The monarchy, the lords, and the commons, the three old triumvirates of the British constitution, are a historical element dating back to the eleventh century. The history and tradition are a defining feature of our political culture. Traditions are not always for the good and may slow down development; sometimes changes have to be made in order to fit in with modern standards. One such impediment is no doubt the existence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
Who are the 92 hereditary peers?
Among the names of hereditary peers, who are a part of the British peerage, are dukes, earls, viscounts, and barons, to mention only a few. While there are now 814 hereditary peers, there are only 92 who can sit as lords at any one time. In addition to this, the Peerage Act of 1963 made it such that female peers could claim their hereditary titles under a system of primogeniture, assuming they did not have any brothers, and then the title would go to them. Men now hold all of the hereditary peer seats in the Lords, however.
To have a title means that you could be shortlisted for one of the reserved seats in the Lords, but having a title will not entitle you to sit there as a matter of course. An internal by-election is conducted in the case of retirement or death of a hereditary peer, and suitable candidates are selected from the Register of Hereditary Peers.
How does 92 heredity peers achieve its seats?
A 700-year-old right for all peers to sit on and vote from the crimson benches was broken in 1999 when the House of Lords Act eliminated all but 92 of the 750 hereditaries. The remaining 92 members of the House were chosen by their party affiliations, which included 42 Conservatives, 28 Crossbenchers, three Liberal Democrats, two Labourers, and 17 other members. These figures are predetermined; a new Conservative is elected when an existing one steps down.
The decision to keep 92 hereditary peers was a forced compromise by then-prime minister Tony Blair, who had intended to abolish all of them in his House of Lords reforms but was compelled to back down after the Lords themselves objected. Blair agreed to allow a small number of them to stay in place as a stopgap measure before more reform was implemented later in the parliament. However, the number of hereditary peers has not changed in more than 20 years.
Working with hereditary peers
Peerage was occasionally viewed as a barrier to a potential political career since, before the Peerage Act of 1963, peers could not renounce their peerage in order to serve in the House of Commons. The agreement that it was undemocratic for Labour MP Tony Benn (formerly the iscount Stansgate) to have lost his seat because of an unintentional inheritance and the Conservatives’ wish to elect Alec Douglas-Home as prime minister, which was by then considered politically necessary, caused the law to change. According to the Act, 90 of the 92 seats must be chosen by other members of the House. 15 are determined by the entire House, including life peers.
Is there any issue about hereditary peers in the House of Lords?
Unelected members participate in political decision-making without democratic accountability or representation in the House of Lords, which is nonetheless an undemocratic entity. Even if they are not democratic, the prime minister, who has a majority in the Commons, if not the country, at least appoints life peers. Peers are occasionally chosen based on their experience, although political affiliation is frequently the primary consideration.
However, among a group of people who claim a title by simple heredity, hereditary peers are essentially appointed by one another. This typically has to do with the historical actions or connections of their long-dead forefathers.
The mere fact that one’s grandfather was a notable individual deserving of a seat in the legislature does not confer the same honor upon his grandson or validate his impact on issues of public concern.
Insufficient representation is the main issue. Even more so than non-hereditary peers, hereditary peers are a glaring indication that the judgments made by members of the upper chamber lack democratic legitimacy and accountability. The hereditaries must be the first to leave the House of Lords to create a chamber that fairly and democratically represents everyone from throughout the UK.
Importance of 92 hereditary peers
A government bill to abolish the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords is presently being discussed by the body. It is really unusual to have come to this stage. Despite decades of nearly continual debate, no other government bill addressing Lords reform has made it to the chamber in the last 26 years. This provides it a unique chance to accomplish long-needed reform of the second chamber, ideally reaching beyond the hereditary peers.
It’s crucial to consider the bill’s fundamental party politics before moving on to this. Lord (Nick) True, the current Conservative leader, accused the government of “purging Parliament of 88 of its most effective Members” (because four hereditary seats were vacant) and warned that the bill would be “fiercely contested.” Lord (Tom) Strathclyde, their former leader in the House of Lords, called it a “thoroughly nasty little bill.”
In the former, mostly hereditary House of Lords, the Conservatives were the dominant party for a long time and are rooted in its customs. Labour is accused of violating a 1999 deal with the party that the 92 hereditary Lords would stay in place until the next stage of change, which was never achieved. Importantly, the Conservatives really own only 50 of the hereditary seats, while only a small number are held by Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
The other seats are held by independent cross-benchers. Therefore, from a partisan standpoint, the reform will benefit Labour while harming the Conservatives. Furthermore, there is understandable pity for the parties involved, some of whom have contributed significantly and for a long time to the chamber.
Modern laws for 92 hereditary peers
A British hereditary peerage’s legal status is determined by the kingdom to which it belongs. Following English law, the peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom differ in that the former were established before the Act of Union in 1707, the latter between 1707 and the Union with Ireland in 1800, and the latter since 1800. Except for referring to the Irish Parliament and Irish officials, who are typically no longer appointed, Irish peerages adhere to the law of the Kingdom of Ireland, which is very similar to English law.
When Henry VIII granted Anne Boleyn the title of Marquess of Pembroke in 1532 to be his future wife, it was a revolutionary change for the status quo in England. However, it has long since been obsolete, with the last complete summons of English feudal barons to military service taking place in 1327. Any lingering uncertainty regarding their continued existence was ultimately eliminated by the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660.
Recent hereditary peers
The process of creating a hereditary peerage determines its manner of inheritance. Letters patent or writ of summons can be used to create titles. The former does not specifically grant a peerage; rather, it is only a summons to Parliament; descent is always to the male and female heirs of the corpse. The latter approach specifically names the dignity in question and establishes a peerage. The course of succession may be stated in letters patent; typically, this is limited to male heirs, but alternative descents may be established by special remainder. The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 governs acquired gender and states that having a new gender does not impact a person’s lineage.
A child is legitimate if its parents are wed at birth or subsequently; only legitimate children inherit a title; and only a legally born child inherits an English, Irish, or British (but not Scottish) peerage not legitimized by a later marriage. One such example is film director Christopher Guest, who became the fifth Baron Haden-Guest by eschewing his elder half-brother Anthony since the fourth Baron Haden-Guest was not wedded to Anthony’s mother at the time of his birth. Duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron are the ranks of the peerage in the majority of the United Kingdom in diminishing order.
Over time, the number of peers has changed significantly. There were just 29 Lords Temporal after the end of the Wars of the Roses, which killed many peers and humiliated or attained many others. However, England’s population was also far smaller at that time. By creating many Peers and murdering others, the Tudors increased the number of Peers; at the time of Queen Elizabeth I’s death, there were 59.
