RIGHT HON. EDWARD CARDWELL, M.P., 
 
 CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Sir — Twenty-eight years ago, and in this month, one of your most dis- 
 tinguished predecessors in the Irish Secretaryship, was engaged upon the 
 very subject which, at present, occupies the serious attention of the Irish 
 Government and the Irish people — namely, Popular Education. The 
 circumstances of the country, political and social, are widely different, in 
 September, 1859, from what they were in September, 1881, nevertheless, 
 
 I no statesmen, when called on to abolish an existing System of Education, 
 
 : and to aid in introducing another in its stead, can wisely exclude from 
 consideration the state of popular feeling which first created that system, 
 accepted it as an experiment, and now, unequivocally, condemns its work- 
 ing, as vicious, and a failure. Like your predecessor, Lord Stanley, in 
 1881, an entire stranger to the country, and only a few months in office, 
 
 ! you are asked to abolish one system of Education and to introduce another, 
 although your own knowledge of the subject must, at best, be compara- 
 | lively limited ; and, the Cabinet containing no Irishman, her Majesty’s 
 present Ministers can, it is to be feared, render you little assistance in the 
 * onerous task. Having devoted my life to the practical working and direc- 
 i tion of Popular Education in Ireland, thoroughly acquainted with the 
 I principles and working of the various systems in operation, both here and 
 | in Great Britain, and having laboured long, and not unsuccessfully, to in- 
 fluence public opinion upon this great subject, I beg leavej Sir, respect- 
 ; fully, to lay before you, in a few public Letters, a fair, and, I trust, clear 
 ! statement of the general outlines of the question. The subject may be 
 I discussed from three points of view — the religious, the educational, and 
 : the political ; and, although it is impossible to consider it from any one of 
 ; these, so as wholly to exclude the influence of the others, I shall not fail 
 to confine the discussion, as far as possible, to those separate views of the 
 subject now indicated. As a citizen, I claim the right to submit my views 
 to my fellow-countrymen and to the Government, and enjoying, as I had 
 done for twenty-five years, the bounty of the State, I come to lay briefly , 
 before it the tribute of the experience acquired, during that service. In 
 doing so, I alone am responsible, for the opinions and statements which I 
 may advance, for, although I have reason to believe that those opinions 
 
 2 
 
6 
 
 are shared in by the great majority of the people of Ireland, I am not 
 authorized to, nor do I advance them on behalf of any one but myself. To 
 you, Sir — to the deservedly popular and highly esteemed nobleman at the 
 head of the Irish Government, and to her Majesty’s Ministers, I beg leave 
 to express my profound respect, and to assure you that, as the fair settle- 
 ment of the Education Question is my sole object, I shall studiously avoid 
 the introduction of any topic which could, in any way, be foreign to its 
 discussion on general and statesmanlike grounds. 
 
 The Resolutions of the Catholic Hierarchy, unanimously agreed to at 
 their recent Synod, held last month, are in your hands, and they embody 
 the clear demand of the Catholic Prelates upon the important question of 
 Education. 
 
 The British Press, generally, and some portion of the Irish Press, have 
 exceeded the limits of truth, decency, and respect for popular feeling, in 
 their treatment of this Ecclesiastical Document. Their gross abuse — as 
 in the Morning Post and other journals — of the venerated heads of the 
 Catholic Church in Ireland cannot, Sir, have your sympathy, and, there- 
 fore, I dismiss this portion of the attack. They charge the Prelates, 
 
 (1) With inconsistency, because they now oppose a System of Educa- 
 tion to which, heretofore, they gave tolerance ; 
 
 (2) With aggressive pretensions upon the rights of the laity, and a 
 demand for absolute control over Education ; and 
 
 (3) With claiming to exclude the State from all control over Popular 
 Education, the Bishops demanding the setting aside of a portion of the 
 funds for Education, the exclusive appropriation of which they claim. 
 
 The Resolutions of the Bishops need neither explanation nor exposition. 
 Their clearness and elegance of style, their accuracy of statement, and their 
 logical order render interpretation unnecessary. The history of our Educa- 
 tion Question, appearing, however, to be wholly unknown in Great Britain, 
 and comparatively unknown in Ireland, my first effort will be to give a 
 condensed outline of its more prominent political features, as ignorance of 
 this history is the chief cause of many of the absurd and unfounded 
 charges, now advanced against the present Resolutions of the Catholic 
 Bishops. 
 
 In the reign of Henry the VIII., no less than one thousand literary 
 institutions, connected, in general, with monastic and religious establish- 
 ments, were destroyed. To the work of spoliation and confiscation of 
 Church property was soon added that of most severe penal laws against all 
 Catholic education, and the statutes of James I., William and Mary, 
 Anne, and George I., afford sufficient examples of the barbarous severity 
 of this code. These were the effectual means devised to prevent the 
 education of Catholics, and' out of which, when relaxed, grew up a system 
 less infamous in degree only — namely, that of proselytising, through im- 
 proper agencies, and unworthy motives. The Parish School Act of 1537, 
 the Diocesan Free Schools, in 1570; Trinity College, in 1591 ; the Royal 
 Free Schools, in 1605 ; the Schools of Erasmus Smith, in 1669 ; the Blue 
 Coat Hospital Schools, in 1672 ; and the Charter Schools, in 1733, were 
 all founded with the same object — to make the native Irish Protestant in 
 
4 E, k'.S. 
 
 313.^15 
 
 K \l{ 
 
 7 
 
 faith, and English in feeling. Primate Boulter, in 1730, suggested the 
 Charter schools ; and although the Penal Code had then been fifty years 
 in full operation, he thus writes : — 
 
 “ I can assure you the Papists are here so numerous that it highly concerns us, in 
 point of interest, as well as out of concern for the salvation of these poor creatures, 
 who are our fellow-subjects, to try all possible means to bring them and theirs over to 
 the knowledge of the true religion ; and one of the most likely methods we can think 
 of is, if possible, instructing and converting the young generation ; for, instead of con- 
 verting those that are adult, we are daily losing many of our meaner people, who go 
 off to Popery.” 
 
 In ninety-three years, this gigantic swindle spent £1,600,000 of the 
 public money upon 12,000 children, the inhumanity, immorality, and 
 barbarity of whose training excited the exposure and denunciations of the 
 benevolent Howard, and eventually led to the suppression of this infa- 
 mous system. The Hibernian Military School, in 1769 ; the Hibernian 
 Marine School, in 1775; the Female Orphan School, in 1790; the 
 Association for Discountenancing Vice, in 1792 ; the London Hibernian 
 Society, in 1806 ; the Kildare Place Society, in 1811 ; the Institution for 
 the Education of the Deaf and Dumb, and the Lord-Lieutenant’s School 
 Fund, in 1819, were all founded for, or directed towards, the two objects 
 already stated. Apart from the spoliated Church property, and 10,000 
 acres of the confiscated estates in Ulster, upwards of three millions of the 
 public money was expended on these projects. 
 
 In 1758, or only a century since, a statute of George II. permitted 
 Catholics to keep school, and, in 1792, they were admitted to Trinity 
 College, and to the Bar, and privileged to keep school, without a license 
 from the Protestant bishop. The vast mass of the Catholic people, 
 the peasantry, and working classes, received the rudiments of education 
 in private schools, but, from the beginning of the present century, Catholic 
 Parochial Schools and establishments under the Religious orders — Nuns 
 and Monks — gradually increased in number. Although Catholic children, 
 through the influence of Protestant landlords and others, and owing to the 
 absence of ff other means of education, attended many schools connected 
 with some of the societies enumerated, the Kildare Place Society, founded 
 in 1811, was the first of those bodies that relaxed the rigid enforcement 
 of unmitigated Protestantism upon the Catholic conscience. This Society, 
 which originated with a few Quakers, supplemented its private subscrip- 
 tions by an Annual Parliamentary Grant, recommended by the Royal 
 Commissioners of 1812, first granted in 1819, and continued until 1830. 
 The principle of the Society was : — 
 
 “ The admission of pupils, uninfluenced by religious distinctions, and the reading 
 of the Bible or Testament, without note or comment, by all the pupils who had at- 
 tained suitable proficiency, excluding Catechisms and Controversial Treatises ; the 
 Bible or Testament not to be used as a class-book, from which children should learn 
 to read and spell.” 
 
 Upon a pledge given to carry out, in practice, the recommendation of 
 the Royal Commissioners of 1812, 
 
 “ That no attempt would be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious 
 tenets of any sect or description of Christians,” 
 
 a Parliamentary Grant was made to the Society in 1819 ; and, on the 
 
 2 B 
 
8 
 
 faith of this pledge, the toleration and moderate support of many of the 
 Catholic Bishops were obtained. The reading of the Douay Testament, 
 under a Catholic teacher, as the only condition demanded upon which 
 Government aid might be obtained for a Catholic school, seemed a great 
 boon, after emerging from the horrors of the Penal Code. Then, in the 
 case of Protestant schools, the Catholic children might read either from 
 the Authorised or from the Douay Version of the Testament, and al- 
 though the teacher might be a Protestant, no note, comment, or ques- 
 tion — oral or written — beyond the Dictionary meaning of the words, was 
 permitted. The prohibition as to catechisms, &c., applied to their use for 
 proselytising purposes, not at all to their proper use ; as not only in all 
 Catholic, but in numbers of Protestant schools, the Catholic children 
 learned their own catechism, before or after the hours of ordinary or 
 common instruction. Comparing this System, the principle upon which 
 it was founded, and thq solemn pledge which guaranteed its observance, 
 there can be no question of its superiority over the present National sys- 
 tem, as a protection to Catholics. Then, as now, however, the Catholics 
 trusted but to be betrayed, as, like the present National system, the prin- 
 ciple was gradually departed from, and it was soon found that, in prac- 
 tice, in all mixed schools, under Protestant Patrons, the Society became 
 converted into a huge engine of proselytizing. 
 
 Having thus, Sir, sketched, in outline, the several educational institu- 
 tions existing up to 1826, I pray your most serious attention to the poli- 
 tical crisis at which we have now arrived. In July, 1825, the new Ca- 
 tholic Association was formed, which declared that — 
 
 “ The second purpose of the New Catholic Association is, and shall be, the encou- 
 ragement and extension of a liberal, enlightened, and religious system of education, 
 founded on the basis of Christian charity and perfect fair dealing.” 
 
 And the next purpose was — 
 
 “ To ascertain the number of children of each persuasion undergoing a course of 
 education in the schools. ’ 
 
 Here was a great and powerful organization, created by the political 
 circumstances of the period, embracing both clergy and laity, and we 
 thus see the prominence which education occupied amongst its leading 
 objects. The Catholic wardens of every parish were required to make 
 a monthly report to the Association, one of the returns in which was — 
 
 “ The number of schools in the parish, and how supported— and whether on liberal 
 principles, or on those of the Kildare place, or other improper plan.” 
 
 From 1824 to 1826, Boyal Commissioners were engaged in an Inquiry 
 into the working of the several Educational Institutions in Ireland ; and 
 overtures having been made to the Catholic Prelates that his Majesty’s 
 Government — the Marquess of Wellesley, Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. 
 Goulburn, Chief Secretary — was anxious to treat with them, on fair 
 terms, upon the subject of Education, the proposition was considered, at 
 a meeting of the entire of the Catholic Bishops in January, 1826. A 
 minute comparison of the important Resolutions then unanimously passed 
 by all the Prelates, with those recently submitted to you by the Catholic 
 Hierarchy, cannot fail to possess deep interest. It wall prove to you, Sir, 
 
9 
 
 that the principles of the Catholic Church are immutable, in the essential 
 matters of Education, and that the “ Hereditary Bondsmen” of 1826 
 enunciated the same sentiments, and in bolder terms, than the emanci- 
 pated Prelates of 1859. The Resolutions of 1826 were drawn up not 
 only as a moderate, but a^the minimum demand of Catholic rights, in the 
 matter of State Education, for “ we will,” say the thirty Bishops, “ with- 
 hold our concurrence, in our respective dioceses, from any system of 
 Education which will not fully accord with the principles expressed in the 
 foregoing Resolutions.” 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF IRELAND, UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. 
 
 “ Jan. 1826. 
 
 ^ I. “Having considered, attentively, 
 a plan of National Education which has 
 been submitted to us — Resolved, that the 
 admission of Protestants and Roman 
 Catholics into the same schools, for the 
 purpose of literary instruction, may, 
 under existing circumstances, be allowed, 
 provided sufficient care be taken to pro- 
 tect the religion of the Roman Catholic 
 children , and to furnish them with ade- 
 quate means of religious instruction. 
 
