Anglican Prayers are read at the beginning of each sitting at 2.30 precisely until 2.35pm when Questions begin. I regularly go to prayers simply in order to get a seat. If it’s a popular day, crossbenchers will only get a seat if they do pray! I rather like prayers, the ancient language of the 17th century repeated word for word every day has a soothing effect even if one’s relationship to the Almighty is habitually dismissive as mine is. You can read the prayers here in Standing Orders at appendix K. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/compso.pdf
I know when it gets to the one beginning “Prevent us, o Lord” that we’re nearly done. But as Lord Crisp remarked to me the other day, there is something good about having 5 minutes of quiet reflection before we begin the routine business whether or not you ‘pray along’ yourself. I was very surprised at first that most members actually kneel on the red benches to pray; I, like many non-believers and those of other faiths, stand rather than kneel but face the wall of the Chamber where there is a wealth of wonderfully painted royal coats of arms of monarchs and carvings to be admired. Ordinarily prayers are read by one of the Bishops, who take a week each in turn. The two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester do not take part (too important perhaps?) Personally I regret not hearing the sonorous tones of Richard Chartres, Bishop of London who has something of a dramatic gift. I feel the Almighty really would listen to him.
I gather that in the absence of a Bishop, a member of the House who is a clergyman of the Church of England may read prayers but I’ve never seen that. And if there isn’t one of them present then the Lord on the Woolsack reads prayers. In other words there’s no escape.
The prayers, which are said to go back to the days of Charles ll, are preceded by a psalm, sometimes an abridged version that removes some of the more punitive old testament bits. My favourite psalms are 121, 66, 24 and 110-112, very soothing. During prayers the doors and galleries of the House are closed and visitors are excluded.
I do have an urge to modernise prayers…how about ‘Dear Lord, Help us get it right for once , will you?’
Right, my Lady…We`ve got rid of warlords ooops sorry Law Lords now for the Bishops.
In equality terms is the presence of the Bishops fair ? Does the good Rabbi sit with the Bishops ? Are Muslim Lords exempt from sitting on Fridays ? Is Halal and Kosher food available ? Are Rastafarian Lords allowed to smoke the Holy gunga ? Can we have a Jedi Lord to counter balance the Sith Lord Mandelson ?
How about we make the Lords do what my 9 year olds school does at the start of each day, 10-15 exercise which is proven to stimulate the mind too, then 5 minutes reflection time. Are the camera`s allowed at that time ? 😉
“but face the wall of the Chamber”.
And next time you`ll be on the naughty step.
I want a Time Lord.
I`ll fetch the Master !
😉
“10-15 exercise which is proven to stimulate the mind too, then 5 minutes reflection time”
That is Digambran Jainism, which is a branch of Hinduism, Yoga (posturism) being their speciality for converting the heathen.
It has a lot to teach us and could well be used to freshen up all those arthritic old bones at the start of the hofL debates.
I am an enthusiast!
“how about ‘Dear Lord, Help us get it right for once , will you?’”
An impossible request!
Regarding the language, the further left and radical the ceremonies the more modern the language gets.
There is no mystery about English from the 17thC unlike Latin from possibly the 5thC.
Perhaps going back to Latin ,would conceal so completely the workings of the house from
the mere mortal, that there would be no sense of getting anything wrong.
The lawyer amongst us, who quotes the Magna Carta in Latin, makes his point with no effort at all, not because there is any logic to his argument, but because there is Latin to it.
Africans may have the same problems now with
French and English, and other European languages too.
“There is no mystery about English from the 17thC”
For the history lovers,
You might like:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=35410
Not exactly Eastenders.
Get rid of them. The prayers, the bishops. Total nonsense, and it has no place in a political establishment.
At least they’re there because its tradition rather than persuade the Lords, but its a pity no-one has yet (I presume) told them to b****r off and take their sky-fairy with them.
Isn’t it taking up valuable talk-time, listening to some chanting moron?
I for one, welcome the thought that the Lords actually attend prayers rather than scuttling in bashfully at the end. But as a Christian, I admit a bias for retaining prayer.
The prayers are part of Parliamentary procedure and as the Noble lady points out, provide a short period for reflection before the start of business.
Lords reform will come, and whether the Bishops survive or not is immaterial the Lords has survived (albeit a little reformed) and currently, apart from a few involved in expenses have provided an example to the Lower House on how Parliamentary Business should be conducted.
A fully elected senate would be a disaster and would lead to battles for primacy between both houses – as it would be full of failed politicians from the lower house.
No, retain the Lord Spiritual and Temporal as 1/3rd, have 1/3rd elected for a fixed term and the balance appointed for the knowledge and skills of the whole spectrum of Business, Arts, Science, Education, Social Science and Faith, whether Anglican, RC, Free Church, Muslim,Hindu, Sikh Judaism, or other faith(s).
“A fully elected senate would be a disaster and would lead to battles for primacy between both houses – as it would be full of failed politicians from the lower house.”
Ernest’s thoughts are crystal clear on that (we all have our moments of idiotic ideas; I rather enjoy them).
Above It would indeed lead to a battle for primacy, but possibly not for the reasons he mentions. Indeed it might lead to greater possibilities, in the other place, to express socialist ideals, which have, since the arrival of the third way, been badly lost!
How you would prevent the political appointees taking their seats, I really don’t know! The coppers have an extraordinary training in the Houses of parliament, a number of them taking the job because they are graduates of political sciences.
The tradition of the HofL is agreeable, in that, although it is set about with things you must do, and things you may not, once you have accepted those traditions, it is agreeably informal.
It is the officers of the place who ensure that the ceremony and tradition is observed.
