The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-07-30 00:00:00

to justify their shameful conduct towards himself. The sus-
ceptibility which he shews, at the bare imagination that he
is offended, convince me that he was disappointed, that he
received a wound which is still festering. No wonder, for he
was most curiously supplanted. The Rev. Mr. Buck, Doc-
tor -of Civil Law, at the period I am writing of, had lately
come to Liverpool, as incumbent of the small church in Key-
street, the emoluments of which are £lOO per annum. This
gentleman paid a few visits to the schools, wrote a few ar-
ticles in a public journal in praise of the system pursued,
became a candidate for the chaplaincy of the gaol, and re-
ceived the appointment—since which, his duties are so irk-
some, that he has discontinued his visits to the schools,
excepting the mere calling for a few minutes at a time. The
rev. gent. is now firmly fixed, and at a salary about double
to that which he obtained at St. Matthew's ; but he has
already discovered that he is working for less pay than other
gaol chaplains, for he appears to be prosecuting his inquiries
from prison to prison, and we shall shortly have a compen-
dium of the highest as well as the lowest price at which
chaplains of gaols officiate. He appears to think that parsons
should be paid according to the hearers or number of criminals
whom they protect against the assaults of the evil one. Were
he to inquire at our Workhouse, he would find that about
2000 human beings were under the care of one minister,
whose salary is £5O per annum less than what Dr. Buck re-
ceives, and I should suppose that the duties at the Work-
house would be equally as troublesome as those at the Gaol.
I believe that the chief cause of Mr. Stokes addressing me
was, to acquaint the public with the intimacy which subsisted
between himself and Dr. Buck. Tte latter requested him
to officiate, when he (Dr. B.) was unable to do so. I con-
fess it was kind ; but afterwards the doctor thought, if I have
been kind to Mr. S., I may as well be kind to myself. He
therefore, very kindly desired the finance committee to pay
for services rendered to himself. The kindness did not there
terminate, for our corporation very kindly consented, and,
Mr. Stokes, for six weeks aid which was rendered to Dr.
Buck, received £2O, an amount equal to half a year's salary
formerly paid to the chaplain of the Infirmary.
I have thus replied to your correspondent. When the
measure of giving this £2O was brought forward in the coun-
cil, I did not make any objection thereto, for a salary of £2OO,
the sum allowed Dr. Buck, is not too much : for ws must
recollect that a clergyman, both by education and association,
ought to maintain the rank of a gentleman. This, however,
is no excuse for our corporation, in their conduct as regards
the Infirmary. It serves to exhibit the harlequin character
of the illiberals. It was pretended that the municipal act
did not authorize the payment of the chaplain to the Infir-
mary. The fact is, that the minister to that charity consi-
dered his oath, and his subscription to the 39 articles, as
binding upon his conscience, and therefore he never appeared
as a teacher at the corporation schools, or an advocate of a
system in diametrical opposition to his oath. If any clergy-
man with these sentiments had been the assistant of Dr.
Buck, we should have been informed in the council, that the
municipal act never contemplated the paying for duties twice
over. Some of the vinegar-looking Socinians would have
laid hold of it as a text, to vent their spleen and sarcasm
against the ministers of our church. The rank hypocrisy of
the liberal has been completely displayed. My opinion is,
that both law, justice, and common feeling has been violated
in their conduct (the corporation) towards the great charity.
Let the subscribers and friends of that charity, in November
next, bear their conduct in mind, let it be something beyond
a mere reprehension of their conduct, let it be a reproof, the
one most heeded of all, that is, their vote, let that be given
against the liberal, it is the only reproof cared for. The
primary cause of this correspondence was, my assertion in
the council, that no catechism except the Romish one was
taught in the North School. This was the case in November
last, when the Rev. Mr. James and myself visited that school.
Unfortunately Mr. Stokes has been induced to resume his
attendance, and he teaches the Church of England catechism
to about a score of children ; this serves as a cloak or excuse
to the Roman Cathblic priest, to allow him to teach his cate-
chism to nearly 500. We are told that the Protestant version
of the Bible is read in the schools,—there are about 60 Pro-
testant Bibles in the North School, but where are they kept?
In the committee room, therefore the Popish priest and the
Papist child need not be offended at the sight. Ido not
know how many Bibles of the Douay version are in that
school, the fewer the better, although we are told there is
such little difference between the two versions. Let any one
turn to the commandments, let them look at the second—in
the Douay translation they find this commandment muti-
lated ; but then let them turn to the Papal catechism and
they will find that with au effrontery unparalelled, they dare to
say that which the Almighty has expressly prohibited, is not
forbidden. I shall consider it my duty, and the duty of
every Protestant, never to cease or relax in his exertions to
change the system pursued in our Corporation Schools. The
' Popish Catechism is an insult to the Protestant faith.
I am, yours, &c.
ISAAC HOLMES.
Sand-hills, July, 1839.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

