
 venerable Lord Knollys, for long years the friend and 
 
326 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 trusted counsellor of King Edward and now the adviser 
 of King George. 
 
 It became known early on Thursday evening that the 
 rebellious Conservatives were counting on bringing 
 over a hundred men into the Lobby. On the face of it, 
 this pointed to the probability of the Government being 
 defeated. Lord Morley's Liberal supporters were known 
 to number eighty. It was no secret that a few Unionist 
 peers meant to vote with the Government ; one or two 
 of them, like Lord Newlands, because they considered 
 that the Parliament Bill was preferable to the referen- 
 dum ; one or two others, who have consistently taken 
 the view that the Government were driven by the irre- 
 sistible pressure of events to bring forward the Parlia- 
 ment Bill, and that this measure was a moderate solution 
 of a very difficult problem. It was known, too, that 
 some Unionist peers, though they detested the Parlia- 
 ment Bill, meant at the final stage to vote with the 
 Government in order to avoid the necessity for a whole- 
 sale creation of new peerages. Among these were Lord 
 Camperdown and Lord Winchilsea. Venomous attacks 
 had been made by infuriated partisans on these peers 
 because of their readiness, under a stern sense of duty, 
 to vote if need be against their convictions. The violence 
 of the " Die-Hard " press succeeded in preventing any 
 organized movement in support of the Camperdown- 
 Winchilsea point of view. There was thus great un- 
 certainty as to the number of Unionist peers who could 
 be relied upon to vote with the Government. A few of 
 the Bishops, standing aloof as they do from party con- 
 troversy, were known to be ready to oppose the reckless- 
 ness of the " Die-Hards." But prudent calculations 
 showed that Lord Morley could not count with any 
 certitude on more than a hundred supporters in the 
 Lobby, in which case the rebel movement would have 
 won. 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 327 
 
 The debate began calmly enough with a speech from 
 Lord Midleton, who spoke earnestly in support of the 
 Lansdowne policy of abstention. Its only notable 
 feature was a pointed appeal to Lord Morley to tell the 
 House whether the Government have authority to 
 create an indefinite number of peers, regardless of the 
 balance of strength in the division Lobby. The importance 
 of this question was obvious, for the " Die-Hards " had 
 based all their calculations on the assumption that if 
 any peers were created it would only be a small number. 
 Therefore, when Lord Morley made no sign to rise after 
 the conclusion of Lord Midleton's speech, there was a 
 general sense of disappointment in the House. Lord 
 Rosebery voiced its feeling by asking Lord Morley if he 
 would not answer the question. The reply of the Leader 
 of the House was that he intended to speak later in the 
 debate, and would answer it then. Up rose Lord Lans- 
 downe with the suggestion that, in the general interest, 
 the question ought to be answered at this stage. Lord 
 Morley thereupon courteously complied with this request. 
 After some graceful preliminaries, in which he told 
 their Lordships that dramas are " made, not by words, 
 but by situations," he read with impressive emphasis 
 the following statement : 
 
 " If the Bill should be defeated to-night, His Majesty 
 would assent to a creation of peers sufficient in number 
 to guard against any possible combination of the different 
 parties in opposition by which the Parliament Bill 
 might again be exposed a second time to defeat." 
 
 This grave announcement was received with a cheer 
 from the Liberal peers. Its effect on the House at large 
 was tremendous. Nor was the effect diminished when 
 Lord Morley proceeded to say that Lord Willoughby 
 de Broke's assumption that the Government are playing 
 a game of bluff is " a pure absolute illusion." " Every 
 vote," said Lord Morley, " given to-night against my 
 
328 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 motion is a vote in favour of a large and prompt creation 
 of peers." 
 
 The whole House listened intently to these declara- 
 tions. A deep silence prevailed. Nothing could be heard 
 but the musical notes of Lord Morley's voice, as with 
 grave deliberation and many an impressive gesture, he 
 announced the policy of the Government. Answering 
 some questions put the night before by Lord St. 
 Aldwyn, Lord Morley stated that the Government 
 were not keeping back any papers dealing with the 
 negotiations of the King. " Some of the most vital 
 transactions with the Sovereign are conducted orally, 
 face to face." As to the suggestion that Mr. Asquith, 
 in his historic interview with the King last November, 
 ought to have urged His Majesty to send for Lord Lans- 
 downe and Mr. Balfour, Lord Morley said that such a 
 thing would be unprecedented, and it was totally incon- 
 sistent with our Ministerial traditions. He protested 
 with some warmth against discussing these asides when 
 we are " already in rather deep waters." Speaking in 
 clear, ringing tones, he declared that, " as honourable 
 men and patriotic Ministers, we have nothing to be 
 ashamed of either in relation to the Sovereign himself 
 or to our country or to Parliament." 
 
 As Lord Rosebery advanced to the table, the large 
 audience was conscious of that delicious sensation of 
 excitement and expectancy that is created when a well- 
 graced and gifted actor arrives on the scene. In his 
 opening sentences Lord Rosebery showed that, in his 
 belief, the policy of those peers who persist in resisting 
 the Parliament Bill was futile and dangerous. But he 
 did not spare the Government. He admonished them 
 and reproved them with all the gifts of his eloquence. 
 He admitted that the Government were not bound to 
 advise the King to send for Lord Lansdowne and Mr. 
 Balfour when last November they were seeking from 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 329 
 
 His Majesty contingent guarantees. Yet the circum- 
 stances were " so extremely exceptional " that the 
 Government ought to have advised the King to seek 
 counsel with the Opposition leaders, and he blamed 
 Ministers for the actual advice they gave to a " young 
 and inexperienced King who had only been five months 
 on the throne." 
 
 Lord Rosebery admitted the significance of the fact 
 that the Government were confirmed in power at two 
 general elections in 1910. "An unreformed and unrepre- 
 sentative House of Lords is," he said, " wholly unfit to 
 resist great popular movements." Resistance to the 
 passing of the Parliament Bill was now futile. The 
 Bill must pass. Turning round to the benches where the 
 " Die- Hards " were congregated, Lord Rosebery said : 
 " If you succeed to-night, you could only delay the Bill 
 for forty-eight hours or a week." " Longer than that," 
 declared the indomitable Lord Halsbury. 
 
 Pointing to that fine old octogenarian, Lord Rosebery 
 said : " My noble friend has the over-sanguineness of 
 youth. Let us say that he may delay the Bill for a month. 
 But what is a month in the history of the Constitution of 
 this country ? " The point was, shall the Bill pass with 
 an enormous creation of peers or without that scandal ? 
 By a wise concession in 1832, under the guidance of a 
 Leader no one accused of cowardice, the great Duke of 
 Wellington, the House of Lords had preserved its exist- 
 ence for eighty years. Even when the Parliament Bill is 
 passed there will be left a certain vitality in the House of 
 Lords. The policy of the " No-Surrender " group would 
 leave the House of Lords with no power, " flattened out 
 completely, and the ruin of our ancient Constitution 
 would be as complete as its worst enemies could 
 desire." 
 
 Lord Rosebery 's words deeply affected the House. 
 Then came a defiant speech from Lord Milner, loudly 
 
 1 
 
330 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 cheered by the " No- Surrender " group, who had been 
 much chastened by the warning of Lord Morley and the 
 sombre eloquence of Lord Rosebery. 
 
 The statement of Lord Camperdown, a well-known 
 Unionist peer, that in spite of his detestation of the 
 Bill he meant to vote with the Government, caused 
 great resentment among the " Die-Hards. " It gave 
 the Duke of Norfolk an excuse for joining the extremists. 
 The Duke considered that the action of Lord Camper- 
 down absolved him from his pledge to abstain. His 
 accession to their ranks was exultantly cheered by the 
 " No-Surrender " group, whose applause broke out afresh 
 when Lord Halifax, another ecclesiastically minded peer, 
 also seceded from the Lansdownites. The situation 
 now became grave. Defeat seemed to be staring the 
 Government in the face. There was much stir in the 
 lobbies men conferred together in the ante-rooms, 
 and in the Chamber itself the atmosphere was tense. 
 
 It had been anticipated by the Government and the 
 official Opposition that Lord Morley's announcement 
 would have spread dismay in the rebel ranks. For the 
 moment it undoubtedly produced a great impression, 
 but its ultimate effect was to harden and embitter the 
 spirit of the " Last Ditchers." They were greatly en- 
 couraged by the accession to their ranks of the Duke of 
 Norfolk and Lord Halifax. Jubilant now at the prospect 
 of being able to defeat the Government, they became 
 noisily demonstrative, and the debate proceeded amid 
 interruptions and other displays of feeling rarely heard 
 in this decorous assembly. Even the Duke of Devon- 
 shire's intimation that if the extremists succeeded they 
 would make Lord Lansdowne's position as Leader im- 
 possible, left them unmoved. 
 
 The unfolding of the final scenes in this historic drama 
 was watched by a crowded and brilliant assembly, which 
 included a dazzling array of peeresses, many members 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 331 
 
 of the Diplomatic Corps, half the Cabinet, scores of Privy 
 Councillors, and M.P.'s galore. 
 
 Contrary to anticipation, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 suddenly intervened. He had not intended to take part 
 either in the debate or in the division. But, shocked by 
 the levity of the " Die- Hards " and their indifference to 
 the position of the Sovereign, the Primate said that, in a 
 grave situation which might be determined by a single 
 vote, he could not abstain, and meant to vote with the 
 Government. While the addition of this powerful recruit 
 was gratifying to the Government, it was also a symptom 
 that the situation was still full of peril. 
 
 A powerful speech that helped to stem the tide of 
 revolt was contributed by Lord Curzon. His appeal to 
 the extremists to remember their Sovereign and the grave 
 embarrassments in which His Majesty might be placed 
 by their action, his appeal to them to remember their 
 country and to ponder the serious results that might follow 
 from the prolongation of a futile resistance, his reminder 
 to them of the duty they owe to their leaders all this 
 was listened to with admiration by the entire assembly. 
 " I do not suppose," he said, " a more momentous division 
 will ever have taken place in the House of Lords. It is 
 possible that as a result of this division four hundred peers 
 may be created. If that is done the Constitution is gone 
 as we have known it. We start afresh to build up a new 
 Constitution. God knows how we shall do it. Let us 
 realize what is before us." At this point the Marquis of 
 Bristol, an alert, clean-shaven man of middle-age who 
 has served in the Navy, called out : "It is because four 
 hundred peers are going to run away to-night." Swiftly 
 came Lord Curzon 's reply : "I would sooner run away 
 with the Duke of Wellington than stand with the noble 
 lord." 
 
 This speech, so flawless in temper, visibly affected the 
 " Die-Hards." Only once was there any sign of hostility 
 
332 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 from them namely, when Lord Curzon pleaded for 
 tolerance towards those Unionists who might consider it 
 their duty to vote with the Government. 
 
 Now came a keen competition for the last word. Lord 
 Curzon's speech was to have been the end of the debate. 
 But, realizing the impression it had made, that tough 
 old Tory, Lord Halsbury, hastened to remove it by a 
 characteristic appeal to the militant spirit of his followers. 
 It was very poor stuff, only redeemed from banality by 
 the closing sentence, spoken with some dignity, in which 
 the stubborn old man solemnly said that he left the right- 
 ness or wrongness of his action to a higher tribunal. 
 
 Lord Rosebery sought to counter Lord Halsbury 's 
 move, and in a few brief but weighty words said he meant 
 to vote with the Government. When Lord Rosebery had 
 done, Lord Selborne almost ran to the table. Pointing 
 an accusing forefinger at Lord Rosebery, he assailed him 
 bitterly for his alleged inconsistency. Lord Selborne's 
 strident words and violent counsel were loudly cheered 
 by the backwoodsmen. Then, amid ever-growing excite- 
 ment, the House proceeded to divide on Lord Morley's 
 motion that the Lords do not insist on their amendments, 
 Lord Lansdowne and over two hundred of his followers 
 first of all removing from its precincts. 
 
 The excitement was now intense. Surveying the scene 
 from the gallery, it seemed that there was nothing to 
 choose between the two groups as they prepared to file 
 into the lobbies. But it was noticed that the Bishops and 
 a cohort of Unionists joined forces with the stream 
 of Liberals pouring forth into the Lobby of the Contents. 
 Still the result remained in doubt. M.P.'s, journalists, 
 strangers, were all standing up to watch the exodus 
 from the lobbies. The extremists could easily be counted 
 as they emerged one by one and re-entered the House. 
 Lord Llandaff, at one time a Home Ruler, now old and 
 infirm, came first on crutches, after him Earl Crawford, 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 333 
 
 a picturesque, handsome old man, and then the 
 leader of the "Die-Hards," Lord Halsbury, a short, 
 squat figure with leonine head. So they filed in one by 
 one until, to the surprise of most of us, we had counted 
 105 of them, and the stream was still flowing. But it was 
 soon to dry up ; the total muster of the rebels was 114. 
 By this time about 80 supporters of Lord Morley had 
 returned to the House. The possibility of the Government 
 being defeated remained, but from the Ministerial lobby 
 the stream was still flowing freely. Soon we had counted 
 100 ; now no ; now 115 the Government was leading. 
 All doubts were gone, and still the procession continued, 
 till the total reached 131. Then came the declaration, 
 showing that the Government had a majority of 17. 
 It was welcomed by a loud and grateful cheer from the 
 Liberals. The cheer was taken up in the corridors and 
 repeated with gusto in the House of Commons. Twenty- 
 nine Unionist peers voted with the Government, as also 
 did the two Archbishops and eleven Bishops. Two 
 Bishops, Bangor and Worcester, voted against the 
 Government. The Episcopacy played a fine and honour- 
 able part on this historic day. The Bishops had worked 
 steadily for appeasement, for assuaging the bitterness 
 of party strife, animated only by one thought a genuine 
 solicitude for the interests of the Crown and the welfare 
 of the State. From the intellectual point of view, the 
 rebel movement was not impressive. Not a single speech 
 of first-rate quality came from the extremists in the two- 
 days' debate. The weight of authority and of talent was 
 overwhelmingly on Lord Lansdowne's side. 
 
 The full division list on this historic occasion was as 
 under : 
 
 For the Government, 131. 
 
 Canterbury, Abp. 
 Loreburn, L. (L. Chan.). 
 
334 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 York, Abp. 
 
 Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President). 
 
 Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal). 
 
 MARQUISES 
 
 Ailsa. Northampton. 
 Breadalbane. 
 
 EARLS 
 
 Chesterfield (L. Steward). Granville. 
 
 Spencer (L. Chamberlain) Harrowby. 
 
 Beauchamp. Kimberley. 
 
 Brassey. Lichfield. 
 
 Cadogan. Liverpool. 
 
 Camperdown. Lytton. 
 
 Carrington. Minto. 
 
 Chichester. Russell. 
 
 Craven. Shaft esbury. 
 
 Durham. Winchilsea. 
 Fortescue. 
 
 VISCOUNTS 
 
 Allendale. Gough. 
 
 Cobham. Haldane. 
 
 Elibank. Hampden. 
 
 Gordon (Aberdeen E.). Wolverhampton. 
 
 BISHOPS 
 
 Bath and Wells. Ripon. 
 
 Birmingham. St. Asaph. 
 
 Carlisle. Southwell. 
 
 Chester. Wakefield. 
 
 Hereford. Winchester. 
 Lichfield. 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 
 
 335 
 
 BARONS 
 
 Aberconway. 
 
 Acton. 
 
 Airedale. 
 
 Annaly. 
 
 Armitstead. 
 
 Ashby St. Ledgers. 
 
 Ashton. 
 
 Ashton of Hyde. 
 
 Blythswood. 
 
 Blyth. 
 
 Boston. 
 
 Burghclere. 
 
 Charnwood. 
 
 Churston. 
 
 Colebrooke. 
 
 Coleridge. 
 
 Courtney of Pen with. 
 
 Dawnay. 
 
 Desart. 
 
 Devonport. 
 
 Elgin. 
 
 Eversley. 
 
 Farrer. 
 
 Fur ness. 
 
 Giant a we. 
 
 Glenconner. 
 
 Gorell. 
 
 Granard. 
 
 Grimthorpe. 
 
 Hamilton of Dalzell. 
 
 Haversham. 
 
 Hemphill. 
 
 Heneage. 
 
 Herschell. 
 
 Ilkeston. 
 
 Inchcape. 
 
 Joicey. 
 
 Kilbracken. 
 
 Kinnaird. 
 
 Knaresborough. 
 
 Loch. 
 
 Lucas. 
 
 Lyveden. 
 
 MacDonnell. 
 
 Marchamley. 
 
 Mendip (Clifden V.). 
 
 Monckton (Galway VV 
 
 Monson. 
 
 Monteagle of Brandon. 
 
 Mountgarret. 
 
 Newlands. 
 
 Northbourne. 
 
 Nunburnholme. 
 
 O'Hagan. 
 
 Pentland. 
 
 Pirrie. 
 
 Reay. 
 
 Rendel. 
 
 Ribblesdale. 
 
 Ritchie of Dundee. 
 
 Robson. 
 
 Rosebery. 
 
 Rotherham. 
 
 Rowallan. 
 
 St. Davids. 
 
 Sanderson. 
 
 Sandhurst. 
 
 Saye and Sele. 
 
336 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 BARONS continued 
 
 Sefton (Sefton E.). 
 
 Shaw. 
 
 Shuttleworth. 
 
 Silchester (Longford, E.) 
 
 Southwark. 
 
 Stanley of Alderley 
 
 (Sheffield L.). 
 Stuart of Stuart Castle 
 
 (Moray E.). 
 
 Swaythling. 
 
 Tenterden. 
 
 Teynham. 
 
 Torphichen. 
 
 Tweedmouth. 
 
 Wear dale. 
 
 Welby. 
 
 Willingdon. 
 
 Against the Government, 114. 
 
 Norfolk. 
 Bedford. 
 Leeds. 
 Marlborough. 
 
 Bristol. 
 Bute. 
 
 Abingdon. 
 
 Amherst. 
 
 Bathurst. 
 
 Cathcart. 
 
 Clarendon. 
 
 Coventry. 
 
 Denbigh. 
 
 Devon. 
 
 Fitzwilliam. 
 
 Halsbury. 
 
 Hardwicke. 
 
 DUKES 
 
 Newcastle. 
 Northumberland . 
 Somerset. 
 Westminster. 
 
 MARQUISES 
 
 Salisbury. 
 Winchester. 
 
 EARLS 
 
 Lauderdale. 
 
 Londesborough . 
 
 Lovelace. 
 
 Malmesbury. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Morley. 
 
 Northesk. 
 
 Plymouth. 
 
 Portsmouth. 
 
 Radnor. 
 
 Roberts. 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 
 
 337 
 
 Rosslyn. 
 
 Rothes. 
 
 Scarborough. 
 
 Selborne. 
 
 Shrewsbury. 
 
 Churchill. 
 Combermere. 
 Falkland. 
 Halifax. 
 
 Bangor. 
 
 EARLS continued 
 
 Sondes. 
 Stanhope. 
 Waldegrave. 
 Wicklow. 
 
 VISCOUNTS 
 
 Hood. 
 Llandaff. 
 Milner. 
 Templet own. 
 
 BISHOPS 
 
 Worcester. 
 
 BARONS 
 
 Abinger. 
 
 Ampthill. 
 
 Atkinson. 
 
 Ashtown. 
 
 Bagot. 
 
 Loudoun. 
 
 Strathmore. 
 
 Brabourne. 
 
 Chaworth (Meath E.). 
 
 Clan william. 
 
 Clements (Leitrim E.). 
 
 Clifford of Chudleigh. 
 
 Clonbrock. 
 
 Colchester. 
 
 De Freyne. 
 
 Deramore. 
 
 Digby. 
 
 Dynevor. 
 
 22 
 
 Ebury. 
 
 Farnham. 
 
 Fermanagh (Erne E.). 
 
 Fingall. 
 
 Forester. 
 
 Foxford (Limerick E.; 
 
 Gormanston. 
 
 Harlech. 
 
 Hay (Kinnoull E.). 
 
 Holm Patrick. 
 
 Hothfield. 
 
 Kensington. 
 
 Kesteven. 
 
 Kilmaine. 
 
 Kilmarnock (Erroll E.). 
 
 Leconfield. 
 
 Leith of Fyvie. 
 
 Lovat (Teller). 
 
 
338 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 BARONS continued 
 
 Massy. Sempill. 
 
 Merthyr. Shute (Barrington V.). 
 
 Monkswell. Sinclair. 
 
 Mowbray. Somerhill (Clanricarde M.). 
 
 Muskerry. Southampton. 
 
 Northcote. Stanmore. 
 
 Ragian. Tollemache. 
 
 Ranfurly. Vaux of Harrowden. 
 
 Rayleigh. Vivian. 
 
 Rosmead. Crawford. 
 
 St. Levan. Willoughby de Broke. 
 
 Saltoun. Wynford. 
 Sandys. 
 
 The following are the Unionist peers who supported the 
 Government in the division : 
 
 MARQUIS 
 Ailsa. 
 
 EARLS 
 
 Cadogan. Lytton. 
 
 Camperdown. Minto. 
 
 Fortescue. Shaft esbury. 
 
 Harrowby. Winchilsea. 
 Lichfield. 
 
 VISCOUNTS 
 Cobham. Gough. 
 
 LORDS 
 
 Annaly. Gorell. 
 
 Blythswood. Heneage. 
 
 Churston. Kinnaird. 
 
 Dawnay. Knaresborough. 
 
THE CLOSING SCENES 339 
 
 LORDS continued 
 
 Loch. Sanderson. 
 
 Monckton (Galway V.). Silchester (Longford E.). 
 
 Monson. Teynham. 
 
 Mont eagle of Brandon. Torphichen. 
 
 Ritchie. 
 
 On the afternoon of 18 August, when Sir Henry Graham, 
 Clerk of Parliament, after making a profound obeisance 
 to the empty throne, and then turning round to face the 
 representatives of the Commons, exclaimed in the historic 
 formula, " Le Roy le veult," the seal of the Crown's 
 assent was finally set to the Parliament Bill. The pro- 
 longed campaign between Lords and Commons was 
 over, and, as shrewd observers from the time of James 
 Mill and Macaulay down to Gladstone, Bright and Morley 
 had foreseen, victory was inscribed on the banner of the 
 representatives of the people. No longer was the sub- 
 ordination of the hereditary chamber left dependent on 
 custom and usage. For the first time since the dawn of 
 representative government in this country statutory 
 recognition was given through the Parliament Act to 
 the predominance of the House of Commons, not only in 
 finance but also in legislation. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Aberdeen, Lord (the Prime Minis- 
 ter), 85 
 Adkins, Mr. Ryland 
 
 Debate on Parliament Bill, 248 
 Africa, South 
 
 Liberal policy in, 117 
 Agricultural Rating Act, 97 
 Aldwyn, Lord St., 76, 154, 227, 
 
 281, 323 
 
 Ampthill, Lord, 324 
 Ancaster, Earl of, 265 
 Anne, Queen 
 
 Creation of peers in 1712, n 
 Anson, Sir William, 50, 59, 249, 
 
 304 
 
 Archbishops and Bishops 
 Support Licensing Bill 1908, 
 
 120 
 Suggested reduction of spiritual 
 
 peers, 262, 267 
 In Parliament Bill debates, 275, 
 
 287, 320, 331 
 Vote of the episcopate in final 
 
 division, 333 
 Argyll, Duke of 
 
 Condemns Lords' action 1860, 
 
 Gladstone's letter to, on paper , 
 duties repeal, 34 
 
 The Duke on the Lords and ! 
 
 Bills of Supply, 36 
 Aristocracy 
 
 Its long predominance over 
 Lords and Commons, 2, 8 
 
 James Mill on, 20 
 Asquith, Mr. H. H. 
 
 Leadership in the constitutional 
 battle, 3 
 
 Moves " No-confidence " vote 
 which overthrew Lord Salis- 
 bury's Government 1892, 82 
 
 His Employers' Liability Bill 
 rejected by Lords, 83, 98 
 
 Asquith, Mr. H. H. (cont.) 
 
