THE FREE CHURCHES AND REPRESEN- TATION IN THE HOUSE OF
LORDS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The recent debate in the Lords on the Reform of the Upper House elicited from the Archbishop of Canterbury an interesting statement on the representation of the Christian Churches in the Second Chamber. His Grace indicated the significant place which Spiritual Peers have occupied in the Lords for many centuries, and supported the Government's proposal that, in a reconstituted House, Bishops of the Church of England should continue to sit.
The grave moral issues constantly to the fore in Parliament; in this period of swift national change, assuredly justify that course. But, as a Free Churchman, I cannot share the Archbishop's view of the impracticability of the representation in the Lords of other Churches than the Established Church. Without entering upon discussion of the Government's proposals as a whole, will you permit me to comment, from the Free Church point of view, on this particular issue ?
The difficulties which led the Archbishop to negative the incluSion in the House of Lords of representatives of other Churches than the Anglican concern procedure only. Which of the many religious bodies of the country would be called upon to elect representatives ? And whom would they choose ? Willing and wishful to see other Churches repre- sented in a reconstituted Chamber, the Archbishop, none the less, found the subject to be " one of insuperable difficulty."
But questions of procedure need not bar the way. As regards the Free Churches, why not, to begin with, empower those numerically strongest to nominate representatives ? They, at any rate, would find no difficulty as regards the Mode of appointment, for each has its annual Conference, Assembly, or other centre of government accustomed to elect representatives to administrative positions. What is there to hinder either of the Methodist Conferences, or Presbyterian Assemblies, or the Congregational or the Baptist Union, from nominating denominational representatives to future House of Lords, if empowered to do so ? Alter- natively, there is the Federal Council of the Free Churches Of England and Wales, an official and representative body, which might, at the request of the denominations, make the appointments desired.
The other difficulty named by the Archbishop is even less formidable. It is true that the official head of each Free Church denomination is elected annually ; it is also true that in most denominations his official duties are so weighty as to preclude the idea that, during his year of Church office, he could render service in the House of Lords. But the annual Free Church assemblies would find no difficulty in selecting other experienced men, and assuring to them sufficient freedom from Church duties, to serve in the new Chamber.
Passing from questions of procedure to the broad issue, it is clear that the reasons which justify the representation of the Church of England in the Lords are valid to justify the representation of the leading Free Churches in that House. They number amongst their leaders men qualified by long and varied public experience to share in the discussion and decision of national and international issues of moral import. Moreover, the Free Churches include within their membership a large body of manual workers. In many parts of the country their congregations and their companies of voluntary workers are drawn almost exclusively from the families of weekly wage-earners ; and spokesmen of the Free Churches, by reason of their touch with fine human elements in the industrial life of the nation, could substantially and serviceably contribute to the councils of the State.—I am, Sir, &c.,
HENRY CARTER.
1 Central Buildings, Westminster, London, S.W .1.
[As our readers will recollect, last week in our first leading article we expressed the hope that the Free Churches, Roman Catholicism and Judaism should be represented in the reformed House of Lords.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
