SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 March 1869)

THE EARL OF DERBY
said, that this Bill involved some important principles. 801 In consequence of the position which he had the honour to fill in the University of Oxford, he had been consulted by both the promoters and opponents of the measure, had heard both sides, and had endeavoured to form an impartial judgment upon its merits. He was sorry to say that this was a case in which a house was divided against itself, the promoters being the junior Fellows of Oriel College, and the Principal, though not the only, opponent being the Provost of that College. In justice to the Provost it should be understood that his opposition was based entirely on public considerations, for the Bill would not come into operation until the next avoidance of his office, and personally he would not be in the slightest degree affected by it. There were no means of knowing precisely the emoluments at present enjoyed by the Provost in his academical capacity; but he believed he might say they did not exceed £500 a year—a sum which their Lordships would certainly deem utterly inadequate to maintain the proper position of a gentleman placed at the head of one of the most distinguished Colleges in Oxford. But in the reign of Queen Anne an Act was passed annexing to the provostship a canonry in Rochester Cathedral, on the avowed ground of the inadequacy of the College income to maintain his position; and in the reign of George III. another Act was passed—he presumed on the same ground—annexing to it likewise the rectory of Purleigh, in Essex. The present Bill proposed to deprive the Provost of these annexations. The two preferments, it seemed to him, stood on distinct grounds. Purleigh was a large agricultural parish, containing between 3,000 and 4,000 acres, and a population of about 1,000, and it was obvious that the parochial duties of such a rectory could not be discharged by the head of a College at Oxford, filling at the same time the office of a canon of Rochester, but must be intrusted to the exclusive care of a curate, on such a salary as the Provost might allow. The living, according to the Bill, was of the net value of £1,200 per annum, after defraying the expenses of the curate in charge; but, according to the Clergy List, the gross income, after deducting the salary of a curate, was only £1,141. As to the canonry, he saw no objection in point of principle to its retention by the Provost, 802 for his academical duties were not such as to render it difficult for him to discharge the duties of a canon in residence during three months of the year. The Bill, however, proposed—he would not say to disestablish and disendow, although those terms had lately been much in vogue—but to disannex both the rectory and the canonry, and to effect an exchange, to be sanctioned of course by Parliament and by the Crown. The canonry it was proposed to exchange either with the Crown or the Bishop of the diocese for a living or livings of equal value, to be placed in the hands of the Provost and Fellows, and to be disposed of in the same manner as the other patronage of the College, subject to the proviso that the Provost should be expressly debarred from receiving such living. Practically, therefore, the Fellows would purchase ecclesiastical preferment's. Now he felt bound to say that of all modes of ecclesiastical patronage that of Colleges was the most objectionable—and he said this without any disrespect—because practically they could exercise no option. Every living at the disposal of a College was usually offered to the senior Fellow, and he, if it was a good one, accepted it, while if not he rejected it, and it was then offered to the other Fellows according to seniority, till it was accepted by the one who thought he had the least chance of getting anything better. The consequence was that then there was no opportunity of preferring any person "extern" to the College to any living which any Fellow of the College thought it worth while to take himself. Practically then there was no option on the part of the nominal patrons, and he had certainly known cases in which the nominations made had been a scandal to the Church, and for which the only excuse had been that there was no option but to offer it to each Fellow in succession. There was a provision in the Bill that after sanction had been given to the exchange of the canonry for a rectory, or other preferment, it should be competent for the College to allot such a sum as they might deem necessary as compensation to the Provost for the alienation of the canonry. The object of the measure, as distinctly stated in the Preamble and in the first clause, was to enable a layman to be appointed to the Provostship of Oriel College. He believed there was at present no distinct 803 prohibition of this, but the emoluments being mostly of an ecclesiastical character it was virtually necessary that a clergyman should be appointed. Now he did not object in principle to the alienation of the canonry and rectory which had formerly been annexed to the Provostship, but the Bill proposed that £900 out of the £1,100 or £1,200 which the rectory produced should be taken away from the rector and paid as compensation to the Provost, who would no longer have the slightest connection with the living. This arrangement seemed to him open to objection. While not wishing, then, to oppose the second reading, he thought there were questions involved in the Bill which called for the consideration of the House and the Government, and it would, he hoped, be carefully considered by the Select Committee to which it would be sent.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, he was glad that the Bill had not been read a second time sub silentio. But for the fact that the canonry and rectory had been given by Act of Parliament, and could not, consequently, be dealt with under the provisions of the Act of 1854, the College would, in the ordinary course, have applied to the visitor, whose office for several centuries had been exercised by the Crown, and the case would have been heard by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, from whom it would, he was sure, have received the most careful consideration. He hoped the scheme would not meet with a smaller measure of attention than would in that case have been given to it. The object of the Bill, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had explained, was to enable the Fellows of the College to elect a layman as Provost if they thought fit. Whether that change was a desirable one he would not now discuss; but it might fairly be said that a clerical Provost could do everything that a lay Provost could; whereas there were some functions affecting the internal government and religious services of the College which a layman could not discharge. Still, it might be desirable not to fetter the discretion of the Fellows in this matter. He agreed, however, with the noble Earl that the mode in which it was proposed to carry out the exchange and to provide an endowment for the lay Provost was very objectionable. He did not know that he could so quite so far 804 as the noble earl in his objection to the exercise of collegiate patronage. As long as Colleges could present young Fellows, they usually sent very useful clergymen; but the misfortune was, that the best livings were generally waited for by Fellows who had passed their period of activity, and often had no experience of parish work till a time when they had ceased to be fit for it. Instead of alienating from future rectors almost the whole of the endowment, he should prefer the sale of the advowson altogether, and the application of the proceeds to the endowment of the provostship. He trusted that the Bill would receive very careful consideration.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he thought it was important to consider the propriety of altering the fundamental constitution of a College by a Private Bill. Such a proceeding he thought extremely dangerous. He was obliged to watch every Session against attempts to accomplish by private legislation objects which were of public importance; and, unless the practice was checked, the greatest mischief and confusion would arise. Power was given in cases like this to the Privy Council, the Orders being then subject to the confirmation of Parliament, and this was the proper course to be pursued.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he was not competent to enter upon the question as to whether the Bill should or should not have been introduced as a Private Bill; but certainly, whether this was a subject for private or public legislation, advantage had arisen from the Bill being placed by the noble Lord (Redesdale) among the Notices of Public Business. He understood the living of Purleigh was of larger value than had been stated by the noble Earl, the amount being £1,800. The object of the Bill seemed to him clearly a good one, for it could not be desirable that the head of a College should derive his income from a rectory at a considerable distance from Oxford, and from a canonry which was also distant. Whether Colleges were good patrons of livings was a question which he must leave to be discussed by the noble Earl and right rev. Bishop; but with regard to canonries he thought the Crown was a much better patron than for livings. As to the Provost being a layman, the wisest course surely was to allow the option, in order that 805 the fittest man might be selected, whether lay or clerical. The remarks which had been made would, no doubt, lead to a very careful consideration of the details of the Bill by the Select Committee.