Why has it been so hard to reform the House of Lords?

As hereditary peers exit the House of Lords, Meg Russell traces the evolution of the body that has, since the 14th century, played a distinct role in English – and, later, British – parliaments

A group of formally dressed people walk through an ornate arched doorway into a grand, warmly lit room, while a worker in overalls on the right uses a paint roller to cover cracks on a damaged wall

Published: June 17, 2026 at 5:00 PM

Save

On 18 March, the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act gained royal assent. In simple terms, it means that, from the May 2026 session onwards, no Lords member will sit by right of an inherited title. This ends a tradition stretching back hundreds of years.

Ad

There are many who would see this change as long overdue, and consider it well short of what’s needed. The hereditary peers represented just one aspect of the House of Lords often considered as problematic. But considering their departure reminds us that, historically, House of Lords reform has been very difficult to achieve – and helps us understand what might come next.

Hereditary peers

The House of Lords is the oldest part of what became the UK parliament, having evolved from the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot (or Witan) – a body of powerful landholders brought together to advise the monarch. By the 14th century, two chambers – which became the Commons and Lords respectively – began increasingly to meet separately. Around the same time, the right of nobles to attend the chamber came to be understood to pass to their descendants after their death. New titles could also be created by the monarch. Such hereditary Lords Temporal sat alongside the Lords Spiritual, who represented the church – a tradition that lives on today, through 26 seats for bishops and archbishops in the Lords.

A medieval manuscript illustration showing a crowned ruler seated among robed advisors, while two figures stand beside a gallows on the right, where a person is being hanged

The Saxon Witan was an assembly of noblemen who advised the king, and which existed between the seventh and 11th centuries. The Witan is pictured here in an 11th-century vellum illustration | Credit: Bridgeman Images

Some might assume that the recently expelled hereditary peers were the descendants of these early nobles, but most weren’t, because of the pattern of new peerage creations. For the past 26 years, following a compromise under Tony Blair’s government, 92 seats in the chamber were reserved for hereditary peers. Among the last 88 such members – others having recently retired or died – just 11 held titles that pre-dated the 17th century, while 20 held 19th-century titles and 43 held titles created post-1900. These resulted from monarchs, latterly on the advice of prime ministers, continuing to create new titles. Until the Life Peerages Act 1958, most such titles had to be hereditary.

The House of Lords evolved from a body of powerful landholders brought together to advise the monarch

Among those departing in 2026 were the grandson of postwar Labour prime minister Clement Attlee, created a hereditary peer in 1955, and the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, a descendant of Liberal PM Herbert Asquith. The oldest remaining title, held by Lord de Clifford, dated to 1299 but the most recent, held by Lord Inglewood, dated to 1964. As a result of inheritance rules, all of the departing hereditary peers were men.

Long road to reform

Reform of one kind or another has been on the agenda for centuries, but progress has generally been very slow. Debates on the topic gained momentum in the 19th century, alongside the gradual widening of the House of Commons franchise. The Lords caused significantly more difficulties for Whig or Liberal governments than it did for Tory/Conservative ones, since the latter traditionally dominated the chamber. This resulted not only from early conventions that appointees should be major landholders, but increasingly because appointments were used to gain political advantage.

William Pitt the Younger created 87 peers during his first Tory administration, greatly boosting the party and the size of the chamber. It grew from 238 members in 1783 to 344 in 1801, leading the king to warn Pitt that membership was “certainly becoming too numerous”. The Whig administration of 1830 thus arrived at a significant disadvantage, though subsequently made more creations, with the chamber reaching 433 members by 1837.

A classical painted portrait of a person in dark 18th‑ or early 19th‑century clothing, shown from the chest up against a dark background, with their head turned slightly to the side.

William Pitt the Younger created 87 peers during his first stint as prime minister between 1783 and 1801 | Credit: Bridgeman Images

There followed one of the best-known confrontations between government and Lords, over the 1832 ‘Great’ Reform Act. This measure, which widened the franchise but crucially also targeted ‘rotten boroughs’ (constituencies with very few voters) over which many peers had significant control, was initially rejected by the Lords. The king was forced to agree to the potential creation of sufficient new peers to pass the measure, and the chamber reluctantly complied. But the episode fed calls that the Lords must be ‘mended or ended’. Later confrontations occurred over other measures, including further franchise reform and, subsequently, home rule for Ireland.

The hereditary peerage came under significant scrutiny during this period. In 1849, Liberal PM Lord John Russell proposed the introduction of life peerages – that is, titles that would die with their holder – but this was resisted. The first such peerages were provided via the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, but for a very limited category of appointees with legal qualifications, to support the chamber’s function as the highest court. Conservative PM Lord Salisbury subsequently proposed a bill to allow the creation of 50 more general life peerages, but withdrew it following opposition in the Commons.

