Centuries of British political tradition will end within weeks after Parliament voted to remove hereditary aristocrats from the unelected House of Lords. On Tuesday night, members of the upper chamber dropped objections to legislation passed by the House of Commons that will oust dozens of dukes, earls and viscounts who inherited their seats along with their aristocratic titles.

The House of Lords plays an important role in Britain's parliamentary democracy, scrutinizing legislation passed by the elected House of Commons. But critics have long argued that it is unwieldy and undemocratic. The case of Peter Mandelson, who resigned from the Lords in February after revelations about his friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, drew renewed attention to the upper chamber and the problem of lords behaving badly.

What the Left Is Saying

The Labour government framed the reform as a step toward modernizing Britain's democratic institutions. Government minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said the change put an end to 'an archaic and undemocratic principle.'

"Our parliament should always be a place where talents are recognized and merit counts," he said. "It should never be a gallery of old boys' networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold power over the will of the people."

Labour remains committed to eventually replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is 'more representative of the U.K.' Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government introduced the legislation to complete a political process that began in 1999 under former Prime Minister Tony Blair, when most hereditary peers were first evicted.

What the Right Is Saying

The opposition Conservative Party acknowledged the historic significance of the change while defending the legacy of hereditary peers. Nicholas True, the Conservative Party leader in the Lords, addressed the chamber before the vote.

"So, here we are at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary peers in this Parliament," he said. "Many thousands of peers served their nation here and thousands of improvements to law were made."

True noted that the hereditary peers' history was not entirely one of opposition to progress. "It wasn't all a stereotypical history of reaction in ermine," he said. "Many of those people, no doubt, were flawed but for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well."

The lords put up a fight against complete removal, forcing a compromise that will see an undisclosed number of hereditary members allowed to stay by being "recycled" into life peer positions, allowing them to remain in the chamber under a different designation.

What the Numbers Show

The House of Lords currently has more than 800 members, making it the second-largest legislative chamber in the world after China's National People's Congress. Roughly 1 in 10 members are currently hereditary peers.

For most of its 700-year history, the chamber's membership was composed almost exclusively of noblemen — rarely women — who inherited their seats, alongside a smattering of bishops. In the 1950s, these were joined by "life peers" — retired politicians, civic leaders and other notables appointed by the government, who now make up the vast majority of the chamber.

In 1999, the Labour government under Tony Blair evicted most of the 750 hereditary peers, though 92 were allowed to remain temporarily to avoid an aristocrats' rebellion. It took another 25 years — until the current Labour government under Keir Starmer — to pass legislation removing the remaining hereditary members.

The Bottom Line

The bill will become law once King Charles III grants royal assent — a formality — and the hereditary peers will leave at the end of the current session of Parliament this spring. In Lords terms, that is speedy. The change marks the end of a 700-year tradition of inherited political power in Britain.

What comes next remains uncertain. Labour has said it wants to eventually replace the House of Lords entirely with a more representative second chamber, but if past experience is anything to go by, change will come slowly. The debate over the nature of Britain's second chamber — whether to reform it further, replace it, or leave it as currently constituted — will likely continue for years to come.