HC Deb 19 April 1888 vol 324 cc1687-702

Order for Third Reading read.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, that in rising to move that the Bill be now read the third time, he ought to apologize to the House for taking up its most valuable time by explaining the object of a measure of this kind at so late a stage. The course, however, which had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny) necessitated this, and it was a most unusual one. It was a Bill which had passed the other House of Parliament through all its stages, not merely as a matter of form, but after having received full consideration there. As far as he knew, no opposition had been raised to it at any stage. It then came down to that House, and had passed the early stages in the usual way. Having been read a second time, it went before the Chairman of Committees, who made a special Report upon it, and now, having passed all the other stages, it came before the House for a third reading. He must apologize for occupying the time of the House on a matter of that kind; but there was no other alternative left, seeing that hon. Members opposite sought to throw out the Bill upon the third reading. No doubt, it was within the right of hon. Members to take objection, even to the last stage of the Bill; but in consequence of that action it became necessary that he should explain to the House, in a few words, what the objects of the measure were. "The Mortmain Act," so-called, of Geo. II., was passed with the object (according to Williams on Real Property) of preventing improvident alienations or dispositions of landed estates by languishing or dying persons, to the disherison of their lawful heirs. This Statute provides— That no lands or hereditaments …. shall be conveyed or settled for any charitable uses, unless such lands or hereditaments …. be conveyed by deed …. 12 calendar months at least before the death of the donor or granter. And all gifts, conveyances, and settlements for any charitable uses whatsoever made in any other manner or form than by that Act is directed, are declared to be absolutely and to all intents and purposes null and void. Gifts to either of the two Universities, or any of their Colleges, or to the Colleges of Eton, Winchester, or Westminster, for the support and maintenance of the scholars only upon these foundations are excepted. Now, Keble College did not come technically within that enactment, and, therefore, the Bill had been introduced for the purpose of placing that College on the same footing in this respect as that occupied by the other Oxford Colleges. He should have thought that it did not require any great argument to recommend a Bill containing such provisions to the favourable consideration of the House. After all, what did the Bill do? It merely enabled Keble College to receive bequests of property in the same way as the other Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. It was stated that Keble College was not like the other Colleges, either in Oxford or Cambridge; that it had special privileges, and did not come under the operation of the ordinary law. That was the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney Kenny), but even if there were misguided persons who chose to waste their money in making bequests of this kind, he (Mr. Talbot) could not see why their wishes should have no effect and they should be prohibited from doing so. The hon. and learned Member or his Friends were apparently under the impression that people attached to Keble College were likely to endow it with a large amount of property. There was, however, this Proviso in the Bill, that Keble College should only be empowered to hold real estate devised by will to the value of £5,000 per annum. That was not an alarming amount of property for a College to hold. There was only one other argument with which he would trouble the House. Since the passing of the Mortmain Act of Geo. II., to which he had already referred, similar enabling Bills to that which he had now the honour of submitting bad been passed by Parliament. Exemptions had been granted by Private Acts—in the cases of the Royal Naval Asylum, by an Act of 1811; the St. George's Hospital, by an Act of 1834; and the University College of London, by an Act of 1869. All those Acts had been passed to relieve the Colleges from the restrictions imposed by the Mortmain Act, and he only asked that Keble College should have the same immunity. He knew there were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who took a denominational view of the matter; but he should have thought that, on general Liberal principles, there would have been no objection to allow Keble College, within such reasonable limits, to possess real property. It had been stated that if Keble College had been incorporated, it would have enjoyed the same immunities which other Colleges at Oxford now enjoyed. He maintained that that was not necessarily so, because the College had been founded after the passing of the Act of Geo. II., and it might be contended that the immunities granted under the Act of Geo. II. applied only to Colleges existing at the passing of the Act. He knew of no other objection to the passing of the Bill, which in itself was a most reasonable measure. It would remove any possible misunderstanding in future. He was sorry to take up the time of the House at any length on a question of this kind; but, before sitting down, he desired it to be understood that the duty of taking charge of the Bill devolved itself upon him as a Representative of the University of Oxford, and that he had been in no way influenced by the fact that a near relative of his was the Warder of Keble College. He was simply acting as the Representative of the Governing Body of the College, and he begged to move the third reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

