HL Deb 09 July 1897 vol 50 cc1444-6

On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill,

THE EARL or KIMBERLEY

said that before the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, moved the Amendments of which he had given notice, he should like to say a word as to the Bill. It seemed to him not to be very intelligible, and it was worded in a very curious manner. The effect of the operative clause, as he read it, was that a transfer was to be void unless notice— shall have been given to the diocesan registrar for four weeks before the completion of the said transfer. "Four weeks before" was a very extraordinary expression, and he should have thought that the proper expression would have been "not less than four weeks before." Then came a still more singular thing. It was to be four weeks before the completion of the transfer, and, therefore, of course, at that time the transfer was not completed. The clause then went on to say that the transfer— shall take effect for all purposes as from the date when a copy of the instrument of transfer be deposited in the Diocesan Registry. Therefore, it seemed to him that the transfer was to take place before it was completed. That was only a drafting objection, but, at the same time, it seemed to him very desirable that the wording of the Bill, which, he conceived, was not likely to pass into law during the present Session, should be revised. Perhaps it was rather late to say so, but he must say that, for his part, he did not understand in the least what the object of the Bill was. A transfer, as the Bill was drafted, was to take effect at the date of the depositing of the notice, but there was no provision for anything to be done so far as he could see. If it were merely wished to have notice of a transfer having taken place it would have been enough, he should have thought, to have simply provided that when any transfer was made it should be immediately registered before the proper authority; but he supposed it was intended that there should be some mode or other of interfering or dealing with a transfer if there were any objection to it. Perhaps the most rev. Prelate could give the House some explanation of the object of the Bill.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said he did not quite apprehend the force of the noble Earl's objection to the Bill. It seemed to him quite sufficient to effect the purpose for which it was intended. There were constantly cases which he thought were very undesirable, that when a living became vacant the Bishop had not the least idea who was the patron of the living, because no man was bound to register the transfer of patronage from one to another. Both by the Select Committee of 1874 and the Royal Commission of 1878 a recommendation was made to the effect that a Bill of this kind should be passed. The Select Committee recommended— that all sales of advowsons or next presentations be duly registered within a limited time in the Diocesan Registry of the diocese in which the living is situated, with the names of vendor and purchaser, and that no sale not so registered be valid in law. This Bill was an attempt to carry into effect the recommendation. The Royal Commission also recommended that no sale or patronage should be voted unless effected by an instrument registered in the Diocesan Registry. This recommendation was met by the Bill. Speaking from nearly twenty years' experience of the Episcopate, he felt confident that the Bill, short as it was, would effect a very great improvement in the matter of the jobbery which took place with regard to advowsons. There was no intention to interfere with bonâ fide transfers of advowsons, but merely to hinder those corrupt proceedings which at present were beyond the possibility of detection, and which left matters on the vacancy of any living in great confusion. He did not mean to say the Bill would do all their Lordships would wish to see done in the matter of patronage. It did not do all he wished to see done, but the hopelessness of passing a more comprehensive Measure on the subject induced him to bring forward this very brief Measure to remedy a very urgent and frequent evil.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said he had no objection whatever to the registration, it might be very useful in some way, though he did not exactly see how. All he wished to say was that if it were desired that the transfer should be registered the simplest mode would be to provide that the transfer when completed and made should be registered. It might also be provided that no presentation should take place until some days after the registration, so as to give ample time for any inquiries to be made. As it stood he must repeat that this was the most unintelligible and ill-worded Bill he ever remembered being brought into the House.

Bill read a Third time.

Clause 1,—