The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-02-11 00:00:00

amentably disturb

resternay in a per-
alike address with

feet storm. The able
which the measure was introduced by Sir Robert Peel
is by this sagacious journal denounced as " a tissue of

e

imagine; rather puzzle tire -

o reply to, by

any thing more solid than this sheer and desperate
raving; and, indeed, we more than half suspect that
the most serious objection felt to the speech and to the
measure, as well, of the Right Hon. Baronet, is excited
by the fact that the former blows all the fallacies of the

the latter, b 5

league-men "to very tatters

winning the approbation of all moderate thinking men,
. .

threatens to render Anti-Corn-Law

ition a losing

and almost hopeless game

We are really not at

fury which was manifested
Friday, by the " liberal " members of that body, against
the straightforward proceedings of the education com-
mittee, should be especially excited by the placard
which they have issued in explanation of the system of
education in future to he acted upon in the Corporation
Schools. The public had been sedulously taught to
believe, by the Whig-Radical and Popish press, and
the Romish priesthood themselVes had not scrupled to
declare, in placards posted upon every wall throughout
the bormigh, that that system was one of exclusion
and intolerance—that it was one which had been spe-
cially devised to be grating to the feelings and preju-
dices of Roman Catholic parents, and which must, of
necessity, insult and banish from the schools every Ro-
man Catholic child. And yet what are the real facts ?
Where is the exclusiveness, the intolerance, the insult-

the Council meeting of

ing nature of the system

I'hese questions the ex-

planatory document issued by the committee has solved

to the satisfaction. of nine-tenths of the community

and hence the exceeding ire which .is directed against
it by the Liberal philosophers of our Council.
The rules of the education committee " require every
child to be taught to know the Bible—the great char-
ter of the Christian privileges—and to be brought up
in the daily practice of the solemn duty of prayer to
God."

" But care will be taken that there be nothing in the
prayer which can wound the conscience of any Chris-
•tian of any denomination, and no children are required
to learn any catechism or to go to church, if their pa-
rents object."

Surely there is nothing here of -exclusivenesS or in-
tolerance—no evidence of any design to proselytize the
poor .children of any Christian persuasion ! " Oh,
but," we are told, "you require the children of Rowan
Catholic parents to read the Bible, and that their reli-
gion does not permit them to do, unaccompanied with
the Romish comments." Yes, we do place in the
hands of these poor children the word of God, un-
:mixed with the perversions of man. We do place in
!their hands the whole truth of our revealed religion.
'We do " suffer little children to come" to the unadul-
terated fount of life and healing; and you who deny
them access to this privilege—the Roman Catholic
priesthood who denounce this system—proclaim openly
to the world (what you have maintained in years and
ages past to be a libel upon the faith of Rome) that
you dare not allow your flocks to read God's Word !
The objection is not to doctrinal teaching in the
principles of the Established Church

It is not to any

effort to be made, or to the direct tendency of the sys-
tem, to draw away the faith of Roman Catholic chil-
dren from the creed of their parents. It is not that
any exclusive prayer is in use within the schools—that
any exclusive catechism is to be taught, or that they
are to be compelled to attend the services of a church
in whose faith they do not believe; but it is, emphati-
cally and solely, because they are required to read, and
know, the authorised version of the Bible—unadulter-
ated, unperverted by Popish comment. We ask then
of every liberal Protestant—of every Christian Dissen-
we ask of those who have the most ardently prayed

for the adoption of a system of education in these
schools, which should permit the Roman C'

tholic chil-

—could the committ
conscientiously done more—conceded more—than thet

en to enjoy its benefits,

.ec have

nevolent object ? The;

have done to promote this
could not, and we say, unhesitatingly, they ought not
Wre are, indeed, twitted with the fact, that the Ro.
man Catholic children have left the schools. Be it so
'\Ve acknowledge and regret it. But ultimately, and
-When the existing pressure is removed from them, we