The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-19 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Mr. ANSTEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether the Government would consent to the present
session being prolonged until the Parliamentary Oaths
Bill had received the decision of Parliament?—(Oh, oh,
and laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL believed the only answer he could
give was to repeat what he stated last night, namely
that he should declare on Monday the course he in-
tended to pursue with respect to that Bill.—(Laughter.)
LIGHTHOUSE ON THE GALI fA ISLAND.
Mr. HUME asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty whether, after the dreadful loss of the Avenger,
any steps had been taken to erect a lighthouse on Galita
Island or the Agluglia Rocks; or, what would be a
still more important boon to the navigation of the Me-
diterrannean (and especially to vessels bound to Malta),
on the Sherki Rocks, on which another lamentable
wreck took place, the Athenian, 64, in the year 1806.
All the surrounding nations would probably join in such
a nobleimpracticable.
Sir difficult perhaps, but by no means
Sir T. BARING said the Admiralty could not erect
a lighthouse on a foreign territory without the consent
of the Sovereign to which it belonged. He was not
aware that any correspondence had passed through the
Foreign-office with respect to the erection of a light
house on the island in question.
COUNTY RATES BILL.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS wished to ask the Hon. Member
fir Manchester whether it was his intention to proceed
with the County Rates Bill this session.
Mr. M. GIBSON said it was very obvious what his
intentions were with respect to the Bill at tbis late period
of the session; but he wished t) state, as his Hon.
Friend had put a question. that he had undertaken the
charge of the measure at the request of several persons
in different parts of the country. The principle of
the Bill was sanctioned by the House, and the
second reading agreed to without a division,
but the House had thought proper to hand him and the
Bill over to a hostile Committee, whose real intention
was not to amend but to destroy it. His campaign had
therefore been unsuccessful, but he hoped, after the
strong expression of the country on the subject, that
the Government would introduce a similar measure
next session, because it was quite impossible for any in•
aPsAhlio
sltNi
eGtTo Ot
the
Bsaid i tahnedr e
remindedwas no
dividual Member to do so with any chance of success.
foundationbitu
that
ii
for the statement of the Hon. Member that the Com-
miSttierejw.
was a Committee entirely of his own selection and
one to which he (Sir J. Packington) entertained serious'
objections.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY observed that all he could say
in reply to the Hon. Member (Mr. M. Gibson) was that
the Committee took a good deal of evidence in re-
ference to the Bill. That evidence, as well
as the practical suggestions of the Committee, be
would take into his consideration during the recess, but
he was not prepared to say that the Government would
bring in a Bill founded-on thetis next session.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL

In reply to Mr. GOULBURN,
Sir G. GREY said he hoped the House would assent,
to the third reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill this

evening.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that he proposed to ask
the House to read the Manchester Bonding Bill a third
time on Wednesday, but ho could assure the non. Gen-
tleman that the Bill was not the same Bill as when it
was originally introduced.
RICHMOND PARK.
In answer to a question from Lord DUNCAN,
Lord SEMOUR said that the best communication
whili he had received from° the late Duke of
Cambridge was to desire that the orders and regulations
of the Park might be modified, so as not to interfere with
the public convenience.—(Cheers.)
LANDLORD AND TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

In answer to Mr. BRIGHT,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he proposed to
adjourn
some day in the next week but one for the second read-
ing of this Bill,
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—POST OF-
FICE ENQUIRY.
On the motion that the House, at its rising,
until Monday next,
Mr. FOSTER enquired whether the enquiries respect-
ing the Post-office, had commenced, by whom it was
conducted, and how long it would last, and also whether
Government would take any steps before the report was
presented.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it had already
commenced, and that it was conducted
by Lord Clanricarde and Mr. Labouchere,
and Mr. Grey. He did not apprehend that it would take
much time, and he did not think it advisable to take any
steps until their report was presented.
Yr. HUME was proc, sling to put some questicus re-
lative to the grant to the family of the late Duke o

