Had the Prime Minister submitted to the Lords’ dictation after two general elections, in the second of which the verdict of the country was taken admittedly and exclusively on the actual terms of the Parliament Bill, he would have basely betrayed the Constitution in acknowledging by his submission that the Peers were the supreme rulers over the Crown and over the Commons, and could without check overrule the declared expression of the people’s will.  The Lord Chancellor pointed out the danger in one sentence.  “This House alone in the Constitution is to be free of all control.”  No doubt the creation of ten Peers would not have caused such a commotion as the creation of 400, but the principle is precisely the same, and it was only the magnitude of partizan bias in the Second Chamber that made the creation of a large number necessary in the event of there being determined opposition.  It was a most necessary and salutary lesson for the Lords that they should be shown, in as clear and pronounced a way as possible, that the Constitution provided a check against their attempt at despotism, just as the marked disapproval of the electorate, as shown, for instance, in the remarkable series of by-elections in 1903-1905, or by a reverse at a general election, is the check provided against the arbitrary or unpopular action of any Government.  The Peers were split up into two parties, those who accepted Lord Lansdowne’s pronouncement that, as they were no longer “free agents,” there was nothing left for them but to submit to the inevitable, and those who desired to oppose the Bill to the last and force the creation of Peers.  The view of the latter section, led by Lord Halsbury, was an expression of the wide-spread impatience and annoyance with Mr. Balfour’s weak and vacillating leadership.  All the counting of heads and the guesses as to how each Peer would behave afforded much material for sensational press paragraphs and rather frivolous speculation and intrigue.  The action of any Peer in any circumstance is always supposed to be of national importance.  The vision of large numbers of active Peers was a perfect feast for the public mind, at least so the newspapers thought.  But in reality the final outcry, the violent speeches, the sectional meetings, the vituperation and passion were quite unreal and of very little consequence.  One way or the other, the passage of the Bill was secure.

The Vote of Censure brought against the Government afforded the Prime Minister a convenient opportunity of frankly taking the House into his confidence.  With the King’s consent, he disclosed all the communications, hitherto kept secret, which had passed between the Sovereign and his Ministers.  He rightly claimed that all the transactions had been “correct, considerate, and constitutional.”  Mr. Asquith’s brilliant and sagacious leadership impressed even his bitterest opponents.  It only remained for the Lords not to insist on their amendments.  Unparalleled