MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES BILL—LORDS' AMENDMENTS— EXEMPTION OF KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD. (Hansard, 13 August 1888)

§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with reference to two entries which appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of the House for Saturday. They were these:— 45. Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to Amendments made by this House to Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill (Lords), and have made a consequential Amendment to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House. 46. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill (Lords),—Lords' Amendment to Commons' Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to. He wished to ask whether this Amendment related to an Institution known by 438 the name of Keble College, Oxford; whether the Amendment exempted that Institution from the provisions of the Bill; whether it did not, in fact, reverse a decision to which the House of Commons came earlier in the year, when the question was brought before the House by a Bill introduced for the special purpose of exempting the College from the Law of Mortmain; and, whether the Bill referred to in the Votes was to receive the Royal Assent by Commission that day?

§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that it would have been convenient if he had given me at least private Notice of his intention to ask this Question. It is not one, but many Questions. As to his first and second Questions relating to the consideration of the Lords' Amendment on the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill, it was agreed to on Saturday late in the afternoon, and included the provision to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. The Amendment was moved without any previous arrangement with the Government in the other House, and was carried on a division in the other House at 1 o'clock in the day; and the Government had to consider whether they ought to allow the Bill to be lost, or move that this House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment. It is a fact that it did bring the College in question within the exemptions of the Mortmain Act, as the Victoria University also had been brought, by a similar Amendment inserted in the Bill, within those exemptions. Under those circumstances, I think the Government were fully justified in recommending the House to agree to the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member says that that provision was distinctly negatived by the House when introduced here at an earlier period of the Session. If my memory serves me aright, the Bill authorizing the exemption from the prohibitions of the Mortmain Act was introduced as a private Bill, and was objected to on that ground alone. ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman may have himself objected to the proposal; but the former measure was objected to on the ground that it was a Private Bill, and it was said that so important a question ought to be dealt 439 with only by a Public Bill. That, I believe, is the correct explanation.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, that the Lords' Amendment was a consequential Amendment to the introduction of the Victoria University.

§ MR. E. ROBERTSON
Is it the fact that Victoria University is a public Institution regulated by Act of Parliament; and the other is a sectarian Institution which is not regulated by Act of Parliament?

§ MR. SPEAKER
reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.