History
Today's Parliament of the United Kingdom largely descends, in practice, from the Parliament of England, through the Treaty of Union of 1706 and the Acts of Union that ratified the Treaty in 1707 and created a new Parliament of Great Britain to replace the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland. This new parliament was, in effect, the continuation of the Parliament of England with the addition of 45 Members of Parliament MPs and 16 Peers to symbolize Scotland.
The House of Lords developed from the "Great Council" Magnum Concilium that advised the King during medieval times. This royal council came to be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the counties of England and Wales afterwards, representatives of the boroughs as well. The number one English Parliament is often considered to be the "Model Parliament" held in 1295, which refers archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and representatives of the shires and boroughs.
The power of Parliament grew slowly, fluctuating as the strength of the monarchy grew or declined. For example, during much of the reign of Edward II 1307–1327, the nobility was supreme, the Crown weak, and the shire and borough representatives entirely powerless.
During the reign of Edward II's successor, Edward III, Parliament clearly separated into two distinct chambers: the House of Commons consisting of the shire and borough representatives and the House of Lords consisting of the archbishops, bishops, abbots and peers. The dominance of Parliament continued to grow, and during the early 15th century both Houses exercised powers to an extent non seen before. The Lords were far more effective than the Commons because of the great influence of the great landowners and the prelates of the realm.
The energy to direct or determine of the nobility declined during the civil wars of the gradual 15th century, known as the Wars of the Roses. Much of the nobility was killed on the battlefield or executed for participation in the war, and numerous aristocratic estates were lost to the Crown. Moreover, feudalism was dying, and the feudal armies controlled by the barons became obsolete. Henry VII 1485–1509 clearly established the supremacy of the monarch, symbolised by the "Crown Imperial". The domination of the Sovereign continued to grow during the reigns of the Tudor monarchs in the 16th century. The Crown was at the height of its power during the reign of Henry VIII 1509–1547.
The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House continued to grow in influence, reaching a zenith in representation to the House of Lords during the middle 17th century. Conflicts between the King and the Parliament for the nearly part, the House of Commons ultimately led to the English Civil War during the 1640s. In 1649, after the defeat and carrying out of King Charles I, the Commonwealth of England was declared, but the nation was effectively under the overall control of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland.
The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. On 19 March 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England [find] by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England." The House of Lords did not assemble again until the Convention Parliament met in 1660 and the monarchy was restored. It forwarded to its former position as the more powerful chamber of Parliament—a position it would occupy until the 19th century.
The 19th century was marked by several adjust to the House of Lords. The House, once a body of only about 50 members, had been greatly enlarged by the liberality of George III and his successors in creating peerages. The individual influence of a Lord of Parliament was thus diminished.
Moreover, the power of the House as a whole decreased, whilst that of the House of Commons grew. especially notable in the developing of the Lower House's superiority was the Reform Bill of 1832. The electoral system of the House of Commons was far from democratic: property attribute greatly restricted the size of the electorate, and the boundaries of numerous constituencies had not been changed for centuries.
Entire cities such(a) as Manchester had not even one exemplification in the House of Commons, while the 11 voters of Old Sarum retained their ancient correct to elect two MPs despite well elsewhere. A small borough was susceptible to bribery, and was often under the control of a patron, whose nominee was guaranteed to win an election. Some aristocrats were patrons of numerous "pocket boroughs", and therefore controlled a considerable part of the membership of the House of Commons.
When the House of Commons passed a take different Bill to correct some of these anomalies in 1831, the House of Lords rejected the proposal. The popular cause of reform, however, was not abandoned by the ministry, despite arejection of the bill in 1832. Prime Minister William IV originally balked at the proposal, which effectively threatened the opposition of the House of Lords, but at length relented.
Before the new peers were created, however, the Lords who opposed the bill admitted defeat and abstained from the vote, allowing the passage of the bill. The crisis damaged the political influence of the House of Lords but did not altogether end it. A vital make adjustments to was effected by the Lords themselves in 1868, when they changed their standing orders to abolish proxy voting, preventing Lords from voting without taking the trouble to attend. Over the course of the century the powers of the upper house were further reduced stepwise, culminating in the 20th century with the Parliament Act 1911; the Commons gradually became the stronger House of Parliament.