 II. “ That, in order to secure sufficient 
 protection to the religion of Roman Ca- 
 tholic children, under such a system of 
 education, we deem it necessary that the 
 Master of each school, in which the ma- 
 jority of the pupils profess the Roman 
 Catholic faith, be a Roman Catholic ; 
 and that in schools in which the Roman 
 Catholic children form only a minority, 
 a permanent Roman Catholic Assistant 
 be employed ; and that such Master and 
 Assistant be appointed upon the recom- 
 mendation, or with the express approval 
 of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the 
 diocese in which they are to be employed ; 
 and, further, that they, or either of them, 
 be removed upon the representation of 
 such Bishop. The same rule to be ob- 
 served for the appointment or dismissal 
 of Mistresses and Assistants in female 
 schools. 
 
 III. “ That we consider it improper 
 that Masters and Mistresses intended for 
 the religious instruction of Roman Ca- 
 tholic youth, should be trained or edu- 
 cated by, or under the control of, persons 
 professing a different faith; and that we 
 conceive it most desirable that a male 
 and female Model School shall be esta- 
 blished in each province in Ireland, to be 
 supported at the public expense, for the 
 purpose of qualifying such masters and 
 mistresses for the important duties which 
 they shall be appointed to discharge. 
 
 “Aug. 1859. 
 
 I. “That schools for Catholic youth 
 should be such as to insure for them the 
 benefit of a safe secular education , and 
 adequate religious instruction in the faith 
 and practice , of the Catholic Church. 
 They should be, therefore, so subordi- 
 nated to Bishops in their respective dio- 
 ceses, as that no Books may be used in 
 them for secular instruction to which the 
 Ordinary shall object : and that the 
 Teachers, both as to appointment and 
 removal, and the selection of all Books 
 for religious instruction , and the arrange- 
 ments for it, be under the control of the 
 same Ordinary. 
 
 II. “That the principles enunciated 
 can be adequately embodied and acted 
 upon in this country only on a system of 
 education exclusively for Catholics. 
 
 III. “ That the Catholics of Ireland 
 have a right to obtain such a proportion 
 of the aid annually allocated by Parlia- 
 ment for Education, as, regard being 
 had to their numbers and the condition 
 of the Catholic population, will suffice 
 for the establishment and maintenance 
 of schools to be conducted on thoroughly 
 Catholic principles. 
 
 IY. “That the concession of grants 
 for exclusively Catholic schools in Great 
 Britain and in the British Colonies, is 
 conclusive evidence of the fairness of the 
 claim to a grant being made for Catholic 
 schools in Ireland ; and that the Catholic 
 people of Ireland should, therefore, insist, 
 through their representatives in Parlia- 
 ment, and by direct application to the 
 Government, on obtaining such a grant. 
 
 Y. “ That the National System of Edu- 
 cation, though tolerated on account of the 
 particular circumstances of the country , 
 must be, from its very nature, in several 
 respects, objectionable to Catholics ; and 
 that the changes made in its Rules, from 
 time to time, having been adverse to 
 
10 
 
 IV. “ That, in conformity with the 
 principle of protecting the religion of 
 Roman Catholic children, the Books in- 
 tended for their particular instruction in 
 religion, shall be selected, or approved by 
 the Roman Catholic Prelates ; and that 
 no Book or Tract, for common instruc- 
 tion in literature, shall be introduced into 
 any school in which Roman Catholic 
 children are educated, which Book or 
 Tract may be objected to, on religious 
 grounds , by the Roman Catholic Bishop 
 of the diocese in which such school is 
 established. 
 
 V. “That a transfer of the property 
 in several schools which now exist, or 
 may hereafter exist in Ireland, may be 
 utterly impracticable, from the nature 
 of the tenure by which they are, or shall 
 hereafter be held ; and from the number 
 of persons having a legal interest in 
 them, as well as from a variety of other 
 causes; and that, in our opinion, any 
 regulation which should require such 
 transfer to be made, as a necessary con- 
 dition for receiving parliamentary sup- 
 port, would operate to the exclusion of 
 many useful schools from all participa- 
 tion in the public bounty. 
 
 VI. “ That, appointed as we have been 
 by Divine Providence to watch over and 
 preserve the deposit of the Catholic Faith 
 in Ireland ; and responsible as we are to 
 God for the souls of our flocks, we will, 
 in our respective dioceses, withhold our 
 concurrence and support from any system 
 of education which will not fully accord 
 with the principles expressed in the fore- 
 going Resolutions. 
 
 7. “ The Rule, adopted, some years ago, by the Board, according to which aid has 
 been, since its adoption, refused for the erection or outfit of schools unless the school 
 estate be vested in the Board — a condition expressly at variance with the instructions 
 of the Holy See and the decision of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, in the National 
 and Provincial Synods. 
 
 8. “The inherent evil in the system that the Schools are all liable to inspection 
 by Protestant Officers of the Board, and the fact that Schools exclusively attended by 
 Catholics, are, to a vast extent, exclusively under Protestant Inspection. 
 
 9. “The fact that in Schools deriving aid from the Board, Catholic children have 
 received, and may receive Religious Instruction from Protestant Teachers, in oppo- 
 sition to the original constitution, as laid down by Lord Stanley — the Commissioners 
 not recognizing the rightful claims of Catholic Pastors to be the guardians of the 
 religion of Catholic youth, in attendance at National Schools.” 
 
 This comparison affords a complete and triumphant answer, Sir, to the 
 British Press, who, either through ignorance or malice, charge the Catholic 
 Prelates with advancing new and aggressive demands, in their recent 
 Resolutions. Any difference that exists between the two series of Reso- 
 lutions is accounted for by the difference in the facts and circumstances 
 upon which they had to decide. 
 
 Catholic interests, have increased the 
 distrust of the Catholic Episcopacy. 
 
 1. “That we signalize, as especially 
 objectionable, the non-recognition of the 
 control over education which the Catholic 
 Church holds to have been conferred on 
 Bishops by our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, when He said to His Apostles ; 
 
 ‘ Go, teach all nations’ — Matt., xxviii. 19. 
 
 2. “The practical substitution in its 
 stead, of the control of a Board consist- 
 ing of members of different religious de- 
 nominations, predominantly Protestant, 
 and deriving its authority exclusively 
 from the State, whilst its power extends 
 to and is exercised in matters vitally 
 affecting religion. 
 
 3. “ The education of Catholic teachers 
 in the Model or Normal schools, even in 
 History and Philosophy, and of children 
 in other schools, by Protestants. 
 
 d 4. “ The constitution, generally, of the 
 Model and Training schools, and their 
 establishment throughout the country, 
 in opposition, in many cases, to the de- 
 clared opinions of the local Bishops. 
 
 5. “The exclusion from the schools of 
 the Cross, and of all symbols of Catholic 
 devotion. 
 
 6. “The character of several of the 
 books published by the Commissioners, 
 the use of which is enforced in the 
 schools under their immediate manage- 
 ment, and is practically unavoidable in 
 schools deriving aid from the Board. 
 
1 
 
 These Resolutions, of 1826, were submitted to the Government, and the 
 late Most Rev. Dr. Murray at once transmitted them, through the present 
 Earl of Fingall, to the New Catholic Association, in which, oil being pre- 
 sented, they met, as might be supposed, with unanimous approbation. 
 Thus were the Clergy and Laity of one mind, upon this momentous ques- 
 tion ; thus did that great political organization narrowly watch over the 
 vital training of the mind and future manhood of Ireland ; thus were 
 Faith and Nationality one and indivisible, with our fathers. The Catholic 
 Book Society rose to compile safe works for youth ; the Catholic Associa- 
 tion aided schools in poor localities, and voted £1,500 for a Model school 
 in Dublin, and Clergy and Laity denounced the proselytising schemes of 
 the Kildare-place Society. The Monarch and the Minister alike sworn to 
 deny them political emancipation, that great boon in the gift of a Pro- 
 testant Parliament alone, and largely dependent on Protestant opinion 
 to enable them to carry it, the Catholics of that day knew not what it 
 was to palter with the sacred trust of the education of their children, 
 though they might forfeit political support, and postpone their own poli- 
 tical manumission — the affectionate blandishments of some, the bribes of 
 many, and the threats of others were, alike, rejected or despised ; to the 
 proselytisers, one and all, they said — 
 
 “ Heap heavier still the fetters ; bar closer still the grate ; 
 
 Patient as sheep we yield us up unto your cruel hate. 
 
 But by the Shades beneath us, and by the Gods above, 
 
 Add not unto your cruel hate, your yet more cruel love!” 
 
 How easily they crushed Kildare-place Society, and got your prede- 
 cessor, Lord Stanley, to introduce the National System, and how the 
 Catholics of Ireland can, far more readily, enable you, Sir, to act as noble 
 a part, in complying with the present just demand of the Catholic Pre- 
 lates and Catholic people, will form the subject of a future letter. — I 
 have the honour to remain, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh. 
 
 23rd September, 1859. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Sir — In my last letter, I gave a general outline of the several educa- 
 tional institutions founded in Ireland, from the time of Henry VIII. up 
 to the establishment of the Kildare-place Society, in 1811. I pointed out 
 the principle, as to religion, upon which this system of education was 
 founded ; the condition upon which it obtained a Parliamentary Grant, in 
 1819; the motives which induced Catholics to accept aid under it; the 
 violation of public faith that followed ; and the popular indignation which 
 was thus excited against the Kildare-Place Society’s Schools. The Royal 
 Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State of Education in Ireland, 
 in 1824-6, saw that the principle and working of this system prevented 
 its becoming one of National Education ; and the Government, anxious 
 to found such a system, applied to the Catholic Prelates for a statement 
 of the terms, upon which they would co-operate with it, in the proposed 
 
12 
 
 scheme. The series of Resolutions of the thirty Catholic Bishops, unani- 
 mously passed January, 1826, as set forth in my last letter, is the deliberate 
 and solemn reply of those Prelates to the proposition of the Government. 
 
 The Resolutions of January, 1826, like those of August, 1859, apply, 
 solely, to the provisions which the Prelates deemed necessary for the pro- 
 tection of the Faith and Morals of Catholic children, in the public Schools, 
 and refer to Lecturers and Trainers, who instruct the Catholic Teachers, 
 to the Teachers, who give Religious Instruction to the Catholic pupils, and 
 to the Books used in imparting this instruction. Over these the Bishops 
 demanded a veto, but only in so far as the parties undertook the office of 
 Religious Instructor to Catholics, or might influence their Faith or morals ; 
 the authority claimed over the Books, to be used for this purpose, rests 
 on the same footing, and that over Secular Books is qualified by the ' 
 right to object to them “ on religious grounds’ 9 only. The Bishops de- 
 manded that, in every public school, in which Catholic children attended, 
 there should be either a Catholic Teacher, or a Catholic Assistant, accord- 
 ing as the Catholic pupils formed a majority or a minority of the attend- 
 ance ; and that every such Teacher or Assistant should be appointed 
 by, or with the express approval of, the Bishop of the Diocese. The 
 Bishops, in 1826, permitted , without approving of, “ the attendance, in the 
 same school, of Catholic with Protestant children, under,” as they stated, 
 “ existing circumstances , provided sufficient care was taken to protect the 
 religion of Catholic children, and to furnish them with adequate means of 
 Religious Instruction to attain which, they insisted on the conditions, 
 as to Teachers and Books, already set forth. The Resolutions of the 
 Bishops, in August, 1859, set out with a statement of the same two prin- 
 ciples, “That schools for Catholic youth should insure for them the 
 benefit of a safe secular education, and adequate religious instruction, in the 
 Faith and practices of the Catholic Church,” but which, from the expe- 
 rience derived from the working of both the Kildare Place and National 
 systems, the Bishops now state “ can be adequately embodied and acted 
 upon, in this country, only on a system of Education exclusively for 
 Catholics.” 
 
