determined by the amount of pressure or support that the new ally can bring into play. This method of governing the British Empire found expression in the Gladstone-Rosebery Administration of 1892-1895, but the Empire was saved by the Second Chamber system, especially invented for overthrowing the enterprises of huckstering cabals and log-rolling confederacies.

Ten years of Unionist Government were crowned by a crushing defeat at the polls. Mr. Chamberlain's single-hearted patriotism in declaring for Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference had not yet got hold of the electors. Many Unionists seemed to have forgotten all about the Imperial policy of Lord Beaconsfield, and were unprepared to accept Mr. Chamberlain's advice to save their country by breathing into that policy a quickening spirit. The Radical leaders were given a majority absolutely independent of any clique or combination of cliques that could possibly be brought against them. There was a faint, a very faint, hope that they would turn their backs on the Socialists, and use their majority to develop National Defence and National Welfare on lines that at least would have satisfied the business instinct of moderate men, and given no encouragement to other countries to work double time at their Navies. But this is not the way of the Radical. The order was given for full speed astern. National Defence must take a back seat. All the prejudices of the visionary were, if possible, to receive legislative effect. Class must be set against class, and sect against sect. Those who had voted for Unionist candidates must be punished at all costs. The darling of the gods in due course became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had hit upon the dazzling expedient of attracting all the malcontents and faddists to his standard by the promise of actual cash payments which his new office would now enable him to meet by rifling the pockets of the hereditary enemies of his Party. It was springtime in the hearts of Cabinet Ministers. The only crumple in the roseleaf was the absence of Costa Rica government. With a Single-Chamber system these halcyon days might be prolonged till every penny of British capital left in the country had been spent in supplying the Cabinet with pocket-money. Nothing less than a foreign invasion could have stopped them, if only the destruction of the House of Lords could be effected.

This must after all be the real objective. Bill after Bill was

sent up. But neither the House of Lords nor an outraged democracy could be got to play the game. The Lords could not do right. Sometimes they were blamed for passing Bills, sometimes for rejecting them. The passing of the Trade Disputes Bill was a bitter disappointment: the more bitter because the chagrin had to be concealed from the proletariat. The Licensing Bill was rejected. Not a dog barked. The wake of this measure was celebrated at a banquet where, amid the waving of two hundred Radical dinner-napkins, the Prime Minister gave the country to understand that the resources of civilisation were not exhausted, and that some method would be found of bringing the Peers down on their marrow-bones. The following spring all issues on which a separate appeal to the electors might be dangerous were incorporated in a prodigious Budget, which was to dazzle the people by bursting open the coffers of the rich Tories, in order to distribute their gold among those who would vote for the Radicals. In effect, the Lords were to be asked, "Will you fight or take a licking?" The Lords decided to fight.

We know the rest. After a campaign of calumny and invective led by Mr. George, the like of which has not yet been seen, the Radicals lost a hundred seats, and were returned to Westminster without an honest majority in favour of any single item in their programme. The House of Lords question now began in real earnest. It was no longer only a platform asset. The mercenaries were in a position to insist on the sound and fury being placed on the Statute Book. The struggle that ensued for priority between Budget and Veto, and the edifying spectacle presented by the Prime Minister are still too fresh to need recapitulation. "When is a guarantee not a guarantee ?" "When is a bribe not a bribe?" were the questions that had to be answered every twenty-four hours. The final situation was that the Radical Cabinet who a few months previously had at least the titular command of one of the finest majorities ever sent to Westminster, had now been driven to the last resort, and could only carry their Budget by promising to advise the Sovereign to create five hundred Peers to destroy the British Constitution.

The Constitutional Party need never have reason to fear this experiment. Putting aside the matter of the King's ease, they would even welcome it. It is grotesque and ridiculous enough

even if attempted by a Minister with a large majority at his back. But with more than half the people of England dead against him, it is quite out of the question. But the time for putting it to the test was not yet. In the month of May by the stroke of fate the voices of demagogue and wrecker were silenced. The death of King Edward revealed the true temper of the nation. For the Radicals the cold, passionless report of the King's doctors, laying it down for all time that in considering the causes that led to his Majesty's death the political situation could not be left out of the account, had a very ugly look. What was to be done? Their position was this: (a) They had determined to destroy the House of Lords; (b) the House of Lords could not be destroyed without the creation of five hundred Peers; (c) they dare not ask the people to agree to this step. There were apparently three courses open to them.