MR. COURTNEY KENNY (York, W.R., Barnsley) ,

in moving, as an Amendment— That it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church, said, the hon. Member who moved the third reading of the Bill (Mr. J. G. Talbot) had complained of what he called the unusual course he (Mr. Kenny) and his Friends were taking. He desired, therefore, to point out, at the outset, that those who were opposed to the measure had been compelled to adopt the course they had followed, of moving the rejection of the Bill on the third reading, in consequence of the promoters of the measure having thought fit to introduce it as a Private Bill, and not as a public measure. The first intimation conveyed to the great majority of Members of the House that such a Bill had been introduced was contained in the Report of the Select Committee to whom the Keble College Bill was referred. That Report, which the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to, but had not read to the House, said that the Bill contained an alteration of the general law; and under those circumstances, the Committee, although they passed the Bill without amendment, decided that it ought to be submitted to the judgment of the House. Such a Report ought not to be a mere form, and so important an alteration of the general law ought not to be passed silently and unchallenged, without an explanation and without discussion. The hon. Member complained of the action of the opponents of the Bill in provoking discussion on a measure of the kind; but he (Mr. Kenny) would remind the House that they had the authority of Sir Erskine May for saying— Provisions in a Private Bill which repeal or amend a Public Act require particular vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places. He had listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, in order to learn the grounds on which the Governing Body of Keble College sought to be emancipated from the restrictions of the Statute, which had now regulated the bequests of property to educational institutions for a century and a-half. Unless they were, through Private Bill legislation, merely to play and trifle with the law of the land, for special and peculiar exemption from the general rule of law, they should have an equally special and peculiar reason. What reason was there for the exemption which this Bill proposed? They were not called upon to discuss the policy of the Mortmain Act; but it had been the law of the land since 1736, and had recently been confirmed by both Houses of Parliament, seeing that the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill had passed the House of Lords this Session, and was read a second time in the House of Commons on the 23rd of March, only four weeks ago, without a Division. As Keble College did not oppose that Bill, it might be taken that it accepted the principle of it. It, however, disliked having the principle applied to itself. The hon. Member had referred to the precedent of the University College of London. That was the only precedent the hon. Gentleman could produce, and it was a curious illustration of the anomalies which arose, when Private Bills were introduced, to evade the general rules of law, for, although the University College obtained this exemption, its Mother Institution, the University of London, had no such privilege. Nor had the University of Durham. Yet those bodies were National Universities, whereas Keble College was not a University and was not National. Moreover, the University College of London was open to all sects, whereas Keble was confined by its Charter to the Established Church. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have brought forward the case of the University College, as it afforded such a striking illustration of the evil of dealing with cases of this kind by the anomalous action of special Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member was entitled to allude with just pride to his personal connection with Keble College, and he (Mr. Kenny) congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the success of that College; but, with all his respect for that College, he must point out that it could not be regarded as a National Instition. The hon. Member had quoted it as an instance of a College which closely approximated to the exemptions embodied in the Act of Geo. II. but said that by mere technicality it did not come within the provisions of that Act. Now, he ventured to submit that there was much more than a technical dis- tinction. There was a political and Parliamentary distinction between Keble College and the Colleges which really formed part of the University of Oxford. What was that distinction? No Nonconformist Denominational Institution enjoyed the favour which this Bill would give to Keble College. It was said that all the Colleges incorporated with the University of Oxford were exempt. Yes; and if Keble College so incorporated itself, it would possess by ordinary legal right what it now sought to obtain by extraordinary legal privilege. The Governing Body of Keble College had a Charter authorizing them to incorporate the College with the University. They had that right, but during their 18 years of existence they had never availed themselves of it, because if they cast in their lot with the University, they would have to follow the fortunes of the University. If Keble became part of a National Institution it would come under the direct control of Parliament, and would subject itself to the liability of being reformed whenever Parliament again applied itself to the reform of the National Universities. Oxford and Cambridge and their colleges were exempt from the operation of the Mortmain Act of 1736, because Parliament naturally put no restraint on the increase of endowments which were not mere private trusts, but were directly subject to Parliamentary control and correction. It was said that the Collegiate exemption ought to be extended, because of the recent legalisation at Oxford of various new extra-Collegiate classes of foundations like Keble College. If that were proposed, it would have to be remembered that the University might at any time revoke its connection with these foundations, including Keble College. He ventured to submit that the proper course was not to ask for special privileges for Keble College, but to alter the general law relating to the University. At present no general exemption was proposed. Keble College asked only for piecemeal legislation to benefit herself, and not to benefit similar foundations. He was not quite sure, however, if such a measure were passed, and new foundations were allowed to have the benefit of it, that Keble College would be able to put forward as strong a claim as that of other new foundations. The hon. Member had spoken of Keble College throughout as if it were connected inherently and by the necessity of its existence with the University of Oxford; but if he had read the Charter, he would have seen that it in no way connected her with Oxford, either by requiring her Governing Body to be Oxford men, or by requiring her buildings to be permanently at Oxford. There was not a single syllable in the Charter which required even the keeping up of the geographical connection with Oxford, and if ever a gathering storm should threaten the University, Keble College would be able to shake off all connection with it, and go away. And she had purposely kept her chapel unconsecrated, because consecration might introduce difficulties in regard to the exercise of some such powers given to the Governing Body by the Charter. At any moment Keble College would be able to sell her present site. Not only had her endowments no indissoluble connection with Oxford, but they were not even connected indissolubly with education itself. In their sedulous care to put Keble College beyond the reach of the reforming hand of Parliament, the framers of the Charter had authorized the Governing Body and the Visitor of the College to surrender the Charter, and dispose of the College property "as they shall judge expedient." He thought he had given adequate grounds for asking the House, even at this stage of the measure, to reject it, and not suspend the general law for the purpose of giving undue facilities to Keble College for the acquisition of property which, immediately after acquiring, she would be able to dispose of. He opposed the Bill, because it aimed at conferring exceptional legal privileges for the acquisition of property upon a Corporation which would have power to apply it to purposes at present unknown, and because to confer this privilege upon Keble College would be to place a premium upon the creation of Institutions which aimed at enjoying the advantage of University life, whilst repudiating the comprehensive national character and the complete national responsibility which Parliament had seen fit to stamp upon all the Universities of this country. He had great pleasure in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be extended to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church,"—(Mr. Courtney Kenny,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

