the alteration of the rule which makes local subscriptions to a large amount necessary in all cases as a condition sine quâ non of public aid. Nothing could be more reasonable in the case of the Established Church, the members of which hold by far the larger proportion of the landed property of the country, to say nothing of the Church property. There is no place in which the poor members of that communion are out of proportion to the rich. The case of the Catholic is the exact reverse. Circumstances have accumulated great multitudes of poor Catholics in towns or other situations, many of which are almost without wealthy Catholics. In such cases it is evidently unjust to make the amount of local subscriptions the sole test of the need of a Catholic school. A modification of this rule is so manifestly equitable, that it can hardly be opposed except by those whose real desire is to prevent the establishment of Catholic schools. The rulers of the nation will very greatly fail in their duty, if they allow mere bigotry like this to prevent another generation of Catholic children from receiving any secular schooling. To prevent them from being Catholics is, thank God, beyond its power. The only alternative is whether they shall be Catholics well instructed or Catholics without education. And the public interest as well as their own must decide this question.

We feel no doubt that the Catholic body will be united as one man in contending that, instead of adopting the thoroughly un-English system of compulsory secular schools supported by rates, which a league has just been founded to demand, the Government should maintain the system which has gradually grown up out of English customs to meet English needs, in the manner suited to English institutions, only extending it to those parts of the country in which its benefits have as yet been imperfectly experienced, and perfecting, from time to time, whatever is necessary to increase its efficiency. We do not underrate the influence and zeal of those who are pressing for the system which we oppose. But we have no great fear of their ultimate success. The pamphlet before us has impressed upon us more strongly than ever the conviction that, even if they could obtain an Act of Parliament to sanction their plan (which we think very unlikely), it would be found in practice hardly possible to work it. Such has, in fact, been the result wherever it has as yet been tried, whether in Europe or America. And we think few will question that either secular schools, or compulsory schools, or schools supported by local taxation, would be more directly opposed to the national habits and institutions of England, than to those of any country in which they have hitherto been tried and therefore more difficult, we may say impossible, to work successfully.

The Address delivered at the Catholic Meeting in the Town Hall, Birmingham, November 15, 1869. By the Right Rev. Bishop ULLATHORNE. Birmingham M. Maher & Co.

W

E have spoken at length, elsewhere, upon the education question. We are, however, bound thankfully to notice, that the Bishop of Birmingham has already put himself at the head of a public movement upon the subject. There is plainly no time to be lost. The enemy is already in the field; and the remark of the Bishop was most important, when he said that although the great majority of our countrymen are sure to be against the proposals of the new Education League, because "they are Christians, in one sense or another, and their Christian feelings will rise up against this un-Christian contrivance," yet we must remember, that "it is not by majorities, but by earnest, united, untiring minorities, that questions are carried in this country; and so it will be with this un-Christian scheme, unless the advocates of religious education arise and do their part in resisting its introduction." The denominational system has, indeed, the two great advantages, of being in possession, and of being suited to the habits, principles, and institutions of the people of England. This, however, does not put it

out of danger, unless those who care for it do their duty, and combat boldly and patiently in its defence; although it is the surest pledge of their success if they do.

The Birmingham meeting was attended by a number of men who command the respect of Catholics. It was addressed by the Earl of Denbigh, Lord Howard of Glossop, Mr. Gainsford of Sheffield, Canon O'Sullivan, and Mr. Robert Berkeley. But the subject was chiefly explained by the Bishop. He stated the principles of the proposed plan to be, that schools should be, 1. compulsory; 2. merely secular; 3. supported by a local rate ; 4. managed by a Board elected by the ratepayers. And each one of these, as the Bishop put each of them to the meeting, was indignantly rejected. He then met the objections to denominational education, 1. that it is an obstacle to national education; 2. that it "causes a waste of teaching power "; and 3. "tends to stereotype instead of softening down religious distinctions." As to the second, he said, "The waste will be the other way. In the system proposed, the soul, which is the chief part of a man, is to be left in the school, an uncultivated waste, with nothing to feed on but the hard, dry, sapless bits and scraps of natural morality, selected with the view of excluding from them Christian doctrines and Christian motives. Now this kind of moral teaching puts the selfreliance of man in the place of his dependence on God. It inculcates the duty of man to man, without resting the sense of that duty upon his conscience, and his duty to God. It teaches obedience to human and social laws, without resting them on their only firm foundation, which is the command and law of God. It urges the pursuit of truth, while it stops short of that Divine eternal and revealed Truth, from which all other truth derives its light and its significance. It teaches youth to think, but stays him from thinking of God. It prescribes the rights of man, but it discards the rights of God; and when the rights of God are discarded, the rights of man have but poor and feeble powers of enforcement left them." As for the last objec

