the relations of the two houses.12 The continuance in office of the Liberal government, supported, at least for the time, by a coalition majority of Liberal, Labor and Irish Nationalist members of the House of Commons led shortly in the new Parliament to a determined attempt to restrict the powers of the existing House of Lords. The principle of the CampbellBannerman resolution was resurrected and substantially included in three resolutions which passed the House of Commons in early April, 1910.13

Thus came the Parliament Bill of 1910 based on resolutions which previously had fully embodied the essential operative provisions of the Bill. It was read for the first time on April 14.14 But it was not read a second time in the House of Commons, 15 as the death of Edward VII on May 6 led to a political truce lasting till November, 1910. During this interval a conference of party leaders attempted without success to secure a solution of the constitutional question. On the reopening of Parliament in November proposals alternative to the Parliament Bill were formulated by the opposition. This was in anticipation of a second general election. An appeal to the

12 The story of these months has been told in many places and only a bare recital of the chief stages is needed here. Cf. inter alia for preliminary comment on this whole matter Impressions of British Party Politics, 1909–1911 in Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. V, pp. 509-534.

13 Between March 29 and April 5 debates took place on the proposal to go into committee "to consider the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and the question of the duration of Parliament" (15 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1162). The debates on the three resolutions dealing with money bills, other public bills, and the duration of Parliament, which took place between April 6 and 14 were finally ended by the agreement of the House with committee shown by votes on the three resolutions of 340 to 241, 346 to 243, and 347 to 244 respectively. (16 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 15311547.)

14 16 H. C. Deb. 5s. c. 1547. This was a purely formal presentation of a "dummy" bill; the text not being given out till some days later.

15 Contrary to the statement in that useful handbook-Ilbert: Parliament, p. 218; the omission there of all mention of the resolutions of 1910 is misleading. Later in the House of Lords, at the invitation of the opposition, Lord Crewe proposed the first reading of the Parliament Bill on November 16th (6 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 706); but in those urgent days of what Lord Rosebery called "rather slippery work" (c. 697), with the closure of dissolution impending the debate on the second reading was adjourned by the opposition on November 21 (c. 809).

electorate chiefly on the House of Lords question in this election of December, 1910, gave the same net result as that of Jan

uary.

The Parliament Bill of 1911 was therefore introduced in the new Parliament in the same form as in 1910. From the outset, as in 1910, charges were repeatedly made that the failure to provide for a new second chamber as proposed in the preamble was due to the intention of the government to secure the passage of an Irish Home Rule measure by use of the facilities provided by the bill before the matter of the composition of the upper house should be taken up. We must bear in mind this aspect of the question. Nevertheless the bill passed the House of Commons and finally on August 10 under threat of the creation of peers to secure a sufficient majority for the bill, a necessary number of Lords reluctantly voted with the supporters of the government to ensure the enactment of the bill still substantially the same measure which the House of Commons had originally accepted in March and April, 1910. Thus after legislative, political, and social vicissitudes which would crowd a volume this bill received the royal assent, and as 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 13 became a document for recurrent citation by students of English history in centuries to follow.16

16 The legislative history of the bill in the Parliament of 1911 may be summarized as follows: In the House of Commons on February 21 and 22 after presentation the first reading debate was voted 351 to 227 (21 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 2035-40). On February 27, 28, March 1 and 2 came the second reading debate and opposition amendment favoring reform of "the composition of the House of Lords, whilst maintaining its independence as a second chamber" and declining to proceed with a measure practically involving single chamber legislation, which may be "contrary to the will of the people" (22 Ibid., 5s. c. 45), the amendment being defeated 365 to 244 (Ibid., cc. 677–682). On April 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, May 1, 2, and 3 the House was in committee, during which amendments were accepted (a) further defining money bills, (b) requiring the Speaker's certificate to a money bill on its presentation to the Lords instead of only on its presentation for the royal assent, (c) defining more clearly the lapse of two years required in section 2, subsection 1, of the act, (d) requiring for bills other than money bills a certificate from the Speaker on presentation to the Crown of a bill three times rejected by the Lords. Report stage was reached on May 9 and 10, when on government amendments some verbal changes were made and words in section 2, subsection 4, were added to enable the Commons

Obviously this law does not stand alone. To appreciate its significance we must consider the alternative to it as well as the law itself. By a study of the ancestry of both as well as of their content we can clear the road to appraisal of the constitutional meaning of conflicting proposals as to the composition, functions and position of the upper house of Parliament. Such a documentary and historical survey must further lead to a summary of

more easily to accept late amendments by the Lords. On May 15 the bill passed the third reading, 362-241 (25 Ibid., 5s. c. 1784).