A large 19th‑century assembly hall filled with people in formal clothing, seated and standing around a central area where a group appears to be engaged in discussion

George Hayter’s portrait of the reformed House of Commons’s first session, on 5 February 1833, in St Stephen’s Chapel in the Palace of Westminster | Credit: Alamy

Liberal ideas

Another well-known confrontation arose over Lloyd George’s 1909 ‘people’s budget’, which was initially heavily defeated by the Lords. This triggered the general election of January 1910, after which the measure was allowed to pass. But the resultant Liberal manifesto promised Lords reform. This led to the Parliament Act 1911, which removed the chamber’s veto over bills initiating in the House of Commons, reducing it to a power of delay. Notably, the Act’s preamble stated that “it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”. This proved a significant understatement.

No measures on membership reform followed, though a cross-party commission reported inconclusively in 1918. The next reform fell to the post-Second World War Labour government, which arrived facing a House of Lords now comprising more than 700 members, just 16 of whom were Labour. Notwithstanding Labour’s numerical disadvantage in the Lords, it did not gravely disrupt the government’s programme. This largely neutralised the party’s previous commitment to abolish the Lords, and its 1949 Parliament Act merely reduced the chamber’s delaying powers further, while cross-party discussions on membership reform again failed. Some Conservatives supported reform, but key Labour figures such as Herbert Morrison feared that increasing the Lords’ legitimacy would empower it against the Commons.

It was Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government that then introduced what became the Life Peerages Act 1958, finally implementing a reform first proposed a century earlier. This measure created a new category of peer whose titles expired on the holder’s death. Thereafter, life peerages were the primary route into the chamber, with very few new hereditary peerages created. Importantly, the 1958 Act also brought women into the Lords for the first time. But the existing hereditary peers, and inheritance of their seats, remained.

A poster showing workers using large wooden beams to force open a door marked ‘The House of Lords,’ with an orange industrial skyline in the background and the words ‘Labour Clears the Way’ at the top

A Labour Party poster of 1910 challenging the House of Lords’ power to block legislation, including budgets | Credit: Alamy

Harold Wilson’s Labour government (1964-1970) also tackled Lords reform, introducing a government bill. This would have further reduced the chamber’s delay power, and created a mixed membership, including life peers, bishops and existing hereditary peers (on a non-voting basis). But the bill faced significant resistance, including from Labour MPs, and was dropped after getting stuck at committee stage in the House of Commons.

The Life Peerages Act 1958 finally implemented a reform first proposed a century previously

Labour’s compromise

Little then happened until Tony Blair’s 1997 government. Its manifesto had pledged to reform the chamber in two stages. The first would remove the hereditary peers, for which a bill was introduced. The second would “make the House of Lords more democratic and representative”, and was referred for consideration to a Royal Commission.

The House of Lords Act 1999 was initially drafted to expel all hereditary peers. But there was significant resistance from the Conservatives, who held the largest number of such seats, and concern from independent Crossbenchers, who held many others. To smooth the bill’s passage, the government agreed to the retention of 92 seats for hereditary peers, to be distributed approximately in proportion to all such members. Around half these seats went to Conservatives, most others to Crossbenchers, and just a handful to Labour and Liberal Democrats. This plan was supposed to be strictly temporary, until the next stage of reform. But a peculiar system of by-elections was written in – to replace hereditary peers who died – potentially from the 2001 parliament. Subsequent inaction meant it was implemented.

A crowd lined along a street waves Union Jack flags as a man in a suit and a woman in red shake hands with people at the front.

Labour leader Tony Blair greets well-wishers. Ahead of becoming prime minister in 1997, he had pledged to reform the House of Lords | Credit: Getty Images

Post-1999, the Lords felt a new confidence, due to the departure of most of the hereditary peers and its membership becoming more party politically balanced. There were many defeats on government legislation; policies the Lords effectively stopped in their tracks included the introduction of identity cards.

During the Blair and Brown years there were repeated proposals for the mooted second stage of reform, all of which failed. The Royal Commission proposed a chamber in which most members would be appointed, with a minority elected to represent the UK’s nations and regions. A 2001 government white paper proposed something similar but was derided for its lack of democratic ambition, and Labour MPs clearly didn’t support it.

A series of further such papers followed, in 2003, 2007 and 2008, and unwhipped votes were twice held in the Commons to allow MPs to express preferences for different composition options. Both main parties were internally split, principally on the central question of what proportion of members, if any, should be elected. Many Labour MPs feared the challenge that a largely elected chamber could create for the supremacy of the House of Commons, though others welcomed such a proposal.

During the Blair and Brown years there were repeated proposals for the mooted second stage of reform, all of which failed

During Labour’s 13 years in power, no ‘stage two’ bill was ever introduced. Gordon Brown did include some tidying-up measures – to end hereditary peer by-elections and to allow retirement – in a wider constitutional reform bill at the end of his tenure, but these were dropped when the 2010 general election was called.