 Becomes Prime Minister in 
 spring of 1908, 118 
 
 Originates scheme of State- 
 paid non-contributory Old- 
 Age Pensions, 118 
 
 Reduces the sugar duty, 133 
 
 Speech on 1909 Budget : warns 
 Lords against rejection, 147 
 
 Speech announcing dissolution 
 on rejection of Budget, 164 
 
 Declaration of Liberal policy at 
 Albert Hall, 167, 232 
 
 A character sketch of, 172 
 
 His work as Home Secretary 
 and Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, 174, 175 
 
 Speech on the " Royal Guaran- 
 tees " : opening of 1910 
 session, 193 
 
 Concurrent policy of reform of 
 Lords and limitation of veto, 
 194 
 
 Decision to concentrate on 
 veto, 195 
 
 Moves the resolutions limiting 
 the Lords' veto, 197 
 
 Intentions of Government if 
 their policy rejected by Lords, 
 199 
 
 Parliament Bill introduced, 
 April, 1910, 199 
 
 Interim statement on Constitu- 
 tional Conference, 206 
 
 On joint sitting of Lords and 
 Commons, 212 
 
 Difficulties of referendum, 213 
 
 Audience of King George after 
 Conference failure, 217 
 
 Speech announcing dissolution, 
 November, 1910, 235 
 
 Opens general-election cam- 
 paign, 238 
 
 341 
 
342 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Asquith, Mr. H. H. (cont.} 
 Moves first reading Parliament 
 
 Bill, February, 1911, 242 
 On Money Bills, 252 
 On safeguards of Parliament 
 
 Bill, 253 
 On the evils of the referendum, 
 
 255 
 
 Defends preamble of Parlia- 
 ment Bill, 257 
 
 Speech on third reading Par- 
 liament Bill, 258 
 
 Letter to Mr. Balfour that 
 Royal Prerogative would be 
 used, 289 
 
 Refused a hearing by Tories in 
 House of Commons, 290 
 
 Narrative of his negotiations 
 
 with King George V, 307 
 Avebury, Lord, 278 
 
 " Backwoodsmen," the, 151, 271 
 Balfour, Mr. Arthur J. 
 
 His non-party appeal at general 
 election of 1900, 99 
 
 His Education Bill 1902, 100 
 
 Opposes Mr. Dillon's amend- 
 ment for representation of 
 parents, 101 
 
 His Free-Trade colleagues in 
 Cabinet resign, 104 
 
 Unpopularity of his Adminis- 
 tration, 105 
 
 His electoral defeat in 1906, 106 
 
 Responsibility for wreck of 
 Education Bill 1906, 109 
 
 Visit to Birmingham, 141 
 
 Criticism of the Budget of 1909, 
 146 
 
 Argues that Lords only referred 
 the Budget to the people, 
 166-9 
 
 Characteristics as a man and a 
 Leader, 176 
 
 His legislative achievements, 
 177 
 
 Lord Randolph Churchill on, 
 179 
 
 His pride in the House of 
 Commons, 180 
 
 On Mr. Asquith and the Irish 
 Vote, 199 
 
 Replies to Mr. Asquith's dis- 
 solution speech, 1910, 236 
 
 Balfour, Mr. Arthur J. (cont.) 
 At Albert Hall announces re- 
 ferendum for Tariff Reform, 
 238 
 Plea for settlement by consent 
 
 of Lords' problem, 245 
 Mr. Churchill on disasters of 
 Mr. Balfour's leadership, 247 
 Mr. Balfour's vindication of the 
 
 House of Commons, 250 
 On the Lords and Money Bills, 
 
 252 
 
 Defends referendum, 255 
 Against elective Second Cham- 
 ber, 248, 256, 257 
 Attacks Mr. Asquith for " mis- 
 use of the prerogative," 293 
 Declaration against the policy 
 of the " Die-Hard " peers, 
 300 
 
 Balfour, Mr. Gerald, 97 
 Balfour of Burleigh, Lord, 154, 
 
 221, 230, 260, 264, 276 
 Ballot Bill rejected by House of 
 
 Lords, 56 
 
 Barnes, Mr. George, 237, 255, 257 
 Beauchamp, Earl, 226 
 Bedford, Duke of, 284 
 Belloc, Mr. H., 237 
 Bill of Rights, 43 
 Birmingham, Bishop of (Dr. 
 
 Gore), 230 
 
 Birrell, Mr. Augustine, 107, 205 
 Boscawen, Sir A. Griffith, 250 
 Bright, John, 38, 66, 129, 274 
 Brougham, Lord, 14, 15 
 Budget of 1909 
 
 Its main features, 133-6 
 
 Sir Henry Norman and Budget 
 
 League, 139 
 
 Large majority for third read- 
 ing, 142 
 Rejection of Budget by Lords, 
 
 1 60 
 
 Irish dislike of Budget, 142, 163 
 Mr. Redmond's " No Veto ; 
 
 No Budget " policy, 195 
 Mr. Asquith on the Lords' 
 
 usurpation, 165 
 The Budget passed by Lords, 
 
 April, 1910, 203 
 Mr. Asquith on " The suicide 
 
 of the House of Lords," 244 
 Burke, 2, 30, 33, 230, 264, 267 
 
INDEX 
 
 343 
 
 Cabinet, development of, 12 
 
 Cairns, Lord, 55, 274 
 
 Campbell- Bannerman,Sir Henry 
 Becomes Leader of the Liberal 
 
 Opposition, 1899, 98 
 Prime Minister, 1905, 106 
 Denunciation of peers' conduct, 
 
 112 
 
 His veto resolution, 1907, 113 
 Bestowal of responsible govern- 
 ment on the Transvaal and 
 Orange Free State, 117 
 Resigns Premiership, 1908, 118 
 His veto resolutions contrasted 
 
 with Mr. Asquith's, 197 
 Camperdown, Lord, 303 
 Carnarvon, Earl 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain and, 68 
 Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 76 
 Secret interview with Parnell, 
 
 77 
 
 Carson, Sir Edward, 298, 313, 315 
 Cawdor, Earl, 205, 262 
 Cecil, Lord Hugh, no, 249, 251, 
 
 291, 298, 313, 315 
 Cecil, Lord Robert, 114 
 Chamberlain, Mr. Austen, 4, 104, 
 
 138, 165, 234, 298 
 Chamberlain, Mr. Joseph 
 
 Leader in anti-Lords' agitation, 
 
 1884-5, 63 
 
 Speeches at Hanley and Den- 
 bigh, 68, 69 
 Attacks on the House of Lords, 
 
 7. 7 2 73 
 
 Radicalism's lost Leader, 75 
 Influences Conservative policy, 
 
 1891, 81 
 Colonial Secretary under Lord 
 
 Salisbury, 97 
 Non-party speeches at khaki 
 
 general election, 99 
 Dislike of Mr. Balfour's Educa- 
 tion Bill, 1 02 
 First speech on Tariff Reform, 
 
 1903, 103 
 Resigns Colonial Secretaryship, 
 
 103 
 
 Fidelity of Birmingham to, 106 
 Comparison with Mr. Lloyd 
 
 George, 129 
 
 His doctrine of " ransom," 135 
 Urges Lords to reject 1909 
 
 Budget, 141 
 
 Chamberlain, Mr. Joseph (cont.) 
 Effect of his Tariff Reform 
 
 policy on Tory party, 178 
 Chinese labour in Transvaal 
 
 mines, 105 
 Churchill, Lord Randolph, 76, 77, 
 
 179 
 Churchill, Mr. Winston, 199, 234, 
 
 238, 246, 250, 252, 256, 259, 
 
 313 
 
 Cobden, Richard, 31 
 Collier, Mr. Robert (first Lord 
 
 Monkswell), 35 
 Ceilings, Mr. Jesse, 80 
 Commons, House of 
 
 Supremacy in eighteenth cen- 
 tury, 7 
 
 Power of noblemen over, 9 
 
 Select Committee on its powers 
 in finance, 35 
 
 Gladstone's championship of 
 its privileges, 37 
 
 Growth of the power of the 
 purse, 42, 43 
 
 Conditions attached to sub- 
 sidies, 44 
 
 Resent interference of Lords in 
 finance, 46 
 
 Effect of resolutions of 1860, 50 
 
 Gladstone on Commons v. 
 Lords, 84 
 
 Lord Courtney on supremacy 
 of Commons in finance, 150 
 
 Disorderly scene in, July, 1911, 
 
 290 
 Conference, The Constitutional 
 
 Its personnel, 205 
 
 Mr. Asquith's interim state- 
 ment on, 206 
 
 Failure of official announce- 
 ment, 208 
 
 Nature of proposals discussed, 
 210 
 
 The Conservative " plan," 225 
 
 Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour 
 
 on Conference failure, 236 
 Corn Laws, Repeal of, 22, 23, 28 
 Courtney, Lord, 150, 223, 229, 
 
 279 
 Crewe, Lord 
 
 Offers Education compromise, 
 1906, no 
 
 On Lords' subservience to Tory 
 party, in 
 
344 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Crewe, Lord (cont.) 
 
 Personal characteristics of, 183 
 
 Speech on Lord Rosebery's 
 resolutions, 202 
 
 Statement on Parliament Bill, 
 221 
 
 Moves second reading of Par- 
 liament Bill, 224 
 
 On partisanship of the Lords, 
 226 
 
 Illness of, 250 
 
 On Cabinet's advice to the 
 
 King, 318 
 
 Cripps, Sir Alfred, 254, 258 
 Cromer, Lord, 154, 277 
 Cromwell, 302 
 Crown, The 
 
 Lapse of its veto, 6 
 
 Peer-making prerogative, n 
 
 Harley on power of, 12 
 
 Pitt on prerogative, 12 
 
 Use of prerogative in 3:832, 15 
 
 James Mill on Crown and 
 People, 21 
 
 Prerogative used to abolish 
 purchase in the Army, 56 
 
 Lords and the Crown preroga- 
 tives, 161 
 
 Mr. Asquith on the Crown and 
 party, 193, 233 
 
 Peers' address to the Crown re 
 reform of House of Lords, 261 
 
 Bill of 1719 to limit preroga- 
 tive, 263 
 
 Lord Lansdowne's proposal for 
 nomination of Lords of Par- 
 liament, 267 
 
 Threat to use prerogative in 
 1911, 289 
 
 Mr. Balfour on Prime Minister 
 and the Crown, 293 
 
 Solicitude of Liberal and 
 Unionist Leaders for, 299 
 
 Cabinet's advice to the Crown, 
 
 November, 1910, 310 
 Curzon, Lord, of Kedleston, 93, 
 159, 229, 248, 279, 298, 331 
 
 Dalziel, Sir Henry, 250, 254 
 Derby, Earl of (Conservative 
 
 Leader), 23, 32, 39, 54 
 Devonshire, Duke of 
 
 As Lord Hartington in anti- 
 Lords' agitation, 1884, 63 
 
 Devonshire, Duke of (cont.) 
 Moves rejection Home Rule 
 Bill in House of Lords, 1893, 
 
 83 
 Urges acceptance of Harcourt 
 
 Budget, 1894, 94 
 Unclerical views on education, 
 
 103 
 
 Resigns from Mr. A. J. Balfour's 
 Cabinet and leadership of the 
 House of Lords, 104 
 Pleads for settlement of educa- 
 tion problem on Mr. Birrell's 
 Bill, 109 
 " Die-Hards," The, 283, 287, 290, 
 
 298, 300, 303, 322 
 Dilke, Sir Charles, 251 
 Dillon, Mr. John, 101 
 Disestablishment of Irish Church, 
 
 Lords and, 54 
 
 Disraeli, Mr., 2, 56, 62, 113, 179 
 Durham, Lord, 17, 288 
 
 Education 
 
 Free Education Act passed, 81 
 The Education Bill, 1902, 99, 
 
 102, 105 
 Lords and Mr. Birrell's Bill, 
 
 1906, 107-9, 113 
 Edward VII, King, 162, 204, 307, 
 
 308 
 Election, General 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1885, 80 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1886, 8 1 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1892, 82 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1895, 95 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1900, 99 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, 1906, 1 06 
 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, January, 1910, 171 
 Balance of parties after elec- 
 tion, December, 1910, 240 
 Elibank, The Master of, 232, 
 
 240 
 Employers' Liability Bill rejected 
 
 by Lords, 83, 98 
 Essex, Mr. R. W., 258 
 Eversley, Lord, 89, 275 
 
INDEX 
 
 345 
 
 Fawcett, Professor, 56 
 Federalism Conservative sym- 
 pathy for Home Rule all 
 round, 207 
 Finance 
 
 Supremacy of Commons in, 41, 
 49, 50 
 
 Redress of grievances precede 
 Supply, 42 
 
 Subsidies granted on terms 
 fourteenth and fifteenth cen- 
 turies, 44 
 
 Commons' protest against .il- 
 legal exactions of Crown, 45 
 
 Lords specifically excluded from 
 grants to the Crown, 45 
 
 Ship-money and Hampden's 
 case, 46 
 
 Commons' resolutions against 
 Lords' interference in finance, 
 46, 47 
 
 Lords' protest against " tack- 
 ing," 48, 49 
 
 Lord Courtney on Commons' 
 control of, 150 
 
 Lords (in 1910) acknowledge su- 
 premacy of Commons in, 225 
 
 Mr. Asquith on Commons' 
 
 power in finance, 252 
 Finlay, Sir Robert, 198 
 Fowler, Mr. H. H., 83 
 Fox, Charles James, 5 
 
 Garvin, Mr. J. L., 206 
 George, Mr. D. Lloyd 
 
 On Mr. Balfour's influence over 
 
 the House of Lords, 114 
 Appointed Chancellor of the 
 
 Exchequer, 1908, 118 
 Rapid rise to power, 123 
 His success at the Board of 
 
 Trade, 125 
 Personal characteristics, 127, 
 
 128 
 
 Resemblance to Mr. Chamber- 
 lain, 129 
 
 His first Budget (1909), 133 
 The " Limehouse " speech, 139 
 Speech on third reading of 
 
 Budget, 144 
 Removal of bar disqualifying 
 
 paupers for pensions, 234 
 General-election speech at Mile 
 
 End, 238 
 
 George, Mr. D. Lloyd (cont.) 
 
 Preparing National Insurance 
 
 Bill, 247 
 George V, King 
 
 Suggests Conference on Con- 
 stitutional question, 204 
 
 Receives Mr. Asquith and Lord 
 Crewe re peer-making pre- 
 rogative, 218 
 
 Cabinet's advice to, 1910, 235 
 
 Stipulation for " adequate ma- 
 jority," 241 
 
 Opens Parliament, February, 
 1911, 242 
 
 Mr. Asquith's negotiations 
 
 with, 310 
 Gladstone, Mr. W. E. 
 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 1860, 30 
 
 Differences with Palmerston as 
 to loans, 31 
 
 1860 Budget : repeal of paper 
 duties, 32 
 
 Indignant at Lords' action in 
 rejecting Paper Duty Repeal 
 Bill, 34, 37 
 
 1861 Budget: all proposals 
 embodied in one Bill, 39 
 
 Difficulties with Lords over 
 
 Irish Church Disestablish- 
 ment, 54 
 Abolition of purchase in the 
 
 Army, 55 
 On rejection of Ballot Bill by 
 
 Lords, 56, 57 
 On rejection of Compensation 
 
 for Disturbance Bill, 61, 62 
 Irish Land Bill of 1881, 62 
 Reform Bill of 1884, 62 
 On creation of peers, 64 
 Defeat of his Government by 
 
 alliance of Irish and Tories, 76 
 Views on Irish policy, 1885, 79 
 Forms his third Ministry , 
 
 January, 1886, 80 
 On effect of the Parnellite 
 
 schism, 82 
 Conducts Home Rule Bill 
 
 through Commons, 1893, 83 
 Last speech in the House of 
 
 Commons, 84 
 
 His awe of " the City," 131 
 Granville, Earl, 32, 33, 57, 58 
 Greville memoirs, 19 
 
346 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Grey, Earl 
 
 Whig Prime Minister, 10 
 
 On danger of an uncontrolled 
 
 House of Lords, n 
 Invokes aid of Royal Preroga- 
 tive, 13 
 His advice to King William to 
 
 create fifty peers, 14 
 Obtains Crown authority for 
 
 creation, 15 
 
 Grey, Sir Edward, 194, 294 
 Griffith, Mr. Ellis, 313 
 
 Haldane, Mr., afterwards Lord, 
 199, 234, 265, 271, 277, 281 
 
 Halifax, Viscount, 330 
 
 Halsbury, Earl of, 108, 276, 284, 
 323. 332 
 
 Hamilton, Lord George, 104 
 
 Hampden, 46 
 
 Harcourt, Mr. Lewis, 234 
 
 Harcourt, Sir William, 87, 94, 95, 
 98 
 
 Harley, Minister to Queen Anne, 
 
 II, 12 
 
 Harwood, Mr. George, 250 
 Hatsell : On procedure with Bills 
 
 of Supply, 50 
 Healy, Mr. Timothy, 237 
 Henderson, Mr. Arthur, 114 
 Home Rule for Ireland, 80, 83, 
 
 211, 239, 253, 278, 313, 315 
 Hough ton, Lord, 184 
 Hyndman, Mr. H. M., 130 
 
 Isaacs, Sir Rufus, 199 
 
 James, Lord, of Hereford, 97, 153, 
 
 173. 186 
 
 Joint Committee of Lords and 
 Commons, 114, 210, 211, 225, 
 255. 277, 278, 281, 286 
 Joint Session 
 
 Mr. Asquith on, 212, 213, 254 
 Mr. Balfour on, 255 
 
 Kitchener, Lord, 117 
 
 Knollys, Lord (Private Secretary 
 to Edward VII and George 
 V), 17, 120, 217, 325 
 
 Labour Party 
 
 Want House of Lords abolished, 
 "4 
 
 Labour Party (cont.) 
 
 Opposed to second general 
 election in 1910, 236 
 
 Proposal to omit Parliament 
 Bill preamble, 256 
 
 Dread of a reformed Second 
 
 Chamber, 245, 257 
 Land Acts, Irish, 58, 62 
 Land Taxes, The New 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George's 1909 pro- 
 posals, 136 
 
 A new " Domesday Book," 138 
 
 Conservatives on rating land 
 values, 145 
 
 The rural voters and taxes on 
 
 land, 170 
 Lansdowne, Marquis of 
 
 His grandfather and 1832 Re- 
 form Bill, 17 
 
 On Trade Disputes and Educa- 
 tion Bills, 1 08, 109 
 
 Criticizes Old Age Pensions Bill, 
 119 
 
 Policy on Licensing Bill, 121 
 
 Gives notice of motion to reject 
 1909 Budget, 149 
 
 Defends " reference of Budget 
 to the people," 152 
 
 A character sketch of, 181-3 
 
 Holds office under Mr. Glad- 
 stone, 182 
 
 Refuses office under Lord Salis- 
 bury, 1886, 182 
 
 His leadership of the House 
 of Lords, 183 
 
 Requests production of Parlia- 
 ment Bill, 218 
 
 On the Constitutional Confer- 
 ence, 220 
 
 On the hereditary principle, 
 223 
 
 His resolutions for House of 
 Lords' reform, 224 
 
 Moves postponement of Parlia- 
 ment Bill, 227 
 
 Seeks consent of Crown to 
 introduction of his Bill for 
 House of Lords' reform, 
 261-3 
 
 Speech on Lord Balfour's 
 " Reference to People Bill," 
 264 
 
 Details of his scheme of House 
 of Lords' reform, 266 
 
INDEX 
 
 347 
 
 Lansdowne, Marquis of (cont.) 
 Lament over " death-blow to 
 
 House of Lords," 269 
 Defends his Reform Bill against 
 
 Tory critics, 271 
 On Joint Committee of Lords 
 
 and Commons, 279 
 Speech on Parliament Bill 
 
 " so long as we are free 
 
 agents," 287 
 Convenes meeting of Unionist 
 
 peers, 288 
 Appeals to his supporters on 
 
 behalf of his policy of ab- 
 stention, 296 
 His resistance to " Die-Hard " 
 
 peers approved by Mr. Bal- 
 
 four, 300 
 
 On vote of censure, 319 
 Advises Lords not to insist 
 
 on their amendments, 321 
 Law, Mr. Bonar, 303, 316 
 Law Lords, 261, 267 
 Licensing 
 
 Mr. Balfour's 1904 Bill, 99, 102 
 Rejection of Mr. Asquith's 
 
 1908 Bill, 120 
 The Lansdowne House decree, 
 
 119 
 High licence duties in 1909 
 
 Budget, 134, 135 
 Long, Mr. Walter, 145, 256, 258, 
 
 33 
 Lords, House of 
 
 Its new spirit since 1893, 6 
 
 Lord Grey on position of, in 
 the Constitution, n 
 
 Duke of Wellington's concern 
 for, 15 
 
 Duke of Wellington's policy 
 as leader of, 23-5 
 
 Bagehot on function of, 28 
 
 Rejection of Paper Duty Re- 
 peal Bill, 32 
 
 Mr. Gladstone on its " extinc- 
 tion in finance," 39 
 
 Lords excluded from all con- 
 cern in Supply, 46, 50, 51 
 
 Lords' protest against " tack- 
 ing," 49 
 
 Attitude to Irish Church Dis- 
 establishment Bill, 54 
 
 Mr. Dicey on duty of sub- 
 mission by Lords, 59 
 
 Lords, House of (cont.) 
 
 Ballot Bill rejection, 1871, 56 
 Powerlessness over the Execu- 
 tive, 60 
 Compensation for Disturbance 
 
 Bill rejected, 1880, 61 
 Attitude to Reform Bill, 1884, 
 
 63 
 Treatment of Nonconformists, 
 
 22, 72, 109 
 Rejection of Home Rule Bill, 
 
 1893, 83 
 
 Gladstone's last speech on, 85 
 Lord Rosebery on partisan 
 
 character of, 89 
 Peers' eldest sons advocate 
 
 House of Lords' reform, 93 
 Acceptance of the Harcourt 
 
 Budget, 1894, 95 
 Lord Londonderry contrasts 
 
 Lords' treatment of Tory 
 
 and Liberal Bills, 98 
 Attitude to Education Bill, 
 
 I9O2, IOI, IO2 
 
 Antagonism to Liberal Govern- 
 ment of 19069, 107 et seq. 
 
 Powerlessness in Imperial pol- 
 icy, 115 
 
 Rejection of Licensing Bill 
 
 1908, 117, 120 
 
 Dislike of Old Age Pensions Bill, 
 119 
 
 Sir George Trevelyan on power 
 of Lords to harass a Govern- 
 ment, 121 
 
 The an ti- Budget movement, 
 
 1909, 142 
 
 Lord Courtney on restricted 
 
 power of Lords, 149 
 Rejection of the Budget of 
 
 1909, 160 
 Liberal party and Veto or 
 
 Reform ? 193, 194 
 Mr. Asquith on Lords and the 
 
 veto resolutions, 198 
 Joint sitting of Lords and 
 
 Commons, 210, 211 
 Debate on Rosebery reform 
 
 resolutions, 223 
 Lord Lansdowne's alternative 
 
 to the Parliament Bill, 225 
 Mr. Asquith on the anomaly 
 
 of an hereditary House of 
 
 Lords, 243 
 
348 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Lords, House of (cont.) 
 
 Sir Wm. Anson on subordina- 
 tion of, 304 
 
 Scenes in, during final debates 
 on Parliament Bill, 318 et 
 seq. 
 
