deacon and the clergy, as well as to frequent discussions between them and him at clerical meetings; the result of which he has detailed in the first part of his accompanying report, which will give her majesty's ministers a fairer sample of the state of education in Ireland, and of the conscientious and unbiassed feelings of the clergy, than, I think, could be elsewhere procured.

In the course of our inquiry it became necessary to investigate the proceedings of the National Board of Education'; and in approaching this part of the subject I can truly say that both I and the Archdeacon were guided by a spirit of strict impartiality, and a wish to find the materials of a cordial and candid union. If the result has been such as to disappoint our hopes, the fault has not been ours.

In endeavouring to make such an arrangement as may enable the clergy to co-operate in a national system, we turn to her majesty's ministers, for they only have the power of making it. The commissioners have no power of making such an arrangement; they cannot form or give permanency to rules; they cannot give security for the continuance of any system or regulation, without the consent of government. When an arrangement was contemplated between them and the heads of the Presbyterian body, the latter applied to the Lord Lieutenant, and through him the settlement was made. It appears, by Lord Stanley's letter, that it was intended from the very first that the Board should act under the direction and control of the executive; this is also maintained by some of the commissioners in their examination before parliamentary committees. Mr. Blake's words on such an occasion were, we are the mere creatures of the Lord Lieutenant." The grant is annually made by Parliament "to enable the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advancement of education in Ireland." I speak of their powers, for it seems as if in their practice the rules of 1843 had been made without the previous consent, or subsequent approval, of the Lord Lieutenant. The very constitution of the Board shews the necessity of such control, to insure impartiality and consistency, as well as public confidence. In a body composed of sections representing different religious professions, it must happen that some particular section-whose members may have most leisure, most activity and ability, and most punctuality in attendance-will occasionally gain the ascendancy, and be expected to work the system most in accordance with the views and wishes of their own peculiar profession, which are also their own. To prevent such a reality, or such a suspicion, the control of her majesty's ministers is necessary.

I proceed, therefore, briefly to state the principles upon which the great majority of the clergy of this diocese are willing to co-operate in the work of national education; and, to smooth the way to an object I have so much at heart, I shall not propose any rule which can be reasonably objected to by the commissioners, because the rules which I shall propose are those of which they themselves have already approved. Their rules of 1843, which left so much discretion in the hands of local patrons and managers, would, with some little alterations, prove acceptable to the generality of the clergy of this diocese (and, I have reason to believe, to many of other dioceses also), on the following conditions: that the concessions granted by those rules to three-fourths of the schools, but which are only temporary, and at any time revocable, shall be permanently continued, under the sanction of government, and shall be extended to all their schools, of every description, including the other fourth; and that the same rules shall also be substituted in the trust deeds, in place of the conditions now required therein, which are at variance with these rules.

It is necessary to explain this proposal, and in doing so, to state our objections to the present plans of the Board; because it may appear at first sight, that if we approve of those rules, and of the indulgence they afford, we have no reason to complain.

It was originally intended by the government, that whatever rules and regulations should be in operation in the national system, should extend to all

the schools, whether built by the commissioners, and vested in them, or whether placed under their management and inspection, and aided by them with salaries and school requisites. In the year 1843, for the first time, a distinction was made, and the schools divided into two classes-such as were vested, and such as were not vested; the former consisted of those, the schoolhouses of which had been partly, or altogether, built by grants from them, and the sites vested in them by trust deeds, which bound the patron to the original rules, slightly modified; the latter class consisted of those which, not having been vested in the Board, but having been put into connexion therewith, became subject to their control and inspection, and to which they granted salaries and school requisites. These were subject to the rules of 1843, which, however, or any one of them, were revocable at pleasure, or the school itself liable to be discontinued. It appears to have been the intention of the Board, according as funds should have become available, to have built a sufficient number of school-houses to answer the demand for education in all parts of Ireland; and, of course, accordingly as these were increased, the others would have been discontinued, and the rules of 1843, and their indulgence, which had induced the patrons of the schools to forego aid from other sources, and put them under the control of the Board, would have ceased altogether. All the schools would have become vested in the Board, and subjected to the original objectionable rules. Thus the rules now in operation in three-fourths of the schools will be superseded altogether, and the objectionable rules and principles not now enforced even in the one-fourth, will become the standard rules of the whole. This consummation would have eventuated in putting down all the schools of the clergy, and again excluding them from all participation in the work of national education. At present the nonobservance of rules is connived at. The clergy of the established church cannot consent to conduct schools upon the mere connivance of the commissioners; but they will observe, with good faith, whatever rules or conditions they may agree to.

The rules and conditions of the trust-deeds are now in abeyance; a return to them would be alike objectionable to Roman-catholic patrons as to us. Why keep them still in abeyance, and liable to be called forth at any time, for the purpose of driving out the established clergy, who may join the Board under the protection of the concessions of 1843?

