SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 May 1886)

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said: I have first, my Lords, to remove the misapprehension that the Bill will injure private patronage. It is in no sense a Bill to destroy private patronage, or to condemn or ignore what have been recognized for centuries past as rights of property. The system of private patronage, my Lords, creates much interest of the best kind. It has done much to preserve good relations between the laity and the clergy, and has, besides, been well exercised, and is being increasingly well exercised. Private patrons have been most liberal donors towards the foundation of new parishes and new districts; since the foundation of the Ecclesiastical Commission they have made over to the Commissioners no less a sum than £2,500,000. There is no wish on our part, my Lords, to increase the patronage in the hands of the Bishops, although, on the other hand, I do wish it were possible for others besides the Bishops to take substantial interest in curates, who have worked for a long time in difficult positions. There is not scope enough for the reward of other merits, if it is left to the Bishops only 880 to recompense long service. Then, my Lords, this Bill does not pronounce any opinion at all upon the principle of the sale of advowsons. It is enough, perhaps, to say here that the sale of advowsons is no part of the original principle or intent of the endowment of our Church. At the same time, the practice began very early in its history. The way in which the practice proceeded was that, first of all, advowsons went with the land. They then came to be sold with the land, and afterwards they were sold in gross or separately from the land; and, lastly, it became the practice to sell next presentations. The object of advowsons was, of course, the spiritual good of the people. On the other hand, the State and the Church of England have long sanctioned the sale of advowsons; and we have to consider that it was on the faith of both the State and the Church that private persons have invested their all in the sale of advowsons. There are, in fact, instances in which the whole property of minors and other persons has been invested in the purchase of advowsons, and people have bought without any consciousness of evil. Consequently, it is no tabula rasa which is before us; it is not possible for us to wipe out the sale of advowsons, since it would involve suffering and ruin to a great number of innocent families. Strong arguments have been used on both sides, and it has been proposed to remedy the mischief by allowing one more sale and no more; but the inadequacy of that proposal may be at once perceived, for it would of course follow that there would be an immediate reduction in the value of advowsons, so that this would be but a partial concession to justice; while the advowsons, if made unsaleable, would in the changes of fortune descend in lapse of time to impoverished persons, who would have lost interest both in the places and in the Church itself. Now, my Lords. I will state the objects of the Bill. First of all, its object is to stop an iniquitous traffic which is being carried on, of dealing with the advowsons of the Church as mere investments on which to make money. To that practice the Bill seeks to put an end. Let no one think that the traffic is a fair traffic. It cannot be fair, my Lords, that that which is disadvantageous to the people should be advantageous to the purchaser. For instance, 881 there has been given in evidence a letter from a solicitor offering a living for sale, the population of which is 1,500, and it is mentioned as an advantage that there was only a small congregation. It is most unfair that the income of benefices should be augmented by subscriptions obtained from good people and from Queen Anne's Bounty, and that the advowson should then be sold at a considerably advanced price. Shocking cases of abuse under the existing law have been disclosed in evidence. In one case a returned convict who had been in Holy Orders personated clergymen in various places, passed himself off as the patron of livings, and by lending money to clergymen got them into his power and forced them to move from place to place, to the great detriment of their flocks and their own exceeding misery. We read the other day in the newspapers that St. Catherine's Church, Liverpool, was put up for sale, and was the subject of lively competition between the Ritualistic Party and the Low Church Party, and that finally it was knocked down at a high price to the former. An agent largely concerned in the sale of advowsons has admitted that three-fourths of his transactions are for immediate possession, which is against the law, and that, strictly speaking, nearly all were illegal. Cruel wrong has been inflicted again and again by putting in possession of a church an aged clergyman who is unable from age or infirmity to do his duty. When cases such as these are borne in mind, it cannot seem wonderful that a great cry should arise against the practice popularly known as the sale of souls. The conscience of the people is touched, and will not be quieted by the assurance that nothing is sold but the life-title to a certain house and ground. Nevertheless, condemnable as these practices are, wrong as it is that they should be possible or real, it is a mistake to believe that they represent a normal or even a prevalent state of things. The facts are bad, and must be rendered impossible; but they are comparatively few out of the whole mass of facts. Although it has been said in some quarters that one-third of the livings in private patronage change hands not un-frequently, the representative of Queen Anne's Bounty and others well competent to judge do not believe that 882 this, or anything like this, is true. It must not be forgotten, either, that private patronage does not represent half the patronage in England. The Bill has reference only to those livings which are floating about, and the aim of its promoters is to get them into good private patronage, or into public patronage vested in a Board consisting half of laymen. It is obvious that compensation should be provided for those who, under sanction of Church and State, hold these properties before they are dispossessed of them. