In commenting on the attendance and voting behaviour of the Lords Spiritual, I sometimes half-jokingly say that if two Bishops are present and there is a vote, one will usually go into Content lobby and the other into the Not Content lobby. Last night provided some evidence for my observation.
Lord Alli introduced an amendment to the Equality Bill to permit those religions that wished to do so to hold civil partnership ceremonies on their premises. The Quakers and Liberal Jews had been pressing to be allowed to do so. The amendment is purely permissive. It is up to religious organisations to decide whether to make use of the provision. They don’t have to but can if they wish.
The amendment was debated last night and divided on just before 11.00 p.m. It was carried by 95 votes to 21. There were two Bishops present. The Bishop of Bradford spoke and voted against the amendment. The Bishop of Newcastle voted for it.
I said to one member afterwards that it was just like old times. I was referring to the late night sitting, though I could equally have been referring to the behaviour of the Lord Spirtual!
Talking about the bishops I have no idea how they either select themselves or, are selected
for the job. Who nominates them? General Synod?
The ecclesiastical secretary at Downing St. must have his finger on the pulse.
Trivia(l) question: why don’t bishops wear a day suit when attending HoL?
Or speak from Below bar thus dressed before they are bishops?
I don’t know the answer to this, and had been wondering why the bishops wear robes every day and not simply a suit (with dog collar and purple shirt). It would seem to be like other lords wearing robes every day, but I guess there’s a historical reason for it. Something to do with Canon law, the same as vicars having to wear cassocks?
Hmmm. Gratis BBC Parliament,the Archbishop of Canterbury was wearing a charcoal suit with purple shirt and dog collar. Is some sort of reverse snobbery going on here?
At least we know there is independence within the church, no flagellum.
It can only be the finesse of the cloth that accounts for it.
Don’t they call the different dress no. 1’s, no. 2’s, no. 3’s, and so on, in the Navy?
The same must be true of the quality of the cloth/raiment worn, when they attend debates.
Silk perhaps?
The Bishops dress is set out in the standing orders of the House “4.27: Bishops wear robes of rochet and chimere in the Chamber. They are expected to wear robes whenever possible in the division lobby.”
As to how they are chosen, its a Royal Appointment, but there is an Ecclesiastical Appointments committee made up of church representatives and civil servants.