We are glad to perceive that the admirable and argumen

;ative speech of the Bishop of Exeter, delivered by his lord,

ship in the House of Lords, on the sth instant, on the sub

leci of National Education, has been printed in a cheap

form, for the purpose of giving it a wider circulation. In

;his admirable address the Bishop completely demolished the

flimsy but specious arguments of the Marquis of Lansdowne,
and shattered to fragments the scheme for separating religi-
ous from secular instruction. He showed the impossibility

of carrying out the liberal plan proposed by government, and
placed the whole question on such a basis, that Lord Lans-

downe, by his interruptions, plainly intimated his uneasiness
at the pungency of the Bishop's statements, and winced un-
der the lashes of his vigorous and powerful antagonist. The
conclusion of the speech is well worthy of the deepest con-
sideration, and we give it, because such home truths cannot

be too widely disseminated.
" My lords, I will not follow the noble marquis in all his
observations; but there is one point on which I feel too
strongly to permit myself to pass it by—l mean what the
noble marquis said in answer to the most rev. prelate, respect-
ing the general and special religious instruction, which it is
intended to give to the children in the model schools. My
lords, the phrase is taken from the minute of the 13th of
April. We there find that religious instruction is to be
considered as general and special;' we also find that ` reli-
gion is to be combined with the whole matter of instruction,
and to regulate the entire system of discipline.' But this,
it seems, is to be general religion : for particular periods
are to be set apart for peculiar doctrinal instruction.' My
lords, this phraseology is not remarkable for its perspicuity;
a plain understanding might well doubt what is intended by
general religion, and what by special. But the noble mar-
quis has had so much consideration for us, as to explain the
meaning of these words. He tells us, that ` general religious
instruction is to embrace the general mass of opinions upon
which all Christians are agreed.' Now, my lords, I must
take leave to say, that this is rather narrowing the operation
of the noble Marquis's own principle • for, surely, that
would require that equal respect he had for the opinions of
all persons who possess any religion whatever; and such
seems to have been the view of the noble marquis himself,
when he referred to what is done, or is to be done, in the
East Indies. There, if I understood the noble marquis
aright, Mahometans, Hindoos, and all other descriptions of
inhabitants of India, are to become objects of care and
attention to government in providing means of education.
" Marquis of Lansdowne.—l spoke of the different deno-
minations of Christians only in the East Indies.
" Bishop of Exeter.—Well, then, I will take the nature
of the general religious instruction to be imparted in the
committee's schools, on the noble marquis's own showing,
as including all the doctrines on which Christians are agreed;
though I must again say, that this is rather an illiberal mode
of carrying out the committee's liberal principle, especially
as I understand the children of Jews are not to be excluded
from these schools. But I take the noble marquis in his
own way ; and I must now take the liberty of asking him,
what are the doctrines on which all Christians, so called, are
found to agree? Short as are some of these documents
which have been laid on your lordships' table, I will take
upon me to say, that the shortest of them all, the order in
council constituting the committee, purged, as the noble
marquis tells us it purposely was, of all words of too vague
a character,—even this, containing nothing more than the
dry appointment of certain noble and right honourable per-
sonages,—would be found longer than the catalogue of
religious opinions on which all Christians agree. My lords,
there is hardly a single dogma, which has not been questioned
by some or other of those who call themselves Christians.
What, then, must be the effect of carrying this scheme into
operation? It is designed, we are told, as a scheme of
perfect impartiality, as the only one by- which equal justice
can be done to all. My lords, if this be the object intended,
and I am quite ready to do the noble marquis justice in
