On June 24, 1907, the matter was first definitely brought before the House.  Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman moved that “in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail.”  To the evident surprize of the Opposition he sketched a definite plan for curtailing the veto of the House of Lords.  This was followed in July by the introduction of resolutions laying down in full detail the exact procedure.  In his statement Sir Henry made it very clear that the issue was confined to the relations between the two Houses:—­“Let me point out that the plan which I have sketched to the House does not in the least preclude or prejudice any proposals which may be made for the reform of the House of Lords.  The constitution and composition of the House of Lords is a question entirely independent of my subject.  My resolution has nothing to do with the relations of the two Houses to the Crown, but only with the relations of the two Houses to each other.”

In 1908, Mr. Asquith became Prime Minister, but no further action was taken.  On the rejection of the Licensing Bill, however, he showed that the Government were fully aware of the extreme gravity of the question, but intended to choose their own time to deal with it.  Speaking at the National Liberal Club in December, he said:  “The question I want to put to you and to my fellow Liberals outside is this:  Is this state of things to continue?  We say that it must be brought to an end, and I invite the Liberal party to-night to treat the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics—­the dominant issue, because in the long run it overshadows and absorbs every other.”  When pressed on the Address at the beginning of the following session by his supporters, who were impatient for action, he explained the position of the Government:  “I repeat we have no intention to shirk or postpone the issue we have raised....  I can give complete assurance that at the earliest possible moment consistent with the discharge by this Parliament of the obligations I have indicated, the issue will be presented and submitted to the country.”

The rejection of the Budget in 1909 led to a general election, in which the Government’s method of dealing with the Lords was the main issue.  The Liberals were returned again, but when the King’s Speech was read some confusion was caused by the distinct question of the relations between the two Houses being coupled with a suggested reform of the Second Chamber.  This was a departure from the very clear and wise policy of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and had it been persisted in it might have broken up the ranks of the Liberal party—­very varied and different opinions being held as to the constitution of a Second Chamber.  But the stronger course was adopted, and the resolutions subsequently introduced and passed in the House of Commons dealt only with the veto and were to form the preliminary to the introduction of the Bill itself.