said, he was not aware that the Bill was coming on that day, and had, therefore, not come down prepared to speak upon it. But he was much surprised that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kenny) should have moved the Amendment, because his (Mr. Parker's) impression was—and he should be glad to be corrected if he was wrong—that no College in Oxford was incorporated with the University, but that the University itself was a Corporation, and each College formed a separate Corporation. If so, they would find themselves in a false position in resolving to exclude a College from certain advantages because it was not incorporated. The Bill itself, it was true, recited in the Preamble that Keble College had not been incorporated with the University, and assumed that other Colleges had been. He trusted that some hon. Member would tell the House whether that was so or not. As to the substance of the Amendment, he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, in moving it, should have expressed pleasure in doing so. He (Mr. Parker) should have rather thought it was a painful duty, because it should be borne in mind that Keble College was founded and endowed by members of a particular Church, in order that they might enjoy education at Oxford in connection with the University. Not a farthing of its resources came from any source other than the subscriptions of that Church. When Keble College was founded, there was a movement against it both in the University and outside the University. There was a contention then that it was the policy of Parliament that the Colleges in the University should be thrown open on equal terms to all denominations, and that no new College should be founded at Oxford on different terms. But when the question was discussed publicly there was a strong preponderance of feeling in favour of allowing the members of the Church of England, or of any other Church, to provide such a College at their own cost. What was proposed by the present Bill was to give Keble College the benefit of an exemption which other Colleges enjoyed from the provisions of die Mortmain Act. Already under their charter Keble College could purchase and hold landed property to the extent of £5,000, the Bill would simply further enable a testator to leave such property to them within the same limit of £5,000. No one could doubt that the Committee upstairs had acted rightly, and in accordance with precedent, in referring the question to the House itself, because it was most undesirable that any Committee upstairs should alter the general law without obtaining an expression of the opinion of the House upon it; but he hoped the House, now the question had been referred to it, would see no objection to allowing this College, which, for all practical purposes, was admitted to rank with the other Colleges in the University, to be on an equal footing with them as regarded the Law of Mortmain. He trusted that the House would not be so narrow-minded as to stop the progress of this Bill, but would consider it desirable that all the Colleges of Oxford should be equally free to receive endowments in land. He did not see why Keble College alone should be disabled merely because it had been founded by and for the members of one Church.

MR. COZENS-HARDY (Norfolk, N.)

said, he had before him the Charter of Keble College, and it contained express power enabling the College to obtain incorporation with the University of Oxford. He also held in his hand an extract from the Charter of Jesus College, which provided that it should be incorporated with the University; and the same course was pursued in the charter of Pembroke College. He believed that it would be found that the same provision applied to the rest of the Colleges. Hitherto Keble College had not availed itself of the provision of its Charter enabling it to obtain incorporation with the University. If the promoters of the Bill would apply all the general legislation relating to Oxford University to Keble College, then let the College have the benefit of the Act of Geo. II.; but as long as Keble College said there were two Statutes affecting it, the advantages of one of which it was entited to claim and the disadvantages of the other it was entitled to reject, then he objected. He hoped the House would not confer that special privilege on Keble College. There were at present a number of educational institutions throughout the length and breadth of the land, and why should not they be entitled to those privileges as well as Keble College? If it was a matter for general legislation, then let it be so considered. Let the restrictions now imposed by the Act of Geo. II. be removed from all Colleges; but do not let the House, by a Private Bill, confer upon this strictly and purely denominational College a privilege which was now denied to all the other educational institutions throughout the country.

SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY (Oxford University)

hoped the House would agree to the third reading of the Bill, and would reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny). The first objection raised to the measure was that it was a Private Bill. So far as that objection went, he (Sir John R. Mowbray) might point out that one College—namely, University College, London, had come forward and obtained an Act of Parliament for the holding of land in mortmain. The hon. Member said that no such privilege had been given to the University of London. As a matter of fact, the University of London had never asked for such a privilege. The University of London was an examining body, and had no necessity for such privilege; but if circumstances should arise to necessitate the University of London asking for the same privilege, he felt sure the House would grant it at once. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees had acted rightly in calling the attention of the House to the provisions of the measure. The hon. Gentleman, while pointing out that this was a Private Bill, accompanied his remarks with a statement that University College, London, had obtained a similar privilege by means of a Private Bill in 1869. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy), who spoke last, said this was a privilege which had been denied to other educational institutions. That was not so, and he challenged the hon. Member to name an institution which had asked for it, and had not received it. Other institutions had obtained similar privileges. Another objection to the Bill was the remarkable and technical one that this was not a College incorporated with the University of Oxford. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. C. S. Parker) asked in what condition a College would be placed which was incorporated with the University of Oxford? He could only point out that incorporation was an old and obscure process, and he was not able to enlighten the hon. Member as to the effect it would have. He did not know whether any Professor would be able to enlighten the hon. Member; because, as he (Sir John Mowbray) was informed, no College had been incorporated with the University since 1612. The Charter of Keble College was granted on the 6th of June, 1870, John Keble having died in 1865. A large sum of money was collected, and an arrangement was made to build a College to his memory for which a Charter was granted in 1870. In 1871, this fact being well known, the University passed a series of Academical Statutes on new foundations, especially adapted to meet the case of Keble College. What did these Statutes say?— Any society or house founded since January the 1st 1870 for the purposes of education shall have the privileges which, under the Statutes of the University, are or shall be possessed by the Colleges within the University, on the condition and with limitation following—namely, on the condition—A. To be member of Convocation, or B.A., or B.M., or to have graduated in some other University in the United Kingdom. B. That if new buildings be provided suitable for the reception of students situate within the precincts of the University, the fulfilment of this condition to be ascertained and certified by the Vice Chancellor and Proctors. C. That its members be incorporated by Royal Charter. D. Society or house to be admitted to privileges by vote of Convocation after 14 days' notice. Provided that these conditions be satisfied, the persons admitted as students or graduates by the University, or for incorporation into any such Society or House shall have in relation to the University the same privileges and obligations as if they had been so admitted one of the previously existing Colleges or Houses, and all Statutes of the Universities in which mention is made, generally and without distinction of Colleges and. Houses, shall be deemed to include and apply to such newly-founded Society or House. The head shall, in regard to members of the Society or House, be subject to all such obligations and enjoy all such rights and powers as are assigned in the Statutes of the University to the heads of the University Colleges or Houses, but this Statute shall not be construed as conferring upon him any other right, privilege, or distinction whatever. He did not know the extent of that limitation, but he believed it was that the head of the College was not entitled to become Vice Chancellor, nor could the College itself supply Proctors to the University under a cycle regulated by a Statute made 200 years ago. He thought the passage he had read effectually disposed of the argument that Keble College had not been received into the University by the Statute passed in 1871. He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire say that it afforded him pleasure to move the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was himself obliged to admit the success of Keble College, and all he said against it was that it was not tied to the University of Oxford. Now, it was tied to Oxford University by one of the surest bonds—namely, that it had expended at least £100,000—probably £150,000—in land and in bricks and mortar. It was, in point of fact, a splendid College built by the liberality of Churchmen within the precincts of the University of Oxford. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the House passed this Bill there would be a multiplication of these Colleges. For his own part, he should be very glad to see a multiplication of them. He rejoiced at the success which had attended Keble College; and he would remind the House that since the foundation of Keble College, another College had been projected in connection with the University for the Nonconformist Body—namely, Mansfield College. The only privilege asked for by the Bill was that donors might bequeath property to Keble College in the same way that property was allowed to be left to other Colleges. No case had been made out for raising an objection to the progress of a College which had been doing exceedingly good work during the last 18 years. Surely it should be open to all classes of the community to found new Colleges, either upon denominational or non-denominational principles; and, if so, it should certainly be open to the Church of England to found Colleges for its own denomination. On these grounds he supported the third reading of the Bill.


