The Exclusion of Hereditary Peers: A Historical Overview

House of Lords Reform: A History: Volume 4. 19712014: The Exclusion of Hereditary Peers Book 1: 19712001 Book 2: 20022014

by Sarah M. Stitzlein

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	4278 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	1252 pages
Paperback	:	104 pages
Item Weight	:	12 ounces
Dimensions	:	8.27 x 0.24 x 11.69 inches

FREE

The House of Lords is the upper house of the British Parliament. It is made up of two types of members: life peers, who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, and hereditary peers, who inherit their titles and seats in the House of Lords from their ancestors.

The exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords is a complex and controversial issue with a long history. This article will provide a comprehensive overview of the topic, exploring the arguments for and against exclusion, the historical context of the debate, and the potential impact of future reforms.

Arguments for Exclusion

There are a number of arguments in favor of excluding hereditary peers from the House of Lords. One argument is that it is undemocratic for people to inherit their seats in a legislative body. In a democracy, it is generally believed that those who make laws should be elected by the people they represent. Hereditary peers, on the other hand, are not elected, and they therefore do not have a democratic mandate to make laws.

Another argument for exclusion is that hereditary peers are not representative of the British population. The vast majority of hereditary peers are white, male, and wealthy. They do not reflect the diversity of the British population, and they therefore cannot be said to represent the interests of all British citizens.

Finally, some people argue that hereditary peers are not qualified to make laws. They have not been trained in law or politics, and they do not have the experience necessary to make informed decisions about complex issues. As a result, they are not fit to serve as legislators.

Arguments Against Exclusion

There are also a number of arguments against excluding hereditary peers from the House of Lords. One argument is that hereditary peers bring a wealth of experience and expertise to the House of Lords. Many hereditary peers have served in the military, the diplomatic service, or other public roles. They can therefore provide valuable insights into the issues that come before the House of Lords.

Another argument against exclusion is that hereditary peers provide continuity and stability to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a centuries-old institution, and hereditary peers help to preserve its traditions and values. They also provide a link between the past and the present, and they can help to ensure that the House of Lords remains relevant to the needs of the British people.

Finally, some people argue that excluding hereditary peers would be a radical break with tradition. The House of Lords has always included hereditary peers, and excluding them would be a major change to the British constitution. Such a change would require careful consideration, and it is not clear that it would be in the best interests of the British people.

Historical Context

The debate over the exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords has a long history. The first major attempt to exclude hereditary peers was the Parliament Act of 1911. This act limited the power of the House of Lords to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons. It also gave the House of Commons the power to override the veto of the House of Lords by passing a bill three times over a period of two years.

The Parliament Act of 1911 was a major step towards the exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords. However, it did not completely exclude them. Hereditary peers were still able to sit in the House of Lords, and they could still vote on legislation.

The next major step towards the exclusion of hereditary peers was the House of Lords Act of 1999. This act removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. It also created a new category of peer, known as the life peer, who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The House of Lords Act of 1999 was a major reform of the House of Lords. It reduced the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords from over 700 to 92. It also made the House of Lords more representative of the British population.

Potential Impact of Future Reforms

The exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords is a continuing debate. There are a number of proposals for future reforms, including the complete abolition of the House of Lords. It is not clear what the future holds for the House of Lords, but it is clear that the issue of hereditary peers will continue to be a major source of debate.

The exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords is a complex and controversial issue with a long history. There are a number of arguments for and against exclusion, and the historical context of the debate is complex. It is not clear what the future holds for the House of Lords, but it is clear that the issue of hereditary peers will continue to be a major source of debate.

House of Lords Reform: A History: Volume 4. 19712014: The Exclusion of Hereditary Peers Book 1: 19712001 Book 2: 20022014

by Sarah M. Stitzlein

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	4278 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	1252 pages
Paperback	:	104 pages
Item Weight	:	12 ounces
Dimensions	:	8.27 x 0.24 x 11.69 inches

FREE