HC Deb 13 February 1872 vol 209 cc291-4
MR. MOWBRAY

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether by an Act of Parliament passed in 1871, Her Majesty is entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme only a person who is a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford; whether the Reverend Wigan Harvey, M.A., of King's College, Cambridge, was on the 10th day of October, 1871, incorporated as a Member of Oriel College, in the University of Oxford, and having subsequently completed forty-two days of residence within the last-mentioned University was, on the 22nd day of November, 1871, admitted by the Vice Chancellor of Oxford "ad jus suffragandi in domo Convocations," in these terms, "Magister licebit tibi post centum et octoginta dies ex hoc die numerandos jus suffragrandi in domo Convocationis exercere;" whether the Reverend Wigan Harvey was, on the 15th December, 1871, presented to the Rectory of Ewelme, and further instituted thereto on February 6, 1872; whether the Statutes of the University of Oxford provide "Neque liceat ulli jus suffragandi in domo Convocationis exercere nisi post centum et octoginta dies ex eo die quo coram Vice Cancellario comparuerit computandos;" whether under these circumstances Her Majesty has been advised that the Reverend Wigan Harvey was, on the 15th December last, such a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford as Her Majesty was by Law entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme; and, whether he is aware when or by whom it was first suggested to the Reverend Wigan Harvey that he should become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford?

MR. GLADSTONE

I will, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, begin with the last of his formidable list of Questions, which I have seen for the first time this morning, because that is alone strictly within my province. It was first suggested to the Rev. Mr. Harvey that he should become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford by myself on the 31st of July last, when, the Act having passed, it became my duty to consider, in view of the approaching voidance of the living, how it should be disposed of. With the four Questions, from the second to the fifth, I have no concern whatever. It was my duty to inform the Rev. Mr. Harvey of the conditions of the Act of Parliament. With the Question as to whether he should become a member of the Convocation of Oxford I had nothing to do. That matter rested entirely between himself and the University. If Mr. Harvey, under the guidance of the authorities of the University, has duly qualified himself, he is then Rector of Ewelme. If he has not duly qualified himself under those formidable statutes which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, and which I am glad to see he appears to have by heart, then so much the worse for Mr. Harvey, inasmuch as I apprehend he is not Rector of Ewelme at this moment. But as that is rather a serious question, I have taken the liberty of sending these Questions of the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. Harvey, and I have no doubt he will give me an opportunity of knowing how the matter stands. It is no part of the duty of the First Minister of the Crown to ascertain, by the inspection of original documents and of deeds, the qualifications of persons whom he presents. It is his duty to see they know what qualifications they ought to have, and it is his duty to have presumable and probable evidence upon the case. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make inquiry, he will find that cases of such a nature have constantly happened. On the day when I came into office I found two cases of great importance, with respect to which most important legal doubts were stated to me to exist. They had just been made by the Crown; and as to one of them, it took the Law Officers a considerable time before they could arrive at a conclusion. In the first Question, although it is not very clearly expressed, the right hon. Gentleman asks in what sense it is that I understand the Act passed last year. He asks—"Whether by an Act of Parliament passed in 1871, Her Majesty is entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme only a person who is a Member of Convocation of the University of Oxford?" Yes, Sir, that is so, and I have reason to know that, because my concern in the Act of Parliament is altogether a special one. The Bill for severing the Rectory of Ewelme from the Regius Professorship of Divinity was a measure for which I was peculiarly responsible. When the Bill was brought in, desiring to pay all possible respect to the University, although it was needful to separate the Rectory from the Professorship, my object was to leave the Rectory as nearly as possible in the same position in which it stood before the severance with reference to the privileges of the University of Oxford. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say, knows perfectly well what that position was. The Queen could appoint to the Professorship of Divinity any person she pleased, whether a member of the University of Oxford or not; but the Regius Professor of Divinity became, of course, upon his appointment, a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. In the Bill, as originally introduced, it was provided that no person should be eligible for the Rectory except a person who was eligible for the Professorship. But in the House of Lords it was thought better to say—except a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. When that was brought under my notice I said I saw no objection to it, because just as the University of Oxford would receive or did receive habitually as a member a person presented to the Professorship, so they would receive a person presented to the Rectory of Ewelme. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it was no part of my duty—indeed, it would have been inconsistent with it—to submit to any limitation of the patronage of the Crown. The object was to effect a practical reform, but to leave the patronage where it was. The patronage was not limited before the severance, and consequently it was not to be limited to the Regius Professorship afterwards. My concern in the Bill was considerable, because when the rights of the Crown are affected by a measure going through this House, by the Rules of this House it cannot pass unless the consent of the Crown be given. It was my duty to advise with respect to the consent of the Crown, and I could not have advised the consent of the Crown being given to that measure if it had been professed or declared that the intention of the measure was to limit that patronage. I saw no such intention to limit the patronage of the Crown, and therefore to narrow the circle of selection of persons for the Rectory of Ewelme. I will not enter further into this question; but if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to have a discussion at length, I shall be most happy to state my reasons for this appointment.

MR. MOWBRAY

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered some of my Questions. Do I understand that he will on a subsequent day, after communication with the Rev. Mr. Harvey, answer them if I repeat them?

MR. GLADSTONE

I have referred them to Mr. Harvey, and I will take care that whatever information I can obtain is given to the right hon. Gentleman.