§ On the Motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Plurality of Benefices Bill.
§ On the Clause for preventing the holding of two livings by any person, which livings were at a greater distance from each other than thirty miles,
§ Lord Wynfordopposed the clause, as interfering with the rights of property, in cases where individuals had purchased advowsons, and moved that forty-five miles be inserted instead of thirty.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that they could not abolish pluralities, but this clause would do something to lessen the evils. He should therefore support it.
§ The Earl of Harrowbythought, individuals who had purchased advowsons so far apart, might easily sell one, and buy another within the distance prescribed by the Bill. He was favourable to the clause as it stood.
The Archbishop of Canterburysup- 1373 ported the clause, as being calculated to reduce the number of pluralities.
The Lord Chancellorwas in favour of the clause, and was quite sure, that it left the rights of property sacred and untouched.
§ Amendment negatived—original Motion agreed to.
§ On the Clause being proposed which gives to the Bishop the right of dispensation, by which an individual might be allowed to hold two livings of large income,
Lord Kingopposed the clause, which, in his mind, nullified any beneficial effects that might have been expected from the Bill. He had no objection to see small livings united for the benefit of the poorer incumbents, but the dispensing power, he found would enable a clergyman to hold two livings of 1,000l. a year each. To this he could not agree.
§ The Earl of Harrowbyexpressed a wish that the clause should be postponed.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to, and House resumed.