acknowledgment of this principle. By it a fusion of discordant sects can be, and in multiplied instances is, effected -without, no such fusion can take place."

However sound this opinion may be, it is certainly antiRoman Catholic; and it was vain to expect that the followers of that faith would yield one of their strongest ecclesiastical positions, when their numerical strength in the country was, to that of Protestants, as five to one. And indeed it was preposterous to ask it of them. The mass of their children remained uneducated; and in 1832, a board of national education for Ireland was established by Parliament; and of course, in organizing and administering its affairs, special reference was had to pre-existing difficulties.

1. As union schools were desirable where they would prosper, the most favoured applications were those in which both parties united; and when an application for aid came, from either Protestants or Roman Catholics exclusively, an inquiry was instituted into the causes of the anomaly.

2. A report of all applications, and the disposition made of them, with reasons, &c., were to be reported to Parliament.

3. An entire separation of the literary branches of instruction from the religious, was required; the latter to be conducted exclusively by the pastors or teachers of the denominations to which the parents of the children belong. For this purpose, one day of each week was reserved.

We have said that the separation of letters from religion was to be entire, and this is literally true; but there was a curious scheme devised to preserve the semblance of scriptural instruction. A small manual was prepared, containing passages inoffensive alike to Roman Catholics and Protestants, and extracted from their respective versions of the scriptures. The use of these extracts was not required, but simply recommended. The extracts are represented by the commissioners, "to comprise such passages as appear to be most level to the understanding of children and youth at school, and also best fitted to be read under the direction of teachers, not necessarily qualified, and certainly not recognized as teachers of religion." They add the very singular declaration, that "no passage has been introduced or omitted under the influence of any particular view of Christianity, doctrinal or practical!"

In a short time this scheme was marvellously liberalized. The scriptures at large, or other works of a religious character, were permitted to be read any and every day at a stated

hour, provided only that those children whose parents desired it, might withdraw during that hour; and in order that the withdrawing party might not be incommoded, it was requir ed that either the first or last hour of the school session should be appropriated to this exercise. But as this hour was as much a school-hour as any other, except to the voluntary absentees, it was boldly said, by the friends of the system, that the Bible was not excluded during school-hours! Hence, in the investigation of the subject by a committee of parliament in 1837, a witness (Rev. Robert Bell) was asked a series of curious questions, all turning on the point whether that could be properly called a school-hour, during which a portion of the school is excluded by the offensive character of the exercises?

The result of the inquiries and decisions on the subject amounted to this, that there were certain hours devoted to the instruction of the children in a body, during which all were expected and required to attend; and from this portion of the day biblical and all other religious instruction was excluded. But if the local patrons of any school should specify a day or days, hour or hours, for the reading of the scriptures, or for other religious instruction, such reading and instruction would be perfectly admissible, inasmuch as the designation of the time would allow the objecting parents an opportunity to withdraw their children. These religious hours were regarded as properly school-hours, however, though distinguished from the hours of general attendance. This was called the combining, in distinction from the blending process !*

*James Simpson, Esq., of Edinburgh, in a series of letters to the Marquis of Lansdowne, proposes a method of carrying out this distinction. He tells us that there are two revelations, one of nature and the other of scripture. No one, he thinks, will claim that doctrinal Christianity should be, or can be blended with lessons on material objects, as botany, chemistry, physiology, &c. "The Bible must be closed when we are busy with the retort and crucible!" Is this an epitome of the modern philosophy of education?

In combination, secular and religious instruction may be given to each pupil by two teachers; the religious by a teacher of his own sect. When blended, there can be but one teacher, and he must be of a sect whose lessons offend the consciences of all the sects in the school, but his own. If it is said that this plan tends to exclude religion from education, by depriving the secular teacher of the use of Christian precepts and motives, (a very weighty argument by the way,) Mr. Simpson replies, that as the pupil has two teachers, what one lacks the other must supply!

He thinks the religious teacher will find a great advantage in the circumstance that the holy scriptures will be his especial book, which the child has never seen

As might have been anticipated, the organization and proceedings of the board proved unsatisfactory to both parties, and the causes of the failure afford our country very instructive lessons.

The leading facts upon which Protestants relied to sustain their objections to the National Board of 1832, were

1. That many of the schools aided by the government were under the eaves of Roman Catholic churches, and some of them under the superintendence of monks and nuns ; all which was regarded as inconsistent with the professed neutrality of the system.

2. That the scriptural "Extracts" were partial to the Roman Catholic version.

And

3. That the use of the "Extracts" displaced the holy scriptures, which should, in their entire, unmutilated form, occupy an essential place in all systems of popular education. We will very briefly examine the grounds of these objections in their order.

(1.) One of the most formidable attacks on the principles and proceedings of the Irish Board, was made in the House. of Lords, as early as March 1836, by the bishop of Exeter, in moving for a select committee "to inquire into the operation of the commission for national education in Ireland."

