and does not require that the book shall be used as a school-book. Do you not consider that the Kildare-street regulations may by possibility be so acted upon as not to be inconsistent with the discipline of the Roman-catholic church?"

And he answered,—

"There are cases in which schools may derive advantage from the Kildareplace Society, with less danger than others; and that is where the patron is a catholic, and where the school is under the superintendence in some degree of a catholic clergyman, who will deem it his duty to select the passages of scripture to be read to the children, and not to allow any unfair interpretation to be put upon those passages, and at the same time will have opportunities of giving religious instruction to the children out of school hours.'

Archbishop Murray further stated, with reference to the whole body of Roman-catholic bishops and clergy—

"The feeling seems to be pretty general to oppose the system of the Kildarestreet Society wherever a school is not under a catholic patron, or wherever the catholic priests have not access."

Bishop Doyle concurred in these views. He said,

"To the reading of the Scriptures in the schools I object, except under circumstances such as Dr. Murray, in one of his first answers, has mentioned.”

A petition from the Roman-catholic prelates was presented to Parliament in the year 1824, in which they "presume humbly to state" that "the prelates and parochial clergy of the established church" are not " deemed by Roman catholics fit persons to whose control or superintendence the education of their children should be entrusted."

Such, then, was actually the state of the case with respect to education in Ireland when the national system was introduced. The question at issue, as is plain from the foregoing account, was really this, Shall the clergy of the established church be allowed to give any religious instruction, even of the most elementary kind, to the Romancatholic children who attend the schools under their superintendence? So far as the parents were concerned, there was, generally speaking, no objection to their children attending the school of the Protestant clergyman, and there reading the Scriptures along with the children of Protestants; and accordingly, great numbers were sent, and continued to be sent, until and unless their priests interfered to prevent them.* It was, in truth, a struggle on the part of the clergy of the

* An instance of the interference of the priesthood to prevent Roman-catholic parents sending their children to a school, under a Protestant patron, in which the Scriptures are read, has occurred in the present year. The following letters relating to this case have recently appeared in the newspapers. The patron of the school is a gentleman of large property, and a deputy-lieutenant of the county of Waterford :—

"Knockmore-house, Jan. 29.

"Sir, I deem it my duty respectfully to apprise you that my bishop has directed me, two months back, to excommunicate the parents of all children belonging to the Catholic religion who are sending their children to your school. From the performance of this duty I have refrained, with a hope that due consideration, and the example of other good men, would induce you to adopt a different system towards those unfortunate creatures, and allow them the free exercise of their conscientious belief. Let me assure you, Sir, how deeply I regret, as the spiritual pastor of my

church of Rome to shut out the parochial clergy of Ireland from having anything to do with the giving of instruction in religion to the rising generation of Roman catholics in their parishes. The rector of the parish, to whom was duly and solemnly committed "the cure of souls" within its bounds, as the minister of the church of Christ in that place, could not look upon himself as the religious teacher of a mere sect, one who had nothing to do with those who declined attending at his place of worship.

There is a remarkable difference between the form of institution to a benefice in Ireland and in England. In addition to the oaths which are taken in the latter, the following oath is taken in Ireland:

"I do solemnly swear, that I will teach or cause to be taught an English school within the vicarage or rectory of, as the law in that case requires." The law referred to in this oath is the 28th of Henry VIII., enforced by the 7th of William III. The design of this statute was not that the clergy should bear the whole expense of keeping up a school which should be free to all their poor parishioners; for the act expressly describes the school to be kept, not as a free school, but on the contrary, as one in which a stipend is to be paid by the scholars resorting to it, conditioning only that the stipend shall be such as is usually paid by scholars in English schools in that district of the country. The Commissioners of Education Inquiry have made the following important remarks on this subject.

"It is obvious to us, that the intention of the statute of Henry VIII. was not pecuniary contribution, but superintendence, and that it did impose the latter duty. This Act, after reciting, amongst other things, 'the importance of a good instruction in the most blessed laws of Almighty God; and further reciting his majesty's disposition and zeal, that a certain direction and order be had that all we, his subjects, should the better know God, and do that thing that might in time be and redound to our wealth, quiet, and commodity;' proceeds, after a variety of enactments, tending to the suppression of the Irish, and the introduction of the English language and customs, to require an oath to be administered to every clergyman at ordination,* and another at institution; that, amongst other things, he should keep, or cause to be kept, within

poor and distressed people, the necessity of being urged to enforce this obligation, aware that it deprives them of the only consolation they enjoy in this world. Need I add that I am not influenced in the discharge of this imperative duty by any uncharitable motive towards you or any other individual? I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"Richard Smith, Esq.