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has determined that sales cannot be stopped peremptorily, and their view has been adopted in the Bill now before the other House; and before going further I beg to be allowed to say, my Lords, how highly I appreciate the tone of the Movers of that Bill, and the honourable spirit in which they declare their readiness, whatever other opinions they entertain, to promote the reform and redress of any abuse which we may wish to remove from the Church. The same Committee has suggested that Queen Anne's Bounty should be the medium in sales, and that it should compulsorily buy, borrowing the money, if need be, and repaying it in the course of years out of the livings themselves. The Committee says that the money should be repaid in not less than 20 years. This, I beg leave to say in passing, is not the suggestion of the Bishops. It is as well to point this out, because Bishops have been said not to be good financiers, and they do not wish to be held responsible for this suggestion. We obtained the opinion of the Lower House of Convocation, of the House of Laymen, and of a third important Body, the Central Council of Diocesan Conferences, upon the proposal of the Committee of the House of Commons, and not one of them would listen to it. There seem, in truth, to be fatal objections to it. If the money were lent by Queen Anne's Bounty, even for 30 years, at 3½ per cent, the sum which would have to be paid annually out of the benefice on every £1,000 of the price paid would amount to over £54. Thus a living of £200 a-year, if sold at five years' purchase, would be reduced for 30 years to £145. If the money were lent for 50 years, the annual payment on every £1,000 would 883 be £42, and the living would be reduced annually to £157. But what would happen if the vicarage or rectory had to be restored during the years of repayment, or if a pension had to be paid to an incumbent compelled to resign through age or illness? Why, further loans must be contracted, and the value of the living might very probably be reduced to nothing. But there is a much graver objection to the proposal of the Committee; consciences would receive worse wounds than at present; they would be offended, as by a kind of sacrilege, by the giving to a patron out of the spiritual provision for the parish what never was his. Then, as to the effect on Queen Anne's Bounty itself, I fear that the expenditure from which it could not escape might cripple all its operations. No one can estimate the number of livings which would be offered to Queen Anne's Bounty; and those which were offered would probably be offered at once. Therefore, this process would certainly cripple livings, and probably cripple the operations of Queen Anne's Bounty; and it is proposed at a time when your Lordships and the other House have already passed an Act to extend the usual period of 30 years for repayment of mortgages, because the clergy, owing to the great agricultural depression, are not able to meet the present demands upon them. The scheme, therefore, as a financial scheme would not work, and if it did it would cause more wounds to consciences than there are at present. Now, of all schemes, including this impossible one, the aim was to get rid of improper buyers. It is admitted that there are proper buyers. Let us see who could be included in that category. The Bill provides that there should be a right of pre-emption when a living is sold to persons who can show that they have a sufficient interest in the welfare of the parish. I would not wish to confine it to landowners; I should desire to extend it to others. For instance, we are familiar with great manufacturers, whose works are on the outskirts of towns, who are deeply interested in the well-being of the district, and who have shown that interest by building and endowing churches and chapels for their workpeople, among other practical ways. The right of pre-emption, it seems to me, should go to those who can show that they 884 have a sufficient interest in the parish. Secondly, proper buyers of patronage would be public patrons, such as exist in large numbers, whether individuals, or bodies, or trusts, to the great benefit of the livings and people. Thirdly, it has been felt by the most zealous and earnest Churchmen—and there has been a consensus of those three important representative bodies of lay Churchmen—that the living should be sold to any purchaser approved by the Bishop. Now, I cannot assent to that as being a wise proposal, or one which would work practically, for I think, in the first instance, it would not be desirable that a Bishop should be personally mixed up in these transactions. It would be an invidious thing for him alone to bar purchases. Then, again, I shall not be supposed to be speaking against my cloth if I say that I think the proposal is too clerical. It is not the object of the Bill to diminish, but to extend, lay influence in the administration of the Church's affairs. I should object greatly to this Bill being made an occasion to increase clerical influence. Therefore, I