Parliament developed from the council that advised the King during mediæval times. This royal council came to be composed of ecclesiastics, noblemen, and representatives of the counties (afterwards, representatives of the boroughs as well). The first Parliament is often considered to be the "Model Parliament" (held in 1295), which included 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. In 1322, the authority of Parliament was for the first time recognised not simply by custom or royal charter, but by an authoritative statute, passed by Parliament itself. Further developments occurred during the reign of Edward II's successor, Edward III. Most importantly, it was during this King's reign that 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 senior clergy and the nobility). The authority of Parliament continued to grow, and, during the early fifteenth century, both Houses exercised powers to an extent not seen before. The Lords were far more powerful than the Commons because of the great influence of the aristocrats and prelates of the realm.

The power of the nobility suffered a decline during the civil wars of the late fifteenth century, known as the Wars of the Roses. Much of the nobility was decimated on the battlefield or executed for participation in the war, and many aristocratic estates were lost to the Crown. Moreover, feudalism was dying, and the feudal armies controlled by the barons became obsolete. Hence, the Crown easily re-established its absolute supremacy in the realm. 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 did continue to grow in influence, reaching a zenith in relation to the House of Lords during the middle 17th century. Conflicts between the King and the Parliament (for the most part, the House of Commons) ultimately led to the English Civil War during the 1640s. In 1649, after the defeat and execution of King Charles I, a republic (the Commonwealth of England) was declared, but the nation was effectively under the overall control of Oliver Cromwell. 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 returned 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 changes 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 experienced a decrease, whilst that of the House of Commons grew. Particularly notable in the development of the Lower House's superiority was the Reform Bill of 1832. The electoral system of the House of Commons was not, at the time, democratic: property qualifications greatly restricted the size of the electorate, and the boundaries of many constituencies had not been changed for centuries. Entire cities such as Manchester were not represented by a single individual in the House of Commons, but the 11 voters of Old Sarum retained their ancient right to elect two Members of Parliament. 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, in 1831, the House of Commons passed a Reform Bill to correct some of these anomalies, the House of Lords rejected the proposal. The popular cause of reform, however, was not abandoned by the ministry, despite a second rejection of the bill in the Lords in 1832. The Prime Minister, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, then advised the King to overwhelm the opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers. William IV originally baulked 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. Over the course of the century, however, the power of the Upper House experienced further erosion, and 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, introduced the "People's Budget", which proposed a new tax targeting wealthy landowners. The unpopular measure, however, failed in the heavily Conservative House of Lords. Having made the powers of the House of Lords a primary campaign issue, the Liberals were re-elected in January 1910. Asquith then proposed that the powers of the House of Lords be severely curtailed. After a General Election in December 1910, the Asquith Government secured the passage of a bill to curtail the powers of the House of Lords. The Parliament Act 1911 soon destroyed the power of the House of Lords to reject legislation: 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. In 1949, the Parliament Act reduced the delaying power of the House of Lords further to two sessions or one year.

In 1958, the predominantly hereditary nature 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 constant rate. 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 allowed to remain in the House and take part 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 advocated the outright abolition of the Upper House (such as Michael Foot). When Michael Foot attained the leadership of the Labour Party, abolition of the House of Lords became a part of the party's agenda; under Neil Kinnock, however, a reformed Upper House was proposed instead. In the meantime, the creation of hereditary peerages (except for members of the Royal Family) has been arrested, with the exception of three creations during the administration of the Conservative Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

The Labour Party's return to power in 1997 under Tony Blair finally heralded the reform of the House of Lords. The Blair Government introduced legislation to remove all hereditary peers from the Upper House as the first step in Lords reform. As a part of a compromise, however, it agreed to permit 92 hereditary peers to remain until the reforms are complete. The hereditary peers were removed under the House of Lords Act 1999 (see below for its provisions), making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed House.

Since then however, reform has stalled (see Lords Reform). The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80%, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options. New peers, therefore, are only created by appointment to the house.

The Labour Party now intends to introduce reform in the near future, although they are yet to state exactly what system they will be proposing. It is understood, however, that they may be inclined to support Billy Bragg's Secondary Mandate system. The Conservative Party favour an eighty per cent elected Second Chamber, while the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fully elected Senate. Elect the Lords is a cross-party campaign initiative that was set up to make the case for a predominantly elected Second Chamber in the run up to the 2005 general election. In the post-election Queen's Speech, the government announced that it would "bring forward proposals to continue the reform of the House of Lords" in the 2005/2006 legislative session.