 Loreburn, Lord, Lord High Chan- 
 cellor 
 Condemns Lords' attitude on 
 
 Licensing Bill, 120 
 On danger of rejecting Budget, 
 
 !53 
 
 His success in House of Lords, 
 
 1 86 
 
 A reply to Lord Rosebery, 226 
 Condemns the referendum, 228 
 On Lords' unfairness to Liberal 
 
 Bills, 276 
 
 Lyndhurst, Lord, 15, 36 
 Lyttelton, Mr. Alfred, 248 
 
 Macaulay : Views on House of 
 
 Lords, 1838, 21, 22 
 McCarthy, Mr. Justin, 62 
 MacDonald, Mr. J. Ramsay, 245, 
 
 257 
 
 MacDonnell, Lord, 280 
 Magnus, Sir Philip, 254 
 May, Sir Erskine, 16, 43 
 Melbourne, Lord, 21, 121 
 Midleton, Lord (Mr. St. John 
 
 Brodrick), 93, 95, 274, 327 
 Mill, James 
 
 Essay on "Aristocracy," 20 
 Anticipation of Parliament Act, 
 
 21, 273 
 His plan revived by John 
 
 Bright, 66 
 Mill, John Stuart 
 
 On taxation of unearned in- 
 crement, 137 
 
 Milner, Lord, 117, 120, 158, 330 
 Money Bills 
 
 Lords' power in regard to, 35 
 Money Bill not necessarily a 
 
 Bill of Supply, 36 
 New preamble to Bills of 
 Supply, leaving out all men- 
 tion of Lords, 45 
 Lords' protest against " tack- 
 ing," 49 
 
 Hatsell and Sir Henry Graham 
 on distinctive procedure in 
 regard to Supply Bills, 51 
 
 Money Bills (cont ) 
 
 Lord Lansdowne's proposals ve 
 
 Money Bills, 225, 252 
 Lords' Money Bill amendment, 
 
 277, 278 
 
 Montagu, Lord, of Beaulieu, 276 
 Morley, Mr. John (afterwards 
 
 Lord) 
 
 On Sir W. Harcourt's resigna- 
 tion of Liberal leadership, 98 
 On effect of peers' action in 
 throwing out the Budget, 
 
 159 
 
 Services to democracy during 
 veto battle, 185, 186 
 
 On the doctrine of mandate, 
 230 
 
 Referendum inimical to repre- 
 sentative system, 264 
 
 On Lord Lansdowne's House 
 of Lords' Reform Bill, 265 
 
 Declaration that limitation of 
 Lords' veto will apply to 
 reformed Second Chamber, 
 271 
 
 Moves second reading of Par- 
 liament Bill, 273 
 
 On the projected Joint Com- 
 mittee of both Houses, 279 
 
 Appeal to Liberal peers for 
 third reading of Parliament 
 Bill, 285, 286 
 
 Moves that the Lords do not 
 insist on their amendments 
 to Parliament Bill, 320 
 
 On the Government's authori- 
 zation to create peers, 327 
 
 Navy Estimates 
 
 Large increase in, 1909-10, 133 
 Newton, Lord, 224, 261, 265, 281, 
 
 3 2 5 
 
 Nonconformists, The, 22, 72, 100, 
 
 109, no 
 
 Norfolk, Duke of, 101, 330 
 Northcote, Sir Stafford, 64 
 
 O'Brien, Mr. William, 237, 315 
 
 " Pacificus " 
 
 Letters on Devolution and 
 
 Federalism, 207 
 Palmerston, Lord, 30, 31, 34 
 Paper Duties Repeal Bill, 32, 33 
 
INDEX 
 
 349 
 
 Parliament Bill- 
 Germ of, in resolution and plan 
 
 of 1907, 114, 115 
 Text of the Bill, 199 et seq. 
 King George's stipulations as 
 
 to, 218 
 Reintroduced in the House of 
 
 Commons, 1911, 242 
 First reading carried, Feb- 
 ruary 21, 1911, 247 
 Second reading carried, March 2, 
 
 1911, 247 
 Third reading carried, May 15, 
 
 1911, 258 
 Second reading moved in 
 
 Lords, May 23, 1911, 273 
 Lords' amendment to exclude 
 from its provisions Bills of 
 " great gravity," 278 
 End of report stage in the 
 
 Lords, 282 
 
 The " No Surrender " move- 
 ment, 285 
 
 Commons on Lords' amend- 
 ments to the Bill, 314 
 Final stage in the House of 
 
 Lords, 318 
 
 The fateful division, 333 
 Royal Assent to the Bill, 339 
 Parnell, Mr. C. S., 76, 77, 79, 81, 
 
 82 
 
 Pease, Mr. J. A., 199 
 Peel, Sir Robert, 22-4, 113 
 Peel, Viscount (ex-Speaker), 160, 
 
 281 
 Peers, Creation of 
 
 A reserve power of the Con- 
 stitution, 10 
 Exercise of the prerogative in 
 
 1712, ii 
 
 Pitt on the prerogative of, 12 
 Lord Grey's request for, 14 
 King William IV's assent to, 15 
 Lord Durham, " Radical Jack," 
 
 and, 17 
 
 The prerogative now " a privi- 
 lege of the people," 18 
 Mr. Gladstone on the, 64 
 Mr. Asquith's request for, 218 
 The Crown and life peers, 260 
 Efforts to limit the Crown pre- 
 rogative, 262, 263, 268 
 Lord Lansdowne's desire to 
 avoid the, 287, 297 
 
 Peers, Creation of (cont.) 
 
 Mr. Asquith's intimation that 
 
 unless Lords give away there 
 
 will be, 289 
 Mr. Balfour on the, 293 
 Lord Curzon on danger of, 298, 
 
 299 
 Mr. Asquith discloses Cabinet's 
 
 advice to King as to, 310 
 Lord Morley on Crown's assent 
 
 to, 327 
 Lord Rosebery on the evils of, 
 
 329 
 
 Peers 
 Life, 260-2 
 Nomination of, 267 
 Eligible under Lord Lans- 
 downe's Bill for election to 
 House of Commons, 268 
 Pensions, Old - Age, 118, 119, 
 
 133 
 
 Petition of Right, 43 
 Pitt (Lord Chatham), 9 
 Pitt, William, 9, 12, 37, 126 
 Prerogative, The Royal (see The 
 
 Crown) 
 Purchase in the Army, Abolition 
 
 of, 55, 56 
 Pym, 4, 45, 165 
 
 Rea, Mr. Russell, 234 
 
 Redmond, Mr. John, 195, 237, 
 
 239, 295 
 Referendum, The 
 
 Proposal for, at Constitutional 
 
 Conference, 211 
 Mr. Asquith on, 213 
 Lord Lansdowne's scheme for, 
 
 225 
 Lord Loreburn on danger of, 
 
 228 
 
 Pledge of Conservative leaders 
 to submit Tariff Reform to, 
 
 239 
 
 Discussion on, in House of 
 Commons, 254, 255 
 
 Debate in House of Lords on, 
 260-4 
 
 Referendum amendment to Par- 
 liament Bill, 278 
 Reform Bill of 1832, 2, 6, 8, 10, 
 
 13 
 
 Reform Bill of 1867, 2 
 Reform Bill of 1884, 3, 63, 79 
 
350 LIBERALISM AND HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 Reform of House of Lords 
 Attitude of Liberals to, 192 
 Sir Edward Grey on, 194 
 Lord Rosebery's resolutions, 
 
 202, 222 
 Constitutional Conference and, 
 
 210 
 Mr. Asquith on necessity for, 
 
 244, 257, 258 
 
 Mr. Balfour on, 244, 256, 257 
 Conservative M.P.'s and, 248 
 Mr. Churchill on need for, 256 
 Lord Newton's scheme, 261, 262 
 Hampered by peer-making pre- 
 rogative, 261, 265 
 Lord Lansdowne's Bill for, 
 
 266-8 
 
 Tory peers' hostility to, 271 
 Lord Morley on, 274 
 Resolutions of House of Com 
 
 mons 
 
 James Mill on power of, 20 
 Gladstone on the 1860 resolu- 
 tions, 37 
 The resolutions of 1678 re 
 
 Aids and Supply, 46 
 Resolutions directed against 
 
 Lords, 47, 48 
 
 The Resolutions of 1860, 50 
 Lord Rosebery on, 91 
 Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's 
 
 veto resolution, 112 
 Commons' resolution against 
 Lords' " usurpation," 1909, 
 163 
 The veto resolutions of 1910, 
 
 196, 197 
 
 Revolution, The French, 2, 9 
 Revolution of 1688, 2, 6 
 Ribblesdale, Lord, 224, 321 
 Rice, Mr. Spring (Lord Mont- 
 eagle), 32, 37 
 Ritchie, Mr. (afterwards Lord), 
 
 104 
 
 Robertson, Mr. John M., 181 
 Rosebery, Earl of 
 As Prime Minister, 87 
 A House of Lords' reformer, 88 
 Campaign against the Lords' 
 
 veto, 89-93 
 Criticizes Old Age Pensions Bill, 
 
 119 
 
 Speech in Lords' debate on 
 Budget, 155 
 
 Rosebery, Earl of (cont.) 
 
 His career and personality, 
 187-90 
 
 His resolutions for House of 
 Lords' reform, 202, 222 
 
 Criticism of Mr. Asquith, 226 
 
 Replies to Lord Morley, 231 
 
 On general election of Decem- 
 ber, 1910, 240 
 
 On Lord Lansdowne's Bill for 
 reform of House of Lords, 265 
 
 On the apathy of the country, 
 266 
 
 Attack on the Liberal Govern- 
 ment, 277 
 
 Appeal to Lord Morley re 
 creation of peers, 327 
 
 On futility of Lords' resistance, 
 
 329 
 
 Runciman, Mr. Walter, 248 
 Russell, Lord John, 10, 13, 25 
 Russell, Earl, 278, 324 
 
 St. Aldwyn, Lord (see Aldwyn) 
 St. David's, Lord, 222 
 Salisbury, Lord 
 
 His protest against Mr. Glad- 
 stone's 1861 Budget, 39 
 A conciliator on Irish Dises- 
 tablishment, 55 
 On the political helplessness of 
 
 peers, 60 
 Negotiations on Franchise Bill, 
 
 1884, 64 
 
 Prime Minister, 1885-6, 76 
 On boycotting, 77 
 On advantage in Ireland of " a 
 
 large central assembly," 78 
 Policy of House of Lords in re- 
 gard to Budgets, 95 
 Prime Minister, 1895-1902, 97, 
 
 247 
 Samuel, Mr. Herbert, 250, 251, 
 
 258 
 
 Seely, Colonel, 248 
 Selborne, Earl of, 93, 223, 277, 
 
 284, 325, 332 
 Selden, 165 
 Sheffield, Lord, 280 
 Sherwell, Mr. Arthur, 181 
 Simon, Sir John, 181, 234 
 Smith, Mr. F. E., 226, 245, 295, 
 
 313 
 Somers, 165 
 
INDEX 
 
 351 
 
 Spectator, The, 102, 239, 285 
 
 Spencer, Earl, 77, 275 
 
 Stanley, Lord (afterwards Earl 
 
 Derby), 23 
 Sunderland, Lord, 263 
 
 Tait, Archbishop, 54 
 
 Tariff Reform, 103, 105, 141. 159, 
 
 238 
 
 Taylor, Sir Herbert- 
 Private Secretary to William 
 
 IV, 15 
 Letter to Tory peers in 1832, 
 
 16 
 
 Telegraph, Daily 
 " The hemlock must be drunk," 
 
 282 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, 54 
 Times, The, 109, no 
 Trade Disputes Bill, 108 
 Trevelyan, Mr. C. P., 144 
 Trevelyan, Sir George, 8, 80, 121 
 
 Ure, Mr., Lord Advocate, 143 
 
 Veto of the House of Lords 
 National Liberal Federation 
 
 appeal for its limitation, 87 
 Lord Rosebery's campaign 
 
 against, 89-93 
 Mr. Thomas Shaw's plan to 
 
 limit the, in 
 Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's 
 
 proposals in regard to, 113 
 
 Vetoof the Houseof Lords(cof.) 
 Mr. Redmond on Veto limita- 
 tion v. Reform, 195 
 Victoria, Queen, 27, 31, 54, 63, 87 
 
 Walpole, Sir Robert, 7, 12 
 War, South African, 97, 123 
 Wason, Mr. Eugene, 247 
 Watson, Dr. Spence, 87 
 " Waverers," The, of 1832, 15 
 Weardale, Lord, 265, 280 
 Wedgwood, Mr. J. C., 233 
 Wellington, Duke of 
 
 Attempt to form a Ministry, 
 
 1832, 14 
 
 Views on Reform Bill, 14 
 Attitude to the " Waverers," 
 
 15 
 
 On the " greatness of the revo- 
 lution " of 1832, 1 8 
 His " management " of the 
 
 House of Lords, 24 et seq. 
 On Protection for agriculture, 
 
 28 
 Gladstone on the Duke's 
 
 leadership of the Lords, 85 
 Lord Rosebery on, 329 
 Wensleydale peerage, The, 260 
 Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of 
 
 Strafford^ 75 
 Whigs, The, 2 
 
 William IV, King, 10, 13-15, 25 
 Willoughby de Broke, Lord, 17, 
 275, 282, 288, 305 
 
 WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD. 
 PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH 
 
A SELECTION OF BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY METHUEN 
 
 AND CO. LTD., LONDON 
 
 36 ESSEX STREET 
 
 W.C. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 General Literature . .< 
 Ancient Cities. 
 Antiquary's Books. 
 Arden Shakespeare 
 Classics of Art 
 Complete Series . 
 Connoisseur's Library . 
 Handbooks of English Church 
 
 History 
 
 Handbooks of Theology 
 Illustrated Pocket Library of 
 
 Plain and Coloured Books 
 Leaders of Religion 
 Library of Devotion 
 Little Books on Art 
 Little Galleries 
 Little Guides .... 
 Little Library .... 
 
 fAGB 
 
 
 FAGB 
 
 2 
 
 Little Quarto Shakespeare 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 Miniature Library 
 
 19 
 
 13 
 
 New Library of Medicine 
 
 19 
 
 
 New Library of Music 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 Oxford Biographies 
 
 20 
 
 14 
 
 Romantic History 
 
 2O 
 
 H 
 
 Statea of Italy 
 
 20 
 
 M 
 
 Westminster Commentaries 
 
 21 
 
 
 Shilling Library . 
 
 21 
 
 15 
 
 
 21 
 
 15 
 
 Two-Shilling Novels . 
 
 26 
 
 
 Books for Boys and Girls . 
 
 26 
 
 15 
 
 Shilling Novels . 
 
 26 
 
 16 
 
 Novels of Alexandre Dumas 
 
 27 
 
 16 
 
 Sixpenny Books 
 
 37 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 Books for Travellers 
 
 30 
 
 17 
 
 Some Books on Art . . . 
 
 30 
 
 18 
 
 Some Books on Italy 
 
 31 
 
 SEPTEMBER 1911 
 
A SELECTION OF 
 
 MESSRS. METHUEN'S 
 PUBLICATIONS 
 
 In this Catalogue the order b according to authors. An asterisk denete* 
 that the book is in the press. 
 
 Colonial Editions are published of all Messrs. METHUEN'S Novels issued 
 at a price above as. 6d"., and similar editions are published of some works of 
 General Literature, Colonial editions are only for circulation in the British 
 Colonies and India. 
 
 All books marked net are not fubject to discount, and cannot be bought 
 at less than the published price. Books not marked net are subject to the 
 discount which the bookseller allows. 
 
 Messrs. METHUEN'S books are kept In stock by all goed booksellers. If 
 there is any difficulty in seeing copies, Messrs. Methuen will be very glad to 
 have early information, and specimen copies of any books will be sent on 
 receipt of the published price plus postage for net books, and of the published 
 price for ordinary books. 
 
 This Catalogue contains only a selection of the more important books 
 published by Messrs. Methuen. A complete and illustrated catalogue of their 
 publications may be obtained on application. 
 
 Andrewes (LancelotX PRECES FRI- 
 VATAE. Translated and edited, with 
 Notes, by F. E. BRIGHTMAM. Cr. tv*. 6s. 
 
 Aristotle. THE ETHICS. Edited, with 
 an Introduction and Notes, by JOHN 
 BUKNHT. Dem 
 
 lof. 6d. net. 
 
 Atkinson (C. T.). A HISTORY OF GER- 
 
 MANY, from 1715-1815. Illustrated, Demy 
 Ivo. las. 6d. net. 
 
 Atkinson (T. D.). ENGLISH ARCHI- 
 TECTURE* Illustrated. Fcap. Bvt. y.6d. 
 net. 
 
 A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN 
 ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Fcap. &v*. 3$. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Bain (F. W-). A DIGIT OF THE 
 
 MOON: A HINDOO LOVE STORY. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvo. $s. 6d. net. 
 THE DESCENT OF THE SUN : A CYCLE 
 
 or BIRTH. Fifth Edition. Fcap. &vo. 
 
 3*. 6d. net. 
 A HEIFER OF THE DAWN. Sixth Edi- 
 
 tion. Fcap. Bvo. as. 6d. net. 
 IN THE GREAT GOD'S HAIR. Fourth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvo. as. 6d. net. 
 A DRAUGHT OF THE BLUE. Fourth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvo. as. >d. net. 
 AN ESSENCE OF THE DUSK. Second 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvo. as. >d. net. 
 
 AN INCARNATION OF THE SNOW 
 Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. -\s. 6d. net 
 
 A MINE OF FAULTS. Second Edition 
 Fcap. 8vo. 3J. 6d. net. 
 
 THE ASHES OF A GOD. Fcap. 8t* 
 3J. 6d. ntt. 
 
 Balfour (Graham). THE LIFE O? 
 ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Illus- 
 trated. Fifth Edition in ** Volume. 
 Cr. &v#. Buckram, 6s. 
 
 Baring-Gould (S.). THE LIFE OF 
 NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. Illustrated, 
 Second Edition. Roval Svo. ios. 6d net 
 
 THE TRAGEDY O'F THE CAESARS : 
 A STUDY OF THK CHARACTERS OF THB 
 
 CAESARS OF THE JULIAN AND CLAUDIAN 
 
 HOUSES. Illustrated. Stvinth Edition 
 
 Royal Bvo. IQJ. 6d. net. 
 A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition, Cr. 8vo. 6>. Also Medium 
 
 Kvo. 6d. 
 OLD ENGLISH FAIRY TALES, Illu* 
 
 trated. Third Edition. Cr. Bvt. Buck- 
 ram. 6s. 
 THE VICAR OF MORWENSTOW. Witk 
 
 a Portrait. Third Edition. Cr. Bvff. v. 6d 
 OLD COUNTRY LIFE. Illustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Large Cr. 8v#. 6s. 
 STRANGE SURVIVALS : SOME CHAPTERS 
 
 IN THE HISTORY OF MAN. Illustrated 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Svo. as. 6d. net. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 YORKSHIRE ODDITIES: INCIDENTS 
 AND STKANGB EVENTS. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. zs. 6d. net. 
 
 A BOOK OF CORNWALL. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF DARTMOOR. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF DEVON. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF NORTH WALES. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF SOUTH WALES. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF BRITTANY. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE RHINE : From Cleve 
 to Mainz. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE RIVIERA. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE PYRENEES. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Baring-Gould (S. ) and Sheppard (H. 
 FleetWOOd). A GARLAND OF 
 COUNTRY SONG. English Folk Songs 
 with their Traditional Melodies. Demy /(to. 
 6r. 
 
 SONGS OF THE WEST: Folk Songs of 
 Devon and Cornwall. Collected from the 
 Mouths of the People. New and Revised 
 Edition, under the musical editorship of 
 CECIL J. SHARP. Large Imperial Bvo. 
 5J. net. 
 
 Barker (E.). THE POLITICAL 
 THOUGHT OF PLATO AND ARIS- 
 TOTLE. Demy Bv*. ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 Bastable (C. F.). THE COMMERCE 
 OF NATIONS. Fifth Edition. Cr. Bvt. 
 zs. 64. 
 
 Bafcson (Mrs. Stephen). A CONCISE 
 HANDBOOK OF GARDEN FLOWERS. 
 Fcap. Bvo. 3-r. 64. 
 
 Beckett (Arthur). THE SPIRIT OF 
 THE DOWNS: Impressions and Remi- 
 niscences of the Sussex Downs. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Demy Bvo. IOJT. 64. net. 
 
 Beckford (Peter). THOUGHTS ON 
 HUNTING. Edited by J. OTHO PAGET. 
 Illustrated, Second Edition. Demy Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Belloe (H.). PARIS. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Revised. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 HILLS AND THE SEA. Third Edition. 
 
 Fcap. Bvo. SJ. 
 
 ON NOTHING AND KINDRED SUB- 
 JECTS. Third Edition. Fcap. Bvo. 5*. 
 ON EVERYTHING. Second Edition. Fcap. 
 
 Bvo. $s. 
 ON SOMETHING. Second Edition. Fcap. 
 
 Bvo. 55. 
 
 FIRST AND LAST. Fcap. Bvo. 5*. 
 MARIE ANTOINETTE. Illustrated. 
 
 Third Edition. Demy Bvo. i$s. net. 
 THE PYRENEES. illustrated. Settnd 
 
 Edition. Demy Bvo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Bennett (W. H.). A PRIMER OF THE 
 
 BIBLE. Fifth Edition. Cr. Bvo. zs. 64. 
 
 Bennett (W. H.) and Adeney (W. P.). A 
 BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION. With a 
 concise Bibliography. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. js. 6d. 
 
 Benson (Archbishop). GOD'S BOARD. 
 
 Communion Addresses. Second Edition. 
 Fcap. Bvo. 3-r. 6d. net. 
 
 Bensusan (Samuel L.). HOME LIFE 
 
 IN SPAIN. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Demy Bvo. ioj. 64. net. 
 
 Betham-Edwards (Miss). HOME LIFE 
 IN FRANCE. Illustrated. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvt. 6s. 
 
 Bindley (T. Herbert), THE OECU- 
 MENICAL DOCUMENTS OF THE 
 FAITH. With Introductions and Notes. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. net. 
 
 Blake (William). ILLUSTRATIONS OF 
 THE BOOK OF JOB. With a General In- 
 troduction by LAURENCE BINYON. Illus- 
 trated. Quart ff. 2 if. net. 
 
 Bloemfontein (Bishop of). ARA CO2LI : 
 AN ESSAY IN MYSTICAL THEOLOGY. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 3*. 6d. net. 
 
 FAITH AND EXPERIENCE. Cr. Bvo 
 y. 6d. net. 
 
 Bowden (E. M.). THE IMITATION OF 
 BUDDHA: Quotations from Buddhist 
 Literature for each Day in the Year. Sixth 
 Edition. Cr. idmo. zs. 64. 
 
 Brabant (F. G.). RAMBLES IN SUSSEX. 
 Illustrated. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Bradley (A. G.). ROUND ABOUT WILT- 
 SHIRE. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE ROMANCE OF NORTHUMBER- 
 LAND. Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy 
 Bvo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Braid (James). ADVANCED GOLF. 
 Illustrated. Sixth Edition. Demy Bvo. 
 lof. 6d. net. 
 
 Brailsford (H. N.> MACEDONIA : ITS 
 RACES AND THHIR FuxuRK. Illustrated. 
 Demy Bvo. izs. 6d. net. 
 
 Brodrick (Mary) and Morton (A. Ander- 
 son). A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF 
 EGYPTIAN ARCHEOLOGY. A Hand- 
 book for Students and Travellers. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. Bz>ff. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Browning (Robert). PARACELSUS. 
 
 Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and 
 Bibliography by MARGARET L. LEB and 
 KATHARINE B. LOCOCK. Fcap. Bvo. y. 64. 
 net. 
 
METHUKN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Buekton (A. M.}. EAGER HEART: A I 
 
 Christmas Mystery-Play. Ninth Edition. 
 Cr. &vt. i*. net. 
 
 Budge (E. A. Wallis). THE GODS OF 
 THE EGYPTIANS. Illustrated. Tw* 
 Volumes. Royalty*. 3 3$. net. 
 
 Bull (Paul). GOD AND OUR SOLDIERS. 
 Second Edition. Cr. 8. 6*. 
 
 Burns (Robert). THE POEMS AND 
 SONGS. Edited by ANDREW LANG and 
 W. A. CRAIGIE. With Portrait. Third 
 Edition. Wide Demy Bvf. 6s 
 
 Busbey (Katherine G.). HOME LIFE 
 
 IN AMERICA. Illustrated. Second Edi- 
 tion. Demy Bvt. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 Butlin (F. M.). AMONG THE DANES. 
 Illustrated. Demy &vo. ^s. 6d. net. 
 
 Cain (Georges), WALKS IN PARIS. 
 Translated by A. R. ALLINSON. Illustrated. 
 Demy &vo. -js. 6d. net. 
 
 Caiman (W. T.). THE LIFE OF 
 CRUSTACEA. Illustrated. Cr. too, 6s. 
 
 Carlyle (Thomas). THE FRENCH 
 REVOLUTION. Edited by C. R. L. 
 FLETCHER. Three Volumes. Cr. %vo. i8s. 
 
 THE LETTERS AND SPEECHES OF 
 OLIVER CROMWELL. With an In- 
 troduction by C. H. FIRTH, and Notes 
 and Appendices by S. C. LOMAS. Thret 
 Volumes. Demy &vo. i&r. net. 
 
 Celano (Brother Thomas of). THE 
 LIVES OF S. FRANCIS OF ASSISI. 
 Translated by A. G. FERRERS HOWJSLL. 
 Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. 5*. net. 
 
 Chambers (Mrs. Lambert). LAWN 
 TENNIS FOR LADIES. Illustrated, 
 Cr. &vt>, ftf. 6d. net. 
 
 Chesterfield (Lord). THE LETTERS OF 
 THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD TO 
 HIS SON. Edited, with an Introduction by 
 C. STRACHEY, and Notes by A. CALTKKOK 
 Two Volumes. Cr. too. 12*. 
 
 Chesterton (O.K.). CHARLES DICKENS. 
 
 With two Portraits in Photogravure, Seventh 
 
 Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. too. ss. 
 TREMENDOUS TRIFLES. Fourth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. too. 5*. 
 ALARMS AND DISCURSIONS. Second 
 
 Edition. Fcap. too. ss. 
 THE BALLAD OF THE WHITE 
 
 HORSE. Fcap. too. $s. 
 Clausen (George). SIX LECTURES ON 
 
 PAINTING. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 
 Large Post too. 3-r. 6d. net. 
 \IMS AND IDEALS IN ART. Eight 
 
 Lectures delivered to the Students of the 
 
 Royal Academy of Arts. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Large Post too. 5*. net. 
 