MICHAEL SPRATT, Parish Priest."

"Ballinatray, Jan 31.

"Sir, I have received your letter of the 30th instant, and am much astonished at hearing from you, in the 19th century, that it is your intention (according to the directions of your bishop) to excommunicate the parents of the Roman-catholic children who attend my school, simply for sending their offspring to learn to read the pure and sacred word of God without note or comment. The ceremony of such a denunciation for so doing, I cannot avoid saying, if tolerated or put into execution, according to any forms claimed by the Roman-catholic church, can injure none but those who are the active agents of so injurious an undertaking. I have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient servant, "RICHARD SMITH.

"To the Rev. Michael Spratt, Parish Priest."

* The administration of this oath at ordination was done away with by the Act of Uniformity.

the place, territory, or parish, where he shall have pre-eminence, rule, benefice, or promotion, a school for to learn English if any children of his parish come to him to learn the same, taking for the keeping of the same school such convenient stipend, or salary, as in the said land is accustomably used to be given.'

"We cannot see in these provisions, that the obligation is limited to the mere teaching of the English language. It appears, that the better knowledge of God, and the civil and moral duties of the people, were equally the objects of the legislature."

Thus is the incumbent of every parish in Ireland still bound by an oath to (6 cause a school to be taught as the law in that case requires." The intention of which "law" is distinctly stated to be that the people should by this means obtain "a good instruction in the most blessed laws of Almighty God." And the incumbent's school is to be open for the reception of "any children of his parish" who choose to "come to him to learn," and are willing to pay the customary stipend for being instructed. The design of the parochial schools, then, was not the diffusion of mere literary knowledge, but that the youth of the country "should the better know God." And were a clergyman to withhold from "any of the children who come to him" "a good instruction in the most blessed laws of Almighty God," he would not be fulfilling the obligation which his oath imposed upon him, to "cause a school to be taught as the law in that case requires." The clergy of the Irish church felt persuaded that, so far as they had to do with the superintendence of the education of the children of their parishioners, their duty, as Christian ministers, was to sanctify that education. They were not to be mere overseers of the teaching of spelling and reading, and writing, and cyphering, but they were to take the oversight of the children who were receiving this elementary instruction, in order that they might be brought up as Christians, and not as deists or heathens. The clergy were not to watch over those schools which were specially placed under their care and guardianship, merely to prevent treason, and disaffection, and immorality being taught, as if they were only justices of the peace, but to secure that religion should be the basis of the education given to the poor. No compulsion was used to force children to attend them. The schools were open to all who voluntarily chose to make use of them. "If any," however, came, they must learn in them the elements of divine truth. Else what use was there in a Christian minister being the patron and superintendent of them?

It is further of the utmost importance to observe that the poor Roman catholics of Ireland were not left to a mere choice between sending their children to the clergyman's school or else giving them no education at all. This is a gross misrepresentation, or a most ignorant mistake. There were, as appears from the returns, on an average, nine schools in each benefice, and seven out of the nine (such was actually the proportion) were schools independent of all societies or patronage, established by the teachers with a view to gain their livelihood thereby, and therefore conducted in a manner accommodated to the wishes of the parents. The clergy did not attempt to monopolize the education of the people, but to improve it. Nor did they seek to monopolize the means of improvement afforded by the

bounty of the state. They were well aware that, owing to the influence of the Roman-catholic priests over the parents, a large proportion of the children of the poor would not be allowed to come to the parish schools for instruction. And what course did the Irish church adopt, in order to meet this unfortunate state of things? They recommended the establishment of supplemental schools, in which those children who would not attend the parochial schools, should have an opportunity afforded them of obtaining instruction on the most improved system and under the best trained teachers. They not only did not object to such a measure, but they recommended it. I allude to the plan proposed by the late Primate Stuart, Archbishop Brodrick, and Bishops Elrington and Verschoyle, in the Fourteenth Report which they presented as Commissioners of Education in 1812. But, then, these supplementary institutions were not to be set up to the detriment and eventual ruin of the parochial schools, which were under the exclusive care and superintendence of the clergy, and towards the support of which the government afforded assistance by means of one or other of the societies, to which grants of money were annually given.*