tion, his Lordship said, "That is precisely the reason why we object to these secular schools; because one of their distinct aims, as here admitted, is to soften down, to starve out, those great doctrinal truths, which God has revealed and commanded us to believe, to confess, and to hold with firm tenacity, in face of all the powers of this world. We resist and reject these godless schools, for the very reason that the faith of our Catholic children would be weakened in them, and even sacrificed." The Bishop made a very telling point by showing that these secular schools, which are professedly independent of all sects, will really teach, fully and exclusively, the principles of one sect. For we have among us those who "reject the mysteries, the miracles, and the Sacraments of religion. The country may be broadly divided into those who believe in revealed mysteries of religion expressed by some definite creed, and those who have no such belief. But such a system of undenominational schools expresses the principles of the last, and not the principles of the first-of the minority, and not of the majority." His lordship said, we have no objection to that sect, like any other, having its own schools, but he protested against our being compelled to support them by rates from which our own were to have no aid, and still more from any sort of compulsion as to the attending them, which would be simply to raise up the penal laws again, and would stir up such a conflict of power and principles, as this country has not seen since it ceased to be felony and forfeiture of goods, and proof of treason against the State, for a Catholic to teach a school, or to send his children to Catholic schools." He spoke without objection of " a conscience clause of a proper kind" in places where there are not children enough of any denomination to make a school of their own possible; and added, "It is the common usage with us, when Protestants send their children to our schools, to send for the parents and ask them whether they wish their children to learn the Catholic Catechism and prayers or not, and their wish on that subject is complied with, whether it is for or against their learning them." Lastly, as to the proposal that the schools should be managed by a Board similar to that of guardians, he declared that in such a case we should be much in the position of the Irish Catholics in New Ross, when, being besieged by Cromwell, they demanded freedom of conscience on condition of surrender. Cromwell replied, ‘I meddle with no man's conscience; but if by liberty of conscience you mean liberty to say Mass; where the Parliament of England has power, that will not be allowed.'' We have noticed only a small part of the Bishop's very effective speech. It should be mentioned, however, that M. Poncia, a Catholic well known in Birmingham for his zeal and liberality, said that "up to that evening he thought he had come to a clear and proper understanding of the question, in holding a view different from that which had been advocated that evening. He confessed, however, that he had been made a convert by the Bishop's able speech."

66

The Bishop's appeal has been discussed very characteristically by several of the London papers.

The Spectator devotes to it a leading article, marked with its usual ability and fairness. The Times, hitherto opposed to the League, came out, two days after the meeting, with an attack upon the speech, very nearly tantamount to a change of sides." The Pall Mall Gazette made a strong declaration, in an

66

article upon poor Mr. Ffoulkes, against any system which implies national support of Catholic schools. The Spectator points out—“The main strength of the League in the middle class (as distinguished from the working class), is far less attachment to the principle involved, than a latent feeling that, if carried, it would give us a better logical standing-ground for refusing the Catholic demand for denominational education in Ireland. There is no longer any disposition to inflict political disabilities on Roman Catholics. But there is growing up a very strong fear of Roman Catholic encroachment, and an almost nervous wish to find a tenable ground for refusing their next claim, without incurring the appearance of restoring religious inequality."

