The Sun.
London, England, 1818-06-09 00:00:00

EDUCATION OF THE POOR.

Mr. BROUGHAM brought up a Report from the Commit-
tee on the State.of Education among the Poor, and_begged to
,say a few words on the subject of an abuse which had come to
the knowledge of the Committee, which involved the patron-
age of a whole Borough in the County of Huntingdon, front
which two Members were returned to Parliament. The power
-of returning these Members (which had never been disputed)
was obtained by the gross, and wilful abuse of a Charity which
provided for the education of the poor, and which cause strict-
ly within the limits of that inquiry which had bent 'confided
to the Committee. The property to which he referred had
been left in the time of Edward the Second for the purpose-
of founding aPreek School: The rents Second,
appropriated
to that purpose might amount to 351. The land consisted of
145 acres, which was proved 11 its fertility to be of great va-
lue.' The rent now paid amounted to 1601., but at the lowest
estimation—its real value could not fall short of 9001. The
Mayor and Corporation, that is the Mayor and twelve Alder-
men, were the lessors, and they were also the trustees. And
who Were the lessees hat held these beneficial leases ? They
were inhabitants of the town to whom other property left for
charitable purposes lay contiguous, over which-they had also
aright. In fine they were the borough patrons, the trustees,
the lessors, and the lessees all in one. They let the lands to
themselves for illusive rents, and thus robbed the pour of
that which benevolence had- left for them. By the Manner
in.which this Charity-land was distributed,' the votes were
kept firm in one particular interest, and opposition wus never
known in the Borough alluded to. lie had.aslied the ques-
tion, and the answer he received was, "-that such tithing was'
never heard of—it was a maiden borough." And what'control
was there over these parties ? ..Marvellous to. relate; this
grossest of all cases ot robbery was exempted-I-loin the visita-
tion of the` Commissioners, by the fatal omission ofthatclause
in the Bill they had passed, which bad been struck out by
others,- in. consequence.,of which, those places were exempt
from' visitation to which special visitors were appointed. Now
who were the visitors in-the case alluded to ? ' The informa-
tion contained in. -the-answer to- this question seemed as if
providentially seat just at this period to fill up any vacuum
that.might have been left in his argument. The visitors were
-the mayor, the trustees, the lessors, and lessees, who robbed
-and defrauded the
.poor of the property in queStion. Now,
that the Bill which-had passed, if not wholly spoiled, had been
grievously injured try the alterations made in it, and that the
He ite ought 'not to slumber while such-abuses were in exist-,
,ence,'but were bound to take- up Or; subject. early in the eat-
suing Session, was that on which no man (unless it were for
• the al,,tract 16re of doubting),
,could have a doubt. He
st,,te'd'the Comblittee to have received a letter from the Ge-
neral Assembly of Scotland, expressing their readiness to for-

nish any informAtion'that might be required connected with
the Education of the Poor in that country.
The Report was then ordered to he printed.
SLAVE TRADE BEGULATIQN BILL.

A ;Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' did
not insist on the atnendments .to the Slave 'frade Abolition
Amendment Bill, with which 'the House of Commons had
di,agreed.