Cambridge, when
The SPEE AKER informed the Hon. Gentleman
that he was speaking to an order of the day which was
not yet read.
The motion for adjournment was then carried.
QUEEN'S MESSAGE—GRANT T THE FA-
MILY OF THE LATE DUKE O
OF CAM-
BRIDGE.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
the queen's Message,
Mr. HUME wished to know what was intended
to be done when they got into Committee.
He wished the Noble Lord to strte to the House gene-
rally what his views and intentions were, and the c,n-
-_ d tions upon which he proposed to make the grant. The
Mouse WWI
probably not aware that many years ago an
annuity of 27,0004 per annum was voted to the late

Duke, which he continued to receive up. to the
time of his death. The allowances to the Royal
Family, too, had been greatly increased by the changes
in the currency, and on that and other grounds they
ought to consider upon what principle the grant should
be made. The King of Hanover had most
unwarrantably, he thought, continued to receive
his allowance of 21,000/. on the Duke of Cumberland,
and he had twice asked the House of Commons to recon-
sider that allowance, but the House, on both occasions,
refused to entertain the subject. Besides that allow-
ance 250,0001. a year was paid to Hanover,
as a subsidy, but according to his idea of the
matter the payment ought to have ceased
the moment Hanover obtained an independent Sove-
reign. Now these were circumstances which ought to
be looked to before they made any additional grants, and
he had therefore prepared an amendment acmrdingly,
but he was anxious nut to move it if it could possibly be
avoided.
The House then went into Committee.

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose, and said he should
confine the observations he had to make to the subject
of her Majesty's most gracious message. The question
( f whether the annuity paid to the present Duke of
Cambridge was rightly paid or not under the authority
of the Act of Parliament, constituted a totally
beparate matter, and the Committee had now only to
deal with the case of the present Duke of Cambridge and
his sister, the Princess Mary. Now, the late Duke of
Cambridge, by an Act passed in 1778, was entitled to
part of an amount of 60,0001., which was allowed to
George HI. for the purpose of granting annuities to his
ounger sons. One of the provisions of that act was, that
none of the younger sons should at any time be allowed
more than 15,0001. per annum, while the annuities which
fell vacant by the death of one son was to pass to the
survivor. Under this act 6,000/. was added to
the annuity of the Duke of Cambridge, and
afterwards a further [annuity of 6,0001. a year was
granted to him. The whole sum paid annually to the
late Duke of Cambridge as an annuity was 27,0001., but
by a subsequent Act passed three years ago, an
annuity_ of 30,000/. sv.,s settled upon the
Princess- Augusta, whiCh was to come into opera.
tion at the death :of the Princess Sophie.
The next matter for the consideration ot the House was
the case of Prince George of Cambridge. The Honour-
able Gentleman the Member for Montrose was in
error in supposing that there was a settlement made
by Parliament ot 6,0001. a year on the present Duke of
Cambridge. The further question arose, whether Prince
George of Cambridge inherited from his father
any considerable amount of property. It had
been his (Lord John Russell's) duty to inquire
into this subject, because there were rumours that a
very large amount of property which was in possession
of the late Duke of Cambridge had been left to his
children. Those rumours, he found, had been very
considerably exaggerated. The sum which the late Duke
had left to his children was divided into three equal
portions, between the present Duke of Cambridge and
the two daughters of the late Duke, the Princess Meek-
lenburg •Strelitz and Princess Mary; and Prince George

of Cambridge was charged with the payment of annuities
to the amount of 1,6001. a-year during the lives of the
persons to whom those annuities were left by the late
Duke of Cambridge, which would absorb the whole

of the third part of the money which had been
left to him. All that remained to the present Duke of
Cambridge was the sum of 1,200 a year, which he
would receive in the shape of rent from the
estate at Coombe-wood. The House was well
aware that while it was true that the late
Duke of Cambridge did not exceed his income, and that
when he was Viceroy of Ireland he made some saving

