The issue of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords should not be tackled separately from that of further Parliamentary reform. It is also linked with the issue of whether or not the church of England should be established by law.
Humanists should note that an any given day there will usually be more of them present than the limited number of bishops who can attend, because of their other duties.
It is rather like asking whether the Roman Catholic church should be established by law in the Vatican city.
It is and there is not much can be done about it!
Even without a house of lords, they would still be there, stating proper morals and ethics!
The Roman empire noble lord, Lord Hylton, has surely been succeeded by the Treaty of Rome, and the devout Catholic should surely be spending all his time upon it!
I am reminded that the noble lord is NOT referring to Roman Catholic Anglicans but that he IS referring to the CofE Anglicans,
obviously enough.
Dogmatic arguments over the last hundred and fifty years or so have caused the similarly named groups in each denomination.
Agreed. We fiddle with the Constitution at our peril.
Lord’s reform is not a priority for most of us, we want real reform and restructuring of the countries finances and infrastructure.
Parliamentary Reform in terms of Proportional Representation, which is enjoyed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Dear Lord Hylton,
While not personally in favour of the proposal, surely New Labour’s plan for a fully elected House of Lords means that the issue of Anglican Bishops is already in play?
http://www.governing-principles.com
Is this supposed to be some sort of defence of the position of the Lords Spiritual? If so they should pack up and leave now.
Tell me, these humanists that find themselves in greater numbers than bishops on any given day – are they there simply due to their job, or as an accident of history, or as a discriminatory practise against people who don’t share their archaic beliefs?
I would also say that it would be far better to look at, our relationship with the two/three theologically dependent nation states in the world and how to give Republican independence to them before trying to achieve anything like separation of church and state in the UK.
Her Majesty the queen has ways of saying things (and HRH the Duke, blessings!)and a state visit to any one of Canada, NZ, Australia silences to hell, any such suggestion by the humanists or lapsed CofE or Lapsed anything else.
“these humanists that find themselves in greater numbers than bishops on any given day – are they there simply due to their job, or as an accident of history, or as a discriminatory practise against people who don’t share their archaic beliefs?”
I’ve never thought of humanists as having archaic beliefs, but the noble Lord may have an accurate head count for those members
who do declare themselves to be “humanists”.
They probably mean that they are CofE, without badges to prove it.
There being more than half a dozen humanists in the chamber, more than the number of bishops is not really surprising.
This is a seriously complex issue to debate and within Law. It does not just concern the Lords Spiritual but also the Synod and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
If seperation of State and Church were to happen I believe we are then on course for a republic. This brings to bear the current oath sworn by all parliamentarians
“I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So
help me God.”
Or
“I …………… do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and
successors, according to law”.
Her Majesty as “Defender of the Faith” would be challenged if her Spiritual Counsel in the House were challenged.
By putting debate of seperation of state and Church we possibly may be debating the construction of a republic and in doing such maybe putting our parliamentarians outside the realms of such debate due to their oath.
While I can see a philosophical issue over the establishment or otherwise of the church I’m not sure – based on their attendance records – that the bishops make very much difference either way to the balance of votes in such a large house.
Yes But the noble lord , Lord Hylton is speaking tongue in cheek when says that!
What he means is that all of those others, are in reality CofE, who, for what they are worth,
are only humanists! The CofE I suppose brigade which comprises about 20million people in the UK of Great Britain and ,Sometimes Northern Ireland.
All of those humanists are potential fodder for conversion to the Catholic faith, because they give little or not thought to what they are religiously because it is an established church!
However Carl speaks words of wisdom in his post above, with which I am not sure I entirely agree. I do think that the UK could remain a kingdom, without there being a House of Lords resembling anything like what we have today.
One of this dissimilitudes would be a Dis-established church.
The circumstances for dis-establishment must be completely different from what they were in the 19thc when the idea was all the vogue, but how?
How does Lord Hylton propose dis establishing
something of which he may possibly not even be a member?!!
He might be able to reduce the number of clergy attending to two, the two archbishops, but that would still be two.
How would he persuade the Archbishop of Canterbury that he is no longer to be the number 5,or is it number 6, at the helm of the state of the UK+NI, after the first Lord of the Treasury (PM) and the Speaker of the house of commons?
I really don’t think that we have explored nearly far enough the possibilities of a gradual change through an increase in the responsibilities of Lord Speaker.
Wasn’t it HRH Prince Harry who wanted to create a Du-archy, although he did say he meant something entirely different from what I intended by it!?