 Clutton-Broek (A.) SHELLEY: THE 
 MAN AND THE POET. Illustrated. 
 Demy too. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Cobb ( W. F. ). THE BOOK OF PSALMS ; 
 with an Introduction and Notes. Demy too. 
 IAS. f>d. net. 
 
 Colllngwood (W. G.). THE LIFE OF 
 JOHN RUSKIN. With Portrait Sixth 
 Edition- Cr. 8* as. 6d. net. 
 
 Conrad (Joseph). THE MIRROR OF 
 THE SEA : Memories and Impressions. 
 Third Edition. Cr. to*. 6*. 
 
 COQlidge (W. A. B.). THE ALPS, Illus- 
 trated. Demy too. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Coulton (G. G.). CHAUCER AND HIS 
 
 ENGLAND. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Demy Bz>0. ioj. 6d. net, 
 
 Cowper (William). THE POEMS. 
 Edited with an Introduction and Notes by 
 ]. C. BAILEY. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 
 ios. 6d. net. 
 
 Crlspe (T. E.). REMINISCENCES OF A 
 K.C. With a Portraits. Second Edition. 
 Demy %vo. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 Crowley (Ralph H.). THE HYGIENE 
 OF SCHOOL LIFE. Illustrated. Cr. 
 tvt>. 3^. 6d. net. 
 
 Dante Alighieri- LA COMMEDIA DI 
 
 DANTE. The Italian Text edited by 
 PAGET TOYNBEB. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Davey (Richard). THE PAGEANT OF 
 
 LONDON. Illustrated. In Tw Volumes. 
 Demy &y*. 15*. net. 
 
 Davis (H. W. C.). ENGLAND UNDER 
 THE NORMANS AND ANGEVINS: 
 1066-1272, Illustrated. StCfnd Edition. 
 Demy Sv*. KM. & net. 
 
 Dawbarn (Charles.) FRANCE AND 
 
 THE FRENCH, Illustrated. Demy *yo. 
 101. & net- 
 
 Dearmer (Mabel). A CHILD'S LIFE 
 OF CHRIST. Illustrated, L+r f t Cr. 
 IP* 6*. 
 
 Deffand (Madame Du). THE LETTERS 
 OF MADAME DU DEFFAND TO 
 HORACE WALPOLE. Edited, with 
 Introduction, Notes, and Index, by Mrs. 
 PAGET TOYNBEK. In Thret Volumes. 
 Demy 8*. 3 y. net. 
 
 Dickinson (G. L.). THE GREEK VIEW 
 OF LIFE. Seventh Edition. Crown too. 
 *s. 6d. net. 
 
 Ditchfleld lP. H.). THE PARISH 
 CLERK. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Demy Bvo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 THE OLD-TIME PARSON. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Demy 8w. js. 6d. tut. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 DItchfleld (P. H.) and Roe (Fred). 
 VANISHING ENGLAND. The Book by 
 P. H. Ditchfield. Illustrated by FRED ROB. 
 Second Edition. Wide Demy Sve. 15*. net. 
 
 Douglas (Hugh A.). VENICE ON FOOT. 
 With the Itinerary of the Grand Canal. 
 Illustrated Second Edition. Fcaj>. 8. 
 
 VENICE AND HER TREASURES. 
 Illustrated. Rtund earner*- Pea}. Sw, 
 ST. net. 
 
 Dowden (J.). FURTHER STUDIES IN 
 THE PRAYED BOOK. Cr. Ivt. 6*. 
 
 Driver (S. R.). SERMONS ON 
 SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. Cr. Svt. 6t. 
 
 Dumas (Alexandra). THE CRIMES OF 
 THE BORGIAS AND OTHERS. With 
 an Introduction by R, S. GARNETT, 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Bve. 6s. 
 
 THE CRIMES OF URBAIN GRAN- 
 DIERAND OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr. 
 &vo. 6s. 
 
 THE CRIMES OF THE MARQUISE 
 DE BRINVILLIERS AND OTHERS 
 Illustrated. Cr. 8z;. 6*. 
 
 THE CRIMES OF ALI PACHA AND 
 OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 MY MEMOIRS. Translated by E. M. 
 WALLER. With an Introduction by ANDREW 
 LANG. With Frontispieces in Photogravure 
 In six Volumes, Cr. &vo. 6s. each volume 
 VOL. I. 1802-1821. VOL. IV. 1830-1831. 
 VOL. IL 1822-1825. VOL. V. 1831-1830. 
 VOL. III. 1826-1830. VOL. VI. 1832-1833. 
 
 MY PETS. Newly translated by A, R. 
 ALLINSON. Illustrated. Cr. 8vo. 6s, 
 
 Duncan (F. M. X OUR INSECT 
 FRIENDS AND FOES. Illustrated. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Dunn-Pattison (R. P.). NAPOLEON'S 
 MARSHALS. Illustrated. Demy Ivo. 
 Second Edition. I2J. 6d. net. < 
 
 THE BLACK PRINCE. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Demy Sv*. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Durham (The Earl of). THE REPORT 
 ON CANADA. With an Introductory 
 Note, Demy Zv0. 4*. 6d. net. 
 
 Dutt(W.A.). THE NORFOLK BROADS. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 WILD LIFE IN EAST ANGLIA. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. DemySv*. js. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Edwardes (Tlekner). THE LORE OF 
 THE HONEY-bEE. Illustrated, Third 
 Edition. Cr. &vt. 6s. 
 
 LIFT-LUCK ON SOUTHERN ROADS, 
 Illustrated. Cr. *>vo. 6s. 
 
 NEIGHBOURHOOD ; A YEAR'S LIFE m 
 AND ABOUT AN ENGLISH VILLAGE. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. &vo. 6t. 
 
 Egerton (H. E-). A SHORT HISTORY 
 OP BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY. 
 Third Edition. Demy 8va. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Exeter (Bishop of). REGNUMDEI. 
 
 (The Bampton Lectures of 1001.) A Cheaper 
 Edition. Demy Bvo. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Falrbrother (W. H.). THE PHILO- 
 SOPHY OF T. H. GREEN. Second 
 Edition, Cr. lvo t 3*. 64 
 
 Fea (Allan). THE FLIGHT OF THE 
 KING. Illustrated Second and Revised 
 Edition. Demy &vo. 7*. t>d. net. 
 
 SECRET CHAMBERS AND HIDING- 
 PLACES. Illustrated. Third and Revised 
 Edition. Demy Svo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 JAMES II. AND HIS WIVES, Illustrated. 
 Demy 8v0. i2S. 6d. net. 
 
 Firth (C. H.). CROMWELL'S ARMY: 
 A History of the English Soldier during the 
 Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the 
 Protectorate. Cr. 8va. 6s. 
 
 Fisher (H. A. L.). THE REPUBLICAN 
 TRADITION IN EUROPE. Cr. 3v*. 
 6s. net. 
 
 FitzGerald (Edward). THE RUBAI-YAT 
 OF OMAR KHAYYAM. Printed from 
 the Fifth and last Edition. With a Com- 
 mentary by H. M. BATSON, and a Biograph- 
 ical Introduction by E. D. Ross. Cr. 2w. 
 6*. 
 
 Fletcher (J. S.). A BOOK OF YORK- 
 SHIRE, Illustrated. Demy \v* js. M. 
 
 Flux (A. W.). ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES 
 Demy &vo. ?s. 6d. net. 
 
 Fraser (J. F-). ROUND THE WORLD 
 ON A WHEEL. Illustrated Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. Bva. 6s. 
 
 Galton (Sir Francis). MEMORIES OF 
 MY LIFE. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Demy Zv. i<w. 6d, net. 
 
 Gibblns (H. de B-). INDUSTRY IN 
 ENGLAND; HISTORICAL OUT- 
 LINES. With 5 Maps. Sixth Edition. 
 Demy 8v0. ioj. bd. 
 
 THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF 
 ENGLAND. Illustrated. Seventeenth 
 Edftion. Cr. Bva. y. 
 
 ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS. 
 Second Edition. Cr. %v*. ar. 6d. 
 
 Gibbon (Edward). THE MEMOIRS OF 
 THE LIFE OF EDWARD GIBBON. 
 Edited by G. BIRKBECK HILL. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. Edited, with Notes, 
 Appendices, and Maps, by J. B. BURY, 
 Illustrated. In Seven Volumes. Demy 
 tvo. Each ior. 6d. net. 
 
METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Gloag (M. R.) A BOOK OF ENGLISH 
 GARDENS. Illustrated. Dimy Zvo. 
 los. f>d. net. 
 
 Glover (J. M.). JIMMY GLOVER HIS 
 BOOK. Demy Ivo. iss. 6d. net. 
 
 Glover (T. R.). THE CONFLICT OF 
 RELIGIONS IN THE EARLY ROMAN 
 EMPIRE. Fourth Edition. Demy Zvo. 
 7-r. 6d. net. 
 
 Godfrey (Elizabeth). A BOOK OF RE- 
 MEMBRANCE. Being Lyrical Selections 
 for every day in the Year. Arranged by 
 E. Godfrey. Second Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 
 2J. 6d. net. 
 
 Godley (A. D.). OXFORD IN THE 
 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Demy 8vo. js. 6d. net. 
 LYRA FRIVOLA. Fourth Edition. Fcaf. 
 
 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 VERSES TO ORDER. Second Edition. 
 
 Fcap. 8v0. 2J. 6d. 
 SECOND STRINGS, Fcaf. 8vo. . 6d. 
 
 Gordon (Lina Duff) (Mrs. Aubrey Water- 
 field). HOME LIFE IN ITALY : LETTERS 
 FROM THE APENNINES. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy 8vo. ior. 6d. net. 
 
 Gostling (Frances M.). THE BRETONS 
 AT HOME. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 AUVERGNE AND ITS PEOPLE. Illus- 
 trated. Demy 8vo. KM. 6d. net. 
 
 Grahame (Kenneth). THE WIND IN 
 THE WILLOWS. Illustrated. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Grew (Edwin Sharpe). THE GROWTH 
 OF A PLANET. Illustrated. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 Griffin (W. Hall) and Minchln (H. CA 
 THE LIFE OF ROBERT BROWNING. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy Bvo. 
 i2J. 6d. net. 
 
 Hale (J. R.). FAMOUS SEA FIGHTS : 
 FROM SAL AM is TO TSU-SHIMA. Illustrated. 
 Cr. tvff. 6s. net. 
 
 Hall (Cyril). THE YOUNG CARPEN- 
 TER. Illustrated. Cr. 8vo. $s. 
 
 Hall (Hammond). THE YOUNG EN- 
 GINEER ; or MODERN ENGINES AND THEIR 
 MODELS. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. s*' 
 
 THE YOUNG ELECTRICIAN. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. &vo. 5*. 
 
 Hannay (D.). A SHORT HISTORY OF 
 THE ROYAL NAVY. Vol. I., 1217-1688. 
 Vol. II., 1689-1815. Demy Bvo. Each 
 7-r. 6d. net. 
 
 Harper (Charles G.). THE AUTOCAR 
 ROAD-BOOK. Four Volumes with Maps. 
 Cr. 8vo. Each ^s. 6d. net. 
 Vol. I. SOUTH OF THE THAMES. 
 Vol. II. NORTH AND SOUTH WALKS 
 AND WEST MIDLANDS. 
 
 Sturge). GEORGE 
 ^ELIST, POET, 
 
 Hassall (Arthur). NAPOLEON. Illus- 
 trated. Demy 8vo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Headley (F. W.). DARWINISM AND 
 MODERN SOCIALISM. Second Edition. 
 Cr. 8vo. 5 s - net. 
 
 Henderson (B. W.). THE LIFE AND 
 PRINCIPATE OF THE EMPEROR 
 NERO. Illustrated. New and cheaper 
 issue. Demy 8vo. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Henderson (M. 
 MEREDITH : NOVJ 
 REFORMER. Illustrated. Second Edition^ 
 Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 
 Henderson (T. F.) and Watt (Francis). 
 SCOTLAND OF TO-DAY. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Henley (W. E.). ENGLISH LYRICS. 
 CHAUCER TO POE. Second Edition. 
 Cr. 8vo. as. 6d. net. 
 
 Hill (George Francis). ONE HUNDRED 
 MASTERPIECES OF SCULPTURE. 
 Illustrated. Demy Bvo. IDJ. 6d. net. 
 
 Hind (C. Lewis). DAYS IN CORNWALL. 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Hobhouse (L. T.). THE THEORY OF 
 KNOWLEDGE. Demy 8vo. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 Hodgson (Mrs. W.). HOW TO IDENTIFY 
 OLD CHINESE PORCELAIN. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Post Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Holdich (Sir T. H.). THE INDIAN 
 BORDERLAND, 1880-1900. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Dttny &vo. ios. 6d. net. 
 
 Holdsworth (W. S.). A HISTORY OF 
 ENGLISH LAW. In Four Volumes. 
 Vols. /., //., ///. Demy 8vo. Each IQJ. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Holland (Clive). TYROL AND ITS 
 PEOPLE. Illustrated. Demy &vo. iw. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 THE BELGIANS AT HOME. Illustrated. 
 Demy &vo. ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 Horsburgh (E. L. S.). LORENZO THE 
 MAGNIFICENT : AND FLORENCE IN HER 
 GOLDEN AGE. Illustrated. Second Edition, 
 Demy Zvo. 15*. net. 
 
 WATERLOO : A NARRATIVE AND A CRIT- 
 ICISM. With Plans. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 THE LIFE OF SAVONAROLA. Illus- 
 trated. Fourth and Enlarged Edition. 
 Cr. 8v*. 5J. net. 
 
 Hosie (Alexander). MANCHURIA. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Demy Bvo. 7*. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Hudson (W. H.). A SHEPHERD'S 
 LIFE : IMPRESSIONS OF THE SOUTH WILT- 
 SHIRE DOWNS. Illustrated. Third Edi- 
 tion. Demy 8v*. ^s. 6d. net. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 Hutron (Ceeile). SOCIAL LIFE IN 
 FRANCE IN THE XVII. CENTURY. 
 Illustrated. Demy 8vo. 10*. 6d. rut. 
 
 Humphreys (John H.). PROPOR- 
 TIONAL REPRESENTATION. Cr. 8z*. 
 5*. net. 
 
 Hutchlnson (Horace G-). THE NEW 
 
 FOREST. Illustrated Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 Button (Edward). THE CITIES OF 
 
 SPAIN. Illustrated. Fourth. Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE CITIES OF UMBRIA. Illustrated. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 FLORENCE AND THE CITIES OF 
 
 NORTHERN TU'SCANY WITH 
 
 GENOA, Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8va. 6s. 
 SIENA AND SOUTHERN TUSCANY. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 VENICE AND VENETIA. Illustrated. 
 
 Cr.&vf. 6s. 
 ROME. Illustrated, Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 Bvff. 6s. 
 ENGLISH LOVE POEMS. Edited with 
 
 an Introduction. Fcap. Bvo. y. 6d. net. 
 COUNTRY WALKS ABOUT FLORENCE. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 
 
 5.?. net. 
 IN UNKNOWN TUSCANY With Notes. 
 
 by WILLIAM HBYWOOD. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Demy 8vo. js. 6d. net. 
 A BOOK OF THE WYE, Illustrated. 
 
 Demy 8v. ^s. 6d. net. 
 
 Ibsen (Henrik). BRAND. A Dramatic 
 Poem, Translated by WILLIAM WILSOK. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. Bvo. y. 6d. 
 
 Inge (W. R.). CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM. 
 (The Bampton Lectures of 1899.) Demy 8w. 
 13*. 6d. net. 
 
 Innes (A. D.). A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 BRITISH IN INDIA. With Maps and 
 
 Plans. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS. 
 
 With Maps. Third Edition. Demy Bvo. 
 
 tot. 6d. net. 
 
 Innes (Mary). SCHOOLS OF PAINT- 
 ING. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. $j. net. 
 
 JenkS ;E.). AN OUTLINE OF ENG- 
 LISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Second 
 Edition. Revised by R. C. K. ENSOE, 
 Cr. &vt. *s. 6d. net. 
 
 Jernlngham (Charles Edward). THE 
 
 MAXIMS OF MARMADUKE. Second 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 5*. 
 
 Jerrold (Walter). THE DANUBE. 
 Illustrated. Demy Bvo. ior. 6d. net. 
 
 Johnston (Sir H. H. ). BRITISH CEN- 
 TRAL AFRICA. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition. Cr. tfo. i8s. net. 
 
 THE NEGRO IN THE NEW WORLD. 
 Illustrated. Demy Bz'o. au. net. 
 
 Julian (Lady) of Norwich. REVELA- 
 TIONS OF DIVINE LOVE. Edited by 
 GRACB WARRACK. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. y. 6d. 
 
 Keats (John). THE POEMS. Edited 
 
 with Introduction and Notes by E. de 
 SELINCOURT. With a Frontispiece in Photo- 
 gravure. Third Edition. Demy Zv0. 
 js. 6d. net. 
 
 Keble (John). THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. 
 
 With an Introduction and Notes by W. 
 LOCK. Illustrated. Third Edition. Fcap. 
 &vo. y. 6d. 
 
 Kempls (Thomas a). THE IMITATION 
 OF CHRIST. With an Introduction by 
 DEAN FARRAR. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition. Fcaf. Svff. 3*. 6d.; padded 
 morocco, $s. 
 
 Kipling (Rudyard). BARRACK-ROOM 
 
 BALLADS. looM Thousand. Twenty- 
 ninth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. Also Fcap. 
 &z'0, Leather. <s. net. 
 
 THE SEVEN SEAS. 8 4 M Thousand. 
 Seventeenth Edition. Cr. Zvo, 6s. Also 
 Fcap. 8vo, Leather. $s. net. 
 
 THE FIVE NATIONS. 7 oth Thousand. 
 Seventh Edition, Cr. 8vo. 6s. Also Fcap. 
 8z>0, Leather. 5^. net. 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL DITTIES. Nineteenth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. Also Fcap. Bvo, 
 Leather. $s. net. 
 
 Knox (Winifred F.). THE COURT OF 
 
 A SAINT. IHustrated. Demy 8fA 
 ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 *Lamb (Charles and Mary). THE 
 WORKS. Edited with an Introduction 
 and Notes by E. V. LUCAS. A New and 
 Revised Edition in Six Volumes. With 
 Frontispiece. Fcap Bv0. 5*. each. Th 
 volumes are : 
 
 i. MISCELLANEOUS PROSE, u. ELIA AND 
 THE LAST ESSAYS OF ELIA. in. BOOKS 
 FOR CHILDREN, iv. PLAYS AND POEMS. 
 T. and vi. LETTERS. 
 
 Lane-Poole (Stanley). A HISTORY OF 
 EGYPT IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 
 Illustrated. Cr. 8ve. dr. 
 
 Lankester (Sir Ray). SCIENCE FROM 
 AN EASY CHAIR. Illustrated. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Le Braz (Anatole). THE LAND OF 
 PARDONS. Translated by FRANCES M. 
 GOSTLING. Illustrated. Third Edition, 
 Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
8 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Lindsay (Mabel M.). ANNI DOMINI : 
 A GOSPEL STUDY. With Maps. Two 
 Volumes. Super Royal 8f*. IOT. rut, 
 
 Lock (Walter). ST. PAUL, THE 
 
 MASTER-BUILDER. Third Edition. 
 Cr. 8z'<7. 3J. 6d. 
 
 THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN LIFE. 
 Cr. 8z/o. dr. 
 
 Lodge (Sir Oliver). THE SUBSTANCE 
 OF FAITH, ALLIED WITH SCIENCE: 
 A Catechism for Parents and Teachers. 
 Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. vs. net. 
 
 MAN AND THE UNIVERSE : A STUDY 
 OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE ADVANCE IN 
 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE UPON OUR UNDER- 
 STANDING OF CHRISTIANITY. Ninth 
 Edition. Demy %vo. $s. net. 
 
 THE SURVIVAL OF MAN. A STUDY IM 
 UNRECOGNISED HUMAN FACULTY. Fifth 
 Edition. Wide Crown %vo. 5-r. net. 
 
 REASON AND BELIEF. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. %vo. 35-. 6d. net. 
 
 Lorlmer (George Horace). LETTERS 
 FROM A SELF-MADE MERCHANT 
 TO HIS SON. Illustrated. Eighteenth 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 3*. 6d. 
 
 OLD GORGON GRAHAM. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6t. 
 
 'Loyal Serviteur.' THE STORY OF 
 BAYARD. Adapted by AMY G. ANDREWES. 
 Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. at. 6d. 
 
 Lucas (E, V.). THE LIFE OF CHARLES 
 
 LAMB. Illustrated. Fifth Edition. Demy 
 
 %vo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 A WANDERER IN HOLLAND. Illus- 
 trated. Twelfth Edition. Cr. 8i>0. 6*. 
 
 *Also Fcap. 8vo. BJ. 
 
 A WANDERER IN LONDON. Illus- 
 trated. Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 *A Iso Fcap. %vo, $s. 
 A WANDERER IN PARIS. Illustrated. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 *A Iso Fcap. %vo. $s. 
 THE OPEN ROAD: A Little Book for 
 
 Wayfarers. Eighteenth Edition. Fcap. 
 
 8vo. $s. ; India Paper, "js. 6d. 
 THE FRIENDLY TOWN : a Little Book 
 
 for the Urbane. Sixth Edition. Fcap. Bv. 
 
 5*. ; India Paper, js. 6d. 
 FIRESIDE AND SUNSHINE. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvff. $s. 
 CHARACTER AND COMEDY. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Zvo. 5*. 
 THE GENTLEST ART. A Choice of 
 
 Letters by Entertaining Hands. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap Zvo. 5*. 
 THE SECOND POST. Third Edition. 
 
 Fcap. &vo. 5*. 
 A SWAN AND HER FRIENDS. Illus^ 
 
 trated. Demy Svc. izs. 6d. net. 
 HER INFINITE VARIETY : A FEMININB 
 
 PORTRAIT GALLERY. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Fcap. Svo. 5*. 
 
 GOOD COMPANY: A RALLY or MEM. 
 
 Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. $s. 
 ONE DAY AND ANOTHER. Fourth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. Bvo. 5*. 
 *OLD LAMPS FOR NEW. Feat. *vt>. . 
 LISTENER'S LURE : AN OBLIQUK NAR- 
 
 RATION. Eighth Edition. Fcap. 8zw. . 
 OVER BEMERTON'S: AN EASY-GOING 
 
 CHRONICLE. Ninth Edition. Fcap. %vt>. 
 
 *MR. INGLESIDE. Fca^. tv*. 5*. 
 See also Lamb (Charles). 
 
 *Lydekker (R. and Others). REPTILES, 
 AMPHIBIA, AND FISHES. Illustrated. 
 Demy &va. IQJ. 6d. net, 
 
 Lydekker (R.> THE OX. mnstrated. 
 Cr. to*. 6s. 
 
 Maeaulay (Lord). CRITICAL AND 
 HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Edited by F. 
 C. MONTAGUS, Three Volumes. Cr. 8*. 
 
 McCabe (Joseph). THE DECAY OF 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME. Third 
 Edition. Demy Zvt. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 *THE EMPRESSES OF ROM*. Illus- 
 trated. Demy 8t/#. xzj. 6d. net. 
 
 MacCarthy (Desmond) and Russell 
 
 (Agatha) LADY JOHN RUSSELL: 
 
 A MEMOIR i llustrated. Ffurth Edition 
 
 Demy &vt. i->j 6d. net. 
 
 MeCullagh (Francis). THE FALL OF 
 ABD-UL-HAMID. Illustrated. Demy 
 \vo. lof . 6d. net. 
 
 MaeDonagh (Michael). THE SPEAKER 
 OF THE HOUSE, Demy &v*. 10*. 6<i 
 net. 
 
 McDougall (William). AN INTRODUC- 
 TION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. $s. net. 
 
 BODY AND MIND ; A HISTORY AND A 
 DEFENCE OF ANIMISM. Demy 8tv>. xw. 6d 
 net. 
 
 Mdlle. Mori ' (Author of). ST. GATHER- 
 INE OF SIENA AND HER TIMES. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. D*my Zvff 
 js. 6d. net. 
 
 Maeterlinck (Maurice). THE BLUB. 
 BIRD : A FAIRY PLAY IN Six ACTS. 
 Translated by ALEXANDER TEIXEIRA DB 
 MATTOS. Twentieth Edition. Fcap. %vo, 
 Deckle Edges, y. 6d. net. Also Fcap. Zvo 
 Paper covers, is. net. 
 