out of his income, it was likewise true that those saving;
were notto any considerable amount, and that the amount
which the late Duke of Cambridge bestowed in charity
was always so munificent to prevent his amassing
any considerable fortune. The best statement he (Lord
J. Russell) could make of the situation of the present
Duke of Cambridge was that, besides the income he had
derived from the army, he bad no other income except
the 1.2001. a year derived from the small property of the
late Duke of Cambridge. He had income which he derived
f. om his professional services in the army; but with re-
spect to the income derived from that source, Prince
George of Cambridge has always done his duty as a
soldier— (Cheers) —and that income was as fairly
his right as the income of any officer in the army.—
(Cheers.) He (Lord John Russell) therefore came to
the conclusion that, in answer to her Majesty's message,
the House ought to make some provision for the
present Duke of Cambridge.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the
question arose as to what that provision should be.
Under all the circumstances he had come to the con-

elusion that the proper sum to allow the present
Duke of Cambridge would be 12,0001. a year. He pro-
posed that the Princess Mary of Cambridge should have
3,0001. a year, the present Duchess of Cambridge had
6,0001. a year, and the Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
had 3,000/. a year, making altogether 24,0001., which
would be 3,000/Jess than the late Duke of Cambride had.
Mr. HUME rose, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

COURSE OF EXCH.
Aminelorun .. •• • • •••• 12 1%1
WM). threemonths.. 12 3
Rotterdam .... •• • 12 3
intwerp•• •• •• •• •• •• •• 25 70
Brussels •• •• ...... 25 70
liamburgh ••M.B. 13 113{
Purls, 3 daysislght 25 47%

GE.-(THIS DAY.)
Gibraltar— •• •• •• •••• ••
Leghorn •• •• •• •• •• •• • • 30 70
Genoa •• •• • • •• •• •• •• •• 26 10
Venice•• •• •• •• •• •• so •• ••••••
!Tanks 40%
12114,
Messina 121%
Oporto•• •• • • • •• 63%
Rio Janeiro • • ...... ••

Ditto. 3 months .... 25 70-
2laraeilles .......... • 25 70
80urdeaux......... .
Frankfort on:Mains.... 120%
fierlin . • .. • • ...... • • ••
Vienna, eiree. iio .. 12 2
Trieste, ditto.... • • .... 12 3
Patelsburgh,Sll. Rble .. 37%
biadtid •• . • ••• • •• •• • • 49%
Cadiz •• •• •• •••• •• •• 49%
Barcelona •• •• .• •• .• ••
.• •• •• •• •• •• •• •

Buenos Ayres .. .•
York,6o dayeslght

Philadelphia .. ••

PAICIII Or BULLION, PEI Oi.
Foreign Geld in bars.. X 3 17 9
Portagal Gold Coln .. 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0
New Dollars .•.. •• 0 4 10%
Silver is bars ...... •• 0 4 11%

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 18.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE presented a petition from
Lincoln in favour of protection to native industry.
ENGLISH AND IRISH UNIVERSITIES.

