Plans to reform the Lords have received the bumpy ride that had been predicted.

The Lord Chancellor warned axing the remaining 92 hereditary peers was "unfinished business" in the second stage of reform of the upper House.

Hereditary peerage had no privileged place in parliament.

"It is well known, we compromised on that principle in the last parliament, to avoid, as is equally well known, the 'Somme and Paschendale' to our legislative programme which the Lord Cranborne (Conservative ex-Leader of the Lords) promised, if we did not yield a temporary right for some to remain," he said.

"Your lordships should be in no doubt that the removal of the remaining 92 is unfinished business for the government."

The Lord Chancellor set out how the government viewed the future shape of the Lords.

"It would be wrong and dangerous to put the pre-eminence of the House of Commons at risk by having this House wholly or substantially directly elected so that it could maintain that it had the same, or substantially similar, political legitimacy as the Commons has. Thus we have concluded that this House should remain substantially nominated but also propose 120 elected members as the best way of ensuring that the nations and the regions feel that they are properly represented in a reformed House," he said.

Tory peers' leader Lord Strathclyde described the White Paper as "a nonsense" and called the government's efforts a "ghastly charade".

He described the government's plans as "a miserable hybrid, with the weakest and least independent form of democracy imaginable" and accused ministers of removing Lord Wakeham's key reforms.

"I am opposed to removal of the powers of this House to reject secondary legislation, suggested by Lord Wakeham's Commission and eagerly snapped up by the government. And I am disappointed by the government's total rejection of any method either House might seek, to amend ministerial regulation.''

Lord Strathclyde questioned why the government wanted the Law Lords to retire at 75 and why were 16 bishops proposed, instead of 20 or 26.

"How will rebalancing after landslide elections, fairly take place if the powers of patronage are removed from the appointments commission and given to party leaders? And who will qualify for the retirement bonuses for peers who agree to go?'' he asked.

Liberal Democrat peers' leader Baroness Williams of Crosby, backed an elected Upper House, arguing other countries had two elected chambers of government and managed to get business done.

"What we who seek reform of the House of Lords most want, is to see greater strength in the House of Commons, not less, to complement what it does to help and support it scrutinise legislation in the most effective possible way.

"We say from these benches, that we would like to see greater strength for select committees in the Commons. We would like to see more free votes for the members in the Commons and we would like to see them choosing their own members of select committees, not under the influence of the whips," she said.

The baroness, a long campaigner for reform, rejected claims a reformed Lords would threaten the Commons' supremacy.

"Is that to challenge the pre-eminence of the Commons? No my Lords, it is not."