said, he thought the House would expect him to say a word in regard to the question before they proceeded to a Division, though the main object of his observations would be to point out to the House that there were two distinct questions involved in the discussion. The first question was simply this—whether a College established at Oxford, such as Keble College, and in principle any other College which might be established there under the same conditions, should, in a limited degree, be emancipated from the restriction imposed generally in respect of the receipt of land devised to public bodies in mortmain—whether there should be a departure in the case of a now College, such as Keble College, or any similar Colleges, from the policy of the law as it now existed under the Statute of Geo. II.? That was a question which might be fairly argued, and a strong case, he thought, might be made out why Keble College, or any Roman Catholic or Wesleyan College which might be set up, should be relieved, under certain and proper limits, from the restriction of the Mortmain Act. But then came the second question—ought that emancipation to be effected by a Private Bill; or whether, being a variation of a public law, it ought to being brought before the House in a Public Bill instead of a Private Bill? He had more than once laid before the House a strong opinion that it was in the highest degree undesirable that any such departure from public law should be made in a Private Bill. In the first place, hon. Members did not know what had been done until after it had been done, and then they found, to their surprise, that an alteration had been made in the general public law by a Private Bill. Such a course opened a wide door to abuse; and if it were adopted we might find many gaps made in the public law by Private Bills which were passed without attracting notice at the time, but which might afterwards excite resentment. He was sorry that he had not hitherto been always able to persuade the House to adopt his view. He was afraid that the matter had been regarded as a pedantic and technical one. He denied that it was either pedantic or technical; on the contrary, it was sound and reasonable, and, in his opinion, the present Bill ought not to be proceeded with on the present lines. Whether a variation from the law of Geo. II. ought to be permitted was another matter. He would point out that even now it would not be too late to proceed this Session by Public Bill. There was at that moment before the House a Public Bill brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) to exempt from the same Statute Victoria University. That was an example of what he considered the right way of proceeding; and if it were followed in the case of Keble College, and the Bill were framed in more general terms, it might be dealt with this Session, and the impolicy of proceeding with a special Private Bill in respect to a public matter might be avoided. There was still another course which might be pursued, though he should not recommend it. There was a Public Bill now before the House for consolidating the law relating to mortmain and land held for charitable uses. If, as he understood, that was to be made not only a consolidating, but also an amending Bill, the introduction of half-a-dozen lines saying what was desired by the promoters of the present Bill and of the Victoria University Bill might be accomplished by the alteration of that one Bill; and then that Bill would contain the public law, with the exemptions from it which might be sanctioned by Parliament. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Courtney Kenny) that if he would amend his Amendment by making it declare that it was inexpedient to do what was now proposed by a Private Bill, he should feel constrained to follow him into the Lobby.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said, the objection of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Courtney) seemed to be chiefly a theoretical one. The hon. Gentleman, in quoting the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Barnsley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, appeared to have left out the real gist of the Amendment, which was contained in these words—"And which is restricted to the members of a particular Church." Now, it seemed to him that this argument, which was mainly relied on by those who had opposed the Bill, implied that exemption from the mortmain restriction depended upon the undenominational character of the Institution. That, however, was not at all the case. The exemption was given to all Colleges of Oxford at the time that they were denominational institutions, and it had never been proposed during the time they were denominational Institutions to take off the exemption on that account. Nor was he aware that in the debates on the abolition of trusts it had been urged in favour of the change that the Colleges of Oxford enjoyed this exemption. He did not propose to pursue the question of law, because he did not profess to know much about the law; but he believed that the passing of this Bill, and the passing of it quickly, was a matter of importance to Keble College. Keble College was an Institution for which everyone who desired that education should be combined with a high moral and religious tone must feel great admiration. It had sent forth, during its short existence, a large army of earnest workers in this and other countries, and, for practical reasons, the House would do a great injustice if it deprived it of a privilege which belonged to every other College in Oxford which was side by side with this. He had much pleasure in supporting the third reading of the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 127: Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment in line 3, after the word "extended," to insert the words "by a Private Bill."—(Mr. Courtney Kenny.)

Question, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question, That the words 'it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended by a Private Bill to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church,' be added after the word 'That' in the Main Question, put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put. Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the privilege of exemption from the Mortmain Act, enjoyed by the Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, should be extended by a Private Bill to any College which, though situate at Oxford, is not incorporated with the University, and which is restricted to the members of a particular Church.