The adjourned debate on English and Irish Universi-
ties was then resumed by
Mr. It. PALMER, who called the attention of the
House to what had transpired on the last occa-
sion. The Noble Lord (Lord John 'Rus-
sell) had stated, to the surprise of the
House that it was his intention, without reference to any
vote which might be come to by the House, to
advise her Majesty to issue a Commission, to in-
quire, not into all the universities mentioned in the
present motion, but into the universities of Ox-
ft:rd and Cambridge. They had to deal with two
distinct classes of corporations—the universities which
were corporations of a public nature, and colleges which
were regarded as corporations of an entirely charitable
nature. With respect to tho universities. they were cor-
porations of an unique character, and returned members
to Parliament. In every point of view, the functions
which they exercised were of a public character, and he
apprehended that they ought to be dealt with according
to the rules which governed and applied to public or
municipal corporations. There were two classes of cor-
porations—the civil and ecclesiastical. The universities
were lay corporations, and if that were so, it was set-
tled in point of law, that the Crown had no power to
alter their charters, any more than it had to alter
the charters of municipal corporations, which could
only be altered by, the authority of Parliament. The
colleges were charitable corporations and the: Crown
had no power whatever to institute changes in them, un-
less Parliament should think right to sanction the pro-
posed changes. The Hon. and Learned Member here
went into details of certain Acts of Parliament, passed in
rt ference to the universities and colleges in the reigns
of Henry the Eighth, Elizabeth, and Mary, and their
bearing on those institutions; but in the case of the
University of Oxford, any change attempted to be made
fell a dead letter, and the changes which took place
were made by the parties themselves connected with
the colleges composing the university. It was, after
those periods to which he referred, determined that the
universities and colleges were strictly lay institutions,
and that nothing could by possibility confer on the
Crown any power to meddle with those universities and
colleges. That was in the time of Charles the Second.
After that James the Second attempted to exercise a
power in relation to the universities, but the attempt
had been gallantly and manfully resisted, and every
historical authority down to Macaulay had recorded it.
—(Hear.) It was quite clear that whatever they de-
served to have done with respect to the universities,
they must now come to this House; and the question
was, would it be wise in Parliament to abandon its
functions, and give its assent to act in the manner just
as the Noble Lord proposed. He thought it was the
duty of the Noble Lord, and those who with him
proposed the opposite course, to come forward
and state explicitly what they meant to pro-
pose, in order that Parliament should have the op-
portunity of digesting it, and of considering the course
which it ought to take. It the course proposed by Go-
vernment should be persevered in, there would be very
great reluctance, and much conscientious scruples on the
part of those who felt a deep interest in the universities,
togive voluntary information. Why should this Com-
mission issue at all?—(Hear, hear.) Where was the
necessity for it?—(fleas.) The Noble Lord had said
there had been inquiries into other corporations of not
less importance than those of the universities, but he
(Mr. Roundell Palmer) maintained that even in these
cases to which the Noble Lord had referred, the cases
of municipal corporations, it would have been more re-
gular if those „inquiries had taken place under the au-
thority of Parliament; and with respect to the Noble
Lord's own statement on this subject, he thought it so
exceedingly unsatisfactory that ho really could not see
on what ground the Noble Lord could show that the pro-
posed inquiry was necessary. He believed that most
important improvements might be effected in their
universities, but he wished to see thoseim-
provements effected by the parties connected with the
universities, and he felt satisfied that they would be
really far better effected in that way than by the course
proposed by the Noble Lard.—(Hear, hear.) If new
halls were opened in the universities, nothing could be
easier than to introduce a new system, and diminish the
expense of each class of students. Did the Noble Lord
propose to do that by the contemplated Commieion? It
appeared to him that ho intended no such arrangement.
It was not demanded by public opinion. He was sur-
prised to hear that the Noble Lord, in his proposal of the
Commission, was influenced by a desire to co-operate
in the arrangements of education given at the univer-
sities by the local authorities. The Noble Lord
evidently had been misinformed as to the actual ar-
rangements of the colleges respecting education, and
the bearing of the statutes on the subject of study.
Nothing could be more large or liberal than those sta'
totes. Was Parliament then to be asked to dictate the
number of lectures for the students, and the mode in
which they were to be delivered ? Under the eye-

tern aiopted at Oxford, some of the ablest men of the
day had been produced, including many of the Noble
Lord's most distinguished colleagues. No change or in-
novation was required, and no disturbance of the exist-
ing foundations of the universities would tend to any
good. What they really wanted was, not a commission,
but a better means of giving scope to the intentions and
spirit of the founders. A just interpretation of the
statutes would always be found to recognise the utmost
liberality of sentiment on the part of the founders. In
dealing with this question, they should not forget what
the colleges had dune and what the Crown had not done.
They had spontaneously adopted a liberal interpretation
of the desires of their founders, and opened their doors
to merit as widely as they consistently could. The
Crown, on the other hand, had allowed the power of
visitation, which it possessed, to fall, comparatively speak-
ing, into abeyance. -It simply acted as a judge of appeal
in cases brought forward by persons who considered
themselves aggrieved. If the Noble Lord adopted means
for compelling the vi.itors to do their duty, then, in-
deed, the Government might congratulate itself on the
wise and judicious course of exercising the powers with
which the law now invested it. The interference of the
Crown with Trinity College, Dublin, in allowing the
fellows to marry, alleging their large revenue, shewtd
the danger of upsetting the diets, of old-established sta-
tutes. While he admitted that room still existed for
improvement in the management of our universities, he
contended that such improvement could be obtained by
the existing powers of the law, and would probably be
brought about through the desire ar.d tendency to im-
prove which existed in our universities; but if anything
further were necessary, the legal powers of visitation
would be found sufficient to entorce it.