 THE BLUE BIRD : A FAIRY PLAY IN S/x 
 ACTS. Translated by ALEXANDER TEIXEIRA 
 DE MATTOS. Illustrated. Cr. 4ta. i$s. net. 
 
 MARY MAGDALENE : A PLAY IN THREE 
 ACTS. Translated by ALEXANDER TEIXEIRA 
 DE MATTOS. Third Edition. Fcap. Bvo. 
 Deckle Edgtt. 3*. 6d. net. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 Mahaffy(J. P.). A HISTORY OF EGYPT 
 UNDER THE PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY. 
 Illustrated Cr. Bv0. 6s. 
 
 Maltland (F. W.). ROMAN CANON 
 LAW IN THE CHURCH OF ENG- 
 LAND. Royal Svo. 7 s. 6d. 
 
 Marett (R. R.). THE THRESHOLD OF 
 RELIGION. Cr. Bvo. 3 s. 6d. net. 
 
 Marriott (Charles). A SPANISH HOLI- 
 
 DAY. Illustrated. Demy &vo. js. 6d. net. 
 *THE ROMANCE OF THE RHINE. 
 Illustrated. Demy Bvff. ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 Marriott (J. A. R.). THE LIFE AND 
 TIMES OF LUCIUS CARY, VISCOUNT 
 FALKLAND. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Demy "&vo. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Masefleld (John). SEA LIFE IN NEL- 
 SON'S TIME. Illustrated. Cr. Bvo. 
 V. 6d. net. 
 
 A. SAILOR'S GARLAND. Selected and 
 Edited. Second Edition. Cr. %vo. 3*. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 AN ENGLISH PROSE MISCELLANY. 
 Selected with an Introduction. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Masterman (C. F. G.). TENNYSON 
 AS A RELIGIOUS TEACHER. Second 
 Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 
 THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. &V0. 6*. 
 
 Medley (D. J.). ORIGINAL ILLUS- 
 TRATIONS OF ENGLISH CONSTITU- 
 TIONAL HISTORY. Cr.tvo. 7 s. 6d.net. 
 
 Meldrum (D. S.). HOME LIFE IN 
 HOLLAND. Illustrated. Demy Bvo. 
 TO*. 6d. net. 
 
 Methuen (A. M. S-). ENGLAND'S RUIN : 
 DISCUSSED IN FOURTEEN LETTERS TO A 
 PROTECTIONIST. Ninth. Edition. Cr. Bv0. 
 3 < net. 
 
 Meynell (Everard). COROT AND HIS 
 FRIENDS. Illustrated Demy Bvo. ios.6d. 
 net. 
 
 Miles (Eustace). LIFE AFTER LIFE: 
 
 OR, THB THEORY OF REINCARNATION. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 2J. 6d. net. 
 THE POWER OF CONCENTRATION : 
 
 How TO ACQUIRE IT. Third Edition* 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 3*. 6d. net. 
 
 MillalS (J. G.). THE LIFE AND LET- 
 TERS OF SIR JOHN EVERETT 
 MILLAIS. Illustrated. New Edition. 
 Demy Bvo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Milne (J. G.). A HISTORY OF EGYPT 
 UNDER ROMAN RULE. Illustrated. 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Moffat (Mary M.). QUEEN LOUISA OF 
 PRUSSIA. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 MARIA THERESA. Illustrated. 10*. 64 
 net. 
 
 Money (L. G. Chlozza). RICHES AND 
 POVERTY, 1910. Tenth and Revised 
 Edition. Demy Bvo. $s. net. 
 
 MONEY'S FISCAL DICTIONARY, 1910. 
 Second Edition. Demy %vo. $s. net. 
 
 Montague (C.E.). DRAMATIC VALUES. 
 Second Edition. Fcap. Bvo. 5*. 
 
 Moorhouse (E. Hallam). NELSON'S 
 LADY HAMILTON. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition, Demy %vo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Morgan (J. H.), THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 AND THE CONSTITUTION. With an 
 Introduction by the LORD CHANCELLOR. 
 Cr. 8va. is. net. 
 
 Nevlll (Lady Dorothy). UNDER FIVE 
 
 REIGNS. Edited by her son. Illustrated. 
 Fifth Edition. Demy 8vo. 153. net. 
 
 Norway (A. H.). NAPLES. PAST AND 
 PRESENT. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Oman (C. W. C.), A HISTORY OF THE 
 ART OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE 
 AGES. Illustrated. Demy 8vo. IQJ. 6d. 
 
 ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN 
 CONQUEST. With Maps. Second 
 Edition. Demy Bva. ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 Oxford (M. N.), A HANDBOOK OF 
 NURSING. Fifth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 
 
 Pakes (W. C. C.). THE SCIENCE OF 
 HYGIENE. Illustrated. DemyKvo. i 5 j. 
 
 Parker (Eric). THE BOOK OF THE 
 ZOO ; BY DAY AND NIGHT. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bv0. 6s. 
 
 *Pears (Sir Edwin). TURKEY AND ITS 
 PEOPLE. Demy Zvo. 125. 6d. net. 
 
 Petrle (W. M. Flinders). A HISTORY 
 
 OF EGYPT. Illustrated. In Six Volumes. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. each. 
 VOL. I. FROM THE IST TO THE XVlTH 
 
 DYNASTY. Sixth Edition. 
 VOL. II. THE XVIlTH AND XVIIlTH 
 
 DYNASTIES. Fourth Edition. 
 VOL. III. XIXTH TO XXXTH DYNASTIES. 
 VOL. IV. EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMAIC 
 
 DYNASTY. J. P. MAHAFFY. 
 VOL. V. EGYPT UNDER ROMAN RULE. J. G. 
 
 MILNE. 
 VOL. VI. EGYPT IN THE MIDDLB AGES. 
 
 STANLEY LANE-POOLE. 
 RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IN 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. Illustrated Cr. Bvo. 
 
 *s.6d. 
 SYRIA AND EGYPT, FROM THE TELL 
 
 EL AMARNA LETTERS. Cr. &v*. 
 
 A 2 
 
10 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 EGYPTIAN TALES. Translated from the 
 Papyri. First Series, ivth to xnth Dynasty. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Ivo. 
 
 EGYPTIAN TALES. Translated from the 
 Papyri. Second Series, xvmth to xixth 
 Dvnasty. Illustrated. Cr. 8vo. $s. 6d. 
 
 EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. %vo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Phelps (Ruth S.). SKIES ITALIAN: A 
 LITTI.K BRKVIARV FOR TRAVELLERS IN 
 ITALY. Fcap. 8vo. 5*. net. 
 
 Podmore (Frank). MODERN SPIRIT- 
 UALISM. Two Volumes. Demy 8z>0. 
 
 MESMERISM AND CHRISTIAN 
 SCIENCE : A Short History of Mental 
 Healing. Second Edition. Demy %vo. 
 ioJ. 6d. net. 
 
 Pollard (Alfred W.). SHAKESPEARE 
 FOLIOS AND QUARTOS. A Study in 
 the Bibliography of Shakespeare's Plays, 
 1594-1685. Illustrated. Folio. z\s. net. 
 
 Porter (G. R.) THE PROGRESS OF 
 THE NATION. A New Edition. Edited 
 by F. W. HIRST. Demy 8w. zis. net. 
 
 Powell (Arthur E.). FOOD AND 
 HEALTH. Cr. Svo. 3*. 6d. net. 
 
 Power (J. O'Connor). THE MAKING OF 
 
 AN ORATOR. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Price (Eleanor C.). CARDINAL DE 
 RICHELIEU. Illustrated. Demy &vo. 
 ictf. 6d. net. 
 
 Price (L. L.). A SHORT HISTORY OF 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY IN ENGLAND 
 FROM ADAM SMITH TO ARNOLD 
 TOYNBEE. Seventh Edition. Cr. &vo. 
 2S. 6d. 
 
 Pycraft (W. P.). A HISTORY OF BIRDS. 
 Illustrated. Demy 8vo. IQS. 6d. net. 
 
 Rappoport (Angelo S.). HOME LIFE IN 
 
 RUSSIA. Illustrated. DemyZvo. iof. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Rawlings (Gertrude B.). COINS AND 
 HOW TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated. 
 Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Read (C. Stanford), FADS AND FEED- 
 ING. Cr. 8vo. zj. 6d. net. 
 
 Regan (C. Tate). THE FRESHWATER 
 FISHES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
 Illustrated. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 Reid (Archdall), THE LAWS OF HERE- 
 DITY. Second Edition. Demy two. 21*. 
 net. 
 
 Robertson (C. Grant). SELECT STAT- 
 UTES, CASES, AND DOCUMENTS, 
 1660-1894. Demy &vo. los. Cd. net. 
 
 ENGLAND UNDER THE HANOVER- 
 IANS. Illustrated. Demy 8vo. iof. 6d. 
 ntt. 
 
 Roe (Fred). OLD OAK FURNITURE. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy Zvo. 
 ioj. 6d. net. 
 
 Royde-Smith (N. G.). THE PILLOW 
 BOOK : A GARNER or MANY MOODS. 
 Collected. Second Edition. Cr. %vo. 
 
 POETS OF OUR DAY. Selected, with an 
 Introduction. Fcap. %vo. 5*. 
 
 Russell (W. Clark). THE LIFE OF 
 ADMIRAL LORD COLLINGWOOD. 
 Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 
 *Ryan (P. F. W.)- STUART LIFE AND 
 
 MANNERS ; A SOCIAL HISTORY. Illus- 
 trated. Demy Zvo. icu. 6d. net. 
 
 St. Francis of Asslsl. THE LITTLE 
 FLOWERS OF THE GLORIOUS 
 MESSER, AND OF HIS FRIARS. 
 Done into English, with Notes by WILLIAM 
 HEYWOOD. Illustrated. Demy Zvo. 5*. net. 
 
 'Sakl' (H. H. Munro). REGINALD. 
 
 Second Edition. Fcap. %>vo. a*. 6d. net. 
 REGINALD IN RUSSIA. Fcaj. *vo. 
 u. 6d. net. 
 
 Sandeman (G. A. C-). METTERNICH. 
 Illustrated. Demy &vo. ior. 6d. net. 
 
 Selous (Edmund). TOMMY SMITH'S 
 
 ANIMALS. Illustrated. Eleventh Edi- 
 
 tion. Fcap. 8v0. 2J. 6d. 
 TOMMY SMITH'S OTHER ANIMALS. 
 
 Illustrated. Fifth Edition. Fcap. 8w. 
 
 2J. 6d. 
 JACK'S INSECTS. Illustrated. Cr.&vo. 6s. 
 
 Shakespeare (William). 
 THE FOUR FOLIOS, 1623; 1632; 1664; 
 1685. Each 4 4^. net, or a Complete set, 
 
 THE "OEMS OF WILLIAM SHAKE- 
 SPEARE. With an Introduction and Note* 
 by GEORGE WYNDHAM. Demy 8v0. Buck- 
 
 Sharp (A.). VICTORIAN POETS. Cr. 
 %vo. as. 6J. 
 
 Sidgwlek (Mrs. Alfred). HOME LIFE 
 IN GERMANY. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy %vo. toj. 6d. net. 
 
 Sladen (Douglas). SICILY: The New 
 
 Winter Resort. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 5-r. net. 
 
 Smith (Adam). THE WEALTH OF 
 
 NATIONS. Edited by EDWIN CANNAN. 
 Two Volumes. Demy Bz>0. au. net. 
 
 Smith (G. Herbert). GEMS AND 
 
 PRECIOUS STONES. Illustrated. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Snell (F. J.). A BOOK OF EXMOOR. 
 Illustrated. Cr. 8i>0. 6t. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 ii 
 
 ' Staneliffe.' GOLF DO'S AND DOXT'S. 
 Third Edition, Fcap too. is. net. 
 
 Stevenson (R.L.). THE LETTERS OF 
 ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Edited 
 by Sir SIDNEY COLVIN. A New and En- 
 larged Edition in 4 volumes- Second Edi- 
 tion. Fcap. too. Leather, each 5-r. net. 
 
 VAILIMA LETTERS. With an Etched 
 Portrait by WILLIAM STRANG. Eighth 
 Edition. Cr. too. Buckram, dr. 
 
 THE LIFE OF R. L. STEVENSON. Se/ 
 BALFOU* (G.). 
 
 Stevenson (M. L). FROM SARANAC 
 TO THE MARQUESAS AND BEYOND. 
 Being Letters written by Mrs. M. I. STEVKN- 
 SON during 1887-88. Cr. too. 6s. net. 
 
 LETTERS FROM SAMOA, 1891-95. Edited 
 and arranged by M. C. BALFOUR. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. too. 6s. net. 
 
 Storr (Vernon F.)- DEVELOPMENT 
 AND DIVINE PURPOSK Cr. tot. 5*- 
 net. 
 
 Streatfeild (R. A.)- MODERN MUSIC 
 AND MUSICIANS. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy to. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Swanton (E. W.). FUNGI AND HOW 
 TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated. Cr. too. 
 6s. net. 
 
 Sykes (Ella C.) PERSIA AND ITS 
 
 PEOPLE, Illustrated. Demy too. xoj. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Symes (J E.). THE FRENCH REVO- 
 LUTION. Second Edition. Cr. too. as. 6d. 
 
 Tabor (Margaret E.). THE SAINTS IN 
 ART. Illustrated. Fcap. too. 3*. 6d. net. 
 
 Taylor (A. E.). THE ELEMENTS OF 
 METAPHYSICS. Second Edition. Demy 
 too. los. 6d. net. 
 
 Thibaudeau (A. C.). BONAPARTE AND 
 THE CONSULATE. Translated and 
 Edited by G. K. FORTESCUK. Illustrated. 
 Demy too. tor. 6d. net. 
 
 Thomas (Edward). MAURICE MAE- 
 TERLINCK. Illustrated. Cr. too. ss.net. 
 
 Thompson (Francis). SELECTED 
 POEMS OF FRANCIS THOMPSON. 
 With a Biographical Note by WILFRID 
 MEYNELL. With a Portrait in Photogravure. 
 Seventh Edition. Fcap. too. 5*. net. 
 
 Tileston (Mary W.). DAILY STRENGTH 
 FOR DAILY NEEDS. Eighteenth Edi- 
 tion. Medium \6rno. as. 6d. net. Lamb- 
 skin 3-r. 6d. net. Also an edition in superior 
 binding, 6s. 
 
 THE STRONGHOLD OF HOPE. 
 Medium i6mo. as. 6d. net. 
 
 Toynbee (Paget). DANTE ALIGHIERI : 
 
 His LIFE AND WORKS. With 16 Illustra- 
 tions. Fourth and Enlarged Edition. Cr. 
 too. 5J. net. 
 
 Trench (Herbert). DEIRD RE WEDDED, 
 
 AND OTHER POEMS. Second and Revised 
 
 Edition. Large Post too. dr. 
 NEW POEMS. Second Edition. Largi 
 
 Post too. 6s. 
 APOLLO AND THE SEAMAN. Larg, 
 
 Post %v*. Paper, if. 6d. net ; cloth, as. 6d. 
 
 net. 
 
 Trevelyan (G. M.). ENGLAND UNDER 
 THE STUARTS. With, Maps and Plans 
 Fourth Edition. Demy too. IDJ. 6d. net. 
 
 Triggs (Inigo H.). TOWN PLANNING : 
 PAST, PRESENT, AND POSSIBLE. Illustra- 
 ted. Second Edition. Wid* Royal too. 
 15*. net. 
 
 Underbill (Evelyn). MYSTICISM. A 
 
 Study in the Nature and Development of 
 Man's Spiritual Consciousness. Second Edi- 
 tion, Demy too. 15*. net. 
 
 Vaughan (Herbert M.). THE NAPLES 
 RIVIERA. Illustrated, Second Edition. 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 FLORENCE AND HER TREASURES. 
 Illustrated. Fcap. too. $s. net. 
 
 Vernon (Hon. W. Warren). READINGS 
 ON THE INFERNO OF DANTE. With 
 an Introduction by the REV. DR. MOORE. 
 Two Volumet. Second Edition. Cr. too. 
 i5J. net. 
 
 READINGS ON THE PURGATORIO 
 OF DANTE. With an Introduction by 
 the late DEAN CHURCH. Two Volumes. 
 Third Edition. Cr. too. 15$. net. 
 
 READINGS ON THE PARADISO OF 
 DANTE. With an Introduction by the 
 BISHOP or RIPON. Two Volumes. Second 
 Edition. Cr. too. 15^. net. 
 
 Waddell (Col. L. A.), LHASA AND ITS 
 MYSTERIES. With a Record of the Ex- 
 pedition of 1903-1904. Illustrated. Third 
 and Cheaper Edition. Medium to. js. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Wagner (Richard). RICHARD WAG. 
 NER'S MUSIC DRAMAS: Interpreta- 
 tions, embodying Wagner's own explana- 
 tions. By ALICB LEIGHTON CLEATHER 
 and BASIL CRUMP. Fcap. too. as. 6d. each. 
 THE RING OF THE NIBELUNG. 
 
 Fourth Edition. 
 TRISTAN AND ISOLDE. 
 
 Waterhouse (Elizabeth). WITH THE 
 SIMPLE-HEARTED : Little Homilies to 
 Women in Country Places. Third Edition. 
 Small Pott too. as. net. 
 
 THE HOUSE BY THE CHERRY TREE. 
 A Second Series of Little Homilies to 
 Women in Country Places. Small Pott too. 
 2S. net. 
 
 COMPANIONS OF THE WAY. Being 
 Selections for Morning and Evening Read- 
 ing. Chosen and arranged by ELIZABETH 
 WATERHOUSE. Large Cr. too. $s. net. 
 
 THOUGHTS OF A TERTIARY. Small 
 Pott too. is. net. 
 
12 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Waters (W. G.). ITALIAN SCULPTORS 
 AND SMITHS Illustrated. Cr. li*. 
 js. 6d. net. 
 
 Watt iFraneisx EDINBURGH AND 
 THE LOTHIANS- Illustrated. Cr. &v* 
 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 Weigall (Arthur E. P.). A GUIDE TO 
 THE ANTIQUITIES OF UPPER 
 EGYPT: From Abyclos to the Sudan 
 Frontier. Illustrated. Cr. %vo. 71. 6d. tut 
 
 Welch (Catharine). THE LITTLE 
 
 DAUPHIN. Illustrated. Cr. Bve. 6f. 
 
 Wells (J.). OXFORD AND OXFORD 
 LIFE. Third Edition. Cr. Bw. y. 6d. 
 
 A SHORT HISTORY OF ROME. Tenth 
 Edition. With 3 Maps, Cr. Bvo. jj. 6d. 
 
 Westell (W. Perelval). THE YOUNG 
 NATURALIST. Illustrated. Cr. 8w. 6s. 
 
 *THE YOUNG ORNITHOLOGIST. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. Bve. $r. 
 
 Westell (W. Perclval), and Cooper (C. S.). 
 THE YOUNG BOTANIST. Illustrated. 
 Cr. %vo. y. 6d. net. 
 
 White (George P.). A CENTURY OF 
 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL, 1788-189!. 
 Demy Svo. 12*. &/. net. 
 
 Wilde (Oscar). DEPROFUNDIS. 
 
 Twelfth Edition. Cr. 8v0. 5.1. net. 
 THE WORKS OF OSCAR WILDE. In 
 Twelve Vtlvmet. Fcaj>. %vo. 51. net each 
 volume. 
 
 i. LORD ARTHUR SAVILE'S CRIMB AND 
 THE PORTRAIT OF MR W. H. n. THB 
 DUCHESS OF PADUA. in. POEMS. iv. 
 LADY WINDERMKRE'S FAN. v. A WOMAN 
 OF No IMPORTANCE, vi. AN IDEAL HUS- 
 BAND, vii. THB IMPORTANCE OF BEING 
 EARNEST. VHI. A HOUSE OF POME- 
 GRANATES, ix. INTENTIONS, x. DE PRO- 
 
 FUNDIS AND PRISON LETTERS. XI. ESSAYS. 
 
 xn. SALOME, A FLORENTINE TRAGEDY, 
 and LA SAINTE COUKTISANB. 
 
 Williams (H. Noel). THE WOMEN 
 BONAPARTES. The Mother and three 
 Sisters of Napoleoa, Illustrated. /* Twe- 
 Volume*. Demy 6vt. 24*. net. 
 
 A ROSE OF SAVOY : MARIK ADSLAIDB OF 
 SAVOY, DUCHKSSE DE BOURGOGNE, MOTHER 
 OF Louis xv. Illustrated- Second 
 Edition, Demy %v. 15*. net. 
 
 THE FASCINATING DUG DE RICHE- 
 LIEU: Louis FRANfois ARMAND DU 
 PLESSIS 11696-1788) Illustrated, Demy Bve. 
 15*. net 
 
 A PRINCESS OF ADVENTURE : MARIE 
 CAROLINE, DUCHESSB DE BKKRY (1798- 
 1870). Illustrated. Dmy 8*. 151. net. 
 
 Wood (Sir Evelyn). FROM MIDSHIP- 
 
 MAN TO FIELD-MARSHAL. Illustra- 
 ted. Fifth and Cheaper Editum. Demy 
 Bz>0. js. 6i/. net. 
 
 THE REVOLT IN HINDUSTAN. 1857- 
 59. Illustrated. SecendEditien. Cr.Bvf. 6*. 
 
 Wood (W. Birkbeek), and Edmonds 
 (Lieut.-Col. J. E.). A HISTORY OF 
 THB CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED 
 STATES (1861-5). With an Introduction 
 by H. SPENSER WILKINSON. With 24 Maps 
 and Plans. Third Editio*. Demy too. 
 iw. 6d. net. 
 
 Wordsworth (W.). THE POEMS. With 
 
 an Introduction and Notes by NOWELL 
 C. SMITH. In Three Volumes. Demy &ve. 
 15*. net. 
 
 Wyllie (M. A.). NORWAY AND ITS 
 FJORDS. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Bve. 6s. 
 
 Yeats (W. B.). A BOOK OF IRISH 
 
 VERSE. Third Edition. Cr. Boa. y. 6d. 
 
 PART II. A SELECTION OF SERIES. 
 
 Ancient Cities. 
 
 General Editor, B. C. A. WINDLE- 
 
 Cr. Svff. 4-r. 6</ net each volume. 
 With Illustrations by E. H. NEW, ind other Artists. 
 
 BRISTOL. Alfred Harvey. 
 CANTERBURY. J. C. Cox. 
 CHESTER. B. C. A. Windl*. 
 
 DUBLIN. S. A. O. Fitzpa trick 
 
 EDINBURGH. M. G. Williamson. 
 LINCOLN. E, Mansel Sympson. 
 SHREWSBURY. T. Auden. 
 WBLLS and GLASTONBL'RY. T. S. Holmes. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 The Antiquary's Books. 
 
 General Editor, J. CHARLES COX. 
 Demy 8w ft. 6J. net each volume. 
 With Numerous Illustrations, 
 
 4RCHjKOLOGT 4KB FALSE ANTIQUITIBS- 
 
 R. Munro. 
 BELLS or ENGLAND, THZ. Canon J. J. Raven- 
 
 Second Edition. 
 BRASSES or ENGLAND, THE Herbert W. 
 
 Macklin. Second Edition. 
 CBLTIC ART TN PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN 
 
 TIMKS. J. Romilly Allen. 
 CASTLES AND WALLED TOWNS or ENGLAND. 
 
 A. Harvey. 
 
 DOMESDAY INQUEST, THE. Adolphns Ballard. 
 ENGLISH CHURCH FURNITURE. J. C. Cox 
 
 and A. -Harvey. Second Edition. 
 ENGLISH COSTUME. From Prehistoric Times 
 
 to th End of the Eighteenth Century 
 
 George Clinch. 
 ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE. The Right Rev 
 
 Abbot Gasquet. Fourth Edition. 
 ENGLISH SEALS. J. Harvey Bloom. 
 FOLK-LORE AS AH HISTORICAL SCIXKC* 
 
 Sir G. L. Gomme. 
 GILDS AND COMPANIES op LOKDOX. 
 
 George Unwin. 
 
 MANOR AND MANORIAL RECORDS, THB. 
 
 Nathaniel J. Hone. 
 MEDIEVAL HOSPITALS or ENGLAND, THE 
 
 Rotha Mary Clay. 
 OLD ENGLISH INSIRUMENTS OF Music. 
 
 F. W. Galpin. Second Edition. 
 OLD ENGLISH LIBRARIES. James Hutt. 
 OLD SERVICE BOOKS OF THE ENGLISH 
 
 CHURCH. Christopher Wordsworth and 
 
 Henry Littlehales. Second Edition. 
 PARISH LIFE IN MEDIAEVAL ENGLAND. 
 