I give this as a mere outline of an arrangement which I beg to suggest for the consideration of her majesty's ministers. The accompanying report contains some minor particulars, to which no objection can be anticipated. I do not consider it necessary to enter into minute details, until I shall have ascertained whether her majesty's ministers are willing to entertain the question. We shall be ready at any time to submit a plan in detail.

The attempt to establish a system of national education in Ireland was a great, but doubtful experiment; considering the materials upon which it had to work, and the instruments which had to be employed, it was impossible to foresee the effects and the results; and, like all great experiments, particularly those of a moral and political character, it requires to have the principles and machinery occasionally altered, corrected, and adapted to the better working which experience, and experience alone, can suggest. An act of parliament never yet was passed in so perfect a form, as to enable it effectually to work without alteration and revision. The Church Temporalities' Act required several subsequent acts, and still requires further revision, amendment, and explanation. Shall it be said that the question of national education alone is so clear, and unembarrassed with difficulty, as to work smoothly on theoretical principles, and disclaim the aid of practice and the wisdom of experience? I have the honour to be, sir,

With the greatest respect,
Your faithful and obedient humble servant,
EDWARD MEATH.

The Right Hon. Sir James Graham, Bart.

LETTER FROM SIR JAMES GRAHAM, BART., TO THE BISHOP OF MEATH. Whitehall, Feb. 1, 1845.

MY LORD BISHOP,-In fulfilment of the promise which I gave to your lordship, I have carefully considered the report of Archdeacon Stopford, transmitted in your official letter to me; and I have made inquiries into the allegations which impute bad faith to the Board of National Education in several important particulars.

Considering the character and station of the members of that board, among whom are an archbishop of the established church, and the Queen's solicitorgeneral in Ireland, I did believe, even before inquiry, that the accusations against the board proceeded either from error or misconstruction. I am now entirely confirmed in that opinion by the inquiries which I have instituted. I will not enter into a discussion of the point at issue, lest I should be entangled in a controversy which I seek rather to allay than to provoke; but I must be permitted to express my opinion that the commissioners have executed their difficult trust with fidelity, and that the alterations which have been made from time to time in the school rules are consistent with the spirit of the original institution, and have been rendered necessary by defects which experience has disclosed. I may also add, that, by the admission of Archdeacon Stopford, these modifications are not such as justly to excite the jealousy of protestants, whether presbyterian, or members of the established church.

Her majesty's ministers are not prepared to recommend any alteration in the composition of the board; the present members command their confidence, and are quite competent to deal with any proposals for changes either in the trustdeeds, or in the rules. It will be always open to your lordship, through the Archbishop of Dublin, to bring under the special notice of the board any suggestions which appear to you calculated to conciliate the co-operation of the clergy of the established church, without a departure from the intent of the original scheme, as set forth in Lord Stanley's letter to the Duke of Leinster, in 1832, when the board was first instituted.

I am sensible that the unwillingness of the parochial clergy to co-operate, has deprived the measure of a portion of its efficacy and salutary influence. It would, indeed, be a work of charity and peace, if, by their exertions and forbearance, these heart-burnings which have hitherto prevailed, should be extinguished, and if all classes of the people of Ireland were thus admitted to the full benefit of the national education, which, under the direction of the present board, the legislature has thought fit to establish.

The Rt. Hon. and Rt. Rev.
The Lord Bishop of Meath.

I have the honour to be, my lord bishop,
Your faithful servant,

JAMES GRAHAM.

FROM THE BISHOP OF MEATH TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES GRAHAM, BART.

Mould's Hotel, Suffolk Street, London,

Feb. 11, 1845.

Sir, I had the honour of receiving your letter of the 1st inst. in Dublin, on my way to London.

The very high respect I have always entertained for her majesty's present ministers, and the confidence I have always reposed in their integrity and wisdom, make it most painful to my feelings to differ from them upon any subject, and more particularly upon a question arising out of a sincere desire upon my part of reconciling the clergy of my own diocese, and also many others, with the measures of her majesty's government regarding national education in Ireland. Nothing but a strong sense of duty to the flocks committed to my care could have induced me to differ-on the one side, from the majority of my brethren on the Irish bench, and, on the other, from her majesty's ministers. VOL. XXVII.-April, 1845. 2 H

I beg once more to crave your indulgence-probably for the last time upon this subject-while I endeavour to explain some particulars referred to in your letter, as well as contained in my own.

For the members of the Board of National Education, so far as I am acquainted with them, I feel the highest respect, and I am aware of the delicate position in which you at present stand with regard to some of the members. I should not have hinted at any alteration in the constitution of the board except in that section representing the established church, and that by no means from any suspicion I entertain of the honour and integrity of the members, but simply because they are of that rank, and, in their respective departments, so overloaded with business, that it is impossible for any of them to attend to the detail of the proceedings.