Sir G. GREY thought the inconvenience which gene•
rally arose from an adjourned debate of nearly three
months' standiug had been considerably countert,alanced
by the moderate and temperate tone adopted by the.
Honourable and Learned Gentleman who resumed the
discussion. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
had referred to the illegality of issuing such a Commis-
sion as that proposed, aad also to the inexpediency of
adopting such a course. As far as the legality of
such a Commission was concerned, he had only to refer
the House to the frequent instances in which Commis-
sions of a similar import had been issued by the Crown.
He would also ask the House to bear in mind that the
Commission was not to baie compulsory powers, as if
such were conferred upon it, no doubt it would be illegal.
—(Hear, hear.) It was simply proposed to limit it to
inquiry, without giving the power of compelling wit-
nesses to make say statements before it, which they
might feel disinclined to do. Some years ago a com-
mission was appointed to inquire into the necessity for a
corporation reform, which had to deal with vested in-
terests the same as the one now proposed would have to
deal with, and during the debate on the appointment
oft which, in the other House of Parliament, Lord
Brougham then declared it as his opinion, that the
issuing of such a Commission by the Crown was per-
fectly legal, such being justified by precedent as well
as by the constitutional law of the realm. Several
other Commissions had also been appointed of
a similar tendency. In 1824. a Commission
was appointed to inquire into the state of the educa-
tional
establishments in Ireland, and although that in-
quiry was limited to those establishments which received
Government grants, yet the principle on which it was ap-
pointed was similar to that on which it was sought to
establish the present Commission. -It was unnecessary,
too, that he should refer to the Commission which was
appointed to inquire into the Scotch universities, first
into all of them, and afterwards into some particular
ones. Those Commissions obtained much information
in the course of their inquiries, and which had been of
great importance in placing them on a better footing.
In 1830, under the Government of the Duke of Welling-
ton, another Commission was appointed to inquire into
the revenues derivable from the Irish benefices.
Another was appointed in 1832, as respected Eng-
land and Ireland, to inquire into the revenues of
the episcopal sees and the ecclesiastical benefices
in those countries; and another in 1835 to make
inquiry into the revenues of the Established Church
in England and Wales. In all these cases he believed
that some difficulty, as to parties not being com-
pelled to give evidence before these Commissions unless
they should deem it proper to do so, was to be met and
overcome; but still the information those Commissions
obtained was most important, and when once issued,
those Commissions found but little difficulty in eliciting
the information they required. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had admitted that the Crown had a right to
issue a Commission of inquiry into a lay corporation, ex-
isting under a charter from the Crown, and the Com-
mission now claimed having no powers to alter the con-
stitution of the bodies, their inquiry was to be directed
to, or tcereurtail theta of the powers they now en-
joyed, the general rule of law would not by conceding
such Commission be at all interfered with.

Mr. R. PALMER said, as a general rule of law, be
did not dispute that the Crown had the power to issue
inquiries into such cases; but he denied that there was
any similarity between the two.
Sir GEORGE GREY—At all events, under the gene-
ral rule of law the abstract principle wss in favour of the
issuing of such a Commission. In 171$ a Commission
was appointed much similar to the one now moved for.
The case which originated it was referred to the Privy
Council, and it was then decided that the Crown had an
undoubted right to visit the universities referred to, and
a Commission fur doing so was accordingly issued. As
to the expediency of issuing such a Commission, be
thought the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had himself
adduced ample reasons for doing so, for he had stated
several important alterations which it was necessary to
make in those universities, but which it would be impos-
sible to do without full inquiry into the subject, and for
carrying out the inquiry a Commission was absolutely
necessary. He would be the last man to advise such a
course, did he conceive that it would tend to impede

those improvements which were necessary in the univer
...