The joint rule of two would be that of an elected Lord speaker and the Queen.
Lord Irvine hinted at it, in his facing the
assembled Chambers, alongside HM at the state opening in about 1999.
Normally the Lord Chancellor, as the office then was, kneels before the Monarch to do whatever has to do!
The Lord speaker is elected by Lords in parliament which has been another slightly more democratic step in the right direction.
Neither the Sec for justice, in the house of commons, not the Lord speaker , nor the minister for constitutional affairs, none of those three new offices, has anywhere near the power that the office of Lord Chancellor had until 2004(?)
A democratic mandate for the Lord speaker might well return some of the powers in a way that the anti-democratic element in the HofL would not want, to weaken the powers of the throne in the eyes of the people.
It can only be true that the throne is the throne, and the church representatives alongside it, to the right of Lord Speaker.
What does Noble Lord Hylton want to do about that?
What an exraordinary argument. For a start, how do you know how many humanists (whatever they are, exactly) there are?
But I agree that it opens an interesting can of worms. It would be an interesting exercise to devise a non-religious coronation ceremony.
The Ecclesiastical law ,which prime minister Blair exploited to the hilt, and I am thinking of Catholics in the assembled company, the church Law, is that whilst a member of the CofE has to be received back in to the CofE usually in a fairly simple ceremony, to be converted,
conversion to Roman catholicism requires a fairly lengthy procedure, possibly only on the strength of the different catechism of the Roman Catholic which the “humanists”! have never been involved with, through their natural connection with the State of the UK, its schooling, and all its other institutions.
Mr Blair found no difficulty in swapping from one denomination to the other with, 19th meaning of the word gay, abandon!
I feel we are a very confused Nation, desperately hanging on to our history,ceremonies whilst declaring we want secularism and equality.
We declare the legal/humane way to slaughter animals is by stunning first except in the case of religions – You`re not allowed to carry a knife except in the case of religions – You`re not allowed to ban gays from adoption except in the case…et al.
We`re bringing one lot in and shifting one lot out, ridiculous.
We want the Lords Spiritual…Why ? We cannot afford quaint customs. The Lords is on the brink of perhaps not only modernisation / reform but perhaps dissolution altogether.
In days when so many declare equality and secularism I ask the House why should Lords Spiritual stay ?
Carl’s comments are astute.
Carl,
Thing about the ‘political’ power of the monarchy, apart from the very close loyalty of the Tory party, is that the
“medium is the message”.
A Royal tour in one of those dominions, ANZAC, at a time when our own good faith in the crown is tested, speaks volumes, without so much as saying any other word than the Xmas message!
Let the humanists, who debated yesterday Friday, led by stalwarts, such as Guardian’s Polly Toynbee from her Guardian articles,
be aware, that dissolving the THEOCRATIC link, between the Head of the CofE and the Governors General of the governments of New Zealand and Australia, has to be the first move to getting our own religious house in order!
It looks as though a thread has been removed, but I may be mistaken. It may have been too close to debating here, a debate in the chamber, and that might be reducing somebody’s power!
Off topic somewhat,what was so amusing,and sad, about John Major was that the one thing he did grasp about politics was the same truth as the politics of monarchy above. The politics of JM had no message. It was all medium, and it lasted six years, while the nation’s coffers were ransacked…….
I think this mess is a sign of the times, the confusion of Government and the Nation cannot continue endlessly.
Our Government, our Nation, is desperately trying to be all things to all people. It`s trying to be popular rather than successful. Special rules for him, special rules for them etc., it has to stop. I don`t believe it will, I believe we`ve let it go too far, it`s too late.
One of the comments aimed at Government that I frequently hear is ” If I go to an Arab Nation I have to obey their religious law but if they come here we allow them to do as they please”. I`m not saying that`s correct but it`s how people feel. And they feel that the CofE has not had enough say, over 50% of the people still put their religion as CofE even though they don`t believe. Why ? Is it because they think that CofE is part of being British ? They can`t let go and it seems neither can Parliament. No one appears to want an agnostic Nation.
We want equality without discrimination yet create differences even beyond the physical. I look at Government as a parental guide, it`s supposed to manage the finances and lay down rules for it`s children, is it fair to have different rules for each child ? I see no section for Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc., Lords.
If you want to be fair, if you don`t want discrimination then the CofE`s automatic place in the Lords has to go. Religions would still be represented, Lord Sacks, Lord Ahmed etc.
Who knows maybe then the CofE may follow the Good Book and go and preach to someone other than the converted…..But that`s a different debate.