 These, Sir, form the sum and substance of the Resolutions of the 
 Bishops, in 1859, as in 1826 ; and the clear demand which they advance 
 is restricted to control over the Teachers who are to give Religious Instruc- 
 tion to Catholic children, and over the Books which contain religious 
 matter, or matter pertaining to religion. When the Bishops briefly refer 
 to the opening terms of the Divine Commission — “ Go, teach all Nations ” 
 — upon which they rest their right to exercise this control, they are hailed 
 by a storm of abuse and misrepresentation from the non-Catliolic Press, and 
 accused of advancing the right to control secular as well as religious 
 education, although both the entire of the passage to which they refer, 
 and the explicit terms of their demands, in the Resolutions, alike refute 
 such an imputation. “ Going, therefore, teach ye all Nations,” is thus 
 fully qualified in the next text, “ teaching them to observe all thing's, 
 whatsoever I have commanded you ; and behold I am with you all days, 
 even to the consummation of the world ;” but the Bishops, in 1859, are 
 
13 
 
 fully as well understood, in their succinct reference, as were their uneman- 
 cipated predecessors, in 1826, when they closed their Resolutions with the 
 solemn and more explicit assertion of the same right — “ appointed, as we 
 have been, by Divine Providence, to watch over and preserve the deposit 
 of Catholic Faith in Ireland ; and responsible, as we are, to God for the 
 souls of our Flocks, etc.” This right “ to teach,” was conferred upon and 
 exercised by the Apostles, to whom the Bishops succeed, before the Scrip- 
 tures, now quoted in its support, were written ; and, being recognized as a 
 fundamental principle of the Catholic Church, you cannot ignore it, Sir, 
 however you may dissent from its soundness, in considering any scheme 
 of education for Catholics. Fortunately, the place and time of your own 
 education, and the increasing recognition of this great principle of Epis- 
 copal authority in Oxford, enable you to comprehend its importance, in 
 dealing with the Resolutions, the demands enunciated in which are founded 
 upon this right, as their basis. I trust, Sir, I have now fully pointed out 
 that the Resolutions of the Catholic Bishops in 1826, and those in 1829, 
 are identical in principle : that they are precisely similar in the extent of 
 the subject of education — r-namely, Faith and Morals — to which they 
 apply ; that both refer to control over Teachers, Books, and arrange- 
 ments, only, in so far as they may bear upon, or influence Religion ; and 
 that both are substantially the same, in all tlieir main features. Mixed 
 Education, in Common Schools, aided by State Grants, had been in ope- 
 ration but six years, when the Resolutions of 1826 were drawn up, 
 whereas the Resolutions of 1859 are founded on its working for forty 
 years (1819 to 1859), under both the Kildare- street Plan, and the present 
 National System. The Bishops, in 1826, agreed to tolerate , upon the con- 
 ditions enumerated, the attendance of Catholic children in Schools where 
 there might be a Protestant Teacher, or a Protestant Assistant ; but the 
 larger experience of the working of the Mixed System compels the Pre- 
 lates of 1859 to condemn it, and demand, as the only adequate security 
 for Catholics, the British or Denominational System. In thus unanimously 
 condemning the National System, the Catholic Hierarchy set forth, under: 
 their Fifth Resolution,, nine specific heads of objection upon which they 
 arrived at this adverse decision. Having thus availed myself of the Re- 
 solutions of 1826, in order to vindicate the recent Resolutions of the 
 Catholic Prelates against the unfounded and offensive attacks of the non- 
 Catholic press, I beg, Sir, to call your especial attention to the complete 
 recognition of this “ Pastoral” control over Religious Instruction, hence, 
 necessarily, over those who impart it, and over the books and matter of 
 the instruction, by the Imperial Parliament, and by Government. In 
 1828, the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Education in 
 Ireland made a Report to the House upon the Reports and Evidence of 
 the Commissioners of Education Inquiry in Ireland, in 1824-6, and, 
 amongst other Resolutions which the House of Commons founded and 
 passed thereon, were the following : — 
 
 “ That the whole of the separate Religious Instruction in the schools should be 
 placed under the exclusive superintendence of the Clergy of the respective com- 
 munions, and that they propose leaving to the Clergy of each persuasion the duty 
 and the privilege of giving religious instruction to those who are committed to their 
 care.” 
 
H 
 
 These Resolutions of the House of Commons, first printed, in May, 
 1828, were again ordered, pursuant to the suggestion of the Committee 
 on the State of the Irish Poor, to be re-printed in 1830, and, in October, 
 1831, your predecessor, Lord Stanley, embodied both Resolutions in his 
 famous Letter, which contains the fundamental principles of the National 
 System, thus — 
 
 “ One or two days in the week to be set apart for giving, separately, such Religious 
 Instruction 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 to 
 the children of their respective persuasions, etc.” 
 
 This principle, of Pastoral or Clerical control over Religious Instruc- 
 tion, so clearly set forth in the Resolutions of the House of Commons in 
 1828, re-affirmed in 1830, and adopted in Lord Stanley’s Letter of 
 October, 1831, was thus approvingly referred to by the late illustrious 
 Bishop Hoyle, in his Circular, dated 26th of December, 1831, expounding 
 the new system to his Clergy : — 
 
 “ The Commissioners provide for the Religious Instruction of children, by their 
 respective Pastors, or persons appointed for that purpose by them, as often as those 
 Pastors can deem it necessary.” 
 
 Clearly, then, Sir, the House of Commons and Lord Stanley’s Govern- 
 ment fully recognize the Pastoral control over the Religious Education of 
 the children of their respective flocks, a control upon which the Catholic 
 Hierarchy first accepted the System, which they now assert, on their own 
 behalf, and. one jot beyond which they have, in nowise, exceeded, in the 
 Resolutions at present under your consideration. 
 
 The Resolutions of the Catholic Bishops, in 1826, in reply to the pro- 
 position of the Government, that they should state the terms upon which 
 they would co-operate with them, in a sy stem of National Education, con- 
 tain an implied condemnation of the Kildare-Place Society’s Schools, and, 
 thenceforward, the Catholics rapidly withdrew from connection with that 
 body. Catholic Emancipation, though all-absorbing, was unable to wholly 
 divert public attention from the state of the education of the Catholic 
 Poor, and in 1826-7-8, the Catholic Association, the Catholic Clergy, 
 and the Catholic Wardens, continued to labour to withdraw all 
 Catholics from connection with that system. Upon the dissolution of the 
 Association in 1829, the balance of Catholic rent on hands was voted for 
 education, and the triumph of Emancipation stimulated the people to 
 make any sacrifices for Catholic principle. In the Report of the Kildare- 
 Place Society, for the year ending oth January, 1831, the number of 
 Schools then in connection, is set down as 1,620, of which 1,021 were in 
 Ulster, and only 599 in the other three provinces, not one of the 1,620 
 Schools being under Catholic management. Again, of 209 Teachers, 
 trained in the same year, only 30, or one-seventh, were Catholics ; and 
 of these not one was in a school under a Catholic Manager, so that the 
 Catholic element had completely eliminated itself from the Society. You 
 cannot, Sir, fail to see, that the Central Training Institution of the 
 National Board, their showy Model Schools, and the 100 District and other 
 Model Schools, in the provinces, are all at the mercy of the same power, 
 
15 
 
 the same popular will, that emptied the Training Schools of Kildare-Place, 
 and struck from its Eolls every Catholic School in Ireland. Let your 
 Government, Sir, but unwisely deny to the Catholic Hierarchy the just 
 and reasonable demand which they now put forward, and, within one 
 week, the voice of Professors Sullivan and Butler may be that of one 
 crying in the wilderness, so far as their Catholic audience is concerned. 
 The order of the Catholic Patrons that their Teachers should return home 
 from the Training Department, their refusal to permit any others to 
 attend, and the expression of their determination to employ no Catholic 
 Teacher who, after a given date, should enter any of the Model Schools, 
 Central or District, would finally settle the question. In thus withdraw- 
 ing the Catholic Teachers, and the Catholic Pupils from the Central and 
 the District Model Schools, the Catholic people would, in no way, peril 
 the main portion of the aid given to their schools. This move, which 
 would at once paralyse the action of all the institutions under the direct 
 control of the National Board, might be followed up by the withdrawal of 
 Catholic children, which should at once be done, from every ordinary 
 school under a non-Catholic teacher, thus virtually closing hundreds of 
 Protestant National Schools, and either open Catholic ones, or throng 
 those already in operation. These simple remedies would render the 
 schools practically Denominational, and if, by that time, the Government 
 would not be brought to a clear appreciation of its position, the expulsion 
 of non-Catholic Inspectors, from the Schools, and the general adoption of 
 the use of the Sign of the Cross, of mental prayer, hourly, or otherwise, 
 or the introduction of a Crucifix, or of a Statue or Picture of the Blessed 
 Virgin, into each Catholic School, would enable the Government to deter- 
 mine between Denominational and the refusal of all Grants to Catholic 
 Schools. You must now see, Sir, that while conforming to such rules as 
 would entitle them to salary, books, and inspection for their Schools, the 
 Catholic people may, any day, render the Schools completely Denomina- 
 tional, and should this fail to bring the Government to recognize their 
 demand, they have other agencies to which I shall hereafter refer, to 
 compel acquiescence. 
 
 The abolition of the Kildare Place Scheme, and the introduction of the 
 National System, occurred at one of the most important political eras of 
 modern times. The establishment of the Kingdom of Greece ; Belgium 
 only a year old, as a free state ; the banishment of the Bourbons, and 
 the installation of Louis Philippe in France, and the agitation for Reform 
 in England, mark the period. In Ireland, the recent emancipation of 
 Catholics ; the agitation of a Repeal of the Union, then first generally 
 discussed ; the anti-tithe warfare, including the butcheries of Newtown- 
 barry and Carrickshock ; and the question of the Protestant Church Tem- 
 poralities, were all fiercely agitated. Great masses, religious and poli- 
 tical, collected and upheaved their slumbering strength, and manifested 
 their might throughout Europe. It was in the midst of this political 
 crisis that your predecessor, Lord Stanley, introduced the system of 
 National Education. Lord John Russell proposed the Reform Bill, 
 March 1831, on the defeat of which, in April, Parliament was dissolved* 
 
16 
 
 At the election which ensued, one of the chief tests put to the candidates 
 in Ireland was unmitigated hostility to Kildare Place and all the systems 
 of proselytising, and this and the Reform tests were the great popular 
 cries at the hustings. In June the new Parliament assembled, and in 
 July and September the Irish Reform and anti-proselytising vote told, 
 effectively, in the overwhelming majorities which carried the second and 
 third readings of the Reform Bill, in the Commons. It was then, and just 
 before Parliament was prorogued, in October, that Lord Stanley announced 
 the National System — the Reform Bill not passed, the democracy of Eng- 
 land ready to march on London, and the constitutional problem of the 
 day — “ What are we to do with the Llouse of Lords ?” 
 
 The Marquess of Anglesey returned, in December, 1830, as Lord Lieu- 
 tenant, after an absence of somewhat over two years, and, in 1831, Lord 
 Cloncurry and the Right Honourable A. R. Blake dined with him, at the 
 Castle, when the education question was fully discussed. His Excellency, 
 late at night, and tired of the subject, fell asleep, and, then and there, the 
 outline of Lord Stanley’s Letter was arranged, between Lord Cloncurry and 
 Mr. Blake. At length, I have reached my immediate subject, to discuss 
 which will be the object of my next letter. — I have the honour to remain, 
 Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh. 
 
 30th September, 1859. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Sir — The historical and political sketches, given in my former letters, 
 were absolutely necessary, in order to enable you to fully comprehend the 
 circumstances, under which the National System was introduced, in 1831. 
 Not a Catholic school then remained on the Roll of the Kildare Place 
 Society ; one of O’Connell’s ablest speeches, delivered immediately after 
 the assembling of the New Parliament, June 1831, was a masterly expo- 
 sure of the anti- Catholic working of that system ; the Duke of Leinster, 
 Lord Cloncurry, and all the influential liberal Protestants demanded its 
 overthrow ; and, at the General Election in May, “ Borough-mongers” 
 “ Bible -mongers and “ Tithe Proctors equally shared in the popular 
 denunciations. In hot haste, at the close of the Session, Lord Stanley 
 announced in the House, on the 9th of September, 1831, the intention of 
 Government to devise a new scheme of Education ; but it was only after 
 Parliament had been prorogued, that the Letter to his Grace the Duke of 
 Leinster, dated 31st October, 1831, appeared. This famous Letter was 
 hastily drawn up, and, although few public documents have been the sub- 
 ject of so much discussion, its true character is little understood, because 
 too generally examined, as separated from, instead of in connection with, 
 the time and the circumstances which elicited it. Never having taken 
 any public part, whatever, in political discussions, nor identified my 
 humble name with either of the political sections, who alternately govern 
 
17 
 
 my country, I cannot be suspected of allowing political bias to influence 
 my judgment, in discussing, at tbis distance of tiriie, the merits of Lord 
 Stanley’s Letter. That important State Paper owes little, beyond its com- 
 pilation, to tbe distinguished Statesman, whose name it bears. The 
 essential, and few fundamental principles, and provisions of the Scheme 
 were copied from the Resolutions of the House of Commons, in 1828 
 which formed the real basis of the new system. 
 
 In 1812, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of Edu- 
 cation in Ireland recommended the introduction of — 
 
 “ A system of Education, from which should he banished even the suspicion of pro - 
 selytism, and which, admitting children of all religious persuasions, should not interfere 
 with the peculiar tenets of any.” 
 
