Lord Cromer, who spoke later in the evening, presented a
petition from the British Constitution Association in favour of such reform as would strengthen the position of the House of Lords. He pointed out that there were three ways of settling the present question. One was to constitute a strong and efficient Second Chamber. Another was to set up single- Chamber government. The Radical extremists who desired this could not be charged with any want of logic ; but it " would instantly set to work to dig its own grave, and, before it existed very long, it would be swept away amid the universal detestation which its proceedings would arouse." The third scheme, which had been adopted by the Government, and which Lord Cromer declared was incomparably the worst, was "to constitute a sham Second Chamber, which world delude the people who wanted some protection, and lull them into a sense of illusory security." Lord Halsbnry, who spoke next, declared in the course of his argument against the reform proposals that he did not believe it was possible to make an institution "more practically useful than the House of Lords as at present constituted."