 The Right Rev. Abbot Gasquet. Third 
 
 Edition. 
 PARISH REGISTERS or ENGLAND, THE. 
 
 J. C. Cox. 
 REMAINS or THB PREHISTORIC AGB IN 
 
 ENGLAND, B. C. A. Windle. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 *ROMAN ERA IN BRITAIH, THB. J. Ward. 
 ROMAN-BRITISH BUILDINGS AND EARTH- 
 WORKS. J. Ward. 
 ROYAL FORESTS or ENGLAND, THB I. C. 
 
 Cox. 
 SHRINES or BRITISH SAINTS. J. C. Wall 
 
 The Arden Shakespeare. 
 
 Demy 8zv. Zf. 6d, net each volume. 
 
 A.n edition of Shakespeare in single Plays ; each edited with a full Introduction, 
 Textual Notes, nd a Commentary at the foot of the page. 
 
 Aix's WELL THAT ENDS WEIA. 
 
 ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA 
 
 CYMBELINE. 
 
 COMEDY or ERRORS, Tarn 
 
 HAMLRT. Second Edition 
 
 JULIUS CAESAK. 
 
 KINO HENRY iv. PT. t. 
 
 KING HENRY v. 
 
 Kiwo HENRY n. PT. i. 
 
 KINO HENRY vi. PT. n. 
 
 Krva HENRY vi. PT. IIL 
 
 SiiKG LEAR. 
 
 KING RICHARD in. 
 
 Lire AND DEATH OF KING JOHN, THB. 
 
 LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST. 
 
 UACBKTB. 
 
 MEASURE FOR MEASURE. 
 
 MERCHANT OF VENICE, THE. 
 
 MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR, THE, 
 
 MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, A 
 
 OTHELLO. 
 
 PERICLES. 
 
 ROMEO AND JULIET. 
 
 TAMING OF THB SHREW, TH 
 
 TEMPEST, THE. 
 
 TIMOH OF ATHENS. 
 
 TITUS ANDRONICUS. 
 
 TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. 
 
 Two GENTLEMEN or VERONA, THE. 
 
 TWELFTH NIGHT. 
 
 VENUS AND ADONIS. 
 
METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Classics of Art. 
 
 Edited by DR. J. H. W. LAING. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations. Wide Royal 
 
 THE ART OF THE GREEKS. H. B. Walters. 
 I2J. 6d. net, 
 
 THE ART OF THE ROMANS. H. B. Walters 
 15*. net. 
 
 CHARDIN. H. E. A. Furst. T.ZS. 6d. net. 
 
 DONATKLLO. Maud Cruttwell. 15*. net. 
 
 FLORENTINE SCULPTORS or THE RENAIS- 
 SANCE. Wilhelm Bode. Translated by 
 Jessie Haynes. iaj. 6d. net. 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY. Arthur B. Chamberlain. 
 i2j. 6d. net. 
 
 GHIRLANDAIO. Gerald S. Davies. Second 
 Edition, 101 . 6< 
 
 MICHELANGELO. 
 net. 
 
 Gerald S. Daviei. 121. 6J. 
 
 RUBENS. Edward Dillon, 25*. net. 
 RAPHAEL. A. P. Oppi. izj. 6d. net. 
 *REMBRANDT'S ETCHINGS. A. M. Hind. 
 TITIAN. Charles Ricketts. izs. 6d. net. 
 
 Evelyn March Phillipps. 15*. 
 
 TINTORETTO. 
 net. 
 
 TURNER'S SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS. A. J. 
 FINBERG. i2j. 6d. net. Second Edition. 
 
 VELAZQUEZ. A. de Beruete. iw. 64. net. 
 
 The Complete Series. 
 
 Fully Illustrated. Demy Svt. 
 
 THE COMPLETE BILLIARD PLAYER. Charles 
 
 Roberts. los. 6d. net. 
 TH COMPLETE COOK. Lilian Whitling. 
 
 js. 6d. net. 
 THE COMPLETE CRICKETER. Albert E. 
 
 Knight. js. 6d. net. Second Edition, 
 THE COMPLETE FOXHUNTER. Charles Rich- 
 ardson. I2J. >d. net. Second Edition. 
 THE COMPLETE GOLFER. Harry Vardon. 
 
 IQS. 6d. net. Eleventh Edition. 
 THE COMPLETE HOCKEY-PLAYER. Eustace 
 
 E. White. $s. net. Second Edition. 
 THE COMPLETE LAWN TENNIS PLAYER. 
 
 A. Wallis Myers. IDJ. (>d. net. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 THE COMPLETE MOTORIST. Filson Young. 
 I2J. (>d. net. New Edition (Seventh}. 
 
 THE COMPLETE MOUNTAINEER. G. D. 
 Abraham. 15*. net. Second Edition. 
 
 THE COMPLETE OARSMAN. R. C. Lehmann. 
 xoj. 6d. net. 
 
 THE COMPLETE PHOTOGRAPHER. R. Child 
 Bayley. ioj. 6d. net. Fourth Edition. 
 
 THE COMPLETE RUGBY FOOTBALLER, ON THK 
 NEW ZEALAND SYSTEM. D. Gallaher and 
 W.J. Stead, ios.6d.net. Second Edition. 
 
 THE COMPLETE SHOT. G. T. Teasdale 
 Buckell. izj. f>d. net. Third Edition. 
 
 The Connoisseur's Library. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations. Wide Royal %vo. 2$s. net each volume. 
 
 ENGLISH FURNITURE. F. S. Robinson. 
 ENGLISH COLOURED BOOKS. Martin Hardie. 
 *ETCHINGS. F. Wedmore. 
 EUROPEAN ENAMELS. Henry H. Cunyng- 
 
 hame. 
 
 GLASS. Edward Dillon. 
 GOLDSMITHS' AND SILVERSMITHS' WORK. 
 
 Nelson Dawson. Second Edition. 
 ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPTS. J. A. Herbert. 
 
 IVORIES. Alfred Maskell. 
 
 JEWELLERY. H. Clifford Smith. Second 
 Edition. 
 
 MEZZOTINTS. Cyril Davenport. 
 MINIATURES. Dudley Heath. 
 PORCELAIN. Edward Dillon. 
 SEALS. Walter de Gray Birch. 
 *WOOD SCULPTURE. Alfred Maskell. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 Handbooks of English Church History. 
 
 Edited by J. H. BURN. Crown %vo. zs. 6d. net each volume. 
 
 THB FOUNDATIONS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 J. H. Maude. 
 THE SAXON CHURCH AND THE NORMAN Co- 
 
 QUEST. C. T. Cruttwcll. 
 THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH AND THE PAPACY. 
 
 A. C. Jennings. 
 
 THE REFORMATION PERIOD. Henry Gee. 
 
 THE STRUGGLE WITH PURITANISM. Bruce 
 Blaxland. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND m THE EIGH- 
 TEENTH CENTURY. Alfred Plummer. 
 
 Handbooks of Theology. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION. 
 Ottley. Fifth Edition, Revised, 
 
 R. L. 
 Dtmy 
 
 A HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 J. F. Bethune-Baker. Demy Sve. icxr. (xt. 
 AN INTRODUCTION TO THB HISTORY OF 
 
 RELIGION. F. B. Jevons. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Dtmy 8ve. ior. 6d. 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THB 
 CREEDS. A. E. Burn. Demy Zvo. xoj. 6it. 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION IN ENGLAND 
 AND AMERICA. Alfred Caldecott. DemySvo. 
 xoj. 6d. 
 
 THE XXXIX. ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF 
 ENGLAND. Edited by E. C. S. Gibson, 
 Seventh Edition, Demy Bvff. ias. 6d. 
 
 The Illustrated Pocket Library of Plain and Coloured Books. 
 
 Fcap. &vo. 3-f. 6d. net each -volume. 
 WITH COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 OLD COLOURED BOOKS. George Paston. at. 
 
 net. 
 THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JOHN MYTTON, 
 
 ESQ. Nimrod. Fifth Edition. 
 THE LIFE OF A SPORTSMAN. Nimrod. 
 HANDLEY CROSS. R. S. Surtees. Third 
 
 Edition. 
 MR. SPONGE'S SPORTING Toux. R. S. 
 
 Surtees. 
 JORROCKS'S JAUNTS AND JOLLITIES. R. S. 
 
 Surtees. Third Edition, 
 ASK MAMMA. R. S. Surtees. 
 
 THE ANALYSIS OF TH HUNTING FIELD. 
 
 R. S. Surtees. 
 THB TOUR OF DR. SYNTAX IN SEARCH OF 
 
 THE PICTURESQUE. William Combe. 
 
 THE TOUR OF DR. SYNTAX IN SEARCH o> 
 CONSOLATION. William Combe. 
 
 THE THIRD TOUR OF DR. SYNTAX IN SEARCH 
 OF A WIFE. William Combe. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF JOHNNY QUAB GENUS, 
 the Author of ' The Three Tours.' 
 
 THE ENGLISH DANCE OF DEATH, from the 
 Designs of T. Rowlandson, with Metrical 
 Illustrations by the Author of ' Doctor 
 Syntax.' Two Velumtt, 
 
 THE DANCE OF LIFE: A Poem. The Author 
 of 'Dr. Syntax.' 
 
 LIFE IN LONDON. Pierce Egan. 
 
 REAL LIFE IN LONDON. An Amateur (Pierce 
 Egan). Two Volumes. 
 
 THE LIFE OF AN ACTOR. Pierce Egan. 
 
 THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. Oliver Gold- 
 smith. 
 
 THE MILITARY ADVENTURES or JOHNNY 
 NEWCOMBB. An Officer. 
 
 THE NATIONAL SPORTS OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 With Descriptions and 50 Coloured Plates by 
 Henry Alken. 
 
 THE ADVENTURES OF A POST CAPTAIN. 
 A Naval Officer. 
 
 GAMONIA. 
 
 AN ACADEMY FOR 
 Geoffrey Gambado. 
 
 REAL LIFE IN IRELAND. 
 
 Lawrence Rawstorne. 
 
 GROWN HORSEMEN. 
 
 A Real Paddy. 
 
 THE ADVENTURES OF JOHNNY NEWCO^-JE in 
 THE NAVY. Alfred Burton. 
 
 THE OLD ENGLISH SQUIRE. John Careless. 
 
 THE ENGLISH SPY. Bernard Blackmantle. 
 Two Volume*. jt. net. 
 
16 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 WITH PLAIN 
 
 THE GRAYK : A Poem. Robert Blair. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE BOOK OF JOB. In- 
 vented and engraved by William Blake. 
 
 WINDSOR CASTLE. W. Harrison Ainsworth. 
 
 THE TOWER OF LONDON. W. Harrison 
 Ainsworth. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 FRANK FAIRLEGH. F. E. Smedley. 
 
 HANDY ANDY. Samuel Lover. 
 
 THE COMPLEAT ANGLER. Izaak Walton and 
 
 Charles Cotton. 
 THE PICKWICK PAPERS. Charles Dickens- 
 
 Leaders of Religion. 
 
 Edited by H. C. BEECHING. With Portrait* 
 Crown Sve. 2s. net each volume, 
 
 Mrs. Oliphant. Second 
 
 CARDINAL NEWMAN. R. H. Hutton. 
 
 JOHN WESLEY. J. H. Overton. 
 
 BISHOP WILBERFORCE. G. W. Daniel! 
 
 CARDINAL MANNING. A. W. Hutton. 
 
 CHARLES SIMEON. H. C. G. Moule. 
 
 JOHN KNOX. F. MacCunn. Second Edition, 
 
 JOHN HOWB. R. F. Horton. 
 
 THOMAS KEK. F. A. Clarke, 
 
 GEORGB Fox, THE QUAKER. T. Hodgkin. 
 
 Third Edition, 
 JOHN KEBLK. Walter Lock. 
 
 THOMAS CHALMERS. 
 Edition. 
 
 LANCELOT ANDREWES. R. L. Ottley. Second 
 Edition. 
 
 AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY. E. L. Cutts. 
 WILLIAM LAUD. W. H. Hutton. Third Ed. 
 JOHN DONNB. Augustus Jessop. 
 THOMAS CRANMER. A. J. Mason. 
 BISHOP LATIMER. R. M. Carlyle and A. J. 
 
 Carlyle. 
 BISHOP BUTLKR. W. A. Spooner. 
 
 The Library of Devotion. 
 
 With Introductions and (where necessary) Notes. 
 Small Pott Svo, cloth> 2s. ; leather, 2s. 6d. net each volume. 
 
 OF ST. AUGUSTINB. 
 
 THK CONFESSIONS 
 Seventh Edition. 
 
 THB IMITATION OF CHRIST. Sixth Edition. 
 THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. Fourth Edition 
 LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Second Edition- 
 THK TEMPLE. Second Edition. 
 A BOOK OF DEVOTIONS. Second Edition. 
 
 A SERIOUS CALL TO A DEVOUT AND HOLT 
 
 LIFE. Fourth Edition. 
 
 A GUIDB TO ETERNITY. 
 
 THE INNER WAY. Second Edition. 
 
 ON THE LOVE OF GOD. 
 
 THE PSALMS OF DAVID. 
 
 LYRA APOSTOLICA. 
 
 THE SONG OF SONGS. 
 
 THE THOUGHTS OF PASCAL. Second Edition. 
 
 A MANUAL OF CONSOLATION FROM THE 
 SAINTS AND FATHERS. 
 
 DEVOTIONS FROM THE APOCRYPHA. 
 THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT. 
 THE DEVOTIONS OF ST. AKSKLM. 
 BISHOP WILSON'S SACRA PRIVATA 
 
 GRACB ABOUNDING TO THE CHIEF OF SIN- 
 
 NEKS. 
 
 Book of Sacred Verse. 
 
 FROM THB SAINTS AND 
 
 LYRA SACRA : A 
 Second Edition. 
 
 A DAY BOOK 
 FATHERS. 
 
 A LITTLE BOOK OF HEAVENLY WISDOM. A 
 Selection from the English Mystics. 
 
 LIGHT, LIFE, and LOVE. A Selection from 
 the German Mystics. 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION TO THB DEVOUT LIFB. 
 
 THE LITTLE FLOWERS OF THE GLORIOUS 
 MESSER ST. FRANCIS AND OF HIS FRIARS. 
 
 DEATH AND IMMORTALITY 
 
 THB SPIRITUAL Gum* Second Edition. 
 
 DEVOTIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THB WEBK 
 AND THB GREAT FESTIVALS, 
 
 PRECKS PRIVATE 
 
 HORA MYSTICS : A Day Book from the 
 Writings of Mystics of Many Nations. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 Little Books on Art. 
 
 With many Illustrations* Demy l6mo. zs, 6d. net each volume. 
 
 Each volume consists of about 200 pages, and contains from 30 to 40 Illustrations, 
 including a Frontispiece in Photogravure. 
 
 ALBRECHT DURER. J. Allen. 
 
 ARTS OF JAPAN, THE. E. Dillon. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 I'OOKPLATES. E. Almack. 
 BOTTICELLI. Mary L. Bonnor. 
 BURNS- JONES. F. de Lisle. 
 CHRISTIAN SYMBOLISM. Mrs. H. Jenner. 
 CHRIST IN ART. Mrs. H. Jenner. 
 CLAUDE. E. Dillon. 
 CONSTAIU.E. H. W. Tompkins. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 COROT. A. Pollard and E. Birnstingl. 
 ENAMELS. Mrs. N. Dawson. 
 FREDERIC LEIGHTON. A. Corkran. 
 GEORGE ROMNEY. G. Paston. 
 GREEK ART. H. B. Walters. Fourth Edition, 
 GREUZE AND BOUCHER. E. F. Pollard. 
 
 HOLBEIN. Mrs. G. Fortescue. 
 
 ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPTS. J. W. Bradley. 
 
 JEWELLERY. C. Davenport. 
 
 JOHN HOPPNER. H. P. K. Skipton. 
 
 SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS. J. Sime. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 MILLET. N. Peacock. 
 MINIATURES. C. Davenport. 
 OUR LADY IN ART. Mrs. H. Jenner. 
 RAPHAEL. A. R. Dryhurst. 
 REMBRANDT. Mrs. E. A. Sharp. 
 TURNER. F. Tyrrell-Gill. 
 VANDYCK. M. G. Smallwood. 
 VELASQUEZ. W. Wilberforce and A. R. 
 
 Gilbert. 
 WATTS. R. E. D. Sketchley. 
 
 The Little Galleries. 
 
 Demy ibmo. it. 6d. net each volume* 
 
 Each volume contains 20 plates in Photogravure, together with a short outline of 
 the life and work of the master to whom the book is devoted. 
 
 A LITTLE GALLERY OF REYNOLDS. 
 \ LITTLE GALLERY OF ROMNEY. 
 \ LITTLB GALLERY OF HOPFNEB, 
 
 A LITTLE GALLERY OF MILLAIS. 
 
 A LITTLB GALLEKY OF ENGLISH POETS. 
 
 The Little Guides. 
 
 With many Illustrations by E. H. NEW and other artists, and from photographs. 
 Small Pott 8vo t cloth* 2t. 6d. net] leather , y. 6d. net t each volume. 
 
 The main features of these Guides are (i) a handy and charming form ; (2) illus- 
 trations from photographs and by well-known artists ; (3) good plans and maps ; (4) 
 an adequate but compact presentation of everything that is interesting in the 
 natural features, history, archaeology, and architecture of the town or district treated, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE AND ITS COLLEGES. A. H. 
 
 Thompson. Third Edition, Revised. 
 CHANNEL ISLANDS, THE. E. E. Bickneli 
 ENGLISH LAKES, THE. F. G. Brabant 
 ISLE OF WIGHT, THE. G. Clinch. 
 MALVER* COUNTRY, THE. B. C. A. Windle. 
 NORTH WALES. A. T. Story. 
 OXFORD AND ITS COLLEGES. J. Well*. 
 
 Ninth Edition. 
 
 SHAKESPEARE'S COUNTRY. B. C. A. Windle 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL, G. Clinch. 
 WESTMINSTER ABBEY. G. E. Troutbeck. 
 
 Stfimd Edition, 
 
 BERKSHIRE. F. G. Brabant. 
 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE. E. S. Roscoe, 
 CHESHIRE. W. M. Gallichan. 
 
i8 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 THE LITTLK GUIDES continued. 
 
 CORNWALL. A. L. Salmon 
 
 DERBYSHIRE. J. C. Cox. 
 
 DEVON. S. Baring-Gould. Second Edition. 
 
 DORSET. F. R. Heath. Second Edition, 
 
 ESSEX. J. C. Cox. 
 
 HAMPSHIRE. J. C. Cox. 
 
 HERTFORDSHIRE. H. W. Tompkins. 
 
 KENT. G. Clinch. 
 
 KERRY. C. P. Crane. 
 
 MIDDLESEX. J. B. Firth. 
 
 MONMOUTHSHIRE, G. W. Wade and J. H. 
 
 Wade. 
 NORFOLK. W. A. Dutt. Second Edition, 
 
 Revised. 
 
 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. W. Dry. Second Ed. 
 NORTHUMBERLAND. J. E. Morris. 
 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, L. Guilford. 
 OXFORDSHIRE. F. G. Brabant. 
 
 SOMERSET G. W. and J. H. Wade. 
 
 STAFFORDSHIRE. C. E. Masefield. 
 
 SUFFOLK. W. A. Dutt. 
 
 SURREY. J. C. Cox. 
 
 SUSSEX. F. G. Brabant. Third Edition. 
 
 WILTSHIRE. F. R. Heath. 
 
 THE EAST RIDING. J. 
 
 YORKSHIRE, 
 Morris. 
 
 YORKSHIRE, 
 Morris. 
 
 THE NORTH RIDING. J. E. 
 
 YORKSHIRE, THE WEST RIDING. J. 
 Morris. Cloth, 3*. 6d. net; leather, 4*. 
 net. 
 
 BRITTANY. S. Baring-Gould. 
 NORMANDY. C. Scudamor*. 
 ROME. C. G. Ellaby. 
 SICILY. F. H. Jackson. 
 
 The Little Library. 
 
 With Introductions, Notes, and Photogravure Frontispieces, 
 Small Pott %vo. Each Volume, cloth, is. 6d. net. 
 
 Anon. A LITTLE BOOK OF ENGLISH 
 LYRICS. Second Edition. 
 
 Austen (Jane). PRIDE AND PREJU- 
 DICE. Two Volumes. 
 NORTHANGER ABBEY. 
 
 Bacon (Francis). 
 LORD BACON. 
 
 THE ESSAYS OF 
 
 H.). THE INGOLDSBY 
 
 Two Volumes. 
 
 Barham (R. 
 LEGENDS. 
 
 Barnet (Annie). A LITTLE BOOK OF 
 ENGLISH PROSE. 
 
 Beekford (William). THE HISTORY 
 OF THE CALIPH VATHEK 
 
 Blake (William). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE WORKS OF WILLIAM BLAKE, 
 
 Borrow (George). LAVENGRO. Two 
 
 Volumes. 
 THE ROMANY RYE. 
 
 Browning (Robert). SELECTIONS 
 FROM THE EARLY POEMS OF 
 ROBERT BROWNING. 
 
 Canning (George). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE ANTI-JACOBIN : with GEORGE 
 CANNING'S additional Poems. 
 
 Cowley (Abraham). THE ESSAYS OF 
 ABRAHAM COWLEY. 
 
 Crabbe (George). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE POEMS OF GEORGE CRABBE. 
 
 Cralk (Mrs.). JOHN HALIFAX, 
 GENTLEMAN. Two Volumes. 
 
 Crashaw (Richard). THE ENGLISH 
 POEMS OF RICHARD CRASHAW. 
 
 Dante Alighieri. THE INFERNO OF 
 DANTE. Translated by H. F. GARY. 
 
 THE PURGATORIO OF DANTE. Trans- 
 lated by H. F. CARY. 
 
 THE PARADISO OF DANTE. Trans- 
 lated by H. F. CARY. 
 
 Darley (George). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE POEMS OF GEORGE DARLEY. 
 
 Deane (A. C.). A LITTLE BOOK OF 
 LIGHT VERSE. 
 
 Diekens(Charles). CHRISTMAS BOOKS. 
 
 Two Volumes. 
 
 Ferrier (Susan). 
 
 Volumes. 
 THE INHERITANCE. 
 
 MARRIAGE. Twc 
 
 Gaskell (Mrs.). 
 
 Two Volumes. 
 CR AN FORD. Second Ed. 
 
 Hawthorne (Nathaniel). THE SCARLET 
 LETTER. 
 
 Henderson (T. F.). A LITTLE BOOK 
 OF SCOTTISH VERSE. 
 
 Keats (John). POEMS. 
 
 Kinglake (A. W.). EOTHEN. Second 
 Edition. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 THB LITTLB LIBRARY ctntinued. 
 
 Lamb (Charles). ELIA, AND THE LAST 
 ESSAYS OF ELIA. 
 
 Locker (F.). LONDON LYRICS. 
 
 Longrfellow (H. W.). SELECTIONS 
 FROM THE POEMS OF H. W. LONG- 
 FELLOW. 
 
 Marvell (Andrew). THE POEMS OF 
 ANDREW MARVELL. 
 
 Milton (John). THE MINOR POEMS OF 
 JOHN MILTON. 
 
 Moir CD. M.). MANSIE WAUCH. 
 
 Nichols (J. B. B.). A LITTLE BOOK 
 OF ENGLISH SONNETS. 
 
 Rochefoucauld (La). THE MAXIMS OF 
 LA ROCHEFOUCAULD. 
 
 Smith (Horace and James). REJECTED 
 ADDRESSES. 
 
 Sterne (Laurence}. 
 
 JOURNEY. 
 
 A SENTIMENTAL 
 
 Tennyson (Alfred, Lord). THE EARLY 
 POEMS OF ALFRED, LORD TENNY- 
 SON. 
 
 IN MEMORIAM. 
 
 THE PRINCESS. 
 
 MAUD. 
 
 Thackeray (W. M.V VANITY FAIR 
 
 Three Volumes. 
 
 PENDENNIS. Thret Vtlumt*. 
 ESMOND. 
 CHRISTMAS BOOKS. 
 
 Vaujrhan (Henry). THE POEMS OF 
 HENRY VAUGHAN. 
 
 Walton (Izaak). 
 ANGLER. 
 
 THK COMPLEAT 
 
 Waterhouse (Elizabeth). A LITTLE 
 BOOK OF LIFE AND DEATH. 
 Thirteenth Edition. 
 
 Wordsworth (W.). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE POEMS OF WILLIAM WORDS- 
 WORTH. 
 
