From the Prime Minister’s point of view the most important difference between the new King and his father was the former’s lack of political experience. In fact, King George had seen far more of state papers during his period as Heir Apparent than had King Edward. Perhaps therefore he appeared as a tyro more because of his unsophisticated mind and tastes than because of newness to the job. But whatever the reason it is undoubtedly true that Asquith felt that King Edward had been able to look after himself and find his own way through constitutional difficulties in a way that King George was not. However unlikely the principals, most Prime Ministers at the beginning of a new reign have half a desire to play the Melbourne.
It was therefore natural that Asquith, who, we have seen, had been in no hurry to tender unpalatable advice to King Edward, should have found procrastination given a new lease of life by the accession of King George. At one of his first private audiences the Prime Minister, as recorded in the King’s own words, ‘said he would endeavour to come to some understanding with the Opposition to prevent a General Election and (that) he would not pay attention to what Redmond said.’h
This endeavour took the form of an approach to Arthur Balfour for a two-party constitutional conference. The suggestion was eagerly taken up by the union ists—the Morning Post and the Observer had indeed advocated a move along these lines within a day or two of the death of King Edward, and Austen Chamberlain had told Lansdowne during the train journey back from the funeral at Windsor that any further move by the Lords on the reform resolutions would be most unfortunate. Opinion on the Government side, not unnaturally, was less enthusiastic. The Nationalists (except, paradoxically, for O’Brien and his followers) were very restive, the Labour Party was suspicious, and Josiah Wedgwood1 led a mild revolt of advanced Liberals. But Asquith had committed himself with the King and was, in any event, firm in his own mind; and so the plan went forward. For six months the constitutional struggle retired behind closed doors.
IX The Attempt at Compromise
On June 16 the arrangements for the conference were completed. It was to have eight members: the Prime Minister, Lloyd George, Crewe, and Birrell from the Government; and Balfour, Lansdowne, Austen Chamberlain, and Cawdor from the Opposition. A statement was issued that the negotiations were to be entirely untrammelled and the proceedings strictly confidential. The press was informed when meetings were held, but of nothing else. Asquith and Balfour agreed upon a general scheme of discussion, which, in the words of Asquith’s biographers, was to cover the following points:
‘(1) The relations of the two Houses in regard to finance.
(2) Provision of some machinery to deal with persistent disagreement between the two Houses, whether by limitation of veto, joint sitting, referendum or otherwise.
(3) The possibility of coming to some agreement as to such changes in the composition and numbers of the Second House as would ensure that it would act, and would be regarded as acting, fairly between the great parties in the State.’a
This outline was not published.
The first meeting took place in the Prime Minister’s room in the House of Commons on June 17, and there were twelve meetings between then and the end of July. As a result of them the Prime Minister was able to report to the House of Commons before its adjournment for the summer recess ‘that our discussions have made such progress, although we have not so far reached an agreement, as to render it, in the opinion of all of us, not only desirable but necessary that they should continue’. He added that there ‘is no question of their indefinite continuance, and (that) if we find as a result of our further deliberations during the recess that there is no prospect of an agreement that can be announced to Parliament in the course of the present Session, we shall bring the Conference to a close’.b
The question of where the summer meetings should take place then arose. Crewe offered his country house as a venue, but Lansdowne was hostile to this suggestion. Any agreement which might be reached would be subjected to criticism by extremists on both sides. ‘Would not that criticism be more severe,’ he wrote, ‘if it can be said that we had been “softened” by the excellence of Crewe’s champagne and the other attractions of a hospitable and luxurious country house.’c The suggestion was dropped, and Lord Lansdowne’s followers could feel that their leader was maintaining his principles intact amidst the austerities of Bowood, Lansdowne House, Derreen, Meikleour or Tulliallan. But this involved no further meetings until Ministers and Opposition leaders returned to London in October. There was a brief but intensive series of meetings until the middle of the month, a fortnight’s adjournment, and then another series of meetings until the end came on November 10.