] First, you write of advowson that "the right consisted of being allowed to propose a candidate for a living, not the right to install one. The right to actually install was the perogative of the local bishop." While that might be technically true in canon law, query whether it was true in substance. My sense is that the bishop's right of installation was for practical purposes never exercised contrary to the patron's will, except perhaps in the case of a notoriously scandalous candidate. The quality of the Anglican clergy in the 18th century was too low, and the English respect for both property and patronage too high for it to have been otherwise.

that is a bit of a sweeping statement. I grant you that the Anglican clergy were not perfect but I doubt if still they would have fallen below a certain standard. The worst that you could say would be that they might be uneducated liek Mr Collins and occasionally scandalous..in which case the Bishop wold probalby not instal. I seem to remember a history lecturer speaking of a cleric or tow who fell into hte grave at an interment becuase he was drunk. Besdies the local landlord would have a better opportunity to know the candidates possibly than hte Bishop. the worst scandal in a way was teh letting of livings to curates who were oftne uneducated, with large families - who were only earning a small stipend which left them just above the working classes while the gentlemna's son pocketed most of teh money and lived abroad or in London like the Rev Vesey Stanhope in Barchester Towers.