The first was to continue the movement. From a purely Party point of view the Unionist Party could have wished nothing better. Perseverance at this juncture would have brought disaster upon the Coalition. Indeed, it is difficult to think that they will ever find a propitious moment for asking the Sovereign to help them out of their difficulties by swamping the House of Lords. The sacrifice of the sanctity and dignity of the Sovereign for the purpose of handing over the Empire to the despotism of the reigning caucus, and making it a sign and a proverb among all the nations, is never likely to be accomplished pacifically. Even if a claim could be plausibly established that the scheme had been ratified by some kind of majority, the attempt to carry it out would bring us dangerously near to the exercise of physical force, which still remains the ultimate sanction of Parliamentary Government.

The second alternative was to accept the situation and suffer in silence. This was open to the objection that it was not likely to be agreed to by the leading spirits of a pack that was already out of hand, and moreover would be difficult to explain to the world at large. If the creation of five hundred Peers was the reasonable and statesmanlike act for which Cabinet Ministers had told us they were prepared to accept full responsibility, why should they be afraid to proceed to the execution of it? Why should the King's death make any difference? It was

obvious that a plausible answer could not be found to these questions.

The third alternative was to invite the Unionist leaders to a Conference. The Conference would at least do away with the necessity of explaining the command to cease fire, and might cover up the growing unpopularity of the agitator. With luck, the Constitutional Party might even be led into a trap. Given a certain amount of dexterity, they could be saddled with the responsibility for an unfavourable issue and a new situation created, perhaps no worse for the wreckers than their present condition. Now in view of the terrible strain placed upon King George by the death of King Edward, and the consequent duty of protecting him during the first months of his reign from the crucial position the supporters of the Government would fain have placed him in, it would have been almost impossible for the Unionist leaders to have declined the Conference. But from the Party point of view, the agreement to confer may possibly have let go an opportunity such as may not recur. When King Edward died, the Coalitionists found that public opinion was dead against them. They feared the people. But they were responsible for the King's Government, and had conducted their own campaign against the Constitution in their own way. If obedience to the law of self-preservation forbade them to continue their plan, it may be fairly argued that it was for them to come forward and say what they now proposed to do, and it was for their own followers and the Unionist Party to criticise their proposals.

But, rightly or wrongly, the Conference is sitting, and we may consider, apart from any recommendations it may offer, what bearing its actual session may have upon the future. Now over and above the fact that it affords a temporary shelter to the Cabinet from the consequences of its own acts, it has two other immediate results that some Unionists may look upon with a certain amount of suspicion. In the first place the fact that our leaders have consented to meet the Coalition leaders in the same room may be utilised as supporting the idea that we share with them a common responsibility for the acute phase of party politics. This proposition can be met by sound argument at every point, which it is not desirable to elaborate just now, as the affair is supposed to be sub judice, But it is quite enough to

say that no Unionist can ever, or ought ever, to admit its validity. To do so would be to knock the bottom out of the Constitutional platform, and probably to present Mr. Asquith with another five years' lease of power. All Unionists must be prepared to defend Second-Chamber government all along the line. They may easily be called upon to do so before many months are over.

The second aspect of the Conference, to which the Editor of this Review has already called attention, that may produce a false impression, is that which presents the Prime Minister as the master, or at any rate the plenipotentiary of a homogeneous party, with whom it is suitable and possible for his opponents to negotiate on equal terms. As, however, his allies seem bent on dissolving this tableau at the first opportunity it need not give rise to any serious alarm. Everybody knows that Mr. Asquith conducting such affairs as the Regency Bill or the Declaration Bill with the whole of the good sense of the House of Commons at his command is a very different person from Mr. Asquith dealing with the competing claims of Budget and Veto.

On the other hand, one comforting reflection arises from the very interesting light the holding of the Conference has thrown upon the psychology of the Coalition rank and file. They evidently dare not let their leaders out of sight for five minutes. They gaze at the door of the Council Chamber with mingled hatred and alarm. Anything that causes uneasiness to this type of politician cannot be wholly devoid of good import.

With regard to the conclusion of the present phase, it would be idle to speculate, but the following quotation from the Nation of August 6, 1910, may be of interest:

The Spectator of last week probably indicates the extreme limits of Conservative concession. Its proposal is that the Lords shall give way on Money Bills. but that the definition of a Money Bill shall be left to a body consisting of the Chairman of Committees in the Lords, the Speaker, and a non-Parliamentary lawyer, while on general legislation the Lords shall have the power of forcing a referendum. It is enough to say that the Liberal Party would not accept such a solution, and that the Government would not dream of proposing it to them.

This does not look very much like a settlement. On the other hand, it is safe to assume that Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour will not agree to any solution of the Constitutional question which contains in its essence less safeguards than have been found