HEREDITARY peers started to shuffle into political history after the Lords finally accepted the government’s decision to remove them from parliament.

But the agreement only came after Labour offered to allow some of them to be reappointed as life peers by the Tory Party to which most of them belong.

The hereditary peers, 92 of whom sit in the Lords in what was supposed to be a temporary compromise struck when Tony Blair was premier, will quit when the present parliamentary session ends in a few weeks time.

Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, clinched the deal by confirming that the government would offer life peerages to some of those facing eviction, whereupon the Tories withdrew their opposition to the Bill.

Lady Smith said: “This has never been about the contribution of individuals but the underlying principle that was agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago that no-one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title.

“Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary peers remain while meaningful reform has stagnated. We have a duty to find a way forward.”

She said removing peers who were “gifted a job for life legislating in the House of Lords purely due to who their parents were is a long-overdue reform.”

It is believed that about 15 of the hereditary nobles may be rebranded life peers by the Tories, provided they engineer a suitable number of retirements from among their existing quota.

The Conservatives retain a majority in the Lords, which they have frequently used to obstruct Labour legislation.

There are more than 800 members of the house, none of them elected, making it one of the largest legislative bodies in the world.  

About half turn up for work on the average day.

Presently there are 278 Tories, 227 Labour, 177 cross-bench and 76 Liberal Democrat peers among their number. The remainder are mostly either unaffiliated or bishops.

One disgruntled departing hereditary, the Earl of Devon, Charles Peregrine Courtenay, said his family had been in the Lords for 900 years.

He nevertheless complained the notice period was less than required in employment law, although they have been on a warning for more than a quarter of a century now.

“I think this House, Parliament, and the public more widely, will miss us,” the Earl controversially claimed.