think the Bishop is not the proper person to approve every transaction of this kind; but the idea that it should be approved by some local or diocesan authority seems to me a very good one. I should say, instead of any purchaser approved by the Bishop, any purchaser approved by a competent and strong Council. I believe we can form a Council easily. The purchaser should, however, be approved by the Bishop in Council, so as not to take away the Bishop's responsibility. There are other duties for which such a Council is really wanted, and I know no better way in which the laity could help in the administration of their Church. I propose, therefore, that in every diocese we should form a Council, to be composed half of laymen and half of clergymen. The Councils should not be all of the same size, but proportioned to dioceses. The clergy should be appointed as they have been for similar purposes in other recent Acts of Parliament. The laity, it is suggested, should be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and Churchwardens of the diocese or sections of the diocese. In the Bill this Council stands first, not because it is the central object, or in any sense 885 the backbone of the Bill, for it is not, but for drafting reasons. This Council should receive and hold advowsons, or funds contributed to the purchase of livings, or of the interest in livings. There is a general belief that if such a Body did exist funds would come in; but, quite apart from its holding any advowson whatever, or being able to purchase any advowson, what I desire is that it should be able to acquaint itself with the circumstances of any proposed transfer, and approve or disapprove of it. At the present moment exchanges are negotiated as well as sales; but an important witness before the Commission declared that exchange was a mere cloak for the worst transactions that agents engage in. We want to put a stop to all this by fixing the eye of a competent and responsible Body upon it. By this Bill, then, the right for pre-emption would be given to every person of sufficient interest in the parish; next, it would be capable of being given to the Council itself, if the Council thought fit to purchase it, and then to any other purchaser in the manner described. In the case of the Council having any advowson, the patronage should be exercised, not by itself as a Central Council, but by a more local body, consisting of persons belonging to the neighbourhood. It may be expected that a Local Board of this kind, with some members of the Central Council in it, to administer such patronage, would work well, and it seems a simple and practicable way of guarding against improper and scandalous transfers. At all events, I think this remedy should be tried before stronger ones. If it answers its purpose, the milder the remedy the better. If it is not sufficient no step would have to be retraced. It is an advance towards a better state of things, which could be developed. I now pass to the other precautions contained in the Bill. They are simple, and do not refer to a large proportion of cases; but they are intended to meet some great evils. The Bill provides that when a patron wants to sell an advowson the sale must be an out-and-out one, not merely of one presentation, but of all the rights which the patron possesses in the advowson. Let the purchaser take upon him all the responsibility that belongs to a patron. It is surely a repulsive thing that a man who had a great public and spiritual trust 886 should allow it to be exercised for a sum of money. It occurs again and again, in the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission, that a great many of the undesirable men who get livings get them by sale of next presentations. So much for that precaution. Your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to close the scandal of the sale of advowsons by public auction. In an auction a patron parts with the last semblance of caring about his trust. Any bidder may have it. There is a recent instance in which an important living of £1,150 a-year was put up and withdrawn because not more than £2,500 could be realized for it. The offer of such a sum, and the contemptuous view taken of the right or trust as one not worth investing in, is disgraceful; and such a scandal should be got rid of by the abolition of sales of advowsons by public auction. We wish, further, to insure publicity in all transactions. For this purpose they should be registered within a definite time in the register of the diocese. Let all documents bearing on the subject be produced, and let the parties make a declaration that there are no other documents connected with the matter, and that there is no secret understanding. That, I think, is a fair demand to make. I am not sure whether your Lordships are aware—I was scarcely aware of it myself until I came to look into this question—that there is now no evidence at all at headquarters as to who is the patron of any living. A name is given in Crockford, or in The Clergy Lint; but there is no certainty as to who really is the patron. The sale takes place perhaps quite quietly, and the patron is not known until a new one starts up when the vacancy occurs. There was a case in my own diocese in which, even after the vacancy, it was not found out for some time who was the patron. All the people most concerned now know nothing of the matter. Surely it ought to be known to the parishioners and to the Bishop, and to the whole Church, who the patron of any living is. The agents who were examined before the Commission pointed out that sometimes a living was sold and resigned within a year without a suspicion arising of the connection of the two events, because