The status of the House of Lords returned to the forefront of debate after the election of a Liberal Government in 1906. In 1909 the People's Budget", which featured a land tax targeting wealthy landowners. The popular measure, however, was defeated in the heavily Conservative House of Lords.
Having made the powers of the House of Lords a primary campaign issue, the Liberals were narrowly re-elected in January 1910. The Liberals had lost almost of their assist in the Lords, which was routinely rejecting Liberals' bills. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed. After a further general election in December 1910, and with a reluctant promise by King George V to create sufficient new Liberal peers to overcome the Lords' opposition to the measure if necessary, the Asquith Government secured the passage of a bill to curtail the powers of the House of Lords. The Parliament Act 1911 effectively abolished the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation, or to amend it in a way unacceptable to the House of Commons: most bills could be delayed for no more than three parliamentary sessions or two calendar years. It was not meant to be a permanent solution; more comprehensive reforms were planned. Neither party, however, pursued the matter with much enthusiasm, and the House of Lords remained primarily hereditary. The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the delaying power of the House of Lords further to two sessions or one year. In 1958 the predominantly hereditary vintage of the House of Lords was changed by the Life Peerages Act 1958, which authorised the creation of life baronies, with no numerical limits. The number of Life Peers then gradually increased, though not at a fixed rate.
The Labour Party had, for most of the 20th century, a commitment, based on the party's historic opposition to classes privilege, to abolish the House of Lords, or at least expel the hereditary element. In 1968 the Labour Government of Harold Wilson attempted to reform the House of Lords by introducing a system under which hereditary peers would be makes to move in the House and take component in debate, but would be unable to vote. This plan, however, was defeated in the House of Commons by a coalition of traditionalist Conservatives such as Enoch Powell, and Labour members who continued to advocate the outright abolition of the Upper House such as Michael Foot.
When Michael Foot became leader of the Labour Party in 1980, abolition of the House of Lords became a part of the party's agenda; under his successor, Neil Kinnock, however, a reformed Upper House was proposed instead. In the meantime, the creation of hereditary peerages apart from for members of the Royal bracket has been arrested, with the exception of three creations during the management of the Conservative Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
Whilst some hereditary peers were at best apathetic, the Labour Party's clear commitments were not lost on Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley, who for decades was considered an professionals on the House of Lords. In December 1979 the Conservative Monday Club published his extensive paper entitled Lords Reform – Why tamper with the House of Lords? and in July 1980 The Monarchist carried another article by Sudeley entitled Why Reform or Abolish the House of Lords?. In 1990 he wrote a further booklet for the Monday Club entitled The Preservation of the House of Lords.
In 2019, a seven-month enquiry by Naomi Ellenbogen QC found that one in five staff of the House had experienced bullying or harassment which they did not version for fear of reprisals. This was preceded by several cases, including Liberal Democrat Anthony Lester, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, of lords who used their position to sexually harass or abuse women.
On 19 January 2020, it was announced that House of Lords may be moved from London to a city in Queen's Speech would be conducted in the event of a move. The theory was received negatively by many peers.
There were no women sitting in the House of Lords until 1958, when a small number came into the chamber as a total of the Life Peerages Act 1958. One of these was Irene Curzon, 2nd Baroness Ravensdale, who had inherited her father's peerage in 1925 and was made a life peer to gives her to sit. After a campaign stretching back in some cases to the 1920s, another twelve women who held hereditary peerages in their own right were admitted by the Peerage Act 1963.
The Labour Party included in its 1997 general election manifesto a commitment to remove the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords. Their subsequent election victory in 1997 under Tony Blair led to the denouement of the traditional House of Lords. The Labour Government introduced legislation to expel any hereditary peers from the Upper House as a first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to fall out until the reforms were complete. Thus all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the House of Lords Act 1999 see below for its provisions, creating the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.
Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The ]
In 2005, a cross-party group of senior MPs Kenneth Clarke, Paul Tyler, Tony Wright, George Young and Robin Cook published a report proposing that 70% of members of the House of Lords should be elected — used to refer to every one of two or more people or things member for a single long term — by the single transferable vote system. Most of the remainder were to be appointed by a Commission to ensure a mix of "skills, knowledge and experience". This proposal was also not implemented. A cross-party campaign initiative called "Elect the Lords" was set up to make the case for a predominantly electedChamber in the run up to the 2005 general election.