In the House of Lords the first reading was on May 16 (8 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 486). Debate followed on May 23, 24, 25, and 29 on the second reading which took place without division (Ibid., c. 967). On June 28, 29, July 3, 4, 5 and 6 the House was in committee, when amendments were inserted as follows: (a) In place of the Speaker a joint committee was substituted to determine a money bill, whose purpose as well as content were to be tested; (b) a proposal to extend Parliament beyond five years was not to pass under the provisions of this act; (c) a reference to the electors was to be required on all bills affecting the existence of the Crown and the Protestant succession, establishing local parliaments within the United Kingdom, or raising new issues of great gravity in the opinion of the joint committee. On a test vote affecting these proposals the government was beaten 253-46 (9 Ibid., 5s. cc. 277-80). On report made July 13 a further definition of money bills was inserted and enacting words for bills which did not pass the Lords were provided. The third reading was taken without division July 20 (Ibid., c. 619) and the same day prior to the passage of the bill an amendment to define a public bill was agreed to. Again in the Commons on August 8, resuming the debate adjourned by the Speaker on July 24 under Standing order 21 because of "grave disorder" (28 H. C. Deb. 5s. cc. 1495–96), the House disagreed with the Lords' amendments except as to (a) exclusion from the scope of this act of a bill to extend the duration of Parliament beyond five years; (b) the insertion of enacting words for bills which become laws without the consent of the Lords; (c) a further technical definition of a public bill other than a money bill. The House also agreed to a new provision for a House of Commons committee of two with whom the Speaker might consult before giving his certificate on a money bill. On the test division as to disagreement with the Lords' amendments the vote was 321-215 in support of the government (29 Ibid., 5s. cc. 1109-1114). Thus the bill as amended was returned to the Lords where on August 9 and 10 the question of consideration of the Commons' reasons for disagreement with the Lords' amendments was debated (9 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 1045-46); at last on the motion that the House "do not insist" on the amendment requiring a reference to the electors in the case of certain bills a vote of 131-114 insured the safety of the bill (Ibid. cc. 1073-77). In both houses debates on the address, on resolutions of censure directed against the government, questions, and discussion regarding the conduct of business had afforded additional opportunity for consideration of the constitutional and political questions connected with the act. In such a compact record amendments proposed and rejected in either house obviously cannot find place.

the essential social and political forces which have been at work. Their direction has usually been through parties, by whom constitutional history is largely made. Finally we come to the italics in this constitutional drama. For Mr. Asquith as Prime Minister threatened to use the latent power of the royal prerogative, to bend dusty weapons of almost revolutionary authority in order that if necessary the connection might be clear between the ballot and the King.

First of all this whole matter falls into two parts-the question of the composition and of the powers of the House of Lords. Historically whether in acrid agitation or in solemn, abortive debate they have usually been kept apart. Indeed on only one occasion have they been effectively treated in a single legislative document. That was in the energetic resolution of the House of Commons which temporarily abolished the House of Lords on March 19, 1649.17 The Parliament act of 1911 keeps them apart; and though Lord Rosebery and Lord Lansdowne tried to connect the two branches of the subject more closely it will be more convenient for our purposes to follow the common historical precedent.

What then was the opposition or alternative program with regard to the composition of the second chamber? It is contained in three documents-the Rosebery resolutions of March and November, 1910, which were adopted by Lord Lansdowne, and which were defined and expanded in his House of Lords Reconstitution Bill of May, 1911. They are in contrast to the preamble of the Parliament Bill, which expresses only an intention at some future time to constitute a new second chamber on a "popular" basis. In March, 1910, when the principles to be embodied in the Parliament Bill had already become of interest to the peers, they agreed to the first series of Rosebery resolutions. The first of these declared for "a strong and efficient Second Chamber," as "an integral part of the British Constitution" and "as necessary to the well-being of the State and to the balance of Parliament." The second read: "that such a Chamber can best be obtained by the reform and reconstitution 17 Scobell: Collection of Acts and Ordinances (London, 1658), II. p. 8.

of the House of Lords."18 Both were agreed to without a division. The third resolution was forced to a vote by the opposition of Lord Halsbury but was carried 175 to 17.19 It stated: "that a necessary preliminary of such a reform and reconstitution is the acceptance of the principal that the possession of a Peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords."20

The halt in active political controversy which followed the death of Edward VII prevented any possible sequel to these resolutions until November, 1910. Then Lord Rosebery proposed a second series of resolutions. The first of these declared: "That in future the House of Lords shall consist of Lords of Parliament: A. Chosen by the whole body of hereditary Peers from amongst themselves and by nomination by the Crown. B. Sitting by virtue of offices and of qualifications held by them. C. Chosen from outside." It was carried without a division, while the second resolution was withdrawn, as it went "too far into details."21 Thus, on November 17, in the space of about three hours, the principles and practice of centuries were apparently submerged by an "almost passionate desire" of the Lords for reform, "emerging almost like a subterranean torrent."22 But in this connection we may recall that the December election was already imminent. On this foundation Lord Lansdowne built a more elaborate structure in the Reconstitution Bill of 1911.23 Briefly this 18 5 H. L. Deb. 5s. c. 140 (March 14).

19 Ibid., cc. 491-94 (March 22). However, at this time the Duke of Norfolk advised the supporters of these resolutions not to attach to them a "fictitious importance" (c. 483).

20 Ibid., c. 141. The reformative schedule suggested by Lord Wemyss on April 25, 1910 ( 5 Ibid., 5s. c. 683), which Lord Morley called a "pill for an earthquake" can serve only to dissipate any notion that the House of Lords is lacking in originality or humor.

216 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 757-58. The second resolution read: "That the term of tenure for all Lords of Parliament shall be the same, except in the case of those who sit ex-officio, who would sit so long as they held the office for which they sit" (Ibid., c. 714).

22 Ibid., c. 741 (Lord Newton).

23 H. L. Bills, 1911, No. 75. Lord Rosebery objected to procedure by bill instead of resolution (8 H. L. Deb. 5s. cc. 527-28).