Coalition ambitions

The resulting Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition led by David Cameron initially sought to make progress on Lords reform, driven by the ambitions of the smaller party. Deputy PM Nick Clegg introduced a bill containing plans similar to those in Labour’s 2008 white paper. This would have created a chamber in which 80 per cent of members were elected, 20 per cent appointed. But, like Wilson’s 1968 bill, it died in the House of Commons – primarily thanks to opposition from a large number of Conservative MPs.

No further government initiatives followed, though there was some small-scale progress through private members’ bills. Former Liberal leader David Steel sponsored a bill to allow retirement from the chamber, which became the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. Labour’s Bruce Grocott sought likewise to end the hereditary peer by-elections, so that these seats would gradually perish with their holders. However, this was repeatedly blocked in the Lords by opposition from a small number of (largely Conservative) members.

During these Conservative years, concerns grew about other aspects of the chamber, particularly its growing size resulting from the unlimited nature of prime ministerial appointments. In 1999, more than 650 hereditary peers had departed, cutting Lords membership roughly in half. But Blair’s appointments (374 in 10 years) and, particularly, Cameron’s (245 in only six) drove the chamber’s size ever upwards – to 860 potentially eligible members by January 2016.

A formal parliamentary chamber with members seated on red benches, facing a presiding officer in robes on a raised platform before an ornate golden backdrop

Lord Speaker Norman Fowler, who established a committee on the size of the House, speaks during a session of the House of Lords on 5 September 2016 | Credit: Getty Images

That year, Lord Speaker Norman Fowler established a cross-party committee to consider the size problem. It recommended that the chamber should be managed down to no bigger than the House of Commons, with prime ministerial appointments strictly limited, ultimately by a ‘one-out-one-in’ policy. Though Theresa May responded sympathetically, Boris Johnson soon returned to overappointment mode.

Dynamics of (non-) reform

Looking back over 200 years and more, some clear patterns are visible. First, those reforms of the Lords that do succeed are gradualist and piecemeal – though collectively amounting to significant change – while wide-ranging membership proposals have repeatedly failed. Second, successful reforms have almost invariably been on the political agenda for decades.

Ambitious reformers always want to go further, so small-scale reform is regularly shelved until it becomes irresistible. But concern about large-scale reform is also long-standing, particularly among MPs. Looking beyond the UK, this dynamic is common internationally. Governments, and governing parties, tend to resist reforms that will embolden second chambers.

Meanwhile, a centuries-old problem has been the incessantly growing size of the Lords. This connects to how appointments have been used to gain political advantage, often in a ‘tit-for-tat’ pattern by new governments. This problem clearly existed under the old hereditary system but continued under the 1958 Act. The earliest measure proposed to limit executive appointments was the Peerage Bill of 1719, which sought to cap the size of the peerage. Any such change is still awaited.

Successful reforms have almost invariably been on the political agenda for decades

The present government was elected on a manifesto proposing various Lords reforms, only one of which was removing the last hereditary peers. It stated that the Lords had “become too big”, yet Sir Keir Starmer has already made more than 90 appointments, thereby nullifying any gains from recent departures. Having inherited a Conservative-dominated chamber, this is the latest result of ‘tit-for-tat’. The number of eligible members of the Lords is now higher than at any time since the 1999 Act.

A group of people in ceremonial red robes with white fur collars sit closely together in rows, some reading documents and others talking.

Peers wait in the House of Lords for the arrival of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh to conduct the state opening of parliament in 2012 | Credit: Alamy

The latest bill was the first government measure on reform to reach the Lords since 1999. The last such bill before that – a minor measure to allow hereditary peers to renounce their titles – had been introduced 36 years previously. By failing to incorporate other urgent measures in the latest bill, the government risks having missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Until now, the hereditary peers could be presented as the most anomalous and outdated aspect of the House of Lords, making their removal the next essential measure. But what fits that description now? Some might target the bishops, but they are low-key and rarely affect outcomes in the Lords. Starmer’s manifesto also promised a retirement age, but this is politically tricky, a ‘new’ idea, and would skirt the fundamental problems. Consultation on large-scale reform was also promised but there remains no sign of that.

It seems clear that, with the hereditary peers gone from the Lords, the most anachronistic feature deserving piecemeal reform is the prime minister’s ability to appoint unlimited numbers of life peers, pushing the house’s size ever upwards. This frequently makes the headlines, and generates public anger. Peers themselves want it dealt with. Doing so would safeguard the Lords against ‘packing’ and further tit-for-tat. It is a reform that has now waited more than 300 years.

Meg Russell is professor of British and comparative politics at University College London

Ad

This article was first published in the June 2026 issue of HistoryExtra Magazine

Ad

Ad

Loading...

Ad

Loading...