 Wordsworth fW.) and Coleridge (S. T.). 
 LYRICAL BALLADS- S Kind Edition. 
 
 The Little Quarto Shakespeare. 
 
 Edited by W. J. CRAIG. With Introductions and Notes. 
 
 Pott 1 6 me. In 40 Volumes. Leather y price is. net each volunu. 
 
 Mahogany Revolving Book Case. ioj. net. 
 
 Miniature Library. 
 
 EUPHRANOR : A Dialogue on Youth. Edward 
 FitzGerald. Demy yzmo. Leather, as. net. 
 
 THB LIFE OF EDWARD, LORD HERBERT OF 
 CHERBURY. Written by himself. Demy 
 pmo. Leather, zs. net. 
 
 POLONIUS : or Wise Saws and Modern In- 
 stances. Edward FitzGerald. Demy ^mo. 
 Leather^ as. net. 
 
 THE RusAiYAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM. Edward 
 FitzGerald. Fourth Edition. Leather, i*. 
 net. 
 
 The New Library of Medicine. 
 
 Edited by C. W. SALEEBY. Demy Svo. 
 
 DRUGS AND THE DRUG HABIT. H. Sainsbury. 
 A. T. Scho- 
 
 CARB OF THE BODY, THE. F. Cavanagh. 
 Second Edition, js. 6d. net. 
 
 CHILDREN OF THB NATION, THE. The Right 
 Hon. Sir John Gorst. Second Edition. 
 7*. 6d\ net. 
 
 CONTROL OF A SCOURGE, THE ; or, How 
 Cancer is Curable. Chas. P. Childe. 7*. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 DISEASES OF OCCUPATION. Sir Thomas Oliver. 
 IQS. 6d. net. Second Edition. 
 
 DRINK PROBLEM, THB, In its Medico-Socio- 
 logical Aspects. Edited by T. N. Kelynack. 
 7*. 60". net. 
 
 FUNCTIONAL NERVE DISEASES. 
 field, js. 6d. net. 
 
 HYGIENE OF MIND, THE. T. S. Clouston. 
 Fifth Edition, js. (,d. net. 
 
 INFANT MORTALITY. Sir George Newman 
 js. 64. net. 
 
 PREVENTION OF TUBERCULOSIS (CONSUMP- 
 TION), THE. Arthur Newsholme. ior. 6d. 
 net. Second Edition. 
 
 AIR AND HEALTH. Ronald C. Macfie. js. 6d. 
 net. Second Edition. 
 
2o METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 The New Library of Music. 
 
 Edited by ERNEST NEWMAN. Illustrated. Demy &vo. 1*. 6d. net. 
 
 BRAHMS. J. A. Fuller-Maitland. Second I HANDEL. R. A. Streatfeild. Second Edition. 
 Edition. \ HUGO WOLF. Ernest Newman. 
 
 Oxford Biographies, 
 
 Illustrated. Fcap. 8ve. Each volume, doth t 2s. (td. net ; leather ', 3^. 6d. net 
 
 DANTB ALIGHIBRI. Paget Toynbc*. Third 
 
 Edltlon - ROBERT BURNS. T. F. Henderson 
 
 GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA. E. L. S. Horsburgh. 
 
 P"otirth Edition. 
 
 JOHN HOWARD. E. C. S. Gibson. 
 ALFRED TENNYSON. A. C. Benson. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 SIR WALTER RALEIGH. I. A. Taylor. 
 ERASMUS. E. F. H. Capey. 
 
 THB YOUNG PRETENDER. C. S. Terrj 
 
 CHATHAM. A S. M'DowalL 
 
 FRANCIS OF Assisi. Anna M. Stoddarj 
 
 CANNING. W. Alison Phillips. 
 
 BEACONSFIELD. Walter Sichel. 
 
 JOHANK WOLFGANG GOETHE. H. G. Atkini 
 
 FRANCOIS FENBLOM. Viscount St. Gyre* 
 
 Romantic History. 
 
 Edited by MARTIN HUME. Illustrated. 
 
 A series of attractive volumes in which the periods and personalities selected are 
 such as afford romantic human interest, in addition to their historical 
 importance. 
 
 THE FIRST GOVERNESS OF THB NETHER- 
 LANDS, MARGARET OF AUSTRIA. Eleanor 
 E. Tremayne. TOJ. 6d. net. 
 
 Two ENGLISH QUEENS AND PHILIP. Martin 
 
 Hume. 15*. net, 
 
 THE NINE DAYS' QUERN. Richard Davey. 
 With a Preface by Martin Hume. Second 
 Edition, tos. 6d. net. 
 
 The States of Italy. 
 
 Edited by E. ARMSTRONG and R. LANGTON DOUGLAS. 
 Illustrated. Demy %vo. 
 
 A HISTORY OF MILAN UNDER THB SFORZA. I A HISTORY OF VEROKA. A. M. Allen. 12*. 
 Cecilia M. Ady. iw. 6d. net. \ net. 
 
 A HISTORY or PERUGIA. W. Heywood. i*r. 6d. net 
 
FICTION 
 
 The Westminster Commentaries. 
 
 General Editor, WALTER LOCK. 
 
 21 
 
 THE ACTS OK THE ArosTLis. Edited by R. 
 R Rackham. P/wty 8r* Ji/rt Edition. 
 ios.6d. 
 
 TH FiJtsr EFTSTLM or PACJL Tins AMWTIJI 
 TO THE CORINTHIANS. Edited by H. L. 
 Goudge. Third Edition. Demy to*. 6*. 
 
 THE BOOK OF EXODO* Edited by A. H. 
 M-'Neilc. With a Map nd 3 Plans. Demy 
 tot>. lot. 6d. 
 
 THE BOOK OF EZEKIETU Edited by H. A. 
 Redpath. Demy to*, to* . 64, 
 
 THE BOOK OF GENESIS. Edited with Intro- 
 duction and Notes by S. R. Driver. 
 Eighth Edition* Demy tot. io*. 6d. 
 
 THK BOOK OF THB PROPHET ISAIAH. Edited 
 by G. W. Wade. Demy too. xoj. 6J. 
 
 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS INTHB SEVENTH 
 EDITION OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. S. R 
 Driver. Demy &vo. it. 
 
 THB BOOK OF Joa. Edited by E. C. S. Gibson. 
 Second" Edition. Demy 81/0. 6s. 
 
 THB EPISTLB OF ST. JAMES. Edited with In- 
 
 troduction and Notes by R. J. Knowllng. 
 Demy 8r*. 6f. 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 Methuen's Shilling Library. 
 
 Fc&p. 8vo. 
 
 DK PKOFUNDIS. Oscar Wilde. 
 
 THK LORE OF TUX HONBY-BKB. Tickner 
 
 Edwardes. 
 LETTERS FROM A SELF-MADE MERCHANT 
 
 TO HIS SON. George Horace Lorimer. 
 SELECTED POEMS. Oscar Wilde. 
 
 THE LIFE OF ROBERT Louis STEVESSOW. 
 Graham Balfour. 
 
 THE LIFE OF JOHN RUSKIN. W. G. Colliug- 
 wood. 
 
 *THE CONDITIOM or 
 Masterman. 
 
 G. F. G. 
 
 PART III. A SELECTION OF WORKS OF FICTION 
 
 Albanesl (E. Maria). SUSANNAH AND 
 ONE OTHER. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 LOVE AND LOUISA. Second Edition, 
 
 Cr. &v*. 6s. 
 THE BROWN EYES OF MARY. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 I KNOW A MAIDEN. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bva. 6s. 
 THE INVINCIBLE AMELIA; on, THE 
 
 POLITE ADVENTURESS, Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 THE GLAD HEART. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Cr. *vo. 6s. 
 
 Bagot (Richard). A ROMAN MYSTERY. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Bv0. 6s. 
 THE PASSPORT. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 8^. 6s. 
 ANTHONY CUTHBERT. furth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Svff. 6s. 
 
 LOVE'S PROXY. Cr. 800. 6*. 
 DONNA DIANA. Second Edtti** Cr. 
 
 &va. 6s. 
 CASTING OF NETS. Twelfth Edition. 
 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 THE HOUSE OF SLRRAVALLfc. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8t*. fa. 
 
 Bailey (H.C.). STORM AND TREASURE. 
 
 Tki?d Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 *THE LONELY QUEEN. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. &vt>. 6s. 
 
 Baring-Gould (S.). IN THE ROAR 
 
 OF THE SEA. Eighth Edition. Cr. 8w. 
 
 6s. 
 MARGERY OF QUETHER. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fifth Edition 
 
 Cr. &vt>. 6s. 
 
 JACQUETTA. Third Edition. Cr. 8w. 6.J. 
 KITTY ALONE. Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 NOEMI. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 TH*E' BROOM - SQUIRE. Illustrated 
 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 DARTMOOR IDYLLS. Cr. too. 6s. 
 GUAVAS THE TINNER. Illustrated 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 BLADYS OF THE STEWPONEY. Illus 
 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 'PABO THE PRIEST. Cr. too. 6s. 
 WINEFRED. Illustrated. Second Edition 
 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 ROYAL GEORGIE. Illustrated. Cr.too.to. 
 
22 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 CHRIS OF ALL SORTS. Cr. 8z>0. 6s. 
 IN DEWISLAND. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 8v0. 6s. 
 
 THE FROBISHERS. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Barr (Robert). IN THE MIDST OF 
 ALARMS. Third Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 THE COUNTESS TEKLA. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 THE MUTABLE MANY. Third Edition. 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Begbie (Harold). THE CURIOUS AND 
 DIVERTING ADVENTURES OF SIR 
 JOHN SPARROW, BART. ; OK, THE 
 PROGRESS OF AN OPEN MIND. Second 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Belloc (H.). EMMANUEL BURDEN, 
 MERCHANT. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 
 A CHANGE IN THE CABINET. Third 
 Edition. Cr. 8z>0. 6s. 
 
 Bennett (Arnold). CLAY HANGER. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. 8z/<7. 6s. 
 THE CARD. Fifth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 *HILDA LESSWAYS. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Benson (E. F.). DODO : A DETAIL OF THE 
 DAY. Sixteenth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Birmingham (George A.)- THE BAD 
 
 TIMES. Second Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 SPANISH GOLD. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 
 8v0. 6s. 
 THE SEARCH PARTY. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 *LALAGE'S LOVERS. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 THE ADVENTURES OF DR. WHITTY. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Bowen (Marjorle). I WILL MAIN- 
 TAIN. Sixth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Castle (Agnes and Egerton). FLOWER 
 
 O' THE ORANGE, and Other Tales. 
 Third Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Clifford (Mrs. W. K.). THE GETTING 
 WELL OF DOROTHY. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. 8v0. %s. 6d. 
 
 Conrad (Joseph). THE SECRETAGENT : 
 
 A Simple Tale. Fourth Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 A SET OF SIX. Fourth Edition. Cr.Bvo. 6s. 
 UNDER WESTERN EYES. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Corelli (Marie). A ROMANCE OF TWO 
 
 WORLDS. Thirtieth Ed. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 VENDETTA. Twenty-eighth Edition. Cr. 
 
 8z>0. 6s. 
 THELMA : A NORWEGIAN PRINCESS. 
 
 Forty-first Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 ARDATH : THE STORY OF A DEAD SELF. 
 
 Twentieth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE SOUL OF LILITH. Seventeenth 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 WORMWOOD : A DRAMA OF PARIS. 
 
 Eighteenth Edition. Cr. 8z-0. 6s. 
 BARABBAS : A DREAM OF THE WORLD'S 
 
 TRAGEDY. Forty-fifth Edition. Cr. 8vo. 
 
 6s. 
 THE SORROWS OF SATAN. Fifty-sixth 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 THE MASTER CHRISTIAN. Thirteenth 
 
 Edition, ijgth Thousand. Cr. 8v0. 6.y. 
 TEMPORAL POWER : A STUDY IN 
 
 SUPREMACY. Second Edition. -L$oth 
 
 Thousand. Cr. 8z>0. 6s. 
 GOD'S GOOD MAN.: A SIMPLE LOVE 
 
 STORY. Fifteenth Edition. 154/7* Thou- 
 sand. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 HOLY ORDERS: THE TRAGEDY OF A 
 
 QUIET LIFE. Second Edition. izoth 
 
 Thousand. Crown 8v0. 6s. 
 THE MIGHTY ATOM. Twenty-ninth 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 BOY : a Sketch. Twelfth Edition. Cr. Svo. 
 
 6s. 
 
 CAMEOS. Fourteenth Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 THE LIFE EVERLASTING. Second Ed. 
 
 Cr. 8vo. dr. 
 
 Crockett (S. R.). LOCHINVAR. Illus- 
 trated. Third Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 THE STANDARD BEARER. Second 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Croker (B. M.). THE OLD CANTON- 
 MENT. Second Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 JOHANNA. Second Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s 
 
 THE HAPPY VALLEY. Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. 8z>0. 6s. 
 
 A NINE DAYS' WONDER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 PEGGY OF THE BARTONS. Seventh 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 ANGEL. Fifth Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 KATHERINE THE ARROGANT. Sixth 
 Edition. Cr. 8z>0. 6s. 
 
 BABES IN THE WOOD. Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Doyle (A. Conan). ROUND THE RED 
 LAMP. Twelfth Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Duncan (Sara Jeannette) (Mrs. Everard 
 
 Cotes). A VOYAGE OF CONSOLATION. 
 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. 8va. 6s. 
 COUSIN CINDERELLA. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 THE BURNT OFFERING. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Fenn (G. Manville). SYD BELTON : 
 
 THK BOY WHO WOULD NOT GO TO SKA. 
 Illustrated. Second Ed. Cr. 8v0. 3$. 6d. 
 
 Findlater (J. H.). THE GREEN GRAVES 
 OF BALGOWRIE. Fifth Edition. Cr. 
 8vo. 6s. 
 
 THE LADDER TO THE STARS. Second 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
FICTION 
 
 Findlater (Mary). A NARROW WAY. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 OVER THE HILLS. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 THE' ROSE OF JOY. T/iird Edition. 
 
 Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 A BLIND BIRD'S NEST. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Fry (B. and C. B ). A MOTHER'S SON. 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 *Glbbon (Perceval). MARGARET 
 HARDING. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Gissing (George). THE CROWN OF 
 LIFE. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Harraden (Beatrice). IN VARYING 
 
 MOODS. Fourteenth Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 THE SCHOLAR'S DAUGHTER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. dvo. 6s. 
 
 HILDA STRATFORD and THE REMIT- 
 TANCE MAN. Twelfth Ed. Cr.Zvo. 6s. 
 
 INTERPLAY. Fifth. Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Hichens (Robert). THE PROPHET OF 
 BERKELEY SQUARE. Second Edition. 
 
 TONGUES OF CONSCIENCE. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 FELIX. Seventh Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 THE WOMAN WITH THE FAN. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 BYEWAYS. Cr. too. 6s. 
 THE GARDEN OF ALLAH. Twentieth 
 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 THE BLACK SPANIEL. Cr. too. 6s. 
 THE CALL OF THE BLOOD. Seventh 
 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 BARBARY SHEEP. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 THE DWELLER ON THE THRES- 
 HOLD. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Hope (Anthony). THE GOD IN THE 
 
 CAR. Eleventh Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 A CHANGE OF AIR. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 too. 6s. 
 
 A MAN OF MARK. Seventh Ed. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT AN- 
 TONIO. Sixth Edition. Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 PHROSO. Illustrated. Eighth Edition. 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 SIMON DALE. Illustrated. Eighth Edition. 
 
 THE KING'S MIRROR. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 OU IS ANTE. Fourth Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 THE DOLLY DIALOGUES. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 A SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC. Illus- 
 trated. Fourth Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 TALES OF TWO PEOPLE. Third Edi- 
 tion. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 THE GREAT MISS DRIVER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 *MRS. MAXON PROTESTS. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Hutten (Baroness von). THE HALO. 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Hyne (C. J. Cuteliffe). MR. HOR- 
 ROCKS, PURSER. Fifth Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 ' Inner Shrine ' (Author of the). THE 
 
 WILD OLIVE. Third Edition. Cr.lvo. 
 6s. 
 
 Jacobs (W. W.)- MANY CARGOES. 
 
 Thirty-second Edition. Cr. 8v0. -is. 6d. 
 SEA URCHINS. Sixteenth Edition. Cr. 
 
 A 'MASTER OF CRAFT, illustrated. 
 
 Ninth Edition. Cr. 8va. 3*. 6d. 
 LIGHT FREIGHTS. Illustrated. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 35-. 6d. 
 THE SKIPPER'S WOOING. Tenth Ed. 
 
 Cr. too. 3*. 6d. 
 AT SUNWICH PORT. Illustrated. Tenth 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8v0. 3^. 6d. 
 DIALSTONE LANE. Illustrated. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Cr. too. $s. 6d. 
 ODD CRAFT. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 3*. 6d. 
 THE LADY OF THE BARGE. Illustrated. 
 
 Eighth Edition. Cr. 8v0. %s. 6d. 
 SALTHAVEN. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 31. 6d. 
 SAILORS' KNOTS. Illustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Cr. too. 3*. 6d. 
 SHORT CRUISES. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 %vo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 James (Henry). THE GOLDEN BOWL 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 THE FINER GRAIN. Third Edition. 
 Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Le Queux (William). THE HUNCHBACK 
 
 OF WESTMINSTER. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 THE CLOSED BOOK. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. too. 6s. 
 THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW. 
 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s 
 BEHIND THE THRONE. Third Edition 
 
 Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 THE CROOKED WAY. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 London (Jack). WHITE FANG. Eighth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s, 
 
 Lucas (E. V.). LISTENER'S LURE ; AN 
 OBLIQUE NARRATION. Eighth Edition. 
 Fcap. 8z>0. $s. 
 
 OVER BEMERTON'S : AN EASY-GOING 
 CHRONICLE. Ninth Edition. Fcaf> 8v0 z,s 
 
 MR. INGLESIDE. Eighth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Lyall (Edna). DERRICK VAUGHAN 
 NOVELIST. 44/A Thousand. Cr. too. 
 %s. 6d. 
 
 Macnaughtan (S.)- THE FORTUNE OF 
 CHRISTINA M'NAB. Fifth Edition 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 *PETER AND JANE. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Malet (Lucas). COLONEL ENDERBY'S 
 WIFE. Fifth Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 
 A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION. Second 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE WAGES OF SIN. Sixteenth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE CARISSIMA. Fifth Ed. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE DATELESS BARRIER. Fifth Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF SIR RICHARD 
 CALMADY. Seventh Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Mann (Mrs. M. E.). THE PARISH 
 
 NURSE. Fourth Edition. Cr. 6va. 6s. 
 A SHEAF OF CORN. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE HEART-SMITER, Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 AVENGING CHILDREN. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 ASTRAY IN ARCADY. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 THERE WAS A WIDOW. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Marsh (Richard). THE COWARD BE- 
 
 HIND THE CURTAIN. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE SURPRISING HUSBAND. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bva. 6s. 
 A ROYAL INDISCRETION. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Iv*. 6s. 
 LIVE MEN'S SHOES. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bv0. 6s. 
 
 Marshall (Archibald). MANY JUNES. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE SQUIRE'S DAUGHTER. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Ivo. 6s. 
 THE ELDEST SON. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 Bw. 6s. 
 
 Mason (A. E. W.). CLEMENTINA. 
 Illustrated. Seventh Edition. Cr. Bvo. 
 ax. net. 
 
 Maxwell (W. B.). VIVIEN. Tenth Edi- 
 
 tion. Cr. Bvo. 6*. 
 
 THE RAGGED MESSENGER. Third 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 FABULOUS FANCIES. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE GUARDED FLAME. Seventh Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Zva. 6s. 
 
 ODD LENGTHS. Second Ed. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 HILL RISE. Fourth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE COUNTESS OF MAYBURY: BE- 
 TWEEN You AND I. Fourth Edition Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE REST CURE, Pturth Edition, Cr. 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Meade (L. T.). DRIFT. Stctnd Edition. 
 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 RESURGAM. Second Edition. Cr. 8w>. 6t. 
 VIC TORY. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. Illustrated. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. 8w. 3*. 6<. 
 HEPSY GIPSY. Illustrated. Cr. 8. 
 
 2 j. 6d. 
 THE HONOURABLE MISS: A STORY 
 
 OF AN OLD-FASHIONED TOWN. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. y. 6d. 
 
 Mitford (Bertram). THE SIGN OF THE 
 
 SPIDER. Illustrated. Seventh Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Molesworth (Mrs.). THE RED GRANGE. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. &vt>. 
 y. 6d. 
 
 Montague (C. E.). A HIND LET 
 LOOSE. Third Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 Morrison (Arthur). TALES OF MEAN 
 
 STREETS. Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 A CHILD OF THE JAGO. Sixth Edition. 
 
 THE HOLE J IN THE WALL. Fourth Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 DIVERS VANITIES. Cr. too. 6s. 
 
 Nesblt (E.), (Mrs. H. Bland). THE RED 
 HOUSE. Illustrated. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 DORMANT. Cr. &v*. 6s. 
 
 Ollivant (Alfred). OWD BOB, THE 
 GREY DOG OF KENMUIR. With a 
 Frontispiece. Eleventh Ed. Cr. tve. 6s. 
 
 *THE TAMING OF JOHN BLUNT. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 *0nions (Oliver). GOOD BOY SELDOM ; 
 A ROMANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT. Cr. %vo. 
 6s. 
 
 Oppenhelm (E. Phillips). MASTER OF 
 
 MEN. Fourth Edition. Cr. Ivo. 6f. 
 THE MISSING DELORA. Illustrated. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo. 6*. 
 
 Orczy (Baroness). FIRE IN STUBBLE. 
 Cr. 80. 6s. 
 
 Oxenham (John). A WEAVER OF 
 
 WEBS. Illustrated. Fifth Ed. Cr.Zvo. 6s. 
 THE GATE OF THE DESERT. Seventh 
 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. ts. net. 
 PROFIT AND LOSS. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. &v*. 6s. 
 THE LONG ROAD. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 THE SONG OF HYACINTH, AND 
 OTHER STORIES. Second Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 MY LADY OF SHADOWS, Fourth Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 LAURISTONS. Fourth Edition. Cr. &v*. 
 6s. 
 
 THE COIL OF CARNE. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. 8v0. 6s. 
 
 Pain (Barry). THE EXILES OF FALOO. 
 Second Edition. Crown too. 6*. 
 
 Parker (Gilbert). PIERRE AND HIS 
 PEOPLE. Seventh Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 MRS. FALCHION. Fifth Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION OF A SAVAGE. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. 8vo 6s. 
 
 THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. Illus- 
 trated. Tenth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6*. 
 
FICTION 
 
 VHEN VALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC : 
 The Story of a Lost Napoleon. Sixth 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 4N ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH. 
 The Last Adventures of ' Pretty Pierre-' 
 Fifth Edition* Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY. Illus- 
 trated. Seventeenth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s 
 
 THE BATTLE OF THE STRONG: a 
 Romance of Two Kingdoms. Illustrated. 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE POMP OF THE LAVILETTES 
 Third Edition. Cr. Bvo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 NORTHERN LIGHTS. Fourth Edition 
 Cr. 80* fa. 
 
 Pasture (Mrs. Henry de la). THE 
 TYRANT- Fourth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Pemberton (Max). THE FOOTSTEPS 
 
 OF A THRONE, Illustrated Fourth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 I CROWN THEE KING. Illustrated. Cr. 
 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 LOVE THE HARVESTER: A STORY o* 
 
 THE SHIRES. Illustrated. Third Edition, 
 
 Cr. Bvo. v. 6d. 
 THE MYSTERY OF THE GREEN 
 
 HEART. Third Edition. Cr.Bvo. 6*. 
 
 Perrin (Alice). THE CHARM. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Phillpotts (Eden). LYING PROPHETS. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 CHILDREN OF THE MIST. Fifth Edi 
 
 tion. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE HUMAN BOY. With a Frontispiece. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 SONS OF THE MORNING. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE RIVER. Fourth Edition. Cr. Bv*. 6*. 
 THE AMERICAN PRISONER, Fourth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE SECRET WOMAN. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 KNOCK AT A VENTURE. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE PORTREEVE, fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 THE*PO ACKER'S WIFE. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE STRIKING HOURS. Stttm* Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 DEMETER'S DAUGHTER. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Ivo. 6s. 
 
 fiekthall (Marmaduke). SAID THE 
 FISHERMAN. Eighth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 
 6s. 
 
 M' (A. T. Quiller Couch). THE WHITE 
 
 WOLF. Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE MAYOR OF TROY. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 MERRY-GARDEN AND OTHK* STORIES. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s 
 MAJOR VIGOUREUX. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. fa. 
 