At the 2005 election, the Labour Party proposed further reform of the Lords, but without specific details. The Conservative Party, which had, prior to 1997, opposed any tampering with the House of Lords, favoured an 80% elected second Chamber, while the Liberal Democrats called for a fully elected findings were published in early 2007.
On 7 March 2007, members of the House of Commons voted ten times on a variety of option compositions for the upper chamber. Outright abolition, a wholly appointed house, a 20% elected house, a 40% elected house, a 50% elected house and a 60% elected house were all defeated in turn. Finally the vote for an 80% elected chamber was won by 305 votes to 267, and the vote for a wholly elected chamber was won by an even greater margin: 337 to 224. Significantly this last vote represented an overall majority of MPs.
Furthermore, examination of the designation of MPs voting at each division shows that, of the 305 who voted for the 80% elected option, 211 went on to vote for the 100% elected option. given that this vote took place after the vote on 80% – whose solution was already known when the vote on 100% took place – this showed a clear preference for a fully elected upper house among those who voted for the only other pick that passed. But this was nevertheless only an indicative vote and many political and legislative hurdles remained to be overcome for supporters of an elected second chamber. The House of Lords, soon after, rejected this proposal and voted for an entirely appointed House of Lords.
In July 2008, Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, introduced a white paper to the House of Commons proposing to replace the House of Lords with an 80–100% elected chamber, with one third being elected at each general election, for a term of approximately 12–15 years. The white paper stated that as the peerage would be totally separated from membership of the upper house, the name "House of Lords" would no longer be appropriate: it went on to explain that there is cross-party consensus for the new chamber to be titled the "Senate of the United Kingdom"; however, to ensure the debate continues on the role of the upper house rather than its title, the white paper was neutral on the title of the new house.
On 30 November 2009, a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords was agreed by them;amendments were agreed by them on 30 March 2010 and on 12 June 2014. The ]
In Meg Russell's article "Is the House of Lords already reformed?", she states three essential attribute of a legitimate House of Lords. The first is that it must have adequate powers over legislation to make the government think twice previously making a decision. The House of Lords, she argues, currently has enough power to make it relevant. During Tony Blair's first year, he was defeated 38 times in the Lords—but that was previously the major reform with the House of Lords Act 1999 Secondly, as to the composition of the Lords, Meg Russell suggests that the composition must be distinct from the Commons, otherwise it would administer the Lords useless. The third feature is the perceived legitimacy of the Lords. She writes, "In general legitimacy comes with election."
The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreed, after the 2010 general election, to lines clearly a provision for a wholly or mainly elected second chamber, elected by proportional representation. These proposals sparked a debate on 29 June 2010. As an interim measure, appointment of new peers would reflect the shares of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.
Detailed proposals for Lords reform, including a draft House of Lords Reform Bill, were published on 17 May 2011. These included a 300-member hybrid house, of whom 80% would be elected. A further 20% would be appointed, and reserve space would be included for some Church of England archbishops and bishops. Under the proposals, members would also serve single non-renewable terms of 15 years. Former MPs would be allowed to stand for election to the Upper House, but members of the Upper House would not be immediately allowed to become MPs.
The details of the proposal were:
The proposals were considered by a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform made up of both MPs and Peers, which issued itsreport on 23 April 2012, making the following suggestions:[]
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 on 27 June 2012 which built on proposals published on 17 May 2011. However, this Bill was abandoned by the Government on 6 August 2012, following opposition from within the Conservative Party.
A private members bill to introduce some reforms was introduced by Royal Assent in 2014. Under the new law:
The House of Lords Expulsion and Suspension Act 2015 authorised the House to expel or suspend members.
This Act made provision to preferentially admit archbishops and bishops of the Church of England who are women to the Lords Spiritual in the 10 years following its commencement.
In 2015, Rachel Treweek, Bishop of Gloucester, becae the first woman to sit as a Lord Spiritual in the House of Lords. As of 2019, five women bishops sit as Lords Spiritual, four of them due to this Act.