Life Peerages Act 1958
   HOME
*





Life Peerages Act 1958
The Life Peerages Act 1958 established the modern standards for the creation of life peers by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. Background This Act was made during the Conservative governments of 1957–1964, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. Elizabeth II had ascended to the throne just over five years before the Act. The Conservatives tried to introduce life peerages to modernise the House of Lords, give it more legitimacy, and respond to a decline in its numbers and attendance. The Labour Party opposed the Life Peerages Bill on Second Reading: Hugh Gaitskell made an impassioned speech against the proposals, arguing for a far more fundamental reform such as total dismantling of the Lords or a wholly elected house. Summary Prior to the Life Peerages Act 1958, membership in the House of Lords was strictly male and overwhelmingly based on possession of a hereditary title. There existed a few exceptions to the hereditary principle, such as for the Lords Spiritual. The ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Constitutional Reform Act 2005
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relevant to UK constitutional law. It provides for a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the previous appellate jurisdiction of the Law Lords as well as some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and removed the functions of Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor. Background The office of Lord Chancellor was reformed to remove the ability of the holder to act as both a government minister and a judge, an arrangement that ran contrary to the idea of separation of powers. The reform was motivated by concerns that the historical mixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not conform with the requirements of Article 6 (paragraph 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer who has legislative or executive power is likely not to be considered suf ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  



MORE