 Ridge (W- Pett). ERB. Second Edition 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 A SON OF THE STATE. Third Edition 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 A BREAKER OF LAWS. Cr. Bvo. $s. 6d. 
 MRS. GALER'S BUSINESS. Illustrated 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE WICKHAMSES. Fourth Edition 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 NAME OF GARLAND. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 SPLENDID BROTHER. Fourth Edition 
 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 NINE TO SIX-THIRTY. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr Bvo. 6s. 
 THANKS TO SANDERSON. Cr.Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Robins (Elizabeth). THE CONVERT. 
 Third Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Russell (W. Clark). MY DANISH 
 
 SWEETHEART. Illustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 HIS ISLAND PRINCESS. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 ABANDONED. Second Edition. Cr. Ivo. 6s 
 MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S VOYAGE 
 
 Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Bvo. y. 6d 
 
 Sidgwlek (Mrs. Alfred). THE KINS- 
 MAN. Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE SEVERINS- Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE LANTERN-BEARERS. Third Ed. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 *ANTHEA'S GUEST. Cr. &<>. 6s. 
 
 *Somerville (E. (E.) and Ross (Martin). 
 DAN RU'SSEL THE FOX. Illustrated. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Thurston (E. Temple). MIRAGE. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Watson (H. B. Marriott). TWISTED 
 EGLANTINE. Illustrated. Third Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE HIGH TOBY. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 A MIDSUMMER DAY'S DREAM. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE CASTLE BY THE SEA, Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE PRIVATEERS. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 A POPPY SHOW : BEING DIVERS AND 
 
 DIVERSE TALES. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE FLOWER OF THE HEART. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 ALISE OF ASTRA. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Webllng (Pegey). THE STORY OF 
 
 VIRGINIA PERFECT. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF MIRTH Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 Wells (H. G.). THE SEA LADY. Cr. 
 
 Bvo. 6*. 
 
26 
 
 METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Weyman (Stanley). UNDER THE RED 
 
 ROBE. Illustrated. Twenty-thir 
 
 Cr. 
 
 6s. 
 
 Twenty-third Edition. 
 
 Whltby (Beatrice). THE RESULT OF 
 AN ACCIDENT. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 ROSAMUND. Second Edition. Cr.Sv*. 6s. 
 
 Williamson (C. N. and A. M.). THE 
 LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR: The 
 Strange Adventures of a Motor Car. Illus- 
 trated. Seventeenth Edition. Cr. tve. 
 6s. Also Cr. %vo. is. net. 
 
 THE PRINCESS PASSES : A Romance of 
 a Motor. Illustrated. Ninth Edition. 
 
 MY'FRIEND THE CHAUFFEUR, illus- 
 trated. J^enth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 LADY BETTY ACROSS THE WATER, 
 Eleventh Edition, Cr. Bv*. 6*. 
 
 THE CAR OF DESTINY AND ITS 
 
 ERRAND IN SPAIN. Illustrated. Fi/tk 
 
 Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. 
 THE BOTOR CHAPERON. Illustrated. 
 
 Sixth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 SCARLET RUNNER. Illustrated. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 SET IN SILVER. Illustrated. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. 
 LORD LOVELAND DISCOVERS 
 
 AMERICA. Second Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 THE GOLDEN SILENCE. Sixth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bva. 6s. 
 *A NEW NOVEL. Cr. Bro. 6s. 
 
 Wyllarde (Dolf). THE PATHWAY OF 
 THE PIONEER (Nous Autres). Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 6j. 
 
 THE UNOFFICIAL HONEYMOON 
 Cr. few. 6*. 
 
 Methuen's Two-Shilling Novels. 
 
 Cr. Svc. 2s. net, 
 
 CHB GATE or THE DESERT. John Oxenham. 
 THE SEVERINS. Mrs. Alfred Sidgwick. 
 CLEMENTINA. A. E. W. Mason. 
 
 THE PRINCESS VIRGINIA. C. N. and A. M 
 
 Williamson. 
 COLONEL ENDERBY'S WIFB. Lucas Malet 
 
 Books for Boys and Girls. 
 
 Illustrated. Crown %vo. 3^. 6</. 
 
 CROSS AND DAGGER. The Crusade of the 
 
 Children, 1212. W. Scott Durrant. 
 THE GETTING WELL OF DOROTHY. Mrs. 
 
 W. K. Clifford. 
 ONLY A GUARD-ROOM DOG. Edith E. 
 
 Cuthell. 
 MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S VOYAGE. W. Clark 
 
 Russell. 
 SYD BELTON : The Boy who would not 
 
 go to Sea. G. Manville Fenn. 
 
 THE RED GRANGE. Mrs. Molesworth. 
 A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. L. T. Meade. 
 HEPSY GIPSY. L. T. Meade, as. 6d. 
 THE HONOURABLE Miss. L. T. Meade. 
 
 THERE WAS ONCE A PRINCE. Mrs. M. E. 
 Mann. 
 
 WHEN ARNOLD COMES HOME. Mrs. M. K. 
 Mann. 
 
 JAK. Marie Corelll. 
 UNDER THE RED ROBI 
 
 Methuen's Shilling Novels. 
 
 Stanley J. Weyman, 
 C. N. 
 
 LADY BETTY ACROSS THE WATER 
 & A. M. Williamson. 
 
 MIRAGE. E. Temple Thurston. 
 VIRGINIA PERFECT. Peggy Webling. 
 SPANISH GOLD. G. A. Birmingham, 
 *BARBARY SHEEP. Robert Hichenft. 
 
FICTION 
 
 27 
 
 The Novels of Alexandre Dumas. 
 
 Medium Svo. Price 6d. Double Volumes, is. 
 
 ACT*. 
 
 THB ADVENTURES or CAPTAIN PAMPHILB. 
 
 AMAURY. 
 
 THB BIRD OF FATE. 
 
 THB BLACK TULIP. 
 
 THB CASTLB OF EPPSTEIH 
 
 CATHBRINB BLUM. 
 
 CECILS, 
 
 THB CHATELET. 
 
 THB CHEVALIER D'HARMENTAI. (Double 
 
 rolume.) 
 
 CHICOT THB JESTER. 
 CHICOT REDIVIVUS. 
 
 THB COMTB DB MONTGOMMERY 
 
 CONSCIENCE. 
 
 THB CONVICT'S SON. 
 
 THE CORSICAN BROTHERS ; and OTHO THE 
 
 ARCHER. 
 CROP-EARED JACQUOT. 
 
 DOM GORENFLOT. 
 
 THE Due D'ANJOU. 
 
 THB FATAL COMBAT. 
 
 THB FENCING MASTEB. 
 
 FERNANDE. 
 
 GABRIEL LAMBERT. 
 
 GEORGES. 
 
 THB GREAT MASSACRB. 
 
 HENRI DB NAVARRE. 
 
 HELENS DE CHAVERNY. 
 
 THE HOROSCOFB, 
 
 LEONE-LEONA. 
 
 LOUISE DB LA VALLIERB. (Double rolume.) 
 
 THB MAN IN THB IKON MASK. (Double 
 
 volume.) 
 MA!TRE ADAM. 
 THB MOUTH OF HELL. 
 NANON. (Double volume.) 
 OLYMPIA. 
 PAULINE ; PASCAL BRUNO ; and EONTEKOB, 
 
 PfeRB LA RUINE. 
 
 THE PORTE SAINT-ANTOINM. 
 
 THE PRINCE OF THIEVES. 
 
 THE REMINISCENCES OF ANTONT. 
 
 ST. QUENTIN. 
 
 ROBIN HOOD. 
 
 SAMUEL GELB, 
 
 THB SNOWBALL AKD THE SULTAMBTTA. 
 
 SYLVANDIRB. 
 
 THE TAKING OF CALAIS. 
 
 TALES OF THB SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 TALES OF STRANGB ADVENTURE, 
 
 TALES OF TERROR. 
 
 THE THREE MUSKETEERS. (Double volume.) 
 
 TOURNEY OF THB RUB ST. ANTOINB. 
 
 THE TRAGEDY OF NANTES. 
 
 TWENTY YEARS AFTER. (Double volume.) 
 
 THB WILD-DUCK SHOOTER. 
 
 THB WOLF-LEADEB. 
 
 Methuen's Sixpenny Books. 
 
 Medium Svf. 
 
 Albanesl (K. Maria). LOVE AND 
 
 LOUISA. 
 
 I KNOW A MAIDEN. 
 THE BLUNDER OF AN INNOCENT. 
 PETER A PARASITE. 
 
 Anstey (F.). A BAYARD OF BENGAL, 
 Austen (J.). PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. 
 
 Basrot (Richard). A ROMAN MYSTERY. 
 CASTING OF NETS. 
 DONNA DIANA. 
 
 Balfour (Andrew). BY STROKE OF 
 SWORD. 
 
 Baring-Gould (S-). FURZE BLOOM 
 
 CHEAP JACK ZITA. 
 
 KITTY ALONE. 
 
 URITH. 
 
 THE BROOM SQUIRE. 
 
 IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA. 
 
 NOEMI. 
 
 A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES. Illustrated 
 
 LITTLE TU'PENNY. 
 
 WINEFRED. 
 
 THE FROBISHERS. 
 
 THE QUEEN OF LOVE. 
 
 ARMINELL. 
 
 BLADYS OF THE STEWPONEY. 
 
 CHRIS OF ALL SORTS. 
 
2S METHUEN AND 
 
 Barr (Robert). JENNIE BAXTER. 
 IN THE MIDST OF ALARMS. 
 THE COUNTESS TEKLA. 
 THE MUTABLE MANY. 
 
 Benson (E. F.). DODO 
 THE VINTAGE 
 
 Bronte (Charlotte). SHIRLEY. 
 
 Brownell {C- L4 THE HEART OF 
 JAPAN. 
 
 Burton (J. BloundelteV ACROSS THE 
 SALT SEAS. 
 
 Caffyn (Mrs.). ANNE MAULEVERER. 
 
 Capes (Bernard) THE LAKE OF 
 
 WINE. 
 THE GREAT SKENE MYSTERY. 
 
 Clifford (Mrs. W. K.), A FLASH OF 
 
 SUMMER. 
 MRS. KEITH'S CRIME. 
 
 Corbett (Julian). A BUSINESS IN 
 GREAT WATERS. 
 
 Croker (Mrs. B. M.). ANGEL. 
 A STATE SECRET. 
 PEGGY OF THE BARTONS. 
 JOHANNA. 
 
 Dante (Alighlerl). THE DIVINE 
 COMEDY (Cary> 
 
 Doyle (A. Conan). ROUND THE RED 
 LAMP. 
 
 Duncan (Sara Jeannette). THOSE 
 
 DELIGHTFUL AMERICANS. 
 
 Eliot (George). THE MILL ON THE 
 FLOSS. 
 
 Findlater (Jane H.). THE GREEN 
 GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE. 
 
 Gallon (Tom). RICKERBY'S FOLLY. 
 
 Gaskell (Mrs.). CRANFORD. 
 MARY BARTON. 
 NORTH AND SOUTH. 
 
 Gerard (Dorothea). HOLY MATRI- 
 MONY. 
 
 THE CONQUEST OF LONDON. 
 MADE OF MONEY. 
 
 Gissing (G.). THE TOWN TRAVELLER. 
 THE CROWN OF LIFE- 
 
 COMPANY LIMITED 
 
 Glanville (Ernest). THE INCA'S 
 
 THE KLOOF BRIDE. 
 
 Gleig (Charles). BUNTER'S CRUISE. 
 
 Grimm (The Brothers). GRIMM'S 
 FAIRY TAKES- 
 
 Hope (Anthony). A MAN OF MARK. 
 A CHANGE OF AIR. 
 
 THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT 
 ANTONIO. 
 
 PHROSO. 
 
 THE DOLLY DIALOGUES, 
 
 Hornung (E. W.). DEAD MEN TELL 
 NO I ALES. 
 
 Ingraham (J. H.). THE THRONE OF 
 DAVID. 
 
 Le Queux (W.). THE HUNCHBACK 
 
 OF WESTMINSTER. 
 THE CROOKED WAY. 
 THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW. 
 
 Levett- Yeats (S. K.). THE TRAITOR'S 
 AAf AY* 
 
 ORRAIN. 
 
 THE TRUE HIS- 
 
 Linton (E. Lynn). 
 TORY OF JOSHUA DAVIDSON. 
 
 Lyall (Edna). DERRICK VAUGHAN. 
 
 Malet (Lucas). THE CARISSIMA. 
 A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION. 
 
 Mann (Mrs. M. E.). MRS. PETER 
 HOWARD. 
 
 A LOST ESTATE. 
 
 THE CEDAR STAR. 
 
 ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS, 
 
 THE PATTEN EXPERIMENT. 
 
 A WINTER'S TALE, 
 
 Marehmont (A. W.). MISER HOAD- 
 
 LEY'S SECRET. 
 A MOMENT'S ERROR. 
 
 Marryat (Captain). PETER SIMPLE 
 JACOB FAITHFUL. 
 
 March (Richard). A METAMORPHOSIS. 
 THE TWICKENHAM PEERAGE. 
 THE GODDESS. 
 THE JOSS. 
 
FICTION 
 
 Mason (A. E. W.). CLEMENTINA, 
 
 Mathers (Helen). HONEY. 
 GRIFF OF GRIFFITHSCOUR1. 
 SAM'S SWEETHEART, 
 THE FERRYMAN. 
 
 tfeade (Mrs, L, T.X DRIFT, 
 tflller (Esther^ LIVING LIES. 
 
 Mitford (Bertram!. THE SIGN OF THE 
 SFlDEk 
 
 Montresor (F. P.). THE ALIEN. 
 
 Morrison (Arthur). THE HOLE IN 
 THE WALL- 
 
 Nesbit (E.). THE RED HOUSE. 
 
 Norris (W. E.). HIS GRACE, 
 
 GILES INGILBY. 
 
 THE CREDIT OF THE COUNTY. 
 
 LORD LEONARD THE LUCKLESS. 
 
 MATTHEW AUSTEN. 
 
 CLARISSA FURIOSA. 
 
 Oliphant (Mrs.). THE LADY'S WALK 
 
 SIR ROBERT'S FORTUNE. 
 
 THE PRODIGALS. 
 
 THE TWO MARYS. 
 
 Oppenheim (E. P.}. MASTER OF MEN. 
 
 Parker (Gilbert). THE POMP OF THE 
 
 LAVILETTES. 
 
 WHEN V ALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC. 
 THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. 
 
 Pemberton (Max). THE FOOTSTEPS 
 
 OF A THRONE. 
 I CROWN THEE KING. 
 
 Phlllpotts (Eden). THE HUMAN BOY. 
 CHILDREN OF THE MIST. 
 THE POACHER'S WIFE, 
 THE RIVER. 
 
 1 (A. T. Quiller Couch). 
 
 TIITE WOLF. 
 
 29 
 
 THE 
 
 Ridge (W. Pett). A SON OF THE STATE 
 
 LOST PROPERTY. 
 
 GEORGE and THE GENERAL. 
 
 A BREAKER OF LAWS 
 
 ERB. 
 
 Russell (W. Clark). ABANDONED 
 A MARRIAGE AT SEA. 
 MY DANISH SWEETHEART. 
 HIS ISLAND PRINCESS 
 
 Sergeant (Adeline), THE MASTER OF 
 BEECHWOOD. 
 
 BALBARA'S MONEY. 
 THE YELLOW DIAMOND. 
 THE LOVE THAT OVERCAME. 
 
 Sidgwiek (Mrs. Alfred). THE KINS- 
 
 idgwi 
 
 MAN. 
 
 Surtees (R. S.). HANDLEY CROSS. 
 MR. SPONGE'S SPORTING TOUR. 
 ASK MAMMA, 
 
 Walford (Mrs. L, B.J. MR. SMITH, 
 
 COUSINS. 
 
 THE BABY'S GRANDMOTHER. 
 
 TROUBLESOME DAUGHTERS. 
 
 Wallace (General Lew). BEN-HUB. 
 THE FAIR GOD. 
 
 Watson (H. B. Marriott). THE ADVEN- 
 
 TURERS. 
 CAPTAIN FORTUNE. 
 
 Weekes (A. B.). PRISONERS OF WAR. 
 Wells (H. G.). THE SEA LADY. 
 
 Whitby (Beatrice). THE RESULT OF 
 AN ACCIDENT. 
 
 White (Percy). A PASSIONATE PIL- 
 GRIM. 
 
 Williamson (Mrs. C. N.). PAPA. 
 
METHUEN AND COMPANY LIMITED 
 Books for Travellers. 
 
 Crvum 8w, &. each. 
 Each volume contains a number of Illustrations in Colour. 
 
 A WANDERER IN PARIS. E. V. Lucav 
 A WANDERER IN HOLLAND. E. V. Lucas. 
 A WANDERER IN LONDON. E. V. Lucas 
 THE NORFOLK BROADS. W. A. Dutt. 
 THE NEW FOREST. Horace G. Hutchinsou. 
 NAPLES. Arthur H. Norway. 
 TUB CITIES or UMBRIA. Edward Huttoo. 
 THE CITIES OP SPAIN. Edward Hutton. 
 
 FLORENCE AND THE CITIES or NORTHERN 
 TUSCANY, WITH GENOA. Edward Hutton. 
 
 ROME. Edward Hutton. 
 
 VENICE AND VENETIA. Edward Huttos. 
 
 TH* BRETONS AT Hoicm. F. M. 
 
 Costllng. 
 Anatol* 
 
 THE LAND OF PARDONS (Brittany). 
 Le Braz. 
 
 A BOOK or THE RHJNB. S. Baring- Gould. 
 THE NAPLES RIVIERA. H. M. Vaughan. 
 DAYS IN CORNWALL. C. Lewis Hind. 
 
 THROUGH EAST AKGLIA IK A MOTOR CAR> 
 J. E. Vincent. 
 
 THE SKIRTS or TH GREAT CITY. Mrs. A^ 
 G. Bell. 
 
 ROUND ABOUT WILTSHIRE. A. G. Bradley. 
 
 SCOTLAND or TO-DAY. T. F. Henderson and 
 Francis Watt. 
 
 NORWAY AND ITS FJORDS. M. A. Wyllk. 
 
 Borne Books on Art. 
 
 T. Storge M 
 Cr. too. 5J. nit. 
 
 Illustrated. 
 
 AIMS AND IDEALS IN ART. George Clausen. 
 Illustrated. Second EditU*. Large Post 
 too. $s. net. 
 
 Six LECTURES ON PAINTING. George Clausen. 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Lar S t Post 
 too. y. 6d. net, 
 
 FRANCESCO GUAKDI, 1719-1793. G. A. 
 Simonson. Illustrated. Imperial 4/*. 
 2 it. net, 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS or THB BOOK, or JOB. 
 William Blake. Q*art. i it. net. 
 
 JOHN LUCAS, PORTRAIT PAINTER, 1828-1874, 
 Arthur Lucas. Illustrated. Imperial \t# 
 3 3*. tut. , 
 
 ONE HUNDRED MASTERPIECES or PAINTING. 
 With an Introduction by R. C. Witt. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Demylvo. ios.6d. 
 net. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED MASTERPIECES or SCULPTURE 
 With an Introduction by G. F. Hill. Illus- 
 trated. Demy lv. iof . 6d. net. 
 
 A ROMNBY FOLIO. With an Essay by A. B 
 Chamberlain. Imperial F*li*. 1$ 15*. 
 net. 
 
 Margaret E. Tabot 
 . 3*. 6<t. net. 
 
 Illu* 
 
 THE SAINTS IN ART. 
 Illustrated. Fcap. &v 
 
 SCHOOLS or PAINTING. Mary Innes. 
 trated. Cr. too. 5*. net. 
 
 THE POST IMPRESSIONISTS. C Lewis Hind 
 Illustrated. Royal 8*. ^s. 6d. net. 
 
 CELTIC ART IN PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN TIMES. 
 J.R. Allen. Illustrated. Demy too. jt.bi. 
 net. 
 
 M CLASSICS or ART." See page 14. 
 " THE CONNOISSEUR'S LIBRARY." See page 14. 
 14 LITTLB BOOKS ON ART." See page 17. 
 "THE LITTLB GALLERIES." See page 17. 
 
GENERAL LITERATURE 
 
 Some Books on Italy. 
 
 1 HISTORY OF MILAN UNDER THE SFORZA. 
 
 Cecilia M. Ady. Illustrated Demy 8vo. 
 
 ioj. 6d. tut, 
 A. HISTORY OF VERONA. A. M. Allen. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy Bv*. iaj. 6d. net. 
 A. HISTORY OF PERUGIA. William Heywood. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy lv. las. 6d. net. 
 THE LAKES OF NORTHERN ITALY. Richard 
 
 Bagot. Illustrated Fcap. Zvo. 51. net. 
 WOMAN IN ITALY. W. Boulting. Illustrated. 
 
 Demy %vo. IOT. 6d. mi. 
 OLD ETRURIA AND MODERN TUSCANY. Mary 
 
 L. Cameron. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Bvf. 6s. net. 
 FLORENCE AND THE CITIES OF NORTHERN 
 
 TUSCANY, WITH GENOA. Edward Hatton. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 8v. 6t. 
 SIENA AND SOUTHERN TUSCANY. Edward 
 
 Hutton. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Ivo. 6s. 
 IN UNKNOWN TUSCANY. Edward Hutton. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy %v 
 
 jt. 6d. net. 
 VENICE AND VBNKTIA. Edward Hutton. 
 
 Illustrated. Cr. &ve. 6s. 
 VENICE ON FOOT. H. A. Douglas. Illustrated. 
 
 Fcap. tvo. 5J. net. 
 VENICE AND HER TREASURES. H. A, 
 
 Douglas. Illustrated. Fca}. 8*. S/. net. 
 
 FLORENCE : Her History and Art to the Fall 
 of the Republic. F. A. Hyett. Demy Zv*. 
 71. 6d. net. 
 
 FLORENCE AND HE TREASURES. H. M. 
 Vaughan. Illustrated. Pcaf. %v*. 5*. net. 
 
 COUNTRY WALKS ABOUT FLORENCE. Edward 
 Hutton. Illustrated. Fcap. Bvo. 5*. net. 
 
 NAPLES : Past and Present. A. H. Norway. 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE NAPLES RIVIERA. H. M. Vaughan. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. &ve. 6s. 
 
 SICILY : The New Winter Resort. Douglas 
 
 Sladen. Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 &vff. jr. net. 
 SICILY. F. H. Jackson. Illustrated. Small 
 
 Pott 8*. Cbtk, ar. 64. net; leather > 3*. 6d. 
 
 net. 
 ROME. Edward Hutton. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 A ROMAN PILGRIMAGE. R. E. Roberts 
 
 Illustrated. Demy Bvo. IQJ. 6d. net. 
 ROME. C. G. Ellaby. Illustrated. Small 
 
 Pott Zv. Cloth, *s. 6d. net; leather, 3*. 6d. 
 
 net. 
 THE CITIES OF UMBRIA. Edward Hutton. 
 
 Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 THE LIVES OF S. FRANCIS OF Assist. 
 
 Brother Thomas of Celano. Cr. &vo. 5*. 
 
 *et. 
 LORENZO THE MAGNIFICENT. E. L. S. 
 
 Horsburgh. Illustrated Second Edition. 
 
 Demy Svo. 15^. net. 
 GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA. E. L. S. Horsburgh. 
 
 Dlustrated. Cr. Zvo. 5*. net. 
 ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AND HER TIMES. 
 
 By the Author of" Mdlle Mori." Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Demy &vo. js. 6d. net. 
 DANTE AND HIS ITALY. Lonsdale Ragg 
 
 Illustrated Demy 8v*. i2J. 6d. net. 
 DANTE ALIGHIEEI : His Life and Works 
 
 Paget Toynbee. Illustrated. Cr. Bvo. <&. 
 
 net. 
 
 THE MEDICI POPES. H. M. Vaughan. Illus- 
 trated. Demy &vt. 15*. net. 
 SHELLEY AND His FRIENDS IN ITALY. Helen 
 
 R. Angeli. Illustrated. Demy 8vo. tor. 6d 
 
 net. 
 HOME LIFE IK ITALY. Lina Duff Gordon. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy 8. 
 
 ioj. 6d. net. 
 SKIES ITALIAN : A Little Breviary for Travellers 
 
 in Italy. Ruth S. Phelps. Feap. Bvff. 5*. 
 
 net. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 LONDON AND BECCLES. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 
 
 TjTT 
 
 "JW- 3 Q 1979 
 
 " REG. CIR. APR 2 3 ^ 79 
 
 T Tt 91 A 4(Vm 1 1 'fi 
 L J > E 2 l 1 602s 4 lo"4 1 76B 
 
 General Library 
 
YC 09029 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY