§ Commons' Amendments considered (according to order).
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that this Bill had been passed through the House of Lords as a Consolidation Bill, and the noble and learned Lord in charge of it objected to any Amendment being introduced. But in the House of Commons large additions bad been made to Clause 7. There had been included in the exemption from the operation of the Mortmain Acts the Universities of London and Durham and the Victoria University. The inclusion of those Universities made a very large addition indeed to the existing exemptions. All Colleges and houses of learning within these Universities were included in this privilege, and it might be a question how far Colleges affiliated to these Universities would claim a like exemption. If so, the scope of exemption would be enormously extended. He, therefore, begged to move an Amendment to include Keble College, by adding the words "and the warden, council, and 381 scholars of Keble College." Keble College was incorporated by Royal Charter, but was not technically part of the University of Oxford. A Bill for conferring upon Keble College exemption from the restrictions of the Mortmain Act had passed the House of Lords that Session, but was met in the House of Commons on the third reading by a Resolution that such a question ought to be settled by public and not by private legislation. The College had been for many purposes a part of the University, and had done admirable work for 18 years. The Council, of which he was a member, was constantly applied to with reference to their powers under the Mortmain Acts, and they had a power of holding land to the value of £5,000 a-year; but the incapacity of testators to bequeath still remained, and would be obviated by his Amendment. He begged leave to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment moved, in Clause 7, Sub-section 1, after ("colleges,") to insert ("or to or in trust for the warden, council, and scholars of Keble College.")—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that there were no Colleges affiliated to the University of London, though there were some many years ago. Keble College was not technically within the University of Oxford. He did not think that while King's College and University College were not exempted it would be expedient to include Keble College. His sole knowledge of the question was derived from his connection with the University of London as a member of the Senate. He objected to the introduction of this Amendment at the last stage of the Bill.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPunderstood that Yorkshire College, Leeds, was affiliated to the Victoria University. The noble Earl had touched the case of London University, but had not referred to Victoria University, and what he was asking the House to do was what in other instances they had already done. They had already passed a Bill giving Keble College those privileges. It had been resisted in its progress in "another place," and he now only asked their Lordships to put Keble College in the position it would have been in if the Amendment relating to public legisla- 382 tion had not been introduced on the third reading.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that, to some extent, he agreed with his noble Friend. At the same time, he would point out that when the Bill left the House it was simply a Consolidation Bill of Mortmain Laws, and if it had been allowed to remain in that form it would have been impossible to introduce this Amendment. But, unfortunately, a practice had grown up of making Amendments in Consolidation Bills; and in this Bill the Commons had introduced the Amendment with respect to the Victoria University. It was, therefore, not unnatural of his noble Friend to move this Amendment. But if this inconvenient practice were continued, it would render all attempts at consolidation perfectly useless, if not altogether impossible. He did not altogether object to the Amendment of the noble Earl, but desired to point out that if it was pressed it would probably imperil the Bill.
§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)agreed with the Lord Chancellor that this practice was a very inconvenient one. Their Lordships were under a great disadvantage in considering the Bill, as they were without a copy of the Committee's Amendments and of the Amendment the noble Earl proposed.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he should persist in his Amendment.
§ On Question, whether the words be here inserted? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Not-Contents 7: Majority 4.
| CONTENTS, | |
| Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Fortescue, E. |
| Cranbrook V. (L. President.) | Brabourne, L. |
| Denman, L. | |
| Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.] | |
| Rutland, D. | |
| Knutsford, L. | |
| Stratheden and Campbell, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. [Teller.] | |
| Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Buckingham and Chandos, D. [Teller.] | Elphinstone, L. |
| FitzGerald, L. | |
| Herschell, L. | |
| Kimberley, E. [Teller.] | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Waldegrave, E. |