ABSTRACT
THE constitutional controversies which commenced with the rejection by the House of Lords of the Liberal Government’s Budget of 1909 assumed several distinct aspects. The most important questions which came to issue were (1) the claim of the Lords to force the House of Commons to a dissolution upon any important question, financial or otherwise, which did not have the definite endorsement of the electorate, and (2) the supposed right (or even duty) of the Sovereign to compel a dissolution in order to make sure that an important legislative and constitutional change should receive definite endorsement from the electorate. The first question was determined adversely to the House of Lords by the Parliament Act of 1911. The second question arose after that Act had disarmed the Lords. The two questions were closely related, each being concerned with the power of Dissolution, and each illustrating the great significance of the personal intervention of the Sovereign, and the delicacy and care involved in the exercise of his prerogatives.