believing him sincere in so intending, I must say that a more
complete failure I never heard of.
"Why, my lords, how is this scheme to be carried out, but
by striking off every particular doctrine, however sacred,
which is disputed or objected to by any ? And what will be
left? Not a mass of opinions in which all Christians
agree,' as the noble marquis has thought fit to suppose, but
some small meagre list of truisms, or even, it may be, of
bare and naked facts, too certain to be controverted, and
too unimportant to be worth controverting. And this is the
amount of general religious instruction to be given in the
normal or model schools of England ! The creed of all is
to be lowered to the standard of those who believe the least.
The religion to be taught by the state is the smallest fraction
of divine truth, which the pride or folly of man shall be
pleased to admit. Those whose christianity is just above
deism, are to be empowered to dictate their faith, or, rather
their want of faith, to all the rest of their countrymen. And
for this, parliament is to be called on for annual grants, and
the people of England, the christian people of England, are
to be content to pay !
" Such is the result of a process, which, in the estimation of
the noble marquis, and of his noble and right honourable
colleagues, is not only the perfection of liberality, but also
the perfection of fairness, and equal justice to all. My
lords, if I were compelled to draw out the most unfair, the
most unequal, the most unjust, the most exclusive, the most
intolerant plan my poor faculties could devise, I should
despair of coming up to this grand achievement of the pre-
sident of her majesty'
s council, and the other members of
the committee ` appointed to superintend the application of
funds voted by parliament for promoting public education'
amongst us.
" I am sorry to have trespassed already so long on the
attention of your lordships. But there remains one parti-
cular connected with our subject on which I must yet, with
your permission, say a few words, and they shall be very
few. My lords, we are told in Lord John Russell's letter of
the 4th of February, which gives the details of the govern-
ment plan, that ` one of the four principal objects to be
kept in view in any normal or model school,' is the ` moral
training' of the scholars. Now, how is this moral training
to be accomplished? Not by religious discipline, not by
founding it on christian motives, and teaching where and
how to seek for the assistances promised in the gospel ;
but it is to be a part of ` general instruction :' and we have
just seen what general instruction' means. My lords, I
will not argue this matter. I will content myself with sim-
ply appealing to the noble marquis's own sense of what is
due to the poor children whom he undertakes to educate.
I ask him, then, as a father, a christian father, would he be
content so to train his own son? 'Would he be willing that
his own son should be taught—l will not say his duty to
God, but his duty to man—without telling him the state in
which he is as man,—without teaching him that he is fallen
man,—without warning him that he cannot even know,
much less practise, any of his duties, even to his fellow men,
unless he be enlightened and assisted by divine grace? In
one word, does the noble marquis, as a Christian, think there
can be any moral training worthy of the name, unless it be
in conjunction with the higher doctrines of christianity?
We feel convinced that good service will be rendered to
the cause by a most extended distribution of this powerful
speech. It is published by Roake and Varty, of the Strand,
at 2d. each, or 12s. the hundred; and we beg leave to direct
our readers, and also our various religious societies to this
circumstance. We trust the good bishop will be long spared
to stand up as the advocate of truth, and the uncompro-
mising enemy of error. Such men arc wanted in this tem-
porising age ; and, whilst we thank God that we have a
House of Lords, we are also thankful, that amid the brilliant
constellation of character and talent in that august assembly,
we have such a champion as Dr. Phillpots, whom the highest
officer of the crown cannot daunt, and whose greatest praise
is the abuse poured upon him by those who fear his powers,
and who secretly know him to be. an antagonist not easy to
grapple with, and impossible to overthrow.