 These two important principles were reiterated, directly or indirectly, 
 in the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners of 1824-6, embodied 
 in the Resolutions of the House of Commons, in 1828, and reaffirmed, in 
 1 880 ; yet most persons refer to Lord Stanley’s Letter, the credit of 
 originating what had been publicly announced, nearly twenty years 
 before the compilation of that memorable document. The simple facts 
 are, that a Pro-Reform, but not Reformed House of Commons, in the 
 short Session of 1881 (June 14th to October 8th), was so indignant 
 at public faith having been broken with the Catholics, by the Kildare 
 Place Society, that they voted a Grant for an undefined sort of liberal and 
 fair system, the Government pledging itself to adhere to the Resolutions 
 of the House, in 1828, in framing the new measure. Lord Stanley’s 
 Letter, therefore, is the creation of an urgent political crisis, was got up 
 precipitately, and contains no evidence of matured views, founded on a 
 consideration of the great question of Education, from any other points 
 than those which were political and temporary. Numbers of even well 
 informed persons still believe, that the National System was introduced 
 through an Act of Parliament, the result of protracted debate and 
 of matured concession. They have yet to learn, however, that the House 
 of Commons voted a Grant, in anticipation of a system then hut in its incep- 
 tion ; that, during the short prorogation of Parliament, your predecessor, 
 only a few months in office, framed the* Letter, embodying the new 
 measure, and that, when the House resumed its sittings, after a few 
 weeks’ suspension, it found the scheme promulgated, the Commissioners 
 appointed, the Board of National Education in charge of the infant 
 System, and inducted into their new office, in Dublin Castle. 
 
 Before I proceed to examine the leading features of the System, thus 
 introduced, permit me, Sir, to call your attention to the unfounded mis- 
 representations which the anti-Catholic Press have been freely circulating, 
 in reference to the present, as compared with the original, and the past 
 opinions of the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, upon this System of Edu- 
 cation. The Hierarchy are charged with inconsistency , but the imputa- 
 tion rests on three unwarranted assumptions — (1) That the Catholic 
 Bishops were parties to the framing of the System, or, at least, that they 
 approved of it ; (2) that the System is the same, in its essential features, 
 now, as when founded ; and, (8) that it is only of late their opinions of 
 
18 
 
 the System have undergone serious change. I shall summarily dispose 
 of the first and most important of these assumptions. The Government, 
 from January, 1826, up to the introduction of the new System, never 
 consulted the Catholic Hierarchy, upon the subject of Education, nor 
 were they consulted as to the Catholic Members to be appointed upon the 
 National Board. The Catholic body could not approve of nominating, as 
 one of the two Catholic Members of the Commission, Mr. Blake, who had 
 declared, before Parliament, in 1825, that he was in favour of Protestant 
 ascendancy, and who, a few months before his .appointment, had signed 
 the Declaration against the restoration of Legislative Independence to 
 Ireland. Then, as at present, Catholic placemen, and crowds of Ca- 
 tholic expectants — chiefly lawyers — thronged the Castle, each profess- 
 ing to be the special and accredited agent of the Catholic Body — Clerical 
 and Lay — and ready to assent, on their behalf, to any terms which the 
 Government might propose. The Catholic Hierarchy were consulted, 
 neither as to the details of the new System, nor as to the Commissioners 
 appointed, by the Marquess of Anglesey, to administer it ; and, although 
 they accepted it, as an experiment, they never sanctioned it, save by the 
 tolerance extended to it, owing, as stated by the venerated Archbishop 
 of Cashel, Most Rev. Dr. Leahy, to “ the absence of a better , the fear of a 
 worse System” 
 
 Lord Stanley’s Letter — to the analysis of which I, now, Sir, invite your 
 attention — opens with the important statement that u Parliament,” before 
 it had known the details of the new scheme, “ so far sanctioned the ar- 
 rangement [to constitute a Board of National Education] as to appropriate 
 a sum of money, in the present year , as an experiment of the probable success 
 of the proposed System .” That large and influential portion of the public, 
 whose chief source of information is the anti-Catholic Press, and some of 
 the unprincipled Catholic place-hunters and place-men, have been delud- 
 ing themselves and others into the assertion, that an attack upon the 
 National System by the Catholic Hierarchy, is an attack not alone upon 
 an Act of Parliament, but upon the very Constitution itself. No Statute 
 sustains that system, which was hastily sketched, within the compass of a 
 single letter, which was put 'in operation in the course of a few weeks’ 
 Parliamentary Recess, and the existence of which has, for twenty-eight 
 years, been contingent upon the annual vote of a single item in the civil 
 estimates. Not alone did its framer introduce and avow it “ as an 
 experiment,” but, after he had secured the services of seven of the most 
 eligible Commissioners to conduct the trial, they unanimously agreed 
 that, upon the conditions stated, the problem was impossible. Some 
 portions of the original Letter were struck out, thus, “ to supply the 
 schools, at prime cost, with works of separate religious instruction 
 others, although retained, rescinded, as the registration of the 
 
 attendance of the pupils at Divine Worship on Sundays; several were 
 never enforced ; and even important additions were made to the Letter, 
 but not with the hope of their becoming operative. 
 
 The original Letter of Lord Stanley contained the following pro- 
 visions : — 
 
19 
 
 (1) The first of the objects assigned by the Government, in founding 
 the new System, was u to banish the suspicion of proselytism ; and, while 
 admitting children of all religious persuasions, not to interfere with the 
 peculiar tenets of any” 
 
 (2) Rigid separation of Religious from Literary Instruction, each to 
 wholly, exclude any portion of the other. 
 
 (3) Pastoral control over Religious Instruction. 
 
 (4) Permission and encouragement to the Clergy, or to those approved 
 by them, to give Religious Instruction, in the school-room, to the children 
 of their own flock, on one or two days in the week, wholly set apart for 
 that purpose, and also before or after Literary Instruction, on the other 
 days of the week. 
 
 (5) The appointment of their own Teachers, by the local parties, sub- 
 ject to examination, as to* fitness. 
 
 (6) The selection of their own Books, subject to the condition that 
 their matter is unobjectionable, for common instruction. 
 
 These, so far as it concerns th(* moral and religious bearings of the 
 System, constitute an epitome of Lord Stanley’s Measure ; and, on com- 
 paring them with the demands set forth in the Resolutions of the Catholic 
 Prelates, in 1826, you will find, Sir, that, under the principles and pro- 
 visions now set forth, these demands were substantially yielded. The Re- 
 solutions allow, under existing circumstances, “the admission of Catholics 
 into the same Schools with Protestants, provided sufficient care be taken 
 to protect the Religion of the Catholic children, and to furnish them with 
 adequate means of Religious Instruction.” As to protection, even the sus- 
 picion of proselytism was to be banished ; combined literary, but separate 
 religious instruction — separate as to time, place, matter, and the person, 
 to impart it — and the Rule and the practice of excluding the Catholic, oi 
 any child, from being present at any other religious instruction than tha 
 which its parents directed it to attend, all combined to afford, whei 
 enforced, the fullest protection possible , under a Mixed System. As ti 
 means of Religious Instruction, the Catholic Clergy were secured oppor 
 tunity, both of time and place, to instruct the Catholic children, or tc 
 appoint others to instruct them, in every School attended by Catholics. 
 The two leading demands of the Prelates were, therefore, complied with in 
 the new System. It is true that the control over Teachers, and over secular 
 Books, claimed, in the Resolution of 1826, was not conceded; but, as the 
 new System held out aid to the Clergy, for their existing Schools, and 
 encouraged the establishment of others, it was their own fault if they did 
 not multiply them, so as to secure all the Catholic children in their own 
 Schools, where the Clergy could have entire control over both Teachers 
 and Books. Harassed with eleven years’ experience of the proselytizing 
 working of the Kildare-place Society, and trusting in the good faith with 
 which the new measure was tendered, the Catholic Hierarchy gratefully 
 accepted the National System, but, with a diffidence natural to those who 
 had before their eyes the sad history of the previous three centuries. 
 
 It will not only be instructive, but fair, and necessary, that we should, 
 ?iow, Sir, consider the effect which the announcement of the new System 
 
20 
 
 had upon the members of the Established Church and upon the Presby- 
 terians. The entire body of the Protestant Clergy, and all but a small 
 fraction of the Protestant laity, at once, gave the most powerful opposi- 
 tion to the System. They stated, and most truly, that, 
 
 “ It was in avowed concession to the principles of the Church of Rome, with respect 
 to the Word of God, that the National System was introduced.” (Evidence of the 
 Rev. W. L. Trench, D.D., Hon. Sec. to the Ch. Ed. Soc., House of Lords, 1854.) 
 
 “ That Letter (Lord Stanley’s) put forward, as a fatal objection to former Plans, that 
 they had not been in accordance with the principles of the Church of Rome ; and, 
 evidently, intended to substitute a Plan in which the Priests were to determine whe- 
 ther children should read the Scriptures, or not.’’ (Archdeacon Stopford’s Letter to 
 the Protestant Clergy of Meath, 1847 — p. 56). 
 
 Many opposed the System, because it prevented the forcing of the Pro- 
 testant Bible upon Catholics ; others because it restricted its use, even by 
 Protestants, to certain fixed days and hours ; all resisted the recognition 
 of the Catholic principle of Pastoral authority, in matters of Religion ; 
 numbers objected to the right secured to the Catholic Clergy of access to 
 the Catholic children, in all schools, for the purpose of giving them Reli- 
 gious Instruction ; but the feature of the new System that evoked most 
 general hostility was the original Rule which required non*- Catholic Pa- 
 trons and Teachers to exclude Catholic children, from non-Catholic Reli- 
 gious Instruction, in the schools. This opposition to the National System, 
 and the grounds upon which it rested, had the natural effect of attaching 
 the Catholics to it, and it is the tradition of this attachment and popularity 
 which yet lingers among some of the early Catholic supporters of the Sys- 
 tem. I shall prove, just now, that delusion could not be more complete 
 than the belief that the System, as at present administered, contains any 
 one of the fundamental principles, for the protection of religious conscience, 
 in Lord Stanley’s Letter. 
 
 The opposition of the Presbyterians was far more violent than that of 
 the Protestants of the Established Church. In 1832-3, the Synod of 
 Ulster condemned the System, and, in the latter year, they submitted 
 certain Propositions to Earl G-rey, then Prime Minister, demanding modi- 
 fications in it. In 1834, Monster Meetings were held, sometimes attended 
 by as many as 5,000 persons, numbers of whom were armed ; they assem- 
 bled, at sound of trumpet ; were headed by Clergymen, who opened the 
 proceedings with prayer ; each person, in the procession, flourished his 
 Bible over his head; tall poles were carried, bearing boards with the 
 words “ Holy Bible School,” to be set up instead of the inscription “ Na- 
 tional School,” which was taken down, whenever met, and publicly 
 burned ; and the proceedings closed with thanksgiving, for the emancipa- 
 tion of the Bible, from the thraldom of the new System. Schoolmasters 
 were expelled from National Schools, by armed parties ; gun-clubs were 
 generally established, for the protection of the Word of God ; and so appre- 
 hensive of serious violence were the clerical leaders of the movement, that 
 they enjoined abstinence from strong drinks, on those who attended the 
 monster-meetings. To the stimulants of trumpet-peal, psalmody, gun- 
 clubs, and military array, ejection of schoolmasters, burning of boards, 
 and wrecking, were added the spirit-stirring lyrics of the Clerical Laureate 
 of the movement, who, in Iambics, such as these, denounced the abomi- 
 nable System : 
 
21 
 
 “ And why should then a Gorgon Board 
 Supplant the Bible in the Schools, 
 
 And o’er the shrine of conscience lord 
 A System framed by Pontiffs tools ? ” 
 
 This intense opposition, on the part of the Presbyterian body, generally, 
 continued, with slight modification, until the hostility to the new System, 
 from all sections of Protestants, had attained such magnitude, that an 
 Inquiry into its working was ordered, in 1836, in the House of Lords, 
 and in 1837, in the House of Commons. In January, 1840, the Presby- 
 terian body, formally and finally, joined the National Board ; since 1847, 
 very many clergymen of the Established Church have also been recon- 
 ciled to the System ; and it is of the utmost importance that you, Sir, 
 should thoroughly understand the phenomenon, how the Catholics and the 
 Presbyterians have exchanged places with each other, reversed their ori- 
 ginal attitudes, in relation to the System. 
 
 The general character of Lord Stanley’s Letter, and the serious de- 
 parture from the System laid down in it, are nowhere more clearly, or 
 more ably stated, than in some of the educational Pamphlets by Arch- 
 deacon Stopford, the careful perusal of which I commend to you, Sir, in 
 your examination of this great Question. 
 
 “ It was the great misfortune of the Irish System,” says Archdeacon Stopford, 
 e< that it was introduced and established upon political motives , before the principles 
 which should govern a National System of Education, under our present Consti- 
 tution, had been sufficiently discussed. Had Lord Stanley’s Letter been more philo- 
 sophical and less political— had it enunciated principles, and eschewed entering into 
 cases, it would have been more politic in the end. 
 
 “ The Board have, ever since, laboured under the difficulty entailed on them by 
 this beginning. Public opinion and experience have led them, ‘ from the very first , 
 to a gradual , though unavowed and incomplete , correction of the original errors ; for 
 which they have not yet obtained due credit .” 
 
