Pouring New Wine into the Old Bottle: The 1958 Life Peerages Act

Abstract

As noted in the previous chapter, for many of its critics, especially in the Labour Party, the most objectionable aspect of the House of Lords was its overwhelmingly hereditary membership, with the vast majority of peers sitting solely by virtue of having inherited a particular social title, one whose lineage might have been passed down, via the eldest male family member, through several centuries. This was variously condemned as an anachronism in a supposedly democratic age, in which universal suffrage had been attained. Although some of these critics also raised objections to the House of Lords’ power of veto, it was mainly the socially unrepresentative and politically unaccountable membership of the Second Chamber which incurred their criticism. Naturally, though, this underpinned many of the objections to its ability to exercise a veto over legislative measures passed by the directly elected House of Commons, especially because the vast majority of the hereditary peers were also Conservatives. Yet with the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts having reduced the House of Lords’ veto to two years, and then one year, respectively, the attention of many critics was focused more on the composition of the House of Lords, in order to make it, if not actually more democratic, then at least rather more socially or politically representative, so that membership would depend, less and less, on inheritance of a title, and, instead, more on expertise, merit or some form of distinguished public service.