Star.
London, England, 1818-04-28 00:00:00

quire that toot plat• two run ageoprelative to thee
Charter House and Christ's Hospital. Respecting_,
the formu' the charge was, that the funds for the
education of the poor had been employed in educa-
ting the rich. The Chatter House stood on the same
footing as Chtht's Hospital. where it was proved,
among other abuses, that a Clergyman of 7001. or
8001. a year had a son. They were called on at the
Charter House to produce their Deed. They refused,
and said...." We have nothing to do with the educa-
tion of the lower orders." The Committee answered
—" Shew us your Charter, and we will tell you
whether you have or not." They. did, with some dif-
ficulty, when the first three lines proved it was for'
the education of the lower orders. It was the Com-
mittee
that had reason to complain, rather than the
Charter House. The persons who were examined
said Do you know who are the Governors of this
Institution ? They are the Archbishop of Cante-bury,
and such and such Noblemen ; in fact, there is only
one single Member; who is not in the House of Peers.
The Committee answered—" The reason you have
given is exactly that why we call on you ; betanse the
Governors you speak of would not answer our sum-
mons." The result was, that by this inquiry far less
abuses were discovered ltaa•were expected.
Ater a few words between Sir J. NEWPORT and
Mr. B. BATHURST, the House went into the Commit-
ter, pro forma, the Report was brought up, read, and
ordered for further consideration on Thursday next.

PETITION FROM ABINGDON.
Sir C. SAXTON rose to present a Petition from
the Magistrates and other persons of Abingdon, com-
plaining of their having been accused by a Member
of that House, with misapplying the funds of twenty-.
five Charities.
Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that these Petitioners
had heard an imperfect and false statement of what
he had said. He had not made any such assertion.
He had read a letter from Mr. Parry, which stated
that 25 benefactions had not been accounted for to
the House, under Mr. Gilbert's Act, and that 10,0001.
balance remained in the hands of other persons, but
he had not said those persons belonged to Abingdon.
Mr. WROTTESLEY was glad to see that but
one sentiment prevailed in the 1-louse respecting this
necessary measure. There had not been one single
memorial returned from Berkshire under Mr. Gil-
bert's Act • and only twenty-one counties in all Eng-

land had made returns.
The Petition being read, it stated, that the Magis-
trates of the Borough of Abingdon complained of
misrepresentations in regard to abuses of the funds of
their charities; that these were calumnious charges
against the town of Abingdon, which they felt tt
their duty to repel. They were certain that the cha-
ritable funds of the town had been properly applied,
and they hoped the House would concur in passing
a law for a general investigation.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, the house would see the
impossibility of this Petition lying on the table, for
it stated that calumnious misrepresentations had been
made in that House, because a false statement had
been made in some newspaper. What they had
founded their assertions upon was a total misrepre-
sentation of what had passed, and which the Peti-
tioners had no right to notice.
Mr. BATHURST denied that the Petitioners had
said that a calumnious misrepresentation had been
made in that House.
Mr. BROUGHAM insisted that the statement
which he had made was correct, but the account of
it on which they had commented was false. ney,
said it had been represented to the House, that '25
charities had been abused. There was nothing in
the Petition which denied the statement he had made.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, whether the statement
were correct or not, the Petitioners had no right to
call in question any representation that had been
made in that House. He thought the Hon. Baronet
had better withdraw the Petition.—The Petition was
then withdrawn.