Speaking as an atheist, I am actually supportive of the presence of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. I believe that their presence in the chamber serves to prevent the country being torn apart by religious divisions.
Consider the US and its constitutional separation – it has not prevented religion seeping into day to day politics, and no politician can last five minutes without affirming a faith of some description.
In Britain however I think the establishment of the Church of England serves to make such zealotry unfashionable. It also sends a message to other faiths that ‘rest assured the spiritual side is represented’.
This, I think, if only symbolic, actually helps to keep non-Christian beliefs satisfied that there is some kind of moral compass in Parliament. I know a lot of people here may disagree that religion’s moral compass is acceptable, but that’s not the point – it’s that it would satisfy the religious.
In fact, the strongest supporters of the establishment of the Church tend to come from outside the Church. The former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain described it as the ‘spiritual NHS’, and the United Churches, traditionally in favour of disestablishment, changed their minds several decades ago. The loudest voices tend to come from within the Church, often the most devoutedly religious, who want the Church to go its own way and become more exclusive, in a way.
So, essentially, the establishment of the Church is desirable for the moderation of religion.
The 1689 Bill of rights may come into play in this issue:
“in order to such an establishment as that
their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being
subverted”
http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.txt
As I stated at the beginning this maybe more complex in Law than you imagine. The Bill is still used in Law today. It appears the Lords Spiritual may exist purely to stop subversion of the Protestant Religion. It is certainly the case in the Bill that the Lords Spiritual, Temporal and the Commons co-exist and it appears this was not meant to be changed.
One off topic note whilst I`m reading the rest of the Bill of Rights.
It seem`s our Courts may NOT have power to do anything about expenses judging by the Bill.
“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament”.
Are expenses a proceeding ?
“this mess is a sign of the times, the confusion of Government and the Nation cannot continue endlessly.” now for some empty rhetoric from the same C!”
However:
“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament”.
Is interesting! They now certainly are and C is quite properly asking whether the
“changed relationship between Courts and parliament” belie it; they certainly do!
The Daily Telegraph most certainly did question and impeach proceedings in parliament, and a number of people have been charged in their Lordships’ courts because of it.
“It appears the Lords Spiritual may exist purely to stop subversion of the Protestant Religion”
Carl has put his finger on the pulse yet again!
In that case if somebody subverts ( can be a very serious crime, not far off Treason)the state, he would be tried in the supreme court which is not answerable to Parliament in any way.
Is that what Carl is thinking?
Why do you quote, what you do quote, above?
“It appears…”
What is your evidence for that assertion, or mere surmise?
Argue your case further!
Although they are accountable to the Secretary of state for Justice, currently Rt Hon Jack Straw, who is a member of the HofC. He is also the Lord Chancellor in the HofC.
He is NOT, definitively not, Lord Chancellor in the HofL, or Sec for justice in the HofL, where the ramifications of such proceedings for subversion would be felt, and since it would, well weaken again the power of the lords, be voted down.
The democratic HofC with a Labour (third Way) govt might well be motivated to persuade the Guardian (not the DT) to take up the cudgels against such a subverter, to test the matter, if Carl is correct in his surmise.
Gareth give the poor ole eastend boy a chance, I know I`m below both you and Twm and I struggle sometimes but….
““It appears…”
I`m no lawyer but I`ll do my best. The Bill states
” their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should
continue to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make
effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and
liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be
in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal and Commons did agree,”.
From the Bill we can summise that there are three constituents to Parliament and the two Houses : The Lords Spiritual, Temporal and the HoC.
“And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons,
pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled
in a full and free representative of this nation”
From this I summise that all three constituents of Parliament HAVE to be together to be a full representative of the Nation.
“That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for
Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like
nature, are illegal and pernicious;”
From this I summise that to keep the Church/Religions inline the Lords Spiritual was erected so it was inside Parliament thereby giving Parliament a view on it`s laws so that any religion could not subvert the Crown or Parliament.
“the Church/Religions inline the Lords Spiritual was erected so it was inside Parliament thereby giving Parliament ”
The Westminster Assembly of divines, on which I did a little research recently on account of a Bishop forefather of Bristol (Howell T, was held in Westminster Hall, I believe, which gives further credence to C’s quote.
They were meeting between 1640-1650, some of which is during the long parliament and after the death in 1649 of Charles 1st.
Adrian Kidney makes good points. I also speak as an atheist but I would be in favour of Lords reform which ended up with 1/3 elected, 1/3 appointed (by politicians, as today) and 1/3 representative of religions (or, possibly, other communities). The details would be difficult, of course, but I see a role for formal representation from faiths and communities, in order to encourage cohesion.