no one in authority knew when the sale took place in fact. Clergymen have got into the hands of agent patrons, without knowing that the patron 887 is anything but a clergyman or private gentleman, and the greatest mischief and misery is produced. Registration would confer a great benefit upon us all, if it were only to procure us the knowledge of who the patrons of livings are; but it would further call attention to the facts of cases such as I have just mentioned. There is another subject with which this Bill deals. At present, when a clergyman is presented to a living he comes before the Bishop to be instituted, and makes a declaration that, to the best of his knowledge or belief, he has done nothing simoniacal. It may be imagined that in this respect the mind of an unsatisfactory man is easily satisfied. I desire to replace this declaration by more simple, specific, and unevasive declarations. Let the clergyman or the patron say whether they have or have not done certain acts; the present system is simply a trap for consciences. Another point in which this Bill gives security is that of testimonials. At present a clergyman, as a matter of usage, presents a testimonial; it is now proposed that it should be a matter, not only of usage, but of law. At present these documents are not actually legal documents at all. In this testimonial the clergyman presenting it should be obliged to make a statement of what positions he has held, so that his whole history may be known. The clergy are public servants, and we have the same right to know the secrets of their public life as we have to know the public life of any other public servant. I now pass to a totally different subject—namely, the exercise of patronage. It seems to me to be essential to the good working of any scheme of patronage that the parishioners should not be so utterly ignored as they are at present with regard to the filling-up of the living; but that they should be competent to make objections to be considered by the proper authority, after notice has been given to them as to who is going to be appointed. These objections should not be considered by the Bishop alone, but by such a jury as would be afforded by the Council to which I have already referred. These complaints, if any, would thus be inquired into and judged by a body of clergy and laity; and if they were frivolous a man would come to the parish under greater advantages, after 888 these charges had been examined into and set aside, than if they had been allowed to float about in the parish. On the other hand, a mere majority of the Council ought not to decide the matter; but if two-thirds of the Council, upon examining into the objections, affirm them, then the Bishop may refuse to institute. If there is a majority of the Council, but less than two-thirds, who affirm the objections, then it is left to the Bishop to decide; but if he should reject the man there is an appeal. This provision strengthens the parishioners to make objections. We must also strengthen the Bishop to refuse to institute an unfit person. Objections may be taken to a man for youth or for age. A man ought not to be appointed if over a certain age, and this should be the rule except where it can be shown that he is a capable man for the post. The Bishop should be able to refuse an incapable man; and the Council would act as a jury in deciding as to whether or not a man is physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of the position. Another cause for which the Bishop should be able to refuse to institute is when a man is so burdened with debt that it is impossible for him properly to discharge the duties of his office. Bishops are all acquainted with such instances. Of what can happen this is an instance. Some years ago an important living in London—St. Giles, Camberwell—worth £2,300 a-year, came into the hands of a clergyman who was burdened with debt to the amount of £56,000, and there was no power to refuse him. He held the living from 1846 to 1879, and during that time, out of that income of £2,300, there was nothing available for the spiritual purposes of the living except £200 a-year. This would be rather more now under the present law; but the thing ought not to be possible at all. The Bishop ought to be able to refuse to institute a man who is incapable of performing his functions to the public benefit. Then, again, in the case of a public scandal, where it is destructive to a man's influence, the Bishop ought to be able to take action so as to prevent him from being accepted. Another security relates to the power of mortgaging livings. That power ought to be taken away. Again, a man ought not to be able to use his living by sequestration for debt. If 889 a clergyman is in debt, his creditors may, by an action, get his living sequestered, the property being handed over to them, and a certain allowance only reserved for the service of the place. Again, in the case of, some of those unhappy persons I have spoken of, the moment they have fallen into the hands of the money-lender they are lost; and the sequestration might go on for a man's life—obviously, if the debt is large and the living small. Let the Bill forbid mortgages, and let us pursue the system already in existence with regard to non-residents. If a man is not in residence for a whole year, or if he is not in residence for certain months in two successive years, the living is ipso facto vacant. If a living is sequestered, and a man cannot get the sequestration removed in one year, let it be ipso facto vacant. The present system makes not only corrupt clergymen, but it makes corrupt tradesmen. The tradesmen give credit because they know they can get the living sequestered. Care is