"All the Protestant jealousies caused by the disestablishment of the Irish Protestant Church, and all the reluctant adhesions given to that just measure, are likely to compensate themselves for their recent chagrin by uniting to resist the demand for denominational education in Ireland. And we suspect that not a few of the warmest supporters of the Birmingham scheme are animated by the feeling that, if carried, it will strengthen the hands of Government in resisting any such change in Ireland. The partial adhesion which seems to have been given to the secular principle on the part of the Scotch Free Church, is due, we doubt not, in some measure to this arrière pensée, as to the Irish campaign. And, assuming this to be so, it is obvious that the Birmingham scheme will not be the less warmly supported, if it becomes evident that it will not only prepare an efficient weapon with which to resist the Roman Catholic claims in Ireland, but will also strike a blow at the much less important body of English Roman Catholics." The Spectator earnestly protests against "this half-confessed wish of Protestants to force upon the people of Ireland a system of education which is unpopular with the majority," throwing to the winds the childish argument that the decision of the Irish people on the subject is owing to the influence of the priesthood; for if so, "it is clear that that influence is paramount with the people"; and "still more strongly against the almost unmanly policy of allowing the opportunity for a clever political manœuvre in Ireland to bias our judgment as to the wisest and soundest educational policy in England." "If the extension of the denominational system is good in itself, then we ought to consider it only an additional advantage that it is as acceptable to the Irish Roman Catholics, as the 'unsectarian' or secular system is the reverse. If it be not good in itself, then it ought to be counted as one real disadvantage in adopting the other scheme, that the Roman Catholics excessively dislike it. We fear the feeling with most Liberals is the other way; those they count the offence to the Roman Catholics as an advantage, and the favour of the Roman Catholics as an offence."

The merit of this conspicuous fairness is greatly increased by the fact, that the Spectator has very strong religious views of its own, and that it believes *

* It would take us away from the subject if we were to enter on the question whether it may not be the case with the Spectator as with many other Protestants, that the most religious parts of their system, and that to which they are most firmly attached, are not really inconsistent with Catholic doctrine, but in truth are part of it.

the Catholic system to be most directly and strongly opposed to them. It has returned to the same view of the subject more than once since. It even questions whether our acting in the matter may not injure the cause we desire to serve, by pointing out to such liberal bigots the fact that secular education is to us the greatest of abominations. We do not agree with it. We are sure that, if we said nothing, those who hate our religion far more than they love their own, or even than they love that constitutional freedom to which they profess their highest worship, would learn from their own instinctive feelings, that they can do us no greater injustice, and offer us no fouler insult, than that of compelling us to maintain, at our own expense, free schools, which, as the Bishop of Birmingham has shown, would really be devoted to teaching exclusively the doctrines of the sect most directly opposite to our religion; namely, that of the men who teach that upon religious matters nothing can be known with certainty, and therefore, that while everything else is taught, that one subject should be respectfully passed by, in education and in the other practical affairs of life, as a thing of which it is useless to think or speak at all. They will feel also, whether we speak out or not, that this injustice and insult will be increased if the establishment of the proposed schools can be so managed, that our own schools (which already contain more children than those of any sect in the country, except the Establishment, and which are rapidly increasing) should be shut up by the competition of the new Government system. There is no need to tell them all this, they well know it; and if we held our peace they would only wonder at our blindness or our indifference, and rejoice that by our silence we made it possible for them to strike us a fatal blow, while professing not to intend that it should reach us. This is now admitted to have been the course adopted through a long life by one of our ablest opponents, the Protestant Archbishop Whately. He was, for many years, an active member of the Irish Education Board, the fundamental principle of which, as laid down by Lord Derby when it was founded, was to preclude all possibility of proselytism. All through his life he loudly professed to maintain the original principles of the Board; and when, at last, he left it, his professed reason was, that by allowing the Catholic managers of schools to dispense with the use of some religious books teaching the "truths held by all denominations," which he had himself drawn up for that purpose, they were departing from those original principles. Now his daughter, Miss Whately (of "Birdsnest" notoriety), evidently through inadvertence, published in his Life, vol. ii. p. 244, some notes supplied her by Mr. Senior, in which he recorded what Dr. Whately told him of his real objects and hopes in supporting these mixed schools. He said to Mr. Senior :- "The education supplied by the National Board is gradually UNDERMINING the vast fabric of the Irish Roman Catholic Church." Words never to be forgotten, and which ought to be engraven upon the heart of every Catholic. Their importance, however, is that they were not any inconsiderate saying of Dr. Whately's. They do not express any mere momentary feeling. Far from it. Any one who reads Mr. Senior's notes will see that what he here says was his deliberate opinion, that he returned to the subject again and again on different days, and approached it from different sides, always to express more strongly his conviction that the only way to undermine (it is his own