so far as Home Rule and other measures were concerned. The
class of men whom Mr. Asquith was prepared to nominate for
the purpose would hardly be different from those who in recent
years had been added, quite acceptably, to the House of Lords
by Liberal initiation in considerable numbers, and who had in
many cases come round there to a different way of thinking. 1
A further argument was that if a creation of peers was avoided
now, it would not prevent its being resorted to if the House
of Lords subsequently rejected the Home Rule bill.
Between these opposing views of the situation, a cleavage in the Unionist ranks was at once manifest. Mr. Balfour de- cided to " stand or fall " with Lord Lansdowne's advice, and they were followed by much the larger numbers; but public interest centred in what was known as the " Die-Hard " move- ment, which was actively organized under Lord Halsbury's leadership and initiated at a largely attended and enthusiastic dinner in his honour at the Hotel Cecil on July 26, at which Lord Selborne presided, supported by Lord Salisbury, Lord Milner, the Dukes of Northumberland, Marlborough, Bedford and Somerset, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. George Wyndham, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. F. E. Smith, Lord Willoughby de- Broke, and other prominent men. How many peers would follow the lead given by Lord Halsbury and vote against the unamended bill when it was again sent up was still uncertain, but as Lord Lansdowne and the bulk of those who accepted his advice were only prepared to -desist from further opposition, and would not assist the Government affirm- atively by voting for a measure they detested just as much as the " die-hards," it was impossible for him to give Mr. Asquith the assurance he had demanded. A period of extreme tension and uncertainty followed. On July 24, when Mr. Asquith was to move in the House of Commons that the Lords' amend- ments be disagreed with, he was howled down from the Unionist benches, amid a scene of great disorder, which was repeated next day, and it was not till Aug. 8 that the motion for disagree- ing with the Lords' amendments was carried by 321 to 215, after the Government had agreed to introduce a few minor changes. Meanwhile Mr. Balfour had endeavoured to placate the whole of the Unionist party by moving a vote of censure (Aug. 7), which was rejected by 365 to 246, and in the House of Lords a similar vote of censure moved by Lord Curzon (Aug. 8) was carried by 282 to 68.
The Parliament bill was sent up again to the Lords for their acquiescence in the striking-out of their amendments, and the crucial debate there took place on Aug. 9 and 10. In answer to Lord Rosebery, Lord Morley made the precise statement that if the bill was defeated " His Majesty would assent to a creation of peers sufficient in number to guard against any combination of the different parties in Opposition by which the Parliament bill might again be exposed to defeat." This declaration had a marked effect on the result. Up to the last moment the figures on the two sides were in doubt, but the division showed 131 in favour of passing the bill, and only 114 for insisting on the amendments. The Government had won the day by the help of enough votes from peers who usually acted with the Opposi- tion to counterbalance the " die-hards." Thirty-seven Unionist peers, the two archbishops, and n bishops voted with the Liberals; but Lord Halsbury's followers were more than had been expected, several peers, including the Duke of Norfolk, joining them in protest against the action of the Unionists who helped to carry the bill. Lord Cromer, who had been active in getting Unionist peers to support the bill on the ground that only in this way could the damage likely to accrue from a crea- tion of new peerages be avoided, was absent through illness; and Lord Curzon's was eventually the most powerful influence exerted in this direction, his action being all the more hateful
1 It is worth noting in this connexion that between 1868 (when modern Liberalism and Conservatism practically started as organized parties) and Oct. 1912, the new peerages created by Liberal Govern- ments numbered 164 and those created by Conservative Govern- ments 149. Mr. Asquith alone had created 52 new peers up to Oct. 1912 since he became Premier in 1908.
to the " die-hards " because earlier he had been specially prominent in counselling resistance to the bill at all costs.
The Parliament bill thus became an Act and duly received the royal assent; and a statutory enactment defining the rela- tions between the two Houses of Parliament was substituted for an unwritten British constitution. J*g s *j" as As compared with the original form in which it was introduced (see 20.846, 847), various small drafting alterations were made, including an improved definition of a " money bill," and a more definite exclusion of private bills from the scope of the measure; but the only changes of any substantial importance were the following, (i) A provision by which the Speaker, before giving his certificate (to be en- dorsed on every money bill sent up to the House of Lords) that a bill is a money bill, " shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the chairman's panel at the beginning of such session by the committee of selection." (2) Provisions excluding from any public bills, as to which the Lords' consent would not be required after being sent up in three successive sessions, " a bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years," and also " any bill for confirming a pro- visional order." (3) A provision altering the limits of the two years which must have elapsed during the three successive sessions to " between the date of the second reading in the first of those sessions of the bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons in the third of those sessions." (4) A provision requiring a certificate signed by the Speaker, stating that the provisions of the Act in this respect had been complied with, to be endorsed on any bill so presented to the King for his assent notwithstanding the opposition of the House of Lords. (5) A provision that " in every bill so presented to the King, the .words of the enactment shall be as follows: ' Be it enacted by the King's most excel- lent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Com- mons of this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act, and by authority of the same as follows.' "
In all vital respects the Parliament Act remained as orig- inally introduced in 1910. Though its preamble declared that reform of the House of Lords itself still remained a task for the future, the supremacy of the House of Commons, both for purposes of finance and for public legislation, was definitely enacted. While the Act, however, on the face of it, made the Government masters of the situation, it was recognized by people who looked a little ahead that in practice it might not work quite as its authors contemplated. In order that its provisions should apply, to the extent of bills becoming law over the resistance of the Lords, these bills had to be sent up in time for two years to elapse during the same Parliament, and during these two years they had to be sent up again and again without being changed from their original form. As the duration of Parliament was cut down to five (practically four) years, this rreant that nothing not sent up in the first year or two would benefit by the Act; and apart from that, it would be difficult to avoid changes in bills sent up year after year. Even as regards " money bills," which the House of Lords was now to have no power of rejecting at all, the prospect was uncertain. The Budget of 1909, the rejection of which was the cause of the whole revolution, was probably considered a money bill by most Radical politicians; but the Speaker (Mr. J. W. Lowther) upset any such calculations in Dec. 1911 by ruling, in answer to a question, that the Budget of that year was not a money bill within the Parliament Act a fortiori, therefore, neither was that of 1909.
On the very day that saw the triumph of the Parliament bill (Aug. 10) yet another great alteration was being made in the essential conditions of parliamentary life. Following payment an invitation already given by Mr. Lloyd George, a of mem- resolution was carried in the House of Commons by 256 votes to 158, providing "for the payment of a salary at the rate of 400 a year to every member of the House, ex-
