By John Horvat II
The United Kingdom’s Labour Party government is presenting a bill to abolish the hereditary lords from the upper chamber of Parliament.
House of Lords chamber, Palace of Westminster, London. The Sovereign’s Throne is in the middle, back wall. Taken from UK government.
Hereditary lords are those House of Lords’ members who inherit the right to sit in the upper House based on services rendered to the realm. Many storied families have retained this right for generations. Over the years, they have gained much experience and wisdom in judging legislation and governing.
Origins and History
The House of Lords originated in the eleventh century as a council of religious and temporal leaders that the king convoked to help him govern. The sovereign called these leaders to the difficult duty of rendering “counsel and aid.” This convocation later became a more formal government institution in the thirteenth century.
In addition to hereditary lords, there are also life peers who are appointed by prime ministers to serve throughout their lifetime. Many have criticized these appointments as party cronies who receive the office as a political favor or because of donations to the party. By far, the greatest stability of the House lies in the hereditary lords who have rendered service over generations.
Queen Anne addressing the House of Lords.
The lords have no legislative power but exercise an advisory role to correct legislation from the House of Commons based on their experience. They can slow down the populist passions by delaying passage and thus avert mistakes. They perform other functions that facilitate governing the country.
An Egalitarian Agenda
The move to abolish the hereditary lords is part of an egalitarian agenda to rid the nation of this institution, which is considered “anti-democratic.”
In 1999, Tony Blair’s Labour government reduced the number of hereditary lords from 750 to 92 as a temporary compromise until later legislation would abolish them altogether.
The present bill would do just that and reduce the House of Lords to a collection of life peers who will be strongly influenced by partisan politics. However, even these peers must eventually go since they are not elected. The upper House must be changed into something like a modern senate. It is considered a backward relic of the past that does not reflect progressive values.
Counsel From the Nation’s Ablest Leaders
The abolition does not make sense for three reasons.
First, the logic behind the convocation of the lords was, and even now is, that the nation’s ablest leaders are in the best conditions to offer counsel to the head of state or prime minister.
The present lords are highly successful and well-connected individuals who stand out for their leadership, business success and social brilliance. The fact that they have upheld their family name and fortune through thick and thin indicates that they are individuals of extraordinary ability and standing.
Former UK prime minister speaking on “The Next Steps for New Labour” in 2002.
It does not make sense to abolish the counsel of these successful individuals. Advice need not always be determined by the ballot box. Institutions and businesses spend millions seeking counsel from selected, not elected, consultants and advisors. The British Government should make use of counsel from these individuals.
Accumulated Wisdom
A second reason for keeping the hereditary lords is because they represent not only themselves but their ancestors.
For over seven hundred years, this system has worked admirably. The lords represent the accumulated knowledge and practical wisdom handed down over the generations.
The House of Lords is not just a group of consultants who offer good counsel but a brain trust that can take lessons from the past. Its storied houses can reach back into history to solve problems that demand solutions based on tradition and custom. What organization would not want such a valuable resource at its disposal?
Baroness Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of England, After retiring from the Commons in 1992, she was given a life peerage as Baroness Thatcher (of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire) which entitled her to sit in the House of Lords.
Many have observed that the hereditary lords take their tasks seriously as part of living up to the family name. On the contrary, life peers are not obliged to work and often do not bother to appear in Parliament since they want only the prestige of the appointment and not the tasks it entails.
Almost Free Advice
A final reason for retaining the hereditary lords is financial. The lords offer all these abilities and counsels at a minimal cost to the public purse.
All House of Lords members are unsalaried. By tradition, they are part of the “great unpaids,” those public officials in England that render service without compensation. They are required to give almost free advice.
Lords can (but often don’t) claim allowances for certain expenses incurred in performing their duties. These allowances are limited to £363 per sitting day of service in Parliament and some travel expenses. Thus, lords claim an average of £11,830 per year to cover their costs only for the days they work.
Charles Pepys, 1st Earl of Cottenham, as Lord Chancellor. The lord chancellor wore black-and-gold robes whilst presiding over the House of Lords.
On the contrary, the House of Commons members are salaried at around £91,346 per year, plus expenses. They are paid whether they show up or not.
It does not take much to calculate which House presents the best bargain for the English taxpayer.
An Ideological Agenda
Yet the left insists upon abolishing the hereditary lords. It does this not for practical reasons but ideological ones. The acceptance of counsel for highly qualified, well-connected individuals at minimal expense clearly benefits the common good. The nation has everything to gain by accepting this bargain.
Moreover, the Lords represent something of beauty so neglected today. Their kind manners, magnificent robes and wigs evoke a fairytale-like innocence that fills all with wonder and delight.
King Charles entering the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament 2024. Photo by Roger Harris/House of Lords.
However, the left cannot accept any manifestation of inequality so splendorously manifested by the House of Lords. It must destroy the beautiful traditions and customs of this institution, for which England is famous. It must level the distinctions that recognize excellence.
The left must reduce all to the basest materialism and a class struggle narrative. It lives in a world devoid of all pomp and circumstance that bring beauty and meaning to life.