 In reference to Pastoral right, as set forth in Lord Stanley’s Letter, 
 Archdeacon Stopford says : — 
 
 “I have formerly shown (Report to the Bishop of Meath, pp. 11, 12, 13) — that 
 the Board have set this aside ; that they rejected, from their Rules, all reference to 
 Priestly authority , and recognized the parent’s only. Lord Stanley’s Letter still con- 
 tinues (1847) to be printed and circulated by the Board, and, while it is so circulated, 
 will tend to keep up such impression; but I think that those who consider the 
 matter carefully, ought to give the Board credit, for the changes which they have 
 actually made , and should not hold them responsible for Lord Stanley’s Letter, when 
 they have actually departed from it” (Archdeacon Stopford’s Letter to the Pro- 
 testant Clergy of Meath, 1847.) 
 
 This general description of Lord Stanley’s Letter is quoted from the 
 writings of one who, up to 1847, had been a powerful antagonist of the 
 National System, but who, while an advocate for a separate grant, has, 
 ever since, been in connectio^with the Board, and, even on recent occa- 
 sions, came forward as a champion of the System. In 1844, he entered, 
 at the instance of his father, then Bishop of Meath, upon an examination 
 of the Rules of the Board, with a view to effect the connection of the 
 Protestant Schools, in Meath, with the Commissioners, the result of which 
 he thus states : — 
 
 “ To the original system of the Bosrd, however, as laid down in Lord Stanley’s 
 Letter, and carried out in the original Rules,, the objections of the Clergy remained 
 unabated; few or none were willing to co-operate in the Plan then proposed”. 
 
 3 
 
22 
 
 The chief objection made by the Protestant Clergy of Meath, that 
 strongly advanced by the Presbyterian body and by the Church Educa- 
 tion Society, was against the original practice of the Board, of which 
 Archdeacon Stopford states : — 
 
 “ The Commissioners had affirmed that it was of the essence of these Rules that 
 the Patron should exclude from Religious Instruction all who were not actually 
 directed hy their Parents to remain 
 
 In May, 1845, nine of the fourteen Irish Protestant Prelates, headed 
 by the Lord Primate, 1^700 ^clergymen, 83 Peers, and 1,631 influential 
 Landlords of the highest rank, signed an address to Sir Robert Peel, de- 
 manding certain changes in the National System, and the Petitions of 
 60,000 persons supported the Appeal. This grievance, on the Protestant 
 conscience, to exclude Catholic children from Protestant Religious In- 
 struction, as required by the Rules of the Board, is thus clearly stated in 
 the Address : — 
 
 “ That parent has no right to require others to be his instruments in enforcing an 
 unlawful exercise of his authority over his child.” 
 
 “ They could not recognize such an exertion of parental authority, as if it were 
 lawful; and, even if it were voluntarily exerted, in forbidding the Bible to be read, our 
 Clergy could not consent to bind themselves in giving effect to such an unlawful com- 
 mand. But when they regard the parent as himself in bondage to the usurped 
 authority of the Church of Rome, and as not exercising his own free will, but obey- 
 ing, as a passive agent, in binding the same yoke upon his children, the duty of refusing 
 to co-operate with him is still clearer . The Clergy may be able to do but little 
 towards delivering their Roman Catholic countrymen from such bondage, but they 
 can, at least, keep themselves free, from the guilt of becoming instruments in rivetting its 
 chains upon them , and this accordingly, they resolved to do.’’ 
 
 The Prime Minister, in an able letter to the Lord Primate, dated 9th 
 June, 1845, reiterated this Rule of the Board, but refused to rescind it, or 
 to comply with any of the demands in the Address. 
 
 In the years 1844-5-6-7, Archdeacon Stopford continued to press this 
 objection of the Protestant Clergy ; towards the close of 1847, the Com- 
 missioners yielded ; rescinded this Rule, without which the fundamental 
 principle of u banishing from the Schools even the suspicion of proselytism” 
 could not be maintained ; and, thus, the National Board gave the death- 
 blow to what remained of Lord Stanley’s original System. On effecting 
 his great object, Archdeacon Stopford, at once, published an address to 
 the Protestant Clergy of Meath, from which I make the following im- 
 portant extracts : — 
 
 “ In thus counselling you to connect your Schools with a System which has attained 
 its present form through a course of silent change within , and assailed by vague gene- 
 ralities from without, it may be well to point out the actual position in which you 
 would stand by accepting aid, on the terms now at your acceptance.” 
 
 “ The National System has been, from the first, progressively approximating to the 
 System now adopted in England. That every change, almost without exception, has 
 been in the right direction, I have always declared. My only desire was to see those 
 changes avowed and carried out so far, that we could avail ourselves of them, without 
 compromising principles which we believed to be true. That the Board are now dis- 
 posed to co-operate with us, I believe.” 
 
 “ Your joining the Board, at once , is rather the way to promote a further approxi- 
 mation to the English System.” 
 
 “ Were the Regulations of the Board revised, in some of their details, to give that 
 relief to the minority, which the changes of the System in other respects have ren- 
 dered just and reasonable, I am by no means sure that it would not be better for us 
 than the English system.” 
 
23 
 
 The essential Catholic principle of Church authority, in all matters of 
 Religion, as explicitly laid down in Lord Stanley’s Letter, was early set 
 aside, but without conciliating Protestant support. The Rule, as set forth in 
 successive Codes, from 1831 to 1847, as sworn to by Commissioners, before 
 Parliamentary Committees ; the Rule, to be signed by applicants, as a primary 
 condition, upon which, alone, they could obtain aid ; the Rule, as rehearsed 
 in Leases and Trust-Deeds ; the Rule, which was resisted by the Presby- 
 terians, denounced by the Prelates, Clergy, and Gentry of the Established 
 Church, and the subject of their appeal to the Prime Minister, in 1845 — - 
 this Rule, which, for sixteen years, had afforded some religious protection 
 to Catholic pupils, in Schools under non-Catholic Patrons — now contain- 
 ing 100,000 Catholic children — was rescinded by the National Board, and 
 proselytism, on the largest scale, thus authorised. For proofs of the 
 proselytising, under this new Rule, of, what is called non-compulsion (sub- 
 stituted for exclusion) of pupils, I beg, Sir, to refer you to the sworn testi- 
 mony of Rev. Dr. Henry, one of the Commissioners; Mr. M‘Creedy, 
 Chief of Inspection ; Professor Sullivan, one of the Heads of the Training 
 Department; Dean Kennedy and Archdeacon Stopford, Managers of 
 National Schools ; Rev. Messrs. Irwin and Campbell ; and A. G. Stapleton, 
 Esq., all of whom were examined before the House of Lords, in 1854. 
 Further, I would call your attention to similar testimony, in the publica- 
 tions of Rev. Mr. Henderson, in 1855, and in those of Rev. Mr. Fraser, 
 and Dr. Ferguson, Q.C., in 1859. Lastly, I refer you to three Parlia- 
 mentary Returns, one (1855), in reference to the Lancasterian National 
 Schools, Belfast; another (1858), to the Ballindine National Schools, 
 County Mayo, moved for by Mr. Maguire, M.P. ; and a third (April, 
 1859), the suppressed portion of a General Report by Mr. Keenan, Head 
 Inspector, upon 200 National Schools visited by him, in 1855, in Ulster, 
 moved for by the Right Hon. W. Monsell, M.P. — all three Returns, sup- 
 plied by the Commissioners of National Education, from the Official Re- 
 ports of their officers. This evidence, and these publications and Parlia- 
 mentary Returns, will satisfy you, that no scheme of Popular Education 
 which has been in operation in Ireland — neither that of the Kildare-place, 
 nor of the Church Education Society, approaches the National System, in 
 facilities for, and in effectual proselytising of Catholic children. 
 
 I, now, pray your attention, Sir, while I rapidly point out the changes 
 in the System made for the Ulster Presbyterians, and how far these changes 
 affected Catholic interests. They objected to the right of Catholic pupils, 
 in Presbyterian Schools, to have one day in the week set apart for their 
 Religious Instruction, respecting which Rule, Dr. Kelly, Secretary to the 
 National Board, stated to the House of Commons, in 1837 — 
 
 “ I know it [this right] has been objected to, by members of the Synod of Ulster; 
 that they have nicknamed those days set apart, as fifty -two Popish Holidays.” 
 
 Rev. Dr. Cooke, who, last week, in the General Assembly, in Belfast, 
 most warmly denounced the Pastoral of the Catholic Prelates, and vowed 
 undying attachment to the present National System, sent one of his emis- 
 saries, as Professor Sullivan reported, before the House of Commons in 
 1837, round the village of Lagan, near Belfast, with a letter, challenging 
 any one to defend the new System against seven charges, therein enume- 
 rated, one of which was — 3 b 
 
24 
 
 n The Romish Priest is a visitor of the School, whether the Committee will or not, 
 and can turn out the Protestant children one day, every week in the year, to teach 
 that Protestants are heretics, and cannot, as such, be saved, being out of the pale of 
 the Church.” 
 
 That Rule, in force from the first, in all schools, was embodied in the 
 Leases of those which were erected by aid from the Board, up to 1838, 
 when it was modified to u one day in each week, or part of a dayf but, 
 in 1840, the Presbyterians insisted upon the right to wholly exclude from 
 the schoolroom, all Religious Instruction not approved of by them, and 
 which was conceded. This serious change in Rules, which had been in 
 force from 1831, at once, deprived tens of thousands of Catholic children 
 of the right to produce a Catholic Catechism, or have any person, priest or 
 layman, to visit, to give them Catholic religious instruction, in any non- 
 vested school, under a non-Catholic patron, and thus rendered these 
 schools forbidden, as failing to fulfil one of the two main conditions laid 
 down in the Resolutions of the Catholic Bishops in 1826, and, at the same 
 time, rescinded so much of Lord Stanley’s letter as secured the fulfilment 
 of that condition. The change of Rule of 1847, which rescinded the obli- 
 gation of Protestant patrons to exclude Catholic children from non-Catholic 
 instruction, opened the way to general proselytism, and lured the Catholics 
 into Protestant instruction, whilst the previous change of 1840, deprived 
 them of all right to receive their own Religious Instruction in the schools. 
 Thus was completed the subversion of Lord Stanley’s System, and the 
 rejection of the two essential conditions upon which the attendance of 
 Catholics, at such schools, was permitted by the Resolutions of the Catholic 
 Prelates. The concession to the Presbyterians, in 1840, brought over 
 many clergymen of the Established Church to support the system ; Rev. 
 F. F. Trench, an active supporter of the Board, thus states : — 
 
 “The only Regulation of the National Board which ever was an obstacle to my 
 placing’ a school in connection with it was, that which allowed the Roman Catholic 
 Priest to come into the school, to teach error ; that, I never could have allowed ; but 
 when that point was ceded to the Presbyterians (in 1810), the sole objection which I 
 ever had to being under the Board was removed.” 
 
 The Presbyterians objected to the Rule of the Board which prohibited 
 school-houses from being used as Preaching Stations, Meeting Houses, and 
 places of Public Worship ; and another of Rev. Dr. Cooke’s seven objections 
 to the National System was, that — 
 
 “ No Minister dare ever preach in the schoolhouse, or all assistance would be for- 
 feited.” 
 
 In 1837, this Rule was first relaxed, and gradually rescinded, until, 
 under the new Code of 1855, every Presbyterian National School may be 
 used for all conceivable religious purposes, save only the administration 
 of a Sacrament, but as this forms no essential element in their worship, 
 the Presbyterian Schools are, bona fide , Meeting-houses, used for prayer- 
 meetings, lectures, psalmody, and as theatres for the new spiritual exhi- 
 bitions called Religious Revivals. I would request your special attention, 
 Sir, to the sworn evidence of the Rev. Mr. Campbell, to that of Mr. Cross, 
 and to that of Rev. Drs. Henry and Cooke, in 1854, upon this subject*. 
 
 The phenomenon which I undertook to explain — namely, the reversed 
 position of Catholics and non-Catholics, in relation to the National Sys- 
 tem, must, long since, have been simplified to you. Not one fundamental 
 
25 
 
 principle of Lord Stanley’s Letter remains ; the whole System was gra- 
 dually subverted. I have entirely understated the case, and, in my pre- 
 sent letter, confined my attention to a few broad features of the great 
 Question. You have, however, learned enough of the National System to 
 look with pity upon the political quacks and educational charlatans, who. 
 advise you to try and modify it, or restore it to its original purity. To 
 tolerate it is simply impossible ; to restore it is equally so. The first blow 
 which must be struck by the Catholic Bishops, and it lies a contemptible 
 corpse, to which the wealth of British Debt cannot give one spasmodic 
 movement. As the Charter Schools fell, as the Kildare-Place Society fell, 
 so will the present System fall. The Presbyterians have rendered it all 
 that they desired, and, naturally, they stand forward in its defence. 
 Archdeacon Stopford and numbers of those who assisted in subverting 
 the original System, now warn Protestants against the British System. 
 At length, the eyes of a certain class of Catholics are opened to the reality 
 that, instead of desiring their fair share of the public funds for their own 
 Schools, Protestants, of all denominations, would forego the claim, to 
 retain a system more favourable to proselytism than any that had preceded, 
 than any that can ever succeed it, in Ireland. 
 