The Times reported on July 19 2005 that the Labour Party would propose that the House of Lords be 80% elected and renamed the "Second Chamber". The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has announced plans to develop a cross-party consensus on House of Lords reform. A cross-party group of senior MPs (Ken Clarke, Robin Cook (deceased August 2005), Paul Tyler, Tony Wright and George Young) published a report in 2005 proposing that 70% of members of the House of Lords should be elected - each member for a single long term - by the single transferable vote system. Most of the remainder would be appointed by a Commission to ensure a mix of "skills, knowledge and experience".

Traditionally the House of Lords did not elect its own speaker, unlike the House of Commons; rather, the ex officio presiding officer was the Lord Chancellor. With the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the post of Lord Speaker was created, a position to which a peer is elected by the House and subsequently appointed by The Crown. The first Lord Speaker to be elected, on May the fourth 2006, is Baroness Hayman, a former Labour peer. As the Speaker is expected to be an impartial presiding officer, Baroness Hayman has resigned from the Labour whip.

This reform of the post of Lord Chancellor was made due to the constitutional anomalies inherent in the role. The Lord Chancellor was not only the Speaker of the House of Lords, but also a member of the Cabinet; his or her department, formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department, is now called the Department for Constitutional Affairs. In addition, the Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary of England and Wales, serving as the president of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. Thus, the Lord Chancellor was part of all three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The overlap of the legislative and executive roles is a characteristic of the Westminster system, as the entire cabinet consists of members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, however in June 2003, the Blair Government announced its intention to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor because of the office's mixed executive and judicial responsibilities. The abolition of the office was rejected by the House of Lords, and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was thus amended to preserve the office of Lord Chancellor. The Act no longer guarantees that the office holder of Lord Chancellor is the presiding officer of the House of Lords, and therefore allows for the House of Lords to elect a speaker of their own.


The Lord Speaker may be replaced as presiding officer by one of his or her deputies. The Chairman of Committees, the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, and several Deputy Chairmen of Committees are all deputies to the Lord Speaker, and are all appointed by the House of Lords itself. By custom, the Crown appoints each Chairman, Principal Deputy Chairman, or Deputy Chairman to the additional office of Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords. There was previously no legal requirement that the Lord Chancellor or a Deputy Speaker be a member of the House of Lords, though the same has long been customary; thus the Woolsack upon which the Lord Chancellor sat was notionally not in the House of Lords, although situated in the middle of it.

Whilst presiding over the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor traditionally wore ceremonial black and gold robes. This is no longer a requirement for the Speaker except for State occasions outside of the chamber. The Speaker or or Deputy Speaker sits on the Woolsack, a large red seat stuffed with wool, at the front of the Lords Chamber. When the House of Lords resolves itself into committee (see below), the Chairman or a Deputy Chairman presides, not from the Woolsack, but from a chair at the Table of the House. The presiding officer has little power compared to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He or she only acts as the mouthpiece of the House, performing duties such as announcing the results of votes. The Lord Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot determine which members may speak, or discipline members for violating the rules of the House; these measures may be taken only by the House itself. Unlike the politically neutral Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Speakers originally remained members of their respective parties, and may participate in debate, however this is no longer true of the new role of Lord Speaker.

Another officer of the body is the Leader of the House of Lords, a peer selected by the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House is responsible for steering Government bills through the House of Lords, and is a member of the Cabinet. The Leader also advises the House on proper procedure when necessary, but such advice is merely informal, rather than official and binding. A Deputy Leader is also appointed by the Prime Minister, and takes the place of an absent or unavailable Leader.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is the chief clerk and officer of the House of Lords (but is not a member of the House itself). The Clerk, who is appointed by the Crown, advises the presiding officer on the rules of the House, signs orders and official communications, endorses bills, and is the keeper of the official records of both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, the Clerk of the Parliaments is responsible for arranging by-elections of hereditary peers when necessary. The deputies of the Clerk of the Parliaments (the Clerk Assistant and the Reading Clerk) are appointed by the Lord Speaker, subject to the House's approval.

The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is also an officer of the House; he takes his title from the symbol of his office, a black rod. Black Rod (as the Gentleman Usher is normally known) is responsible for ceremonial arrangements, is in charge of the House's doorkeepers, and may (upon the order of the House) take action to end disorder or disturbance in the Chamber. Black Rod also holds the office of Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Lords, and in this capacity attends upon the Lord Speaker. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod's duties may be delegated to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod or to the Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms.

Most legislation may be introduced in either House, but, most commonly, is introduced in the House of Commons.


The power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords. The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply, nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.

Hence, as the power of the House of Lords has been severely curtailed by statute and by practice, the House of Commons is clearly the more powerful chamber of Parliament.

In March 2006, it was reported that, among other reforms, the Government are considering removing the ability of the Lords to delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments, and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period of 60 days *.