light of heaven which is open to every eye that is not shut against it. Should any choose to forsake their own mercies, we will use neither coercion nor compulsion; but leave them, as God does, to future responsibility. To this course they declared themselves constrained by the injunction of Jehovah, Deut. vi. 6, &c., and they would regard objectors and withdrawers, as that law regarded strangers and sojourners in the land, not constraining them to learn or teach, though they themselves felt bound both to teach and learn."

These arguments, however plausible, were considered partial and irrelevant. As the Protestants and the Catholics had but one school-house and one teacher between them, they were both asked to agree upon a time when their children should assemble for the common purpose of learning to read and write. And they agreed upon the four hours between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. But both parties were desirous that their children should also receive instruction in religion. Their principles however were different; their teachers, text-books and forms of religious instruction were different, and hence they could not receive this portion of instruction in common. They therefore adopted the only alternative of separation; and to effect this without interference, the seasons of religious instruction were designated beforehand, and upon the parents was thrown the responsibility of their childrens' attendance, in accordance with their wishes. And hence it was said, by the friends of this arrangement, that the charge of giving to one and withdrawing from another, or shutting up from one and opening to another, was unjust and groundless.

But we were about to introduce the reverend clergy of Raphoe and Derry, who urged the board to agree to the two following propositions :

1. That in all the national schools there should be a scripture class, to be composed of those children whose parents or guardians wish them to read the Bible.

2. That it should be part of the daily exercises in the schools, that such class shall read the Bible, at suitable times during school hours.

A substantial compliance with these propositions would be embraced, they thought, in the following rule: "The ordinary school business, upon which all the children of whatever denomination they may be, are required to attend, and which is expected to occupy a sufficient number of hours

of each day, shall consist of instruction in those branches which belong to a literary and moral education, embracing the reading of the holy scriptures by those children whose parents or guardians consent to it."

"This," said the bishop of Exeter, "coupled with a regulation requiring the scriptures to be used by all the children, at the time of separate religious instruction (but not requiring any particular version), would have contented me; provided it was sustained by a system of inspection, that would insure an actual and efficient use of the holy scriptures, in some version, in all the national schools, by children of all denominations."

This seems all very fair and reasonable, but one of the Roman Catholic members of the board (Mr. Blake) thought that no new legislation was required; for he considered it "perfectly consistent with the already established regulations that there should be a scripture class in every school, composed of those whose parents desire them to belong to it." And Lord Stanley says (Sept. 1832) that "his Majesty's government fully recognizes the right, of all who choose it, to read the sacred scriptures, but the exercise of this right in the case of infants" (all under twenty-one years of age?) "must be subject to the control of their parents and natural guardians; and, in point of time, it must be limited by the appropriation of certain hours to certain other branches of study."

This was an ingenious device to shift the odiousness of exclusion upon the secular branches of instruction. The Bible may be used at all times except when the pursuit of other branches pushes it aside!

"In the hours thus appropriated to secular studies," says Mr. Blake," be they more or fewer, neither the Bible, nor any other book, could be used in the school, to which any of the parents objected on the score of religious scruples. To introduce the reading or learning of any such book, during these hours, would be a palpable violation of liberty of conscience." And we find, by the latest construction of this rule, (1839,) that it excludes the reading even of the "Scripture Extracts" during the time of secular or literary instruction, in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to it.

The clergy of Derry and Raphoe were probably puzzled to discern the "consistency," (so clear to Mr. Blake,) between their proposition and the existing regulations, as interpreted

by himself and Lord Stanley; nor does it appear that even their construction was uniformly given; for in a national school in Belfast the rule was, that "so much time should be allowed for the reading of the scriptures as should be consistent with the greatest average convenience of all the scholars, and the allowance of sufficient time for the other studies. of the school; and that every extension or change of time. should be notified in the public regulations of the school "

But Mr. Blake would object to the establishment of a scriptural class, as proposed by the clergy of Raphoe and Derry, (even were the parents all of one mind,) "if it would interfere with, or be regarded as a substitute for special religious instruction at set times. "It might do," he said, "for dissenters, but not for denominations that have a creed or articles of faith. It would be too general and indefinite to answer the purpose."

The reply to the clerical propositions by the board was somewhat singular. The clergy asked that the holy scriptures should be read daily, as a part of the ordinary school exercises, by those children whose parents and guardians consent to it; and the commissioners consider it a virtual compliance with their wishes to allow such an exercise to be introduced, except in cases where parents or guardians disapprove of such use of the Bible. "In one of our schools," (we may suppose the clergy of Derry and Raphoe to say,) "there are twelve boys and girls whose parents wish them to constitute a scriptural class, and that they may be allowed to read the scriptures as a part of the ordinary daily school exercises." "Certainly," say the commissioners, "provided there are no other children in school, whose parents or guardians object to it!"

