royal enthusiasm. Mr. Lloyd George's speeches in the country often seemed to the king reckless and irresponsible Mr. Churchill's father, Lord Randolph had long been a close friend. Knowing the son from his cradle, the king found difficult to reconcile himself to the fact that he was a grown man fitted for high office, With his new prime minister he was a1 once in easy intercourse, frankly and briefly expressing to him his views on current business, and suggesting or criticising appointments. While he abstained from examining closely legislative details, and while he continued to regard his ministers actions as matters for their own discretion, he found little in the ministerial propo sals to command his personal approval. Especially did Mr. Lloyd George's budget of 1909, which imposed new burdens Attitude to on l an ded and other property, the budget cause him searchings of heart, of 1909. But his tact did not permit him to forgo social courtesies to ministers whose policy seemed to him dangerous. In society he often gave those of them whose political conduct he least approved the fullest benefit of his charm of manner.
XIII
Domestic politics in the last part of his reign brought the king face to face with a Conflict with cons titutional problem for which the House he had an involuntary distaste, of Lords. All disturbance of the existing constitution was repugnant to him. In view of the active hostility of the upper chamber to liberal legislation, the liberal government was long committed to a revision of the powers of the House of Lords. The king demurred to any alteration in the status or composition of the upper house, which in tys view, as in that of his mother, was a bulwark of the hereditary principle of monarchy. A proposal on the part of conservative peers to meet the outcry against the House of Lords by converting it partly or wholly into an elective body conflicted as directly with the king's predilection as the scheme for restricting its veto. The king deprecated the raising of the question in any form.
In the autumn of 1909 a very practical turn was given to the controversy by the lords' threats to carry their antagonism to the year's budget to the length of rejecting it. Despite his dislike of the budget, the king believed the lords were herein meditating a tactical error. He resolved for The king's desire for a peaceful solution. the first time to exert his personal influence to prevent what he judged to be a political disaster. He hoped to exert the reconciling power which his mother em- ployed in 1870 and again in 1884, when the two houses of parliament were in collision : in the first year over the Irish church dis- establishment bill, in the second year over the extension of the franchise. The circum- stances differed. In neither of the earlier crises was the commons' control of finance in question. Nor was the king's habit of mind as well fitted as his mother's for the persuasive patience essential to success in a difficult arbitration. The conservative peers felt that the king was in no position, whatever happened, to give their house pro- tection from attack, and that he was prone by temperament to unquestioning assent to ministerial advice, which was the path of least resistance. Early in October 1909 he invited to Balmoral Lord Cawdor, one of the most strenuous champions of the uncom- promising policy of the peers. The interview produced no result. A like fate attended the king's conversation, on his arrival at Buckingham Palace later in the month (12 Oct.), with the leaders of the con- servative opposition in the two houses, Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour. Al- though these negotiations could only be strictly justified by the emergency, there was no overstepping of the limits of the royal power. Mr. Asquith was willing that the interviews should take place. The con- versations were in each case immediately communicated by the king to the prime minister in personal audience.
The king's proved inability to qualify the course of events was a disappointment. The finance bill, which finally passed the House of Commons on 5 November by a majority of 379 to 149, was rejected ay the lords on 30 November by 350 to 75. War to the knife was thereupon inevitable Between the liberal party and the House of Lords, and the king at once acquiescence acquiesced in the first steps of n the his government's plan of cam government's paign> Qn 15 p^ by the prim minister's advice he dissolv jarliament, for the second time in his reign Che general election gave the government a majority which was quite adequate for their purpose. They lost on the balance seventy-five seats, and their former numerical superiority to any combination f other parties disappeared. But with nationalists and labour members they still were 124 in excess of their unionist oppo-