 The Presbyterian General Assembly declared, last week, that their 
 National Schools are far more soundly Scriptural and controversial, than 
 those of the Church Education Society ; and I grieve, Sir, to be obliged 
 to endorse the declaration, in so far as the Catholic pupils in both are 
 concerned. Presbyterians want no British System, which would deprive, 
 them of 20,000 Catholic pupils, now being proselytised, in their National 
 Schools, and restore them to Catholic Schools, which would spring up 
 beside the Presbyterian ones. Mr. Keenan reports that in every one of 
 the Presbyterian Schools which he had visited in Ulster, in 1855, the 
 Teacher gave Common Religious Instruction to all his pupils, Catholics, 
 Protestants, and Presbyterians, none of them retiring. 
 
 Anxious to complete my exposition of the origin, and the principles of 
 Lord Stanley’s System, and the subversion of it by the Commissioners, 
 for Protestants and Presbyterians, I have extended this letter beyond 
 its expected length. 
 
 Have I not, Sir, fully, clearly, and incontrovertibly established the 
 strict accuracy of the Fifth Resolution of the Synod— 
 
 “ That the changes made, from time to time, in the Rules of the National System, 
 having been adverse to Catholic interests, have increased the distrust of the Catholic 
 Episcopacy ” ? 
 
 Have I not, Sir, similarly proved the strict accuracy of the ninth, and 
 last objection to the System enumerated by the Prelates, under this same 
 Fifth Resolution — 
 
 “That, in Schools deriving aid from the Board, Catholic children have received, 
 and may receive, Religious Instruction from Protestant Teachers, in opposition to the 
 original constitution, as laid down by Lord Stanley ” ? 
 
 The secondary evils of the System, and the impossibility of remedy, 
 other than its total abolition, will form the subject of my next Letter. — » 
 I have the honour to remain, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh, 
 
 4th October, 1859. 
 
26 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Sir — My last letter dispels the illusion that the present scheme of 
 Education, known as the National System , is that introduced by Lord 
 Stanley, in 1831. Lord Stanley’s was an anta'-proselytising, the present 
 is a ^ro-proselytising scheme. " Lord Stanley’s Measure provided time and 
 place , in the schoolroom, for the separate religious instruction of every 
 Catholic child, by its own Pastor, or by a person authorised by him ; the 
 present system denies this right, to tens of thousands of Catholic pupils, 
 in schools under Presbyterians and Protestants. From 1831 to 1840, 
 Presbyterians refused to accept aid under Lord Stanley’s System, because 
 of their objection to the Rules which thus provided for the Religious 
 Instruction of Catholic pupils, who might attend their schools, and, 
 in order to obtain the support of the Presbyterians, these Rules were 
 abolished, January 1840. Presbyterians, and Protestants of the Estab- 
 lished Church, opposed Lord Stanley’s System, from 1831 to 1847, 
 because it obliged every non-Catholic Patron, or Teacher, to exclude 
 Catholic children from Religious Instruction, unless their Parents had 
 formally and expressly directed them to attend thereat. The honest ob- 
 servance of this Rule afforded Catholic children full protection against 
 proselytising, during separate Religious Instruction ; but, in November, 
 1847, after the Rule had been sixteen years in operation, it was abolished, 
 at the instance of Protestants. There are 100,000 Catholic pupils in 
 1,311 National Schools managed by Presbyterian and Protestant Patrons, 
 and their position, under the present System, is as follows : — 
 
 1. With the exception of a small fraction that attend in Vested Schools, 
 whose erection was aided by the State, every one of these 100,000 
 Catholic children is, under the concession of 1 840, deprived of all right to 
 receive Catholic instruction, in the Schools, or even to produce a Catholic 
 Catechism within their walls. 
 
 2. In these 1,311 Schools, the general practice is to have a Bible-class , 
 before or after literary instruction, when the 100,000 Catholic pupils may, 
 and tens of thousands of them do join in reading the Protestant Bible, 
 which is explained to them by a staff of 1,800 Protestant and Presby- 
 terian Teachers and Assistants. Protestant and Presbyterian Catechisms, 
 inmany Schools, Controversial Lectures, and Psalmody, in others, and Cir- 
 culating Libraries, in some, make up the full course of Religious Instruc- 
 tion, to which all Catholic children are invited, and of which numbers 
 of them partake, under the concession of 1847. 
 
 Adverting, again, Sir, to the Resolutions of the Catholic Bishops, in 
 1826, and to the System of Lord Stanley, in 1831, it is quite clear that 
 Catholic pupils, placed in the position now described, have neither the 
 sufficient protection against Proselytism , nor the adequate means of Beligious 
 Instruction , primarily demanded by the Prelates ; and that the present 
 System, under which they are reduced to that position, is in complete 
 antagonism to the fundamental principle of Lord Stanley’s Scheme — 
 namely, “ combined literary, but separate religious instruction,” u even 
 the suspicion of Proselytism to be banished ,” and “ such religious educa- 
 tion to be given to the children, as may be approved of by the Clergy of 
 their respective persuasions.” 
 
27 
 
 Next to the abolition of Pastoral Control, or Church Authority, ire 
 matters of Religion, to abrogation of the right of Catholics to receive Re- 
 ligious Instruction in Schools, under Protestant Patrons, and to exposure to 
 actual Proselytising, the evil of gravest moment in the present, as com- 
 pared with the original System, is what is called the common , as distin- 
 guished from the separate , or denominational religious element. In my 
 last Letter, I pointed out, as the second of six leading provisions of Lord 
 Stanley’s System, the u Rigid separation of Religious from Literary In- 
 struction, each to wholly exclude any portion of the other.” Rev. Mr, 
 Carlisle, a Presbyterian Clergyman, a Commissioner, from 1831 to 1838, 
 suggested to the new Board, at its first meeting, 1st December, 1831, that 
 they should ask permission of Lord Stanley, not to require them to exclude 
 from the several Books, which they had got permission to edit, “ such 
 portions of religious or moral teaching, as may be approved by the 
 Board.” After much discussion, this proposition was assented to, but 
 with little expectation of its practical success, and with the important 
 proviso that the entire Board should be unanimous in approving of any 
 such matters as might be introduced. Lord Stanley granted the per- 
 mission, which was interpolated in the original draft of his Letter ; but 
 the amended addition was not published for many years afterwards. 
 Rev. Mr. Carlisle, in a letter to The Times , so late as 1854, thus describes 
 this important change in the original system : — 
 
 “ This concession considerably altered the original proposed System, and rendered 
 it, instead of being a rigid system of exclusion of all religion , from the deliberations of 
 the Board, and the common education of the people, an experiment how far Roman 
 Catholics and Protestants could proceed together, with perfect unanimity, in intro- 
 ducing Scriptural light among the population, generally — an experiment, considering 
 what the state of Ireland has been, for centuries, perhaps the most interesting and 
 important, but, at the same time, the most delicate and difficult that ever was en- 
 trusted to any Commission.” 
 
 The Commissioners, although they had obtained permission to edit , and 
 print approved Books, not to compose or compile new ones, soon, unwisely, 
 entered upon the preparation of an entire series of works, amongst which 
 were some of an exclusively religious character. Translations were made, 
 de novo , of four Books of Scripture* — Genesis and Exodus, from the Old, 
 and the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles from the New 
 Testament. Three of these four volumes were prepared by Rev. Dr. 
 Carlisle, the fourth by Rev. Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, and all were corrected 
 by His Grace Archbishop Whately, a Commissioner from 1831 to 1853, 
 but no alteration, whatever, was made, in the draft of the works, by either 
 of the two Catholic Commissioners. 
 
 The Board earnestly, and unanimously recommend these Extracts from 
 Scripture to the careful attention of Teachers and children, u not only as 
 truth, but as truth recorded under the influence of inspiration ,” “ to be 
 used in all schools receiving aid from them.” Rev. Mr. Carlisle, in his 
 evidence before the House of Commons, stated, that — 
 
 “ Unless a Schoolmaster were limited in his power of exposition, it would he easy 
 for him to give his instruction a peculiar religious character , even taking the Extracts 
 solely as its basis T 
 
 “ The Schoolmasters are themselves exercised upon them. The Extracts are ex- 
 plained to them, carefully, while they are under Training , and they are sent out pre- 
 pared to explain them to the children .” 
 
28 
 
 It is to be observed, Sir, that Rev. Mr. Carlisle, besides being Resi- 
 dent Commissioner, was also Professor of Education in the Training 
 Department, and that the duty of explaining, to Catholic Teachers, 
 “ truth recorded under the influence of inspiration” was monopolised by 
 him, in company with the Head Master of the Model School, Dr. 
 MacArthur — nephew to Mr. Carlisle — another Scotch Presbyterian — 
 and Mr. Rintoul, a third Scotch Calvinist, both which gentlemen had 
 been Ushers in an Academy, in Dublin, kept by Rev. Mr. Carlisle, before 
 his appointment as Commissioner. In addition to this new Bible , thus 
 projected for the Catholics of Ireland, — brought out by Anglican and 
 Scotch Divines, and the use of which was taught, after the manner indi- 
 cated — a small Manual of Devotional Hymns, or sacred Poetry, was pre- 
 pared, by Rev. Mr. Carlisle, from the works of Rev. Dr. Watts, and other 
 pious Protestant writers^ This Vade Mecum consists of prayers , for 
 various times and occasions, hymns, paraphrases of Scripture, psalms, 
 and moral and religious maxims, and Mr. Cross, the Board’s Secretary, 
 describes it as, “ containing many sacred truths and precepts, which are 
 to be found among the inspired writers.” So anxious were the Com- 
 missioners for the distribution of these five volumes of common Scripture 
 and common Devotion, for “ introducing,” as Rev. Mr. Carlisle states, 
 u Scripture light among the population, generally,” that, in less than two 
 years, they issued, gratuitously, 130,000 copies of these works, throughout 
 the National Schools. 
 
 For some time, these works were used, in a considerable number of 
 Schools, as when they were taught by Catholic Teachers, no serious danger 
 was apprehended, but His Grace Most Rev. Dr. MacHale, very soon, 
 roused public attention to the imminent peril involved in the whole scheme 
 of the new common religious element in Mixed Schools. I would com- 
 mend, Sir, for your deep consideration, the Letters of the illustrious 
 Archbishop of Tuam, upon the subject of National Education, especially 
 those written during the years 1838-9, addressed to your present col- 
 league, Lord John Russell. 
 
 “ Seldom”, writes the Archbishop, “has a more injurious expedient, than the Scrip- 
 ture Lessons, been adopted, to withhold from view the opposition, on point of doctrine, 
 between different Christians. But, mark, my Lord, at the end of every lesson there 
 is a series of questions, to be put by the Master, and answered by the Scholars, embo- 
 dying its entire substance. There is not a point of controverted doctrine, between 
 Catholics and Protestants, that may not thus be made the subject of insidious inter- 
 rogatory, by Masters, who were, themselves, trained in the manner of teaching those 
 Lessons, by Presbyterian Teachers, who, I suppose, were as anxious to 1 get rid ' of 
 the reverence paid to the Blessed Virgin, as Rev. Mr. Carlisle was of Penance , or 
 Luther of the Real Presence . Nestorians, in religion, as far as regards their jealousy 
 of the honour of the Mother of God, they have, designedly, expunged the ‘ Hail, 
 Mary , full of Grace,' lest children should find, in those Lessons, those words which 
 they are taught to lisp, from infancy, with affectionate veneration. It is not wise, my 
 Lord, it is not statesmanlike, to strive to dissolve the holy charm that consecrates 
 those truths that are imbibed in childhood. The same Church that instils into the 
 tender minds of children a reverence for the Mother of God and revered of Heaven, 
 as sedulously labours to impress upon them a respect for the Throne.” 
 
