Key Takeaways
- The last handful of dukes and other hereditary peers are on the verge of leaving the House of Lords for good, marking a significant moment in the history of the country.
- The Hereditary Peers Bill has spent the past 15 months being batted back and forth between the Commons and the Lords, with a rearguard action of Tory peers seeking to water it down.
- The removal of the last batch of hereditary peers represents the final decoupling of landowners and overt political power, with the old country elites finally passing the baton.
- The abolition of hereditary peers will have little impact on the aristocracy, but will affect some individuals who have a strong connection to politics and public service.
- The real issue is whether the opportunity is taken to properly reform the second chamber, with a balance of independent-minded replacements and a diverse range of political persuasions.
Introduction to the People’s Budget
The Liberal chancellor David Lloyd George addressed a group assembled at the Palace Theatre in Newcastle on October 9, 1909, to discuss his "people’s budget". The budget was targeted at the dukes, the top rank of the aristocracy, who had been scolding the government for the tax-raising budget. Lloyd George made a pointed comment, saying that "a fully equipped duke costs as much to keep up as two dreadnoughts, and dukes are just as great a terror and they last longer". This comment was met with merriment, but it was likely that the wealthy dukes would set themselves against Lloyd George in protest at his budget.
The History of the House of Lords
The House of Lords has been the political home of the hereditary peerage since the 14th century. The Lords has ebbed and flowed within the nation, with periods of abolition and reinstatement. In 1649, during the Cromwell interregnum, the Lords was abolished along with the monarchy, and was likewise reinstated at the Restoration in 1660. The Lords as we know it today is a patchwork of bishops, aristocrats, political cronies, and independent experts, resulting from various attempts by Commons politicians to reform the place. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, once described the Lords as "the paradise of bores", while Clement Attlee compared it to "a glass of champagne that has stood for five days".
The Role of Hereditary Peers
Hereditary peers have played a significant role in the Lords, with some defending the hereditary principle in public life. However, many have acknowledged that the removal of the last batch of hereditary peers is a significant moment in the history of the country. The idea behind the hereditary peerage is that individuals would bring their skills and expertise from their line of work into the deliberations of parliament. For many hereditary peers, these skills related to the countryside, with some making valuable contributions to debates on agriculture and rural affairs.
A World Without Hereditary Peers
The abolition of hereditary peers will have little impact on the aristocracy, with the 92 peers leaving the Lords representing only 11 per cent of the hereditary peerage. They will return to their professional jobs, and some to their estates and local responsibilities, while others will retire. The aristocracy has survived since 1999 and arguably thrived without too much politics to worry about. The wealth of the 24 peers that appeared on both The Sunday Times’s top 400 richest people in 1990 and on its Rich List in 2020 has increased by an average of more than 314 per cent, even accounting for inflation.
Real Reform
The real issue is whether the opportunity is taken to properly reform the second chamber. The removal of hereditary peers is a significant moment, but it is also an opportunity to ensure that the chamber is filled with independent-minded replacements and a diverse range of political persuasions. The Conservative leader in the Lords, Nicholas True, Baron True, argued that if Reform was represented in the Commons, it ought to be in the Lords too. Freddie Curzon, 7th Earl Howe, said that retaining the element of expertise and independence of mind is going to be the ultimate test of a long-term reform. The question remains whether the right replacements will be found, or whether the chamber will continue to fill up with political cronies.