THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the Bill was brief in itself and simple in its character. It was intended to meet a difficulty of not infrequent occurrence. It was obviously desirable that, the Bishop should be able to know who was the patron of any individual benefices in his diocese; and in some senses n was important and necessary, because there were occasions on which notices had to be given to the patron of the living when any steps were taken in regard to if. In a large number of instances this knowledge was not within the reach of the Bishop. All that could be ascertained was who made the presentation to the living when it vacancy last occurred. Since that dale the patronage might have changed hands many times, and frequently that hail been the case. When the living became vacant the presentation was sent to the Bishop, who was bound to act upon it on ascertaining that the presentation in itself was valid. But all the time this might be an illegal transaction. The patronage might have been sold during the vacancy It was to meet such a case that he had drawn up this Bill, and he believed it would meet a large number of cases which were continually occurring and giving trouble to the Bishops. The Bill provided that on a living becoming vacant notice in writing of the intended transfer and the address of transferor and transferee should be sent to the Bishop. This would render impossible the sale of next presentations during the time of a vacancy. Besides meeting a practical difficulty the Bill would tend, it not to abolish, at any rate to diminish, the traffic in livings, because when livings were sold they were often repurchased and sold again, and passed from hand to hand that some pecuniary gain might be made. He moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the House would be well advised to see if the Dill carried out the object which the most rev. Prelate had in view, as he could see one or two difficulties which might arise by adhering to the language of the Bill without providing some safeguards.
§ LORD HERSCHELLsaid he heartily sympathised with the object of the Bill. But his fear was lest it should be too little. It dealt with a great evil—of that 466 he had no doubt—but it dealt with, it so tenderly that he was afraid it would not do much to diminish the evil.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid he was quite aware that there was a much larger question lying behind: but attempts had been made to deal with the larger question both in that House and the other without any success. Therefore, it was better to do what one could, even if the Bill did not cover the whole scope of the evil, than let abuses go on year after year without any attempt to deal with them. He would be willing in Committee to make any alteration in the wording of the Measure, but he trusted that by allowing the Second Reading of the Bill their Lordships would show the desire, which he was sure they all felt, to get rid of this abuse, and do what they could, if they could not do all they desired. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.