 In 1838, his Grace Archbishop Whately submitted to the Board his 
 •• Introductory Lessons on the Truth of Christianity ” which the Commission- 
 
29 
 
 ers approved, and published, as a Sequel to their Fourth Book of Reading- 
 Lessons. Writing of this work, in 1839, to Lord John Russell, the vene- 
 rated Pontiff of the West says : — 
 
 “Next comes another precious production, having for its title, * Lessons on the 
 Truth of Christianity: Whole parcels of those poisonous Tracts have been sent 4 On 
 Her Majesty's Service for the use of the National Schools. What a precious cargo, 
 to he dispensed to the Catholic children of Ireland ! The author’s name is not ap- 
 pended, hut, if report says true, they have come from the pen of one who has been 
 designating the Ministers of the Catholic Church as, 4 adepts in Priestcraft and their 
 religion, a 4 mystery of iniquity their sacraments, 4 superstitious charms' and their 
 public worship, 4 a kind of magic incantation their practices of piety, 4 a train of 
 superstitious observances worthy of Paganism and, in fine, the Catholic Church itself, 
 
 4 the of Babylon ’ (Whateiy's Errors of Romanism). Were our pious ancestors to 
 
 be proffered a Book, on the subject of Religion, written by a man capable of reviling 
 their Church, and Eaith, and Priesthood, in such profligate terms, they would indig- 
 nantly consign it to the flames. In the present enlightened days, such persons must 
 be the compilers of the Theological Primer, from which children are to lisp the first 
 rudiments of Christianity. What a guardian of the integrity of the Eaith of the 
 Catholic children of Ireland ! This is, truly, the guardianship of the Kite, which, in 
 its impatience to seize and devour the entire prey, scares off all rival vultures.” 
 
 These advances, in the publication of a series of Books exclusively upon 
 the subject of Religion, and drawn up by Scotch and English Divines, 
 spread intense alarm, and the Court of Rome was appealed to, in this 
 emergency* Agents were sent over, both on the part of the Prelates who 
 supported, as well as on the part of those hostile to the National System, 
 and, in January, 1841, these works, Scripture Lessons , and Lessons on the 
 Truth of Christianity , were not only condemned by the Holy See, but the 
 entire principle upon which they were intended to be used was reprobated. 
 The Papal Rescript, dated 16th January, 1841, admonished the Irish 
 Hierarchy, 
 
 44 That it is much safer that Literary Instruction only , should be given in Mixed 
 Schools, than that the fundamental articles, as they are called, and the articles in 
 which all Christians agree, should be taught there, in common , reserving, for separate 
 instruction, the tenets peculiar to each sect ; for this manner of acting, in regard to 
 children, appears very dangerous .” 
 
 This admonition was embodied in the Decree of the Council of Thurles 
 (Art. III., National Schools) in 1850, confirmed by the Holy See, in 1851, 
 and re-affirmed in the Synod of Dublin, 1853. To meet this opposition 
 of the Catholic Prelates, the Rules, as to the use of the Scripture Les- 
 sons, Lessons on the Truth of Christianity, and Sacred Poetry, were mo- 
 dified in 1840, and again in 1853, when the Commissioners struck off 
 their List, as unfit for common use, Archbishop Whateiy’s Christianity , 
 after it had been fifteen years in the Schools. This retrograde step caused 
 the retirement of Archbishop Whately, Judge Blackburne, and Baron 
 Greene from the Commission, and also caused the Inquiry in the House of 
 Lords, in 1854, into the working of the System. 
 
 The Scripture Lessons and Sacred Poetry are in use in almost every 
 one of the Model Schools, Central and District, scattered over Ireland, 
 and, where read by Catholic children, are taught to them by Protestant, as 
 well as Catholic Teachers ; they are also read in a considerable number of 
 Ordinary Schools under non-Catholic Patrons. The Synod of the Pro- 
 vince of Dublin, in their Pastoral Address to. the Catholic Clergy and 
 Laity, dated July, 1853, enjoins: — 
 
30 
 
 u The Scripture Lessons appear to have been compiled for the purpose of giving' a 
 
 united Religious Instruction to Catholic and non- Catholic children, in the same class; 
 we reprobate such A project. Separate Religious Instruction , as it was laid down 
 by the Statesman who first introduced the National System into Ireland, is the only 
 protection for Catholics . It is contrary to the spirit and practice of our Holy Church, 
 to sanction united Religious Instruction, or to sanction any instruction, on matter 
 connected with Religion, given to Catholics by persons who themselves reject the 
 teaching of the Catholic Church. The injunction we now give you is to remove the 
 works, just mentioned, from the hands of your children.” 
 
 The importance attached by Protestants to the use of these works by 
 Catholics, under Protestant Teachers, may be understood from the follow- 
 ing testimony. The Rev. F. F. Trench, long a supporter and Patron of 
 National Schools, says ( Observations on National Education ) : — 
 
 “ Where we fail in inducing Roman Catholics to read the whole Bible, can it be 
 doubted but that the Scripture Extracts may do some good ? The Extracts teach 
 the doctrines of grace.” 
 
 He then proceeds to refer to sixteen portions of seven Books of the New 
 Testament, quoted in the Extracts, which, he alleges, are calculated to 
 establish certain anti-Catholic doctrines, and he thus concludes : — 
 
 “I suspect that the generality of persons do not know that these precious passages 
 of Scripture are in the Scripture Extracts, and may he explained in the School .” 
 
 He then goes on to describe the religious zeal of the Rev. Mr. Carlisle, 
 author of the Extracts, and, in astonishment, says : — 
 
 “ Why the Board entrusted this most important work to such a man, many would 
 think it hard to say ; but so it was, and I believe the hand of God to have been in it, 
 for good to the Church.” 
 
 Rev. Mr. Carlisle, in his evidence, in 1837, before the Plouse of Com- 
 mons, states that he could not conscientiously put his own School under 
 Kildare-Place Society, because it prevented Teachers from explaining the 
 Scriptures to the pupils, u but,” says he, “ our Extracts, embodying, as 
 I formerly explained, illustrations of Scripture by Scripture , is a mode of 
 explanation which would not have been tolerated, I conceive, by the Kil- 
 dare-Place System.” 
 
 Rev. Dean Kennedy states : — 
 
 “ The Roman Catholics, in my National School, receive combined Religious Instruc- 
 tion, in the Scripture Lessons, and are examined with the Protestants, who read the 
 same portions of the Authorised Version, and I may mention that an opponent of the 
 Board, and a friend of the Church Education Society, at the half-yearly examination 
 of the children of my School, examined the classes, and, himself, awarded prizes, for 
 the best Scripture answering, to Roman Catholic children In my Schools, there are 
 Roman Catholics receiving a greater amount of Scriptural education, through the 
 medium of the secular Books of the National Board and the Scripture Lessons, than 
 in any Church Education School that I know. This is my deliberate conviction.” 
 And, on his oath, the Dean adds, u I think the principles of the National Board are 
 the principles of the Reformation .” 
 
 The sworn evidence of Rev. Dean Moore, of Cashel, Rev. Dean War- 
 burton, of Elphin, both Patrons of several National Schools, as well as the 
 testimony of many other Protestant Clergymen, is almost equally strong 
 as to the advantages which may be taken of the use of the Scripture Les- 
 sons. 
 
 I would, now, Sir, invite your attention to the ordinary Reading Books 
 of the National Board, their authors, and the matter of those publica- 
 tions. From a Return (No. 148) to an Order of the House of Commons, 
 
31 
 
 dated 22nd March last, it appears that the titles of 69 volumes are set forth, 
 as forming the entire Catalogue of the works on the Price List of the 
 National Board. These consist of two classes, those written expressly for 
 the Board, the copyright in which they , have purchased, and those of 
 authors who supply copies of their works at a moderate rate, which 
 arrangement may close at any moment. Of the 35 volumes written for 
 the Board, 20 are of a Religious, Moral, Literary, or Historical character, 
 every one of which contains matter liable to disputation, in Mixed 
 Schools, five of the 20 being Scripture Extracts and Sacred Poetry. The 
 other 15 volumes consist of 13 Reading Class Books, and two on Geo- 
 graphy and History. These 20 volumes were written, or compiled by 
 Most Rev. Archbishop Whately, and members of his Grace’s family, Rev. 
 Dr. Arnold, Rev. J. Carlisle, Dr. McArthur, Messrs. Cross, Rintoul, Reid, 
 Mason, and Spalding, and Mr. M‘Dermott assisted in the compilation of 
 one volume. With the exception of the last named gentleman, who is 
 an Irish Catholic, the writers are all Scotch Presbyterians and English 
 Protestants. Again, of the 34 works sanctioned, but not published by 
 the Board, there are 10 of an educational, historical, or literary character, 
 all of them containing matter open to controversy, five written by Arch- 
 bishop Whately, Rev. Dean Dawes, and Messrs. Young and Hullah — all 
 Englishmen — the other five by Professor Sullivan, and all the ten works 
 composed by Protestants. Nearly all the thirty volumes upon Religion, 
 Education, History, Logic, Political Economy, and English Literature, 
 which form the Popular Cyclopaedia of millions, not alone as their school 
 manuals in youth, but, as the sole Library of a hundred thousand 
 humble homesteads, were composed by Scotch and Englishmen, anti- 
 Catholic in faith, anti-Irish in feeling. Rev. Mr. Carlisle, a Calvinist, 
 provides the Scripture; Rev. Dr. Watts, a Dissenter, the Devotional 
 Hymns ; Hullah, an Anglican, the School-songs ; Cross, the English 
 Poetry ; Sullivan, the Prose ; Rev. Dean Dawes and Young, both 
 English, the principles of Education ; Carlisle and Sullivan, the History ; 
 Archbishop Whately, the Logic and Political Economy ; and his Grace, 
 assisted by his English family, and Rev. Mr. Carlisle, assisted by a tribe 
 of Caledonian Ushers, provide the series of ordinary Reading, or Class- 
 Books for the millions of Irish Catholics. To exclude the possibility of ques- 
 tion, in reference to the precise character of these Class-Books, I shall 
 submit it, in the Commissioners’ own words, from “ Analysis of the School - 
 J3ooIcS) published by authority of the Commissioners of National Education.” 
 
 “ One of the main objects, in compiling and publishing this series, was to supply, not 
 merely the National Schools, but the public generally, with works moral and religious 
 in their character, without being sectarian. Lessons on the subject of Religion, 
 drawn chiefly from the narratives of the Holy Scriptures, are interspersed through 
 all the Heading Books, and constitute an interesting epitome of Sacred History. 
 These are commenced in the First Book, and carried on through the remaining 
 volumes. The lessons in the First Book are of a moral kind, and conclude with one 
 decidedly religious ; several in the Second Book communicate important religious 
 truths, and are well fitted to create devout feelings. The religious sentiments inculcated 
 in the Sequel to the Second Book are of the purest and most elevated kind ; and the 
 next work following, affords a striking example of the successful manner in which 
 some of the most important truths of Revelation are blended with secular instruction 
 
32 
 
 in the Irish National School Books. The admirable abridgment of parts of the Old 
 Testament, in the Third Book, is not intended as a substitute for the Bible, but to 
 prepare the pupils for a more extended course of religious instruction, and a more 
 beneficial study of the inspired volume. Apart from the Scriptural Lessons continued 
 in the Fourth Book, it contains several poetical pieces of a devotional character, of 
 convenient length to be committed to memory, and calculated to strengthen the 
 moral feelings. The Supplement to the Fourth Book contains a summary of the Old 
 Testament, including a detailed account of the Prophets, and the substance of their 
 prophecies ; besides several essays on religious subjects by Archbishop Whately and 
 other eminent Divines. The excellent lessons in the Girls’ Reading Book form a 
 complete manual of moral and domestic duties, whether in single or married life ; and 
 the Selections from the British Poets are pervaded by a spirit of genuine piety, and 
 are well adapted for family reading.” 
 
 The Commissioners, in a Parliamentary Return, inform us who the 
 authors of these works are, and they also, in the statement now quoted, 
 make known to us the object and general character of their productions. 
 The explanatory mode of teaching, aptly expressed in the School-maxim, 
 “ Question the subject into the Pupils, and then question it out of them,” 
 affords to teachers the amplest facilities for using the Scriptural and His- 
 torical Matter, which permeates all the Lesson Books, for the purpose of 
 inculcating Religious opinions, and, thus, the incidental texts of Scripture 
 which occur in the lessons on minerals, plants, and animals, apart alto- 
 gether from those on Scripture and Scripture History, may be used for 
 the purpose of sapping the faith of Catholic children. There are 100,000 
 Catholic children in National Schools, under Protestant and Presbyterian 
 Patrons, taught by 1,799 non-Catholic Teachers, and all these children 
 are exposed to danger, from the abuse of the religious element which per- 
 vades their Books. The following important evidence places this matter 
 in a clear light. Rev. J. Campbell, Incumbent of Trinity Church, Belfast, 
 visited 55 National Schools, in 1854, chiefly in the town of Belfast, and, 
 from his evidence before the House of Lords in that year, we extract the 
 following : — 
 
 “ The Presbyterian Mistress of Murphy-street National School informed me that 
 none of the children refuse to receive the instruction which she gives, which consists 
 of reading the Bible. If explanation of the Bible were given, she said there would be 
 refusals ; but during the Lessons from the ordinary Books of the Board, opportunities 
 do occur, which can be, and are taken advantage of to instil religious instruction, 
 without suspicion ; she added, 4 Who is to take notice of this V ” 
 
 Again, in the Whiteabbey National School, the Presbyterian Mistress 
 informed him that, 
 
 “ She imparts Religious Instruction whenever she pleases, on any occasion that may 
 suggest itself during the day. There is no one to forbid it. She has heen in the 
 School for some years, and she may do it, as, to use her own words, 4 This is a Pres- 
 byterian School .’ She does not consider the introduction of Religious Instruction into 
 her ordinary teaching, a breach of the Rules, as there is no one to restrain her,” 
 
 There were Catholic children in both these Schools, and Rev. Mr. 
 Campbell, from observation of all the National Schools visited by him, in 
 Belfast, adds, 
 
 “ The ordinary Books contain Religious Instruction of a certain character, and, to a 
 certain amount, sufficient to give a Teacher an opportunity of branching off from it, 
 and giving peculiar Religious Instruction, if so disposed.” 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maclvor, Ex-F.T.C.D., Rector of Ardstraw, Diocese of Derry, 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical History, in Trinity College, an active supporter 
 of the present system, thus writes : — 
 
* The Commissioners, in having produced these Books, have conferred a benefit 
 on the country and on the world, not easily calculated. I speak not of their literary 
 excellence, high as this is admitted to be, but of their religiousness , the earnest piety 
 pervading them, and ever expressing itself in positive instruction , so full and definite 
 as to enlarge one’s idea even of Catholicity itself. No one can use these Books, I 
 believe, without being drawn nearer to his neighbour and to God.” 
 