And despite my strong belief that they are wrong in their fundamental beliefs, I welcome the views of the religious, many of which I may even agree with. Just as I welcome the views of those who have different political views.
“to take up the cudgels against such a subverter, to test the”
Sorry in favour of!
“with 1/3 elected, 1/3 appointed (by politicians, as today)”
The 1/3 appointed would be an evolution of the Appointments commission, those who have not attended parliament before, but are competent at dealing with the public.
Political appointees are self appointed. When you know how things are done, doors open, “as today”
Anybody who wants to be a Peer for the glamour of it, at the age of 35, would have to be certified first…. by the appointments commission!
That’s a scary idea. I admit to being atheist – I was exposed to the CofE as a child but it always seemed a total waste of a Sunday morning to me. For some, not entirely rational, reason, I find I object far more to being told I can or cannot do something because of a religious reason than I do for other reasons, most probably because secular reasons can be opposed or supported with reason and facts whereas it’s hard to argue with a god.
Admittedly, the parts of religion that state that we should be nice to each other and otherwise do good rather than harm are fine, but when they want to restrict what I can do on a particular day of the week or my dietary preferences or the clothes I wear, I consider that they have crossed a line.
Having some religious leaders in the Lords as a moral compass is OK, but there should never be enough of them that they hold the balance of power there.
But if we bring The Bill of Rights Act 1689 into contention on any of the above we then also bring the EU into question:
“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm. So help me God.”
Regards Expenses does the unwritten costitution not say “everyone is equal before the law and no person is above the law”?
What a confusing old mess eh !
Who want`s to have a go at sorting this lot out next ?
“no foreign prince, person, prelate,
state or potentate hath”
The EU,Carl is not foreign, and belongs to us all.
We do not have, thankfully, European princes, in any modern, or real, sense of the word, whatever the Habsburgs or the Hohenzollerns would prefer, Russians too.
The EU is totally foreign in everthing it does. It does not belong to me.
UK membership in EU and its predecessors has been a total disaster for UK
We are better off out
The Lords Spiritual do not exist via the Bill of Rights to protect Protestantism. In fact, if you look back a little further to the 1620s-1640s especially, you will see that many thought bishops were an impediment to Protestant religion.
Protestantism is protected in the Act of Succession and the Coronation Oath: “will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?”
Frankly, I believe it would be impossible get around the coronation oath to disestablish the CoE. Thus, for the time being, it would have to remain established. The Lords Spiritual are still in the HoL because Parliament makes laws for the CoE. Thus, they need some sort of limited special representation.
I should also point out that established religions are not necessarily limited to what some might call the barbaric and archaic. Along with the large number of Islamic states, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Argentina, Greece, and countless others have established state religions. The UK is hardly unique in this aspect.
Of course, this does not address what is seen as either discrimination or simple unfairness. If representatives from other religious groups (and non-religious groups) were included, would this not help address this issue? I would imagine that like the bishops now, nearly all of them would be rather busy with other responsibilities, and so their influence (as the bishops’ is now) would be limited. The value of having religious leaders in the Lords is not their votes on legislation but their words in debates. I agree with Adrian that such people provide a sort of moral compass and moral authority that not only satisfies the religious but also provides a distinctly diverse body of experience that you will not find in other areas.
At the end of the day, you must ask yourself, “Do the Lords Spiritual cause a problem? Do they hurt the House and what it produces? Are they a hindrance to proper and good government?” I would say, no. I think at worst they occupy seating that could be used for other lords when the chamber is full. At best, they are offering unique insight and perspectives. Do not hastily get rid of something that works simply because it seems to oppose the “direction of modernity” (whatever that might be at any given moment). Instead, try to make it work.
I may presume too much but as I believe the noble Lord Hylton is a Roman Catholic his appeal to the common cause of the “Left”, such as it is, in the HofL, is based on an enmity for the existing monarchy, and loyalty to the Stuarts, whereas the Left is concerned with
more democracy further curtailing the power of the existing monarchy.
We have not heard much of prerogative recently, either Parliamentary or Royal.
His appeal would seem to be an appeal to curtail royal prerogative further, but not merely for the sake of curtailment, but for its replacing by another probably more powerful prerogative; strange bedfellows, where a cocktail party socialist meets a Roman Catholic; same means, different ends.
“I think at worst they occupy seating that could be used for other lords when the chamber is full.”
And may be, and vacated if they arrive.