Just as matters seemed about to result in a final settlement, King Edward died, and a conference between the leaders of both parties was set up to tide over the awkward interval.  The conference was an experiment doomed to failure, as the Liberals had nothing to give away and compromise could only mean a sacrifice of principle.  The House met in November to wind up the business, and the Prime Minister announced that an appeal would be made to the country on the single issue of the Lords’ veto, the specific proposals of the Government being placed before the electorate.  A Liberal Government was returned to power for the third time in December, 1910, with practically the same majority as in January.  The Parliament Bill was introduced and passed in all its stages through the House of Commons with large majorities.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives made no attempt to defend either the action or composition of the House of Lords, but adopted an apologetic attitude.  They agreed that the Second Chamber must be reformed, and during the second general election in 1910 some of them declared for the Referendum as a solution of the difficulty of deadlocks between the two Houses.  But there was an entire absence of sincerity about their proposals, which were not thought out, but obviously only superficial expedients hurriedly grasped at by a party in distress.  Their reform scheme, introduced by Lord Lansdowne, was revolutionary, and, at the same time, fanciful and confused.  It was ridiculed by their opponents, and received with frigid disapproval by their supporters.  Still, they acted as if they were confident that in the long run they could ward off the final blow.  They were persuaded that the Liberal Government would neither have the courage nor the power to accomplish their purpose.  “Why waste time over abstract resolutions?” asked Mr. Balfour.  “The Liberal party,” he said, “has a perfect passion for abstract resolutions”—­and again, “it is quite obvious they do not mean business.”  Even when the Bill itself was introduced, they still did not believe that its passage through the House of Lords could be forced.  The opposition to the Bill was not so much due to hatred of the actual provisions as fear of its consequences.  The prospect of a Liberal Government being able to pass measures which for long have been part of their program, such as Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, or Electoral Reform, exasperated the party who had hitherto been secured against the passage of measures of capital importance introduced by their opponents.  The anti-Home Rule cry and the supposed dictatorship of the Irish Nationalist leader were utilized to the full, and were useful when constitutional and reasoned argument failed.  At the same time as much as possible was made of the composite character of the majority supporting the Government.