In the course of the evidence drawn out on this whole subject, two points were established with considerable clear

1. That the objection to the reading of the scriptures was not felt by the Roman Catholic laity, but by the priesthood. It was stated by a witness before the parliamentary committee, (on whom, as a recent convert from the church of Rome, the opposers of the national board greatly relied, but whose testimony, for that very reason, should be the more cautiously received,) "that he could not say the Roman Catholics were actually desirous to read the Bible, because it is a thing which, in many instances, they are not at all aware of. It

is out of their sphere. They have no information of it, but that derived from the priests, that it is a bad book, but they have no objection to the book when they know it." The Catholic priesthood object to any such use of the scriptures as might carry with it the notion, that the reading of them affords sufficient religious instruction, or is indeed safe, without the aid of the authorized interpreters of its meaning. And a similar objection was urged by the English hierarchy to the Lancasterian schools, viz. that the use of the scriptures, without note or comment, implied an improper undervaluing of creeds, catechisms and priests.

2. The second point supposed to be settled was, that the reading of " Extracts," selected with good judgment, and so arranged as to present the various subjects contained in the scriptures in proper order and connexion, gave children a much better notion of Bible history and truth, than the stated reading of the sacred volume without any comment or exposition. In other words, that if the scriptures could not be freely used at the discretion of the teacher, as a text book of moral and religious instruction, it was best not to use them at all, but to substitute something as nearly like them as might be. This result of experience would be readily anticipated, and hence we regard the use of the Bible under such restrictions as we have been considering, as tantamount to its literal exclusion.

There was another ground, besides the three above stated, on which Protestants rejected the compromising system. They conceived that by sanctioning that scheme, they indirectly recognized the Roman Catholic clergy as religious teachers. They would of course instruct their flocks in their own places of worship, but there was an objection to the priests being in the schools at all. "The Board of National Education," said the objectors, "put it forward in the very front of their proceedings, that they encourage and invite the Roman Catholic clergy to give peculiar religious instruction to children in the school, though out of school hours. Every person, therefore, connecting himself with that board, virtually subscribes to the principles of the board, and must therefore be considered as a party to a plan for encouraging the Roman Catholic clergy to teach their religious opinions to Roman Catholic children." So strongly was this objection taken by many, that it was affirmed that Protestants would sooner be excluded themselves, than have the priests admitted.

The national board of Ireland certainly failed to supply, to any considerable extent, the defects which were attributed to pre-existing institutions. They might have some apparent claims to the confidence of the Roman Catholics, which the Kildare-street Society did not possess in form; but after all, they evaded the grand difficulty. They did not, by any means, provide for the certain, efficient religious education of the children. That their designs and principles were misrepresented, and that all sorts of weapons were employed to weaken their strength and subvert their system, may be true; but whatever the cause, we see no evidence that they accomplished what they designed. And indeed, if their means and facilities are considered, they certainly accomplished far less than the preceding voluntary associations, and especially the Kildare-street Society.

The position which the national board took is clearly stated, though lamely defended, by Dean Burgh, in a letter to the archbishop of Tuam. "I am not restrained by the board," he says, "from instructing my flock in my principles, nor am I accountable for the course the Roman Catholic clergyman adopts towards his flock, nor he for mine, be it right or wrong. The board could, under the circumstances, adopt no better plan. If religion had not been considered, the plan would be unsuited to a christian country. If the public money had been given to any church exclusively, it would have been sectarian. Then no Bible, no Testament, proved acceptable to all, and therefore were the recognized ministers of every persuasion permitted and encouraged to exercise their pastoral office, not in school hours, but at other times, to their own flocks." The dean, however, would not probably be received as an approved champion of the board, nor would his vindication be regarded as complete. The board would show what their system is capable of being made, or rather what it allows, than what restrictions and disabilities it imposes. They would also much prefer one of their own number to set forth and defend their measures, and they could find none more ingenious, faithful, and eloquent, than the Rev. Jas. Carlisle, whose work lies before us. He regards the system "as formed upon the principle of introducing as much of religion as all (religious) parties concerned can agree upon." "Children under this system, in the present condition of the kingdom. at least, cannot be educated atheists or deists; they cannot be left in ignorance of the being and attributes of God, his