ld be eligible for election to the House of Commons, and that,
except in event of the "indispensable" elevation of a cabinet minister
or ex-minister to the peerage, it should be unlawful for the crown to
confer the dignity of an hereditary peerage upon more than five
persons during the course of any single year.

This body of proposals, it will be observed, related exclusively to
the _composition_ of the upper chamber. The Liberal leaders preferred
to approach the problem from the other side and to assure the
preponderance of the Commons by the imposition of positive
restrictions upon the _powers_ which the Lords, under given
conditions, might exercise. Lord Lansdowne's bill--sadly characterized
by its author as the "deathblow to the House of Lords, as many of us
have known it for so long"--came too late, and the chamber, after
allowing it to be read a second time without division, was constrained
to drop it for the Government's measure. July 20 the Parliament Bill,
amended in such a manner as to exclude from its operation legislation
affecting the constitution and other matters of "great gravity," was
adopted without division. The proposed amendments were highly
objectionable to the Liberals and, relying upon an understanding
entered into with the king during the previous November relative to
the creation of peers favorable to the Government's programme, the
ministry let it be understood that no compromise upon essentials could
be considered.[158] Confronted with the prospect of a wholesale
"swamping,"[159] the Opposition fell back upon the policy of
abstention and, although a considerable number of "last-ditchers" held
out to the end, a group of Unionists adequate to carry the measure
joined the supporters of the Government, August 10, in a vote not to
insist upon the Lords' amendments, which meant, in effect, to approve
the bill as adopted in the lower house.[160] The royal assent was
extended August 18.

[Footnote 158: When, July 24, Premier Asquith rose
in the Commons to reply to the Lords' amendments
there resulted such confusion that for the first
time in generations, save upon one occasion in
1905, the Speaker was obliged to adjourn a sitting
on account of the disorderly conduct of members.]

[Footnote 159: Had the Unionists maintained to the
end their attitud