The rejection of a money Bill by the House of Lords raised a democratic blizzard, the full force of which was directed against the constitutional power of veto possessed by the hereditary Chamber in relation not merely to money Bills, but to general legislation.

For a long time the Liberal Party had been threatening that part of the Constitution without much effect.

Sixteen years had passed since Mr.
Gladstone in his last speech in the House of Commons declared that issue must be joined with the Peers; but the emphatic endorsement by the constituencies in 1895 of the Lords' action which he had denounced, followed by ten years of Unionist Government, damped down the ardour of attack so effectually that, during the four years in which the Liberals enjoyed unchallengeable power, from 1906 to 1910, they did nothing to carry out Gladstone's parting injunction.

Had they done so at any time when Home Rule was a living issue in the country an attack on the Lords would in all probability have proved disastrous to themselves.

For there was not a particle of evidence that the electors of Great Britain had changed their minds on this subject, and there were great numbers of voters in the country--those voters, unattached to party, who constitute "the swing of the pendulum," and decide the issue at General Elections--who felt free to vote Liberal in 1906 because they believed Home Rule was practically dead, and if revived would be again given its _quietus_, as in 1893, by the House of Lords.