His first allegation was, that in a plan they had published for the establishment of one or more normal schools to instruct five thousand teachers, no provision was made for their religious culture-a point which he thought should receive the most careful attention, as he concurred in the opinion of an eminent French statesman,* "that if the reality and the freedom of the religious instruction of the children ought to be secured in all schools and for all creeds, with still stronger reason ought the same care to be taken for the religious instruction of the teachers themselves, who are to

desecrated and degraded to the profane uses of a common-school reading book.

Rev. Baden Powell, in discussing this point, seems anxious to guard against a possible (may we not say highly probable) neglect of the religious, when thus separated from the secular department of instruction. "In any system of State education," he says, "full, systematic and precise religious instruction for the children of each denomination at the hands of the ministers or other authorized instructors of such denomination, should be expressly recognized and ENFORCED, as an essential part of the system; thus securing its perfect incorporation into the body and scheme of education as one united whole, the sole distinction being a separation of time and place, where such a separation is unavoidable." State Education, p. 53.

* M. Guizot.

be placed at the head of these schools." "This position," the bishop affirmed, "disclosed a grand essential defect; and not a defect only, but a positive evil, inasmuch as without religion all other knowledge can only lead, as it always has led the corrupt nature of man to a more frightful excess of wickedness."

The board attempted to defend themselves upon this point by reference to sundry passages in their published documents, where the moral character of the teachers is insisted upon with much positiveness; but when we consider how easily that term may be and is moulded to suit the purpose in hand, we must regard the answer of the board as insufficient, if not evasive.*

A second ground taken by the bishop, and sustained by Protestants, embraced the practice of giving aid to schools connected with nunneries, monasteries, &c. The fact was admitted by the board and justified. In regard to a specific case, in which it was alleged that for more than two years the service of mass was performed during school hours, in one of the national schools, attended by Protestants as well as Catholics, the commissioners admit that there was an altar in the recess of the school room, screened by a curtain from public view, at which mass was performed for such children as attended before school hours; and then the question turned wholly on the time of the celebration-which might be a very doubtful point to settle, especially where children were witnesses for or against their teacher! In farther support of the same objection, the bishop stated that a grant to a national school under the care of a monastic establishment, had been applied to aid in building a nunnery; and that in another case $500, granted for a school, had been applied to building a Roman Catholic chapel.

These statements were denied by the national board; but it was clearly in evidence before the committee of inquiry, that there were gross departures from the neutral principle allowed in some of the schools. In one school, for example, where Wednesday was the day set apart, and published as

The very lax principle that prevailed on this subject is incidentally shown in the examination of the Rev. Mr. Carlisle, before the select committee of the House of Commons, Aug. 4, 1834. He stated that a candidate for employment as a teacher, would probably be rejected by the board, if he was known to be a professed Deist, (understanding by this phrase one who denies revelation,) but a Unitarian, (understanding by this phrase, that he believes in some revealed religion,) would be admitted.

the day for religious teaching, a visitor on Friday saw in use and examined several Roman Catholic catechisms, and a Roman Catholic prayer book. While he was present, too, the clock struck twelve, and the scholars made the sign of the cross, and moved their lips as if repeating a prayer.

It was also clearly proved, that several of the national schools were within the precincts of nunneries; and the reason assigned was, that the rules of their establishment forbade the nuns from leaving their abode, and therefore the schools must be brought to them!

In one of these "national" nunnery schools, a visitor found that there was no school-mistress or principal in the school; that the nuns, who were dressed in their peculiar religious garb, were the teachers; the school opened and closed with prayer; there were two opportunities given for saying the Roman Catholic catechism during school hours, and a spiritual lecture was delivered towards the close of the school exercises. There was also a confessional in the room, or a place where the priests heard the confessions of the children, and gave them tickets, by virtue of which they were admitted to the communion. In another part of the room, there was an altar where mass was celebrated, and where the children brought their tickets and received the communion.

It was alleged, in behalf of the board, that these abuses never came to their knowledge, and hence that they should be exonerated from all responsibility for them. It cannot be denied, however, that the government revenue and influence were given (whether through design or defect is not material to our present point) to advance objects which they were pledged to discountenance; and it would be difficult to conceive that men of ordinary shrewdness could have expected to prevent gross abuses, by a system of inspection so uncertain and superficial as that which the commissioners employed. We are not surprised to learn that the schools in which these practices were tolerated, were chiefly, if not entirely, Catholic. For surely, if a Protestant child attended, it must be from ignorance, or from a desire to be weaned from all Protestant habits and attachments.

We ought to add that there was nothing in the regulations established by the commissioners to prevent their aiding a purely Roman Catholic school, or a school, the patrons of which should provide religious instruction for children of a particular communion; leaving it to parents or guardians to provide for all others. It is perfectly obvious, however, that