further taken in the Bill that arrangements shall be made so that tradesmen, under existing sequestrations, shall not suffer in regard to goods supplied. There is another precaution still, my Lords. As to the case of lunacy, there is a very curious anomaly in our law. At present a Bishop may certify the fact of a Dean or a Canon being a lunatic, and the stall is vacant ipso facto. This Bill proposes that the proper authority in lunacy should certify the lunacy of an incumbent, and that then the living should become ipso facto vacant. I desire that it should be done with the greatest deliberation, and that when he has vacated in the prescribed manner, he should receive the same pension that he would receive as an incumbent retiring from old age. One other provision to which I beg to call special attention relates to Roman Catholic patrons. All temptation to evasions of the law should be done away. Evidence shows that there is now great temptation to sell next presentations each time, or else to put up trustees as patrons. There is a certain mistrust of Roman Catholic patrons arising out of our past history. Regard must necessarily be had to the many who entertain such mistrust; but, at the same time, justice must be done to the Roman Catholic patrons themselves. If, then, the Roman Catholic patron can satisfy the Council that the person 890 is a satisfactory man to appoint, then the patron shall have the right to appoint him. I would make the Council and the Roman Catholic patron joint patrons, so that both could be served with notice of objection and both be able to appeal. That is in the interest of the Roman Catholic patrons themselves, and I hope that this provision will meet the wishes of the noble Viscount (Viscount Barrington) who so considerately withdrew his Motion last year on this particular question, upon my promising to introduce a measure into a more general Bill. I have made inquiry as to the opinion of the Universities. The Vice Chancellor of Cambridge has replied, so far, that the system is not held in esteem there; and the Vice Chancellor of Oxford, having consulted the Hebdomadal Board, replies that no difficulty would be felt there if a better scheme can be devised. I think that no objection will be offered from the Universities. There is only one other subject to which I have to draw attention. This is the question of donatives. There are about 100 livings in England, most of which are very small, which enjoy this singular position—that the patrons can appoint to them absolutely without reference to any Bishop or any authority whatever. They are also capable of being sold when vacant. As regards all these donatives, there is no record of their sale. There is no institution by the Bishop. The clergyman does not come before the Bishop at all, presents no testimonials or letters of Orders—that is to say, produces no proof that he is a clergyman at all. He acquires the full cure of souls without any authority to check him. The working of these donatives is singular. A Bishop has reason to know that a man wishes to resign his living for one which has been purchased, or because he has sold his own, on his part, and he refuses to accept that resignation. The man informs the agent, who says—"Never mind, I present you with my donative;" and the man then informs the Bishop that he has been appointed, and his former living is vacant. It has been said that a donative is the most powerful instrument of corruption that anyone could have. The Bill proposes to make such livings presentative like all others; but if it is desired to provide a respite for any innocent donatives which may exist—and I believe some of 891 the larger ones particularly have never been abused—I should gladly accept a reasonable Amendment. To sum up, then, my Lords, the statement that I have made seems to present a very dark picture; but I entreat you to remember that you have only the shadows of the picture before you. The evil to be dealt with, nevertheless, is great, and excites the greatest contempt in the minds of those who believe that it represents the system of the Church. If the evils and the scandals to be removed are not very numerous, they are, nevertheless, very great. This measure, if it becomes law, will either end, or will greatly tend to end, a reproach, not only to the Church, but to our national system, in the administration of a great spiritual trust. It is a great hindrance to people who think the scandals prevail more widely than they do, and suppose that there can be little truth or honesty in the Church which allows it. Compared with the Bill before the House of Commons, your Lordships will, I think, acknowledge that this Bill goes further to preserve all that can be considered rights; and it also goes much further to obviate and correct wrongs. It is a more substantial measure by far than that before the other House. The wording and details are, no doubt, susceptible of that improvement which your Lordships are so well able to effect; and I can only say that Amendments will be most acceptable which will carry out the principle of the Bill. I now leave the Bill with confidence in your Lordships' hands; and I ask that your Lordships may accord to it a second reading.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I rise, as no one else rises, to express what I think is the general sense of the House—a feeling of gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for having undertaken this weighty duty, and for the manner in which he has discharged it. The House is not at this stage asked to express an opinion upon any of the particular details of the Bill. There are some of them, no doubt, presenting more difficulties than others. