The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-22 00:00:00

Slit R.OI3EItT PEEL'S SCHOOL.
The mahae°rni;int of Sir Robert. Peels's charity school
at Tamwou thwould be a Matter iif little iiateTit to the
public, but for the illustration which it. has reeciitlt
afforded of the
of the ceuntry, and that of his clerical and other de-
pendents ;as pccuhar morality of the Prime Minister
well as of the purposes, political and op-
pressive, to which, in Tory hands, institutions, pro-
fessedly for charity and instruction, may be perverted.
The subject was first brought before the public by
the foliovring extract of a letter from Mr. Acland, the
Anti-Corn-law lecturer
" There is in Tamworth a grammar-school, founded
by Sir Robert's father, for the gratuitous education ofthe
children of the inhabitants so long as a Peel shall repre-
sent tho borough ; and I am credibly informed that the
master (Savage by riarne,
and, as it ehosthf seem, servile
by nature) informed the boys a few awl singe that he
had received a letter from the Prime Minister, oeciering
him to discharge the children of all those who had
sinned the petition! The way being thus prepared, the
relieving officer and his colleagues went round to the
parents of the children to inquire' if they had signed
that important document. And the public may believe
that sonic disclaimers were the consequence."
In consequence of this statement, the Standard
published a letter to Sir Robert Peel from Mr. Savage,
describing him as " the clergyman who has the general
charge of Sir Robert Peel's school at Tamworth in the
Right Honourable Baronet's absence, and the party
re:erred to in the cslumny which he exposes." It will
be observed that no question is raised about the mas-
tership the school. That the master's name is Sa-
vage is no pert of the charge. It is a circumstance
which, whither correctly or incorrectly assumed, is al-
together incidental. The fact has since come out that
there is another, or subordinate mestere under Mr.
Savage's control ; that this other master has dismissed
Beale boys ; that this other master has questioned one,
at least, of the boys on the subject of the petition ;
and that this ether master has been embroiled both
with children and parents relative to the Corn-law
question. Knowing all this, which it is passing strange
if his principal does not know also, Sir Robert Peel's
clerical friend and agent writes thus for the benefit of
the public :
" I have been told that ono or more paragraphs, ori-
ginally in The Sun newspaper, hare been copied iuto the
provincial papers, stating that I had dismissed from your
school the boys whose parents had signed the petition
lately sent from this town. I trouble you with this, to
assure you that there is not the slightest shadow of an
excuse for such a falsehood. No boy has been dis-
charged from your school, for any cause whatever, for
many months, nor have I spoken to any of them on the
subject of the petition. I have the honour to be, dear
Sir, your faithful servant,
"'Tamworth, Oct. 17.' "R. C. SAVAGE."
The disgraceful equivocation of this seeming denial
is like that of the two thieves in the fable ; the one
did not steal the leg of mutton, and the other had not
got it. A direct falsehood would have been more
manly, and not lsss moral. And the lie which the
writer palmed (for a few days) upon the public, goes
beyond the occasion. Mr. Ackland had not stated
that any boys had been actually dismissed. He had
only imputed the threat, not the act. Why, then,
does the Rev. R. C. Savage deny the dismissal ? Ap-
parently, because he knew (which Mr. Arland did not)
that there had been an expulsion. He adds an accu-
sation, for the purpose of contradiction, to those which
bad actually been made, not because it bad been falsely
asserted, but because it had really occurred. We were
going to say '` like master like man ;" but truly the
man outdoes the master in superfluous equivocations.
It may be inquired how we obtained the knowledge
of these most discreditable facts. We bad them from
no private source. They rest on no Anti Corn-law
authority. We have not sent down a reporter to in-
vestigate. The Morning Post of yesterday, in the
exuberance of i:s indiscreet zeal as the organ of the
new Premier, publishes them under the voucher of its
own " Correspondent." We shall give the whole of
this curious statement.' After an introductory sentence
or two, the writer begins with the impression that this
professed charity has been prostituted to political pur-
poses in the borough
" The school in question was founded and endowed by
the late Sir Robert Peel about the year 1820, and from
that period until the present time a number of boys,
varying from sixty to eighty, have been clothed and fed
upon the foundation. now far the charity has been used
for the promotion of party political purposes will appear
from the fact, that at. the present time, out of the seventy
boys in the school, at least two-thirds of them are the
children of Sir Robert's political opponents—that is,
where the parents possess the franchise. The only qua-
lification which has ever been demanded or required by
Sir Robert Peel is this, that the children be of indus-
trious habits anu good moral characters."
Of the boys whose parents are voters, two-thirds are
the children of persons opposed to Sir Robert Peel.
We should like to know in what way these parents find
it prudent to vote. Soon after the election, the Morn-
ing Post (" save ice from my friends," may Sir Robert
exclaim) published the' curious fact, thataundry voters
at Tamworth gave one of their votes to Sir Robert
Peel, although they were opposed to him in politics.
On that occasion we expressed a desire for some light
upen the how and the why of so inconsistent a proce-
dure. The working of the•charity school may be taken
in part explanation. It dispels a portion of the mystery.