 Sir James Graham, in the Debate in the House of Commons, June 1850, 
 reviewing the Books of the National Board, stated, 
 
 “Although the National System had not borne all the fruits at first promised from 
 it, yet its success had been signal. He believed there was no Roman Catholic coun- 
 try in Europe, in which, with the consent of the Catholic clergy, an education >so 
 Scriptural had ever been tolerated as that given in the National Schools ; and he 
 warned the House, that if this light be extinguished, there was little hope of the social 
 improvement of Ireland.” 
 
 No one, however, has, at all, approached Rev. F. F. Trench in clear, 
 luGid exposition of the Protestant gain and the Catholic loss, by the use 
 of the common religious element in the Class-Books of the National Board. 
 Exhorting the Protestant Clergy to place their Schools under the Board, 
 he says : — 
 
 “ It strikes me very forcibly, that when we teach the points of doctrine we are 
 agreed upon, we teach true religion. We teach what is generally understood by Pro- 
 testantism, when we teach the doctrines upon which Protestants and Romanists are 
 agreed. I admit that, strictly speaking, we cannot be said to teach Protestantism, 
 because, strictly speaking, Protestantism is protesting against error. But, in another 
 sense, we do teach Protestantism ; for the Protestant religion — the religion of the 
 Reformation — is the simple truth of the Gospel, stripped of the errors superinduced 
 by the Church of Rome. For instance, in the National School Books, probably 
 many hundred times, Christ is spoken of as 4 Our Saviour .’ The belief of that truth, 
 in its naked simplicity, constitutes a Protestant. The Roman Catholic does not 
 believe in Christ as his Saviour, in the same full and simple way in which a Protestant 
 believes in Him as such. To constitute a young Romanist, the child must be taught 
 •that something else besides Christ is our Saviour. So, I say, that in the compact to 
 have those points taught in Schools, upon which Protestants and Romanists agree, 
 the Protestant has, decidedly, the advantage, and the Patron can teach Protestantism, 
 t.e., the doctrines of grace, to every child in the School. I am of opinion that the 
 Patron might even ‘ pledge himself under hand and seal, that he will let Romanism 
 alone , 1 during certain hours of the day, so far as refraining from controversial teach- 
 ing can be considered as, necessarily, letting Romanism alone. But, in my judgment, 
 if a Christian minister educates Roman Catholic children on the points uporfwhich 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics are agreed, which he may do at all hours, he is very 
 far from letting Popery alone ' 1 
 
 You have now before you, Sir, the declared opinions of the Catholic 
 Church, as uttered by individual Prelates, as affirmed in Provincial Synods, 
 as promulgated by National Councils, and solemnly confirmed by the 
 Supreme Pontiff, upon the grave subject of “ united Religious Instruction, 
 and instruction on matters connected with Religion.” On the other hand, 
 you have before you the Works published by the National Board, with 
 the Commissioners , account of the religious and devotional contents of 
 those works; the names, creed, and country of the authors; sworn testi- 
 mony as to the use made of those Books, by non-Catholic Teachers ; and 
 the exalted mission that Protestant Clergymen and Protestant Statesmen 
 see for these works, in Protestantising the Catholic youth of Ireland. If 
 the Catholic child should escape the meshes of the proselytising net, woven 
 for him in 1847, and not join in the morning Daily Bible-class, the after- 
 noon Catechism class, the Evening Lecture, the Prayer-Meeting, or the 
 
34 
 
 Religious Revivals of the Presbyterian or Protestant School ; if he should 
 further escape the traps of the Scripture Extracts and the Sacred Poetry ; 
 from another patent-snare, however, he has but a solitary means of escape, 
 namely, flight. To enter a National School, under a Protestant Teacher, 
 is, necessarily, to read the Class-Books , to have their Scriptural matter, 
 devotional sentiments, and pious maxims thoroughly questioned into the 
 Catholic child, and then questioned out of him, and, while doing so, the 
 Teacher is very “far from letting Popery alone” As a simple illustration of 
 the truth of the Rev. Mr. Trench’s views, permit me to mention one of the 
 thousand similar incidents inseparable from this absurd attempt to give 
 common instruction to Protestants and Catholics, in any matter above, 
 beyond, or outside of our common human nature . You are probably, at this 
 moment, Sir, in the suite of His Excellency, in the Infants’ Model School, 
 Marlboro’-street, pointing out to the ex-Royal Family of France the strik- 
 ing resemblance between Irish and French children, in vivacity, intellectual 
 quickness, and in many other respects. The two Teachers of these 400 
 infants are Protestants and English, although upwards of 320 of the chil- 
 dren are Catholics. The Head Master, giving a gallery lesson on Rewards 
 and Punishments, and using the elliptic method, proceeds thus : — 
 
 “ Now, my little dears, have you ever seen a large, black, close car- 
 riage, like a big bo;x ; with feathers from the top of it, and cars and carriages 
 after it ; with many people along with it, and all looking sad ?” “ Oh ! 
 
 yes, Mr. Young — a Hearse .” Artistically, then, the Master brings up 
 before them the ideas of Death, the Soul, good and evil, rewards and 
 punishments, and proceeds, “ Well, my little darlings, when we die, if we 
 
 had been good when here, our souls will go to ?” “ God,” “Heaven,” 
 
 etc., answer the crowd of little theologians. “ But if we had not been 
 
 good, our souls will go to ?” “Hell,” “The place below,” “To 
 
 the bad angels ,” etc. — “ Quite right, my little pets.” A prattling six- 
 years -off here cries out, “ Mr. Young, mightn’t^ our souls go to the 
 other place, Purgatory ?” another, “ Sure, Mr. Young, there is no 
 where like that?” The hubbub becomes general, but the Master’s 
 manner settled the question, the little Purgatorian was told, “Fold your 
 arms,” and the Lesson proceeded. 
 
 A gentleman, who was present at this occurrence, struck with the 
 incident, went to the Education Office, and reported it. The matter 
 was brought before the Board, and the Master was censured, but 
 upon what ground the Commissioners did not state ; clearly, the fault 
 was in the System, which attempted such instruction, and not in the 
 Teacher, who had unwittingly exposed its pernicious results. Rev. Mr. 
 Trench’s maxim is fully illustrated in this actual occurrence — such daily 
 teaching, of only so much as Protestants and Catholics believe, in com- 
 mon, is “ very far from letting Popery alone.” 
 
 I have, now, Sir, discussed the graver departures from Lord Stanley’s 
 System, those upon which Catholic conscience can enter into no compro- 
 mise with any Minister, nor with any political party. In my next Letter 
 I shall point out many and serious grievances imposed upon Catholics, 
 by the present System, some of which abuses, however, being open to 
 
35 
 
 remedy, would be out of place here. I have not gone into a detailed 
 exposure of the anti-Catholic character of some of the Board’s publica- 
 tions, for the simple reason that the Prelates of my Church having con- 
 demned these works, together with the principle upon which most of the 
 Books are drawn up, supersedes, for me, the necessity of such a task. 
 The Catholic Hierarchy 
 
 (1) Condemns the Common Religious Element, which pervades the 
 
 Ordinary Reading and Class Books ; 
 
 (2) Reprobates the Common Religious Element, as in the Scripture 
 
 Lessons, etc. ; 
 
 (3) And execrates the practice of Catholic Children attending in Bible 
 
 and Catechism Classes, under non-Catholic Teachers. 
 
 Apart from these very grave abuses, the denial of suitable opportunity, 
 and the absence of all means for Religious Instruction, in almost all the 
 National Schools under Protestant Patrons, are sufficient to unfit such 
 Schools for the attendance of Catholic pupils. 
 
 None of these abuses could be remedied otherwise than by total 
 abolition of the present System, although they have, every one of them, 
 arisen, as I have fully proved, from subversion of the original Scheme, 
 as laid down by Lord Stanley. If Lord Stanley’s System were now pro- 
 posed, no party would accept it. All the modifications and subversion to 
 which it has been subjected have, in 28 years, brought to its support but 
 70 Clerical and 243 Lay Members of the Established Church. Against it 
 the Presbyterians waged incessant war, for ten years, and any attempt to 
 deprive them of the privileges which they have obtained would even- 
 tuate in a return to their former hostility. You may not, Sir, be aware 
 that, in the years 1830-1, the Catholic Clergy and Laity petitioned 
 for Separate Grants, which, had all the Prelates firmly stood out, would 
 have been obtained, at that time, instead of Lord Stanley’s System. 
 The Catholic people have had forty years’ experience of both the Kil- 
 dare Place and of the National System, and it is beyond the power of 
 any Government to continue a Mixed Scheme of Education in Ireland. 
 The Presbyterians have, by the recent Resolutions of their General 
 Assembly, declared in favour of the present System. The Protestant 
 Primate has also declared in favour of united education, but, Anglicans 
 and Calvinists, alike mean the education of Catholics, in their Schools, 
 by Protestant and Presbyterian Teachers. The letter of the Protes- 
 tant Primate entirely misrepresents the demands of the Catholic Pre- 
 lates. His Grace alleges that the Pastoral of the Catholic Hierarchy de- 
 mands : 
 
 (1) “Separate grants of money from the State, for the purpose of 
 maintaining Schools under the exclusive control of the Prelates of the 
 two Churches.” 
 
 The Catholic Prelates, in their Pastoral, ask for no such thing. They 
 ask for grants for Catholic schools, but they do not ask for Separate 
 Grants, in the sense alleged, that is, that Parliament would set aside a 
 certain portion of the Funds voted for Education, giving one gross sum 
 to Catholics, and another to Protestants. They ask for Denominational 
 
36 
 
 hnd. Separate Schools , as in England and Scotland, and for aid to these 
 Schools, out of the common State Grant. The Prelates do not claim con- 
 trol, exclusive or partial, over the Funds, no more than the Catholic 
 Bishops in England do over the funds administered by the Privy Council. 
 
 (2) “We have no wish,” says his Grace, “to see the secular instrue- 
 tion in Schools exempted from the superintendence of a Board of Com- 
 missioners appointed by the Government.” 
 
 The Pastoral of the Catholic Prelates affords no grounds whatever, for 
 supposing that they make any such demand. It condemns the Constitu- 
 tion of the Board, the System, its administration, and the control which 
 is assumed over matters vitally affecting religion, but it does not demand 
 exemption of secular instruction from Government superintendence. 
 
 (3) “We think it right,” says his Grace, “that the secular instruction, 
 given in Schools which are aided by the State, should be tested by In- 
 spectors appointed by the State.” 
 
 The Catholic Prelates demand exemption of secular instruction in Ca- 
 tholic Schools from being tested not by State Inspectors, but by Protestant 
 Inspectors. The Catholics in Great Britain, and in the Colonies, cordially 
 submit their Schools to State Inspection, but the officers so appointed 
 must be Catholics. 
 
 (4) “We also,” says his Grace, “deem it but fair, and reasonable that 
 the Patrons of the several Schools should have the right of nominating 
 the Teachers, and that the power of appointing them should not be vested 
 in the Bishops and Clergy.” 
 
 The Pastoral of the Catholic Bishops demands and contemplates exclu- 
 sively Catholic Schools, under Catholic Patrons and Catholic Teachers, 
 and, because the latter are intended to act as Religious Instructors to the 
 pupils, the Bishops claim control to that extent, but neither the sole nor 
 the exclusive control over their appointment and removal. The right of 
 Patrons to nominate their own Teachers is neither invaded, nor questioned, 
 in the Pastoral of the Catholic Prelates. 
 
 (5) “ To commit,” says his Grace, “ to the