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the lay Body, of which the most rev. Prelate has more than once spoken very 892 kindly, are of opinion that the constitution of the Council is capable of improvement, and wish that it should be made more representative, and that the element of nomination should, if possible, be curtailed. That is the principal point on which they venture to suggest to the most rev. Prelate a modification of the Bill. I only now wish again to express my gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for the vigorous and efficient manner in which, upon what appear to be thoroughly sound principles, he has endeavoured to grapple with this important subject, and to remove from the Church, not only a serious evil, but also no small scandal.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I should be unwilling to allow the Bill to go to a second reading without joining my voice with my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down in expressing our great gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for the admirable statement which he has made to us, and the great care bestowed upon the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) that this is, perhaps, not the opportune moment to go into the details with which the Bill bristles, and that we cannot be held, in assenting to the second reading, to do more than accept the general principle, that this House is willing to remove the evils against which the Bill is framed. In view of the state of Business in the other House, I should suggest to the most rev. Prelate that he should have a small Select Committee to which the Bill could be referred. I think if we deal with it only in this House by majorities on questions with which many of those who may vote are not familiar, we shall run some danger of altering the character of the Bill in a way which will not be satisfactory to the most rev. Prelate, and it will be more efficient to refer it to a Select Committee, which need meet but two or three times in order to go through all the suggestions. It is evident that the Council of Patronage is a difficult question. I do not think the most rev. Prelate gave the House a full idea of the amount of power which he intends to confer upon it. Practically, they and the Bishop will have an absolute veto upon any nomination whatever; because they have only to be set in motion by some objecting parishioner and their power is complete. That is obviously a 893 very considerable alteration in the law I doubt whether the provision that the squire should have the right of presentation would be well received by the other House. The most rev. Prelate has introduced two limits to an appointment which are open to considerable doubt. I think that the provision of the Bill that a clergyman over 70 years of age should not continue the exercise of his spiritual functions, even in a small parish, would require consideration. Under the Government which we see before us, I doubt whether we are competent to say that every man over 70 is absolutely incapacitated, even from doing the duty of a small county parish. If a man is unfit to be presented to a living at 70, he is unfit to stay in it; and if the most rev. Prelate is inclined to make an enactment of that kind, it is a matter worthy of consideration whether the distinction he has drawn between appointments and continuance in a living is one he can logically sustain. Still more do I doubt the wisdom of a proposal forbidding the presentation to a living of any man until he has been three years a priest. Extreme youth, no doubt, is usually undesirable for important livings; but all newly-ordained priests are not young; and it is obvious that if a man is ordained in middle life—a thing which happens not infrequently—there can be no reason why he should not be appointed at once to a living if he is deemed fit for it. I take leave to think a hard-and-fast rule objectionable. There is only one other subject to which I wish to make allusion, and that is the question of sequestration. The evils of sequestration are terrible, and I think it is almost impossible to exaggerate them; and, considering how great are the evils arising out of them, I should be inclined to withdraw altogether the income of a clergyman under sequestration. I am not sure that the most rev. Prelate was not a little too hard in dealing with donatives, and he has attempted to deal in rather a cavalier manner with unquestioned rights of private property. I should like these matters to be carefully considered, and I believe that can better be done by a Select Committee than by the Whole House. The rights of private property must be recognized; but I entirely assent to the proposition that those rights must not be allowed to control the more serious aspect of a right 894 foundation of a sacred trust for the benefit of the Church.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)
said, he agreed with the noble Marquess that a Bill of this kind, consisting essentially of details, would be best dealt with by a Select Committee. Objections might be raised which might in that way be easily removed. In many cases the landowners had performed their duty as patrons as well as any class could do; but circumstances had become such that it was a very serious thing to say that Church patronage should be in the hands of the owners of one class of property.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said, that he would be most happy to accept the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He hoped that the Committee would not be put off to a distant date, but would quickly meet and consider a question which had been waiting to be dealt with many years.