This approach did not command the unanimous support of the anti-Government forces. Those who were opposed to any change were naturally hostile, but so was such an eager reformer as Rosebery. He thought that it was fatal for an Opposition to commit itself to the details of a bill. That might attract the attack away from the proposals of the Government. The best course would be for Lansdowne and his followers to reaffirm their general position by another series of resolutions. This was not far from Lansdowne’s own view, but he allowed himself to be swayed by the balance of opinion as expressed through his post-bag and by the insistent energy of Curzon. He accordingly gave notice, on the day of the Parliament Bill’s first reading in the Commons, of his intention to introduce a House of Lords Reform Bill.
After this expression of intention, however, no further progress was made for some time. Lansdowne was seriously ill for most of March. But the mere announcement that a bill was in preparation set off a babel of Tory tongues, each proclaiming a different plan for the composition of the new Second Chamber. Some, like the Duke of Bedford, wanted a wholly elective senate, but most wanted a more conservative arrangement. A hundred union ist members met at the House of Commons on February 28 to plan a campaign, but in the absence of an agreement as to what they should campaign for the meeting broke up unsatisfactorily. The Opposition was manifestly less united than was the Government.
The second reading of the Parliament Bill occupied the four nights from February 27 to March 2. The debate followed a largely familiar pattern. The union ists denounced the Government for forcing through a constitutional revolution at the behest of the Irish Party (although, as George Lansbury pointed out, during the dinner hour on the first night only one union ist was present in the chamber, trying to prevent this dire consequence, and he was speaking), and Government speakers denounced the Opposition for refusing to accept the clearly expressed verdict of the electorate. The most notable features of the debate were Haldane’s last major speech in the Commons1 and a duel between Balfour and Asquith, with the Prime Minister, on this occasion, very much in the ascendant. The leader of the Opposition claimed that ‘for practical men it was folly to abandon the hereditary principle, which was accepted by the great majority of mankind, and in the case of the Monarchy was invaluable as the bond of Empire’. Then, in a typically Balfourian passage, ‘he admitted that Liberal legislation did not get fair play, but granting that a kind of sporting equality between parties should be the goal of their ambitions, surely this was no reason for allowing all Governments to have an uncontrolled license’.f He wanted a constitutional change because the House of Lords was at present not strong enough to carry out its function. Later he became less typically Balfourian, denounced Ministers passionately, and created a scene by accusing them of having imposed their proposals on the country by fraud.
Asquith replied that ‘the House now knew that the real motive of the Tories in taking up Second Chamber reform was to strengthen it (sic) against the representatives of the people.… The Opposition schemes would all perpetuate a Second Chamber in which one political party would be predominant.’ He poured scorn on Balfour’s use of the hereditary argument. ‘The Monarchy was doubtless strong, but where was the Veto of the Crown?’ He scoffed at the ‘constitution mongers’, who were then hastily at work behind closed doors. Balfour wished the Government to hold its hand until these hasty improvisers had completed their task. ‘It was not for that that the electors had sent them (the Government) there. Their first and paramount duty was to pass the Bill.’g After the closure and the defeat of a union ist amendment, the bill was read a second time by 368 to 243.
On the same night Balfour of Burleigh introduced into the House of Lords his Reference to the People Bill. This provided that whenever there was a disagreement between the two Houses, the measure in dispute, on the demand of either House, should be submitted to a referendum. Even when both Houses were agreed upon a measure, 200 members of the House of Commons acting together could demand a similar submission. This was a wildly far-reaching proposal which would have made impossible any continuity of Government policy. As Crewe rightly noted, it would have been a greater departure from existing constitutional practice than either the Parliament Bill or a measure abolishing the House of Lords. This did not prevent the straw-clutching union ists from looking upon it with some favour. Selborne1 declared that his party greatly preferred a general use of the referendum to ‘Single-Chamber tyranny’.