But to proceed—
The Rev. R. Savage, as master of the school, and
as the " party referred to" in the charge, flatly, though
ungrammatically, denied the fact of any conversation
with any of the boys " on the subject of the petition,"
The real " party referred to," viz., not Mr. Savage,
but Mr. Tuffield, has been personally examined by the
Correspondent of the Poet, es has also the boy with
'shorn he did t.llk "on the subject of the petition."
The result is thus given
" In perfect keeping with the inaccuracy of the state-
ment put forward by the Opposition prints, it should be
observed that though the Rev. 3,1 r. Savage
possesses and
exercises the right of superintending- the affairs of the
school, yet for twenty years the mastership has been
vested in Mr. T. Tuftield, who has the entire control of
the boys; and 1 have been assured by this respectable in-
dividual that the only allusion which was ever made to
the subject of the petition within the walls of the school
was a passing question proposed by him to one of his
pupils, whether it was true that he had signed the docu-
ment alluded to. The boy, who does not appear more
than ten years old, replied that he had done so, and fur-
ther stated that a brother, fourteen years of age, was the
party that induced him. This I have had verified by the
child himself, and therefore, however far it may go to ex-
pose the absurdity of that proceeding, it goes equally far
to show the absurdity and acrimony of the Radical fac-
tion, who resort to such expedients for the promotion of
their degraded purposes."
Now, if Mr. Tuffitld has the " entire control" of the
boys, why did Mr. Savage put himself tortvai d to
make the assertion which Mr. Tuffiild could not
make? Why did Mr. Tuffield look quietly on at the
promulgation of what he knew to be false ? And why
did Sir Robert Peel, to whom Mr. Savage's letter was
addressed, allow his own name thus to serve as a
voucher for what (in some points at least) he must
have known to be a deception? We suppose the cate-
chism is taught in this school ; but who catechises the
teachers and patron ? Quiz custodes custodiet

Tie preceding extract only goes the length of prov-
ing conversaticn with one boy on the subject of the
petition. The next and last complains of the insubor-
dination of " numbers of the boys." and connects that
alleged insubordination, through the parents, with Mr.
Adana, and consequently with Corn-laws and petition-
init.. It goes distinctly to the fact of a recent expul-
sion, thus completing the demolition of the Rev. IL C.
Savage's epistle. it is in reference to an expulsion
(which had not been asserted) that he replies emphati-
cally, " I trouble) you with this to assure you that
there is not the slightest shadow of excuse for such a
falsehood." Now hear the evidence of the Morning
Post Correspondent :
" I am credibly informed that Sirßobert Peel, withisis
usual promptitude in the despatch of business, has Wit-
ten to the Rev. Mr. Savage, with a view to a full invests-
gation and exposure of the facts. In the. meantime lam
in a position to assert that, until within the last few days,
there has not been one boy expelled the school ; and the
cases which hare more recently occurred arose entirely
from the negligence and bad conduct of the pupils. There
is, however, one fact which cannot be deplored too
deeply. The harangues of Acland have produced in
the minds of many of the lower classes a feeling of dis-
affection which, until now, was never experienced in the
borough. This is more remarkable among the recipients
of Sir Robert's bounty than any other class of people.
So much is this the case, that numbers of the boys have
within the last few weeks appeared to forget tne rela-
tionship in which they stand to their master, awl nil
these cases have keen followed up by insolence on the
part of the parents. Mr. Tull:101d assures me that never
during the whole period of his mastership has the spirit
parents
rileinsutshosrecelminatsoio
jnosshtiorywits heitsaesisfutmopstuicoliii,a and the
saying that,
`lf Sir Robert turned them out, Acland woulcrstake
them in.'"
occasion, is fully
At first the wr:tsr seems disposed to connect the ex•
pulsion (now confessed to have occurred, in the teeth
of the Rev. R. C. Savage's denial) with other U bad
re
conduct' than that of desiring cheap bread. But that
proved
Anti-Corn-law
then-law petitioning
teas
The alleged " insolence" of the parents is identified
with all the cases. And the expression, "If Sir Ro-
bertthe
turned them out," plainly implies the threat which
constituted Mr. Acland's original charge. The party
will, no doubt, continue to call him a liar ; but they
should not have let out the secret that they began to
do so because they knew that he was telling the truth.
There is a little loophole through which it might be
thought that the Rev. it: C. Savage could escape from
the imputation of not &lying one solitary atom of truth
in his letter. Thst little loophele %7e wili firs: stop up
before leaving him to the shame he has earned. The
Post Correspondent says that the expulsions took place
" within the last jew days." The clergyman tells his
patron that " no boy has been discharged front your
school for en,, cause whatever for many months." Is
it possible that the expulsions might have been
prompted, decided upon, and carried into effect, in
the interial between the two letters? Credat' Ju-
rictus ! for the clerg)nish dates on Sunday, and the
Post Correspondent on Tuesday. Suppsssing, there-
fore, that the Rev. it, Savage broke the Sal).