There it came up for second reading on May 23. Midleton, speaking for the union ist Front Bench, indicated on the first day that the intention was to allow it through at that stage but to propose sweeping amendments in committee. Thereafter the three-day debate followed a familiar course, with the regular speakers making the regular points. Public attention was elsewhere. In so far as it was directed towards any political issues, it was temporarily upon the National Insurance Bill, which Lloyd George had just launched, and the Trade union Bill,1 designed partly to undo the effect of the Osborne judgment. But to an increasing extent the Coronation and associated festivities were thrusting all party political questions into the background. It was a summer of great heat and of fevered and lavish gaiety. And despite the intense personal animosities which the constitutional struggle had provoked, the great social gatherings were still able to bring together the leading contestants in a way that, a year or two later, the bitterness of the Ulster quarrel made impossible. One of the most flamboyant of these gatherings was the fancy dress ball which Lord Winterton and F. E. Smith gave at Claridge’s on May 24. Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour were both present, but in costumes no more exciting than ordinary evening dress. Mr. Churchill was also disapppointingly conservative, with a red Venetian cloak and a domino his only concessions to the occasion. The Speaker of the House of Commons, however, in full Arab regalia, showed that high political rank was no bar to full participation in the evening. Mr. Waldorf Astor,1 then a union ist Member of Parliament, attracted the most notice by appearing in a peer’s robes of state and bearing above his coronet a placard with the figures ‘499’ on one side and the legend ‘still one more vacancy’ on the other. A political joke was still possible in mixed political company. A few mornings later, however, the levity of this evoked a vigorous letter of protest to The Times, appearing under the signature of ‘A Peer’.
The Coronation itself took place on June 22. It was a cool and showery day in the midst of a blazing summer, and perhaps for this reason the crowds were not so large as had been anticipated. It was the last great gathering in London of the representatives of monarchical Europe, but this was not to be known either by those who came to watch or by those who stayed away. Indeed, contemporary reports that, as the procession passed, the most cordial welcomes were given to the representatives of Germany, the United States, and Francen showed that the shadow of future events was not interfering with the catholicity of the British public.
The only echo of the bitter political struggle came from the stands reserved for members of Parliament and their families and friends. From these the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a somewhat mixed reception as he made his way to the Abbey. But for those who were not more interested in the Clapham Common murder and other sensations of the day the political issues were never far below the surface. As if to act as a reminder of the comparative turbulence of the times a widespread seamen’s strike persisted throughout the festivities; and the politicians were all busy calculating the best positions from which they could resume the constitutional battle. The Opposition hoped that the period of national rejoicing might have created a new atmosphere and a new set of circumstances in which they could ignore the verdict of the previous December. Even so neutrally conformist a source as the Annual Register commented: ‘It may be that the keener union ist politicians expected the sentiments roused by the Coronation ceremonies to tell in their favour with the electorate.’o But their hopes in this respect were doomed to disappointment. Neither the bye-elections which had taken place earlier in the year nor those which followed in July (the combination of the Coronation honours and of a number of unseatings on petition1 produced quite a spate) showed any trend against the Government. When the battle was rejoined, it was an early conclusion, and not the opening of a new phase upon new ground, which was to follow.
Amendments to the Parliament Bill were placed upon the paper of the House of Lords on June 26, and the committee stage began on June 28. It took the form of a six-day massacre of the Government’s proposals and the virtual substitution of the scheme which the union ist leaders had unsuccessfully urged upon the constitutional conference. A joint committee of both Houses and not the Speaker alone was to determine what was and what was not a money bill, and this committee was to be given the instruction of a further amendment which very narrowly defined such bills. Clause Two, dealing with general legislation, was altered so that any measure which (a) affected the existence of the Monarchy or the Protestant Succession, (b) established a National Parliament or Council in any of the three kingdoms, or (c) was considered by the joint committee to raise an issue of great gravity upon which the opinion of the country had not been fully ascertained, fell outside its scope. Such measures were to be submitted to a referendum. This amendment was described by Morley as ‘tearing up the bill’.