Editing H. H. Asquith (section)

====Sunday 3 December====

Sunday 3 December saw the Conservative leadership meet at Law's house, Pembroke Lodge.{{sfn|Beaverbrook|p=410}} They gathered against a backdrop of ever-growing press involvement, in part fomented by Max Aitken.{{sfn|Taylor|p=113}} That morning's ''[[Reynold's News]]'', owned and edited by Lloyd George's close associate [[Henry Dalziel, 1st Baron Dalziel of Kirkcaldy|Henry Dalziel]], had published an article setting out Lloyd George's demands to Asquith and claiming that he intended to resign and take his case to the country if they were not met.{{sfn|Beaverbrook|p=411}} At Law's house, the Conservatives present drew up a resolution which they demanded Law present to Asquith.{{sfn|Jenkins|p=435}}

This document, subsequently the source of much debate, stated that "the Government cannot continue as it is; the Prime Minister (should) tender the resignation of the Government" and, if Asquith was unwilling to do that, the Conservative members of the Government would "tender (their) resignations."{{sfn|Beaverbrook|p=413}} The meaning of this resolution is unclear, and even those who contributed to it took away differing interpretations.{{sfn|Grigg 1985|p=453}}

Chamberlain felt that it left open the options of either Asquith or Lloyd George as premier, dependent on who could gain greater support. Curzon, in a letter of that day to Lansdowne, stated that no one at the Pembroke Lodge meeting felt that the war could be won under Asquith's continued leadership, and that the issue for the Liberal politicians to resolve was whether Asquith remained in a Lloyd George administration in a subordinate role, or left the government altogether.{{sfn|Grigg 1985|pp=453–454}} Max Aitken's claim that the resolution's purpose was to ensure that "Lloyd George should go"{{sfn|Beaverbrook|p=414}} is not supported by most of the contemporary accounts,{{sfn|Dutton|pp=132–133}} or by the assessments of most subsequent historians.

As one example, Gilmour, Curzon's biographer, writes that the Unionist ministers "did not, as Beaverbrook alleged, decide to resign themselves in order to strengthen the Prime Minister's hand against Lloyd George..(their intentions) were completely different."{{sfn|Gilmour|p=455}} Similarly, Adams, Law's latest biographer, describes Aitken's interpretation of the resolution as "convincingly overturned".{{sfn|Adams|p=231}} [[John Ramsden (historian)|John Ramsden]] is equally clear: "the Unionist ministers acted to strengthen Lloyd George's hand, from a conviction that only greater power for Lloyd George could put enough drive into the war effort."{{sfn|Ramsden|p=132}}

Law then took the resolution to Asquith, who had, unusually, broken his weekend at [[Walmer Castle]] to return to Downing Street.{{sfn|Koss|p=218}} At their meeting Law sought to convey the content of his colleagues' earlier discussion but failed to produce the resolution itself.{{sfn|Jenkins|p=439}} That it was never actually shown to Asquith is incontrovertible, and Asquith confirmed this in his writings.{{sfn|Asquith 1928b|p=131}} Law's motives in not handing it over are more controversial. Law himself maintained he simply forgot.{{sfn|Adams|p=232}} Jenkins charges him with bad faith, or neglect of duty.{{sfn|Jenkins|p=440}} Adams suggests that Law's motives were more complex (the resolution also contained a clause condemning the involvement of the press, prompted by the ''Reynold's News'' story of that morning){{sfn|Beaverbrook|p=420}} and that, in continuing to seek an accommodation between Asquith and Lloyd George, Law felt it prudent not to share the actual text.{{sfn|Adams|p=233}}

The outcome of the interview between Law and Asquith was clear, even if Law had not been.{{sfn|Dutton|p=133}} Asquith immediately decided that an accommodation with Lloyd George, and a substantial reconstruction to placate the Unionist ministers, were required.{{sfn|Asquith 1928b|p=132}} He summoned Lloyd George and together they agreed a compromise that was, in fact, little different from Lloyd George's 1 December proposals.{{sfn|Jenkins|p=441}} The only substantial amendment was that Asquith would have daily oversight of the War Council's work and a right of veto.{{sfn|Jenkins|p=441}} [[John Grigg]] saw this compromise as "very favourable to Asquith".{{sfn|Grigg 1985|p=457}} Cassar is less certain: "The new formula left him in a much weaker position[, his] authority merely on paper for he was unlikely to exercise his veto lest it bring on the collective resignation of the War Council."{{sfn|Cassar|p=219}} Nevertheless, Asquith, Lloyd George, and Law who had rejoined them at 5.00&nbsp;pm, all felt a basis for a compromise had been reached, and they agreed that Asquith would issue a bulletin that evening announcing the reconstruction of the Government.{{sfn|Cassar|p=219}} Crewe, who joined Asquith at Montagu's house at 10.00&nbsp;p.m., recorded: "accommodation with Mr. Lloyd George would ultimately be achieved, without sacrifice of (Asquith's) position as chief of the War Committee; a large measure of reconstruction would satisfy the Unionist Ministers."{{sfn|Pope-Hennessy|p=185}}

Despite Lloyd George's denials of collaboration, the diary for 3 December by Northcliffe's factotum Tom Clarke, records that: "The Chief returned to town and at 7.00 o'clock he was at the War Office with Lloyd George."{{sfn|Herbert Asquith|p=272}} Meanwhile, [[Duff Cooper]] was invited to dinner at Montagu's [[Queen Anne's Gate]] house, he afterwards played bridge with Asquith, Venetia Montagu and Churchill's sister-in-law "Goonie", recording in his diary : "..the P.M. more drunk than I have ever seen him, (..) so drunk that one felt uncomfortable&nbsp;... an extraordinary scene."{{sfn|Cooper|p=40}}