This was the position of affairs when the national system was introduced into Ireland; and introduced, not as supplementary to, but subversive of, the system which was under the superintendence of the clergy. For the aid hitherto granted to the parish schools being at once withdrawn, the clergy were left to choose whether they would alter the system on which they had been heretofore conducted, and adopt the new one, or else struggle to maintain them on their original model without assistance from the state, and in so doing expose themselves to the risk of being charged with thwarting the intentions of the legislature, and expose their schools to the disadvantage of being closely surrounded by national schools, in which, by means of the aid given by the government, every literary improvement that ample funds could supply would be introduced, so as to afford strong inducements to all parents to send their children to them, and to forsake the old parochial schools. Let us see, therefore, what that new system

* In this fourteenth report, the commissioners recommended that the parochial schools should be rendered "more effective" and their number greatly increased: and that, inasmuch as many of the benefices consisted of unions of two or more parishes, instead of having one school for each benefice, there should be one for each parish. By this means they contemplated having 2400 parochial schools, giving education to at least 120,000 children. For the building of the school-houses, they suggested that money should be granted by Parliament; and for keeping them in repair, they proposed that funds should be raised by vestry assessment, as for the repair of the churches. They also recommended that the clergy should contribute a certain per centage on their incomes towards paying the salaries of the teachers; and that all lay impropriators should be required to contribute the same. Lord Stanley, in the debates on the passing of the Church Temporalities Act, referred to this recommendation of the commissioners of 1812, as affording the highest sanction to the plan of taxing the incomes of the clergy, which formed a part of that Act. But, in his celebrated letter establishing the national system of education, when he refers to the report of 1812, he avoids all reference to its recommendation respecting the parish schools. And the Board of National Education, who have frequently reprinted that report, have always omitted that portion of it which contains the sug gestions alluded to in this note.

was, which the clergy were thus called on to adopt in their schools, in place of that on which they had been previously conducted.

The national system, as laid down by Lord Stanley, required the patrons of schools-and therefore, in the case which we are considering, required the Protestant clergy-to keep them open for four days, or five, in each week, at the discretion of the commissioners; for giving to all the children, during a certain number of hours in the day, moral and literary education only, to the exclusion of any religious instruction. And it required that, on the remaining day, or two days, of the week, the patrons (i. e., in this case, the parish clergymen who had established and superintended the schools) to open them for the use of the Roman-catholic priests, that they might give in them instruction in the tenets of the church of Rome to all the Roman-catholic pupils and the same was to be done before or after school hours on all the other days of the week, if the Roman-catholic priests chose to demand the use of the school-room. The Roman-catholic parents might have no objection, nay, they might be willing, or even anxiously desirous, that their children should read the Scriptures along with the Protestant children; but this would not be allowed. They must receive no religious instruction except from the priest, or with his approval, whatever the wishes of the parents might be. This was the fundamental rule of the national system, as it was first promulgated. The following is an exact transcript from the document issued by the commissioners in December, 1831. It will be found in the Appendix to the Report of the Commons' Committee on the "Plan of Education, Ireland," 1837, p. 681.

"The commissioners appointed for administering the funds placed at the disposal of his excellency the Lord Lieutenant, for the education of the poor of Ireland, are ready to receive applications for aid towards the building and fitting up of schools, the paying of teachers, and the obtaining of books and school requisites, on the following conditions:

"3. They will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the commissioners, for moral and literary education only; and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately, such religious education to the children as may be approved of by the clergy of their respective persuasions. They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction, either before or after the ordinary school-hours, on the other days of the week."

A "document explanatory of the regulations," was subsequently issued by the commissioners, which stated that "the parents and guardians of the children are to determine to what denomination they respectively belong, the Board taking no cognizance of the matter."

All, then, that a parent was allowed to do, was to determine what "denomination" his child belonged to. From thenceforward, if the parent said that the child was a Roman catholic, it was his priest alone who was to give him religious instruction, or to appoint and "approve" of the instruction in religion which that child should receive in the clergyman's parish school, if that school were placed in connexion with the national system. The clergyman dare not open his lips on the subject of religion to that child while it was in his