We have not one working man at the board who has leisure, as well as zeal, ability, and knowledge of the business, sufficient to enable him to attend to the detail. Therefore, so far as our church is concerned, we are virtually unrepresented in that most important duty; and the interests of the church must be left to others and to subordinates. It is perfectly right that a high dignitary of our church should preside over the board, even although his peculiar duties should (as now) be sufficient to occupy all his attention; because the impossibility of his attending to the detail might be compensated by the assistance of working men possessing his confidence. It is also proper that a lay nobleman of our church, to whom occasional reference might be made, should be a commissioner; but the others ought to be gentlemen such as I have described above. The provost has been a friend of mine for upwards of half a century, and I should be far from saying a disrespectful word of him; he undertook the duty, at the request of Lord Grey's government, when he was in a situation which afforded him sufficient leisure. He continued to hold it when he was appointed provost, the duties of which station render it impossible for him to attend to the details of the Education Commission. I am certain that his sense of duty, and the amiability of his disposition, would induce him readily and cheerfully to give way to a working man of business. Of the solicitor general I have the highest opinion, but it is impossible for him to attend to the details; he holds the office of a commissioner at the desire of government, and, in obedience to the same desire, would cheerfully relinquish it. I am certain that it is irksome to those two functionaries to give their names where they cannot give their attention. It often happens in Boards, nominally composed of persons of rank, that the business is, on that very account, left to subordinates.

These and other matters might have been discussed, and amicably arranged, if government had condescended rightly to appreciate my motives, and grant me a hearing. But from the very first intimation they had of my intention of bringing the subject under their consideration, and long before they knew that I had any fault to find with the proceedings of the Board; and although they were well aware of the moderation of my opinions upon the question, they peremptorily refused to listen to any proposition, or enter into any negotiation. On my mentioning to the Lord-Lieutenant my intention of addressing her Majesty's ministers on the subject, his Excellency communicated my intention to them; and in his letter, dated November 1, 1844, long before the Archdeacon's Report went to press, he wrote to me as follows:

"It is now my duty to inform your Lordship in reply, that the government is not prepared to enter into any negotiation respecting the plan of national education in Ireland, which has received the sanction of several parliaments, and which has been supported by successive administrations. I stated in my last letter that her Majesty's present ministers had adopted the scheme atter long and careful consideration, and the result of experience has not led them to contemplate any change.

"Under these circumstances, although I cannot decline receiving any com

munication which your Lordship may think it right to address to me on the subject, it will be impossible for me to enter into any negotiation. Any complaint or suggested alterations must be addressed to the Board, which has been constituted by the supreme authority of the State."

We applied to the Board, requesting information as to the authority of their rules of 1843. They answered by enclosing a printed copy of a minute of their proceedings, without date, which stated that "several applications having been made to the Board for explanations of some of their rules," and other inquiries therein specified,

"It being judged by the Board objectionable that the secretaries or commissioners should be engaged in answering such inquiries, IT IS ORDERED that for the future any person making such inquiries should be simply referred to the documents already printed."

In accordance with that order, we requested to be referred to the particular document already printed, affording information as to the sanction and authority of the Rules of 1843, in the Appendix.

To this request we received the following answer :

"That if you think the Rules of the Board do not carry with them due sanction and authority, although issued by the Board, laid before parliament by her majesty's command, and acted upon by parliament in making the grant which the Board is appointed to administer; or if you consider them open to objection, on the ground of ambiguity, or otherwise, it is to her Majesty's government, or the legislature, that you should address any representation or complaint that you may be disposed to make on the subject."

Being thus peremptorily refused any explanation, and referred for such explanation, not only as to their rules but as to any ambiguities therein, to her Majesty's government, and her Majesty's government having refused to listen to any representation on the subject, it became necessary for us to state our case so strongly as to show to her Majesty's ministers the necessity of their interference and control. We, therefore, closely investigated the proceedings and plans of the Board, as given in their own reports. We put forward no allegation; we made no charge; we analyzed their proceedings; we compared one fact with another; and the charges to which you allude followed, as the natural and obvious conclusions. We considered them again and again to avoid "error," and are not conscious of any "misconstruction."

The commissioners have given you such explanations as have satisfied her Majesty's ministers. You have not deemed it prudent to communicate those explanations to me, for the satisfaction of that most moderate portion of the clergy upon whose behalf I had made my application. If I had been made acquainted with their answer, I should have been happy to have corrected any error into which I might have fallen, or any misconstruction into which the ambiguity of their rules might have led me, or to have retracted any unjust accusations I might have drawn. I consider it, however, to be my duty to give them an opportunity of justifying their proceedings.

The introduction of the Rules of 1843 was involved in obscurity. We considered that the principle upon which the commission had been establishedtheir uniform practice-and the practice of succeeding administrations, as well as the words of the parliamentary grant-did make it necessary that their rules, or changes of rules, should be sanctioned by government, otherwise, we apprehend that the same uncontrolled authority which could make, could also rescind rules.

You remark that

"The alterations which have been made in the school rules are consistent with the spirit of the original institution, and have been rendered necessary by defects which experience has disclosed."