While not a Christian, I am glad to hear that these traditions have been kept. Our tourism industry relies very much on the “living history” idea. It’s nice to hear that the Lords are doing their bit, not just by their very existence but by being willing to tolerate ceremonies like this.
http://www.governing-principles.com
The main argument for retaining prayers is that the Church of England is a fundamental part of the machinery of the State, God being from where the monarch and parliament derive their powers. As long as we have an established church we will have prayers. Of course I would vote immediately for a secular machinery of state and remove all traces of religion from parliamentary processes. But I recognise there is no reason why we should not have distinguished faith leaders in the House under the current arrangements. Having the bishops there by right does however seem profoundly anachronistic. But like many I like the ritual, the language and the calm which prayers bring.
Please see comment from Lord Filkin:
Tonight, Wednesday 17 March, for the first time ever parliamentarians will be able to hear the prayers that are read daily in the two Houses, set to music and sung.
As part of celebrating its tenth anniversary, the Parliament Choir commissioned Nick O’Neill, the choir’s Chorus Master, to compose a setting of the two prayers said daily in the Lords and Commons into a beautiful and powerful short choral work whch the choir will sing.
To emphasise what the words are about and where they are read, the Archbishop of York has kindly agreed to read the two prayers as an introduction to the performance.
Geoffrey, Lord Filkin Chair, Parliament Choir
Well Beccy I hope they are not going to give any more calm to noble baroness Murphy than they do already, but I do presume that the Choir won’t be singing it in situ, say from the Visitors’ gallery daily?
I know the British empire was modelled on the Roman one, but having Vatican style evensong in the HofL, would take the cake!
The Late Lord Manny Shinwell who was a regular in the HofL for many years, sang so well every time he made a speech, it would not matter for some, but not everybody has such vocal prowess to make speech in to song, on demand.
“God being from where the monarch and parliament derive their powers.”
It is more likely that The monarchy derives its powers from god and parliament from the monarch, which may not be ideal.
There are surely a good many parliamentarians who do not believe for one moment that they, as members, derive their powers from God, but do, reluctantly, make an oath of allegiance (HofC) when they join.
There are members in all parties who do not believe that, although the reluctant may be excluded from the Church/royalist/Tory party, the CofE being the Tory party at prayer.
So many CofE Anglicans became Labour (HofC) members in 1997, I sometimes wonder whether that is true any more. Also Jewish members often become CofE while they are ministers, seeing the attraction of a faith, which seems to be all things to all men, in these islands of the UK of Great Britain.
I don’t recall what peers do; a swearing in, at introduction?
My Lady, we cannot go on being hypocritical most schools have been made to get rid of morning prayers etc.
We are either a modern state or we are not. By keeping prayers, hymns of the Christian type you are actually excluding people. How would my Lady feel when it is put forward that a minorete be added to the building ?
” Church of England is a fundamental part of the machinery of the State”
Sounds like something Nick Griffin would say !
I feel we are a confused Nation.
As much as I’m all for tradition, I think it’s time the bishops lots their automatic seats in the Lords. (I’m also all for disestablishing the Church.)
Perhaps the prayers could be replaced with a Radio 4-style Thought for the Day. You already have in the House people who will be quite at home doing it, for example Lord Sacks and Lord Harries of Pentregarth.
Carl H, it’s not what I would like, but a fact of life that the Established Church is part of the machinery of state and will remain so until it is disestablished. There are many in the Church itself that feel that would be a good idea. But then there’s the monarch as ‘Defender of the Faith’ and her role in the processes of government. I’m afraid we’re nothing like a modern state should be. I tend to agree with you that the current prayers exclude people but that’s a good reason for making parliament secular and leaving all religion outside politics. There is a debate in the Lords about this on thursday morning this week which unfortunately I can’t go to but will try to listen to after.
Beccy83, I have tickets for tonight’s parliament choir concert and am greatly looking forward to it after the Personal Care at Home bill report stage, which I hope finishes in good time.
Troika21. I fear you are being unkind to the bishops; some of them are rather expert in reciting prayers. And the point is these psalms and prayers, ridicule them though you may as a non-believer, are of course written by human beings and reflect noble human aspiration. Some of the psalms are beautiful verse. And 5 minutes out of every day isn’t much is it? I am more troubled by the excluding nature of them but many Catholics, Methodists, Jewish people attend (I am trying to remember if any of the Muslims are ever there) and I suspect it’s because there is a certain universality to the ideas expressed in the prayers. I find it is possible to admire the liturgy and religious music even if I do not have faith.
baronessmurphy, I do not deny that there is plenty to admire within some psalms, and while I don’t share your desire to see different religions included, I do think that much could be gained from making it open to many different philosophies and ideas, stripping it of its purely religious fixture.
Five minutes of Plato, or a brief biography of Ada Lovelace would surely make this far more worthwile.
baronessmurphy: I tend to agree, I’m an atheist but I have something of an attachment to the aesthetic of the old religious texts. Certainly I’d listen to the King James over the C20 translations that seem so utilitarian in their language.
Beccy83: I can’t say I knew the Lords had a choir but it sounds a nice idea to take something most lords will be long familiar with and transform it. Have the prayers ever been performed as plainsong – if we go back far enough in parliament’s history would that have been the form the clergy would have used?
PS. I’m sure it’s just your picture but I whenever I see your posts I imagine someone sitting in a field with a laptop!
For anyone who might be interested, last night’s Parliament Choir performance
will be broadcast tonight on Classic FM at 9.00 pm.
Andy
I’ll do my next blog on the Parliament Choir, the performance was stunningly good.