sities, or should it be calculated to bring any charge
against the heads of them. Ile had too lively a feeling
of the benefits he had derived from them while under
the tuition of those men, to take any course
which would tend to those results. If he had not
derived more benefit than ho bad it was his own, and not
his teacher's fault; but at the same time he could not
shut his eyes to the fact that reforms were wanted. It
was, however, in no hostile'spirit to the universities that
this Commission was proposed. As to the heads of
those universities being precluded from giving their evi-
dence on oath, he did not think that was correct, as
within his own experience the,University of Cambridge
had made application to have their statutes altered, and
the heads of that university were not precluded from
giving their evidence respecting them. After, however,
what had been stated by his Noble Friend at the head of
the Government, the course ho felt called upon to ask
thelHouse to pursue would be that they should adjourn
the debate until that day three months, and he therefore
moved accordingly.
Mr. JOHN STUART said he regretted the course the
Right Hon. Gentleman had announced his intention of
pursuing. The Right Hon. Gentleman had assumed
that everybody admitted the legality of the Commission;
but he bad an amendment on the paper in respect of it,
upon the discussion of which he would show that the
course proposed was totally illegal. He would, there-
fore, ask the Right Hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
motion he had now made, and allow him to take a dis-
cussion on his amendment.
Sir G. GREY said ho should be sorry to prevent the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman from introducing
his amendment, and he should in the mean time with-
draw his motion in order that he might introduce it; and
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, having stated that his Right
Hon. Friend would renew his motion at an after period
of the debate,
Mr. STUART introduced his amendment, which was,
that any advice given to her Majesty to issue a Royal
Commission for inquiry into the state of the revenues
and management of any colleges or halls of the two
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, not being of royal
foundation, tends to a violation of the laws and consti-
tution of her kingdom, and of the rights and liberties of
her. Majesty's subjects. Such Commission as that pro-
posed would have no power of extracting the truth, for
it had been admitted that it could not compel people to
give evidence before it; and, therefore, what would be the
use of it? The gentlemen connected with those uni-
versities were as much entitled to their emoluments as
any landed proprietor in the country, and he considered
the proposed Commission illegal o❑ the ground that all
Commissions were illegal which compelled a man to state
how be was engaged or employed his revenue. It was an es-
sential principle in the law of property that no man could
injure the right of another who held property in common
with him. It was said this Commission was not to be
invested with (compulsory powers. But suppose it was
not, were-nine men to stand out and not give evidence.
and a tenth yield and give information respecting the
matters is which -the- other nine were interested, he
should like to know in what an invidious position such
a man would thereby place himself ? The Right Hon.
Gentleman had said that a number of Commissions had
been issued for a similar purpose, but it so happened that
not one of those Commissions had been appointed to in-
quire into how private property was enjoyed. He had
also stated that Lord Brougham had, in the House of
Lords, supported the appointment of a similar Commis-
sion to inquire into the corporations, but that was not at
all a similar object. Besides, at the time Lord Brougham
was a member of the Government, and was, no doubt, in a
manner called on to support Government measures; but it
did so happen, that the Noble and Learned Lord had
given his decided opinion against the appointment of the
present Commission; and, therefore, if his opinion was
good in the one case, so it was in the other.—(Hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman had also said that the Crown had
a visitatorial power in respect of these universities, but
that power was merely traditional, and only gave
the Crown the power to settle disputes when appeals
were made to it from those universities. There was,
however, no appeal in this case, and therefore there was
no power to appoint a Commission. He did not speak
simply as a lawyer when he said that an ambulatory
Commission of the description proposed had no right to
institute such an inquiry as that proposed to be adopted
with regard to the universities. They could not, how-
ever, shut their eyes to the fact that the great question
of the Dissenters being admitted to the honours and
emolutne: is of the universities, was the object really in
view in bringing forward the proposition. The Hon.
Mover of it admitted it would bo a sort of step to that
result, and the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment did not go se far; but he stated that the speech of
Lard Stanley settled the question. Now in his (Mr.
Stuart's) opinion that speech was pretty much like Lord
Brougham's—(A laugh)—and if the Right Honourable
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department referi ed to it he would find that
such was the case. The Noble Lord said, and Dis.
senters said the same thing, that many of these
colleges had property which was held and governed
by their own statutes, and, he added, that he wished
for some information on the subject, so as to
ascertain if the sphere of education could be enlarged.
One of the Noble Lord's infirmities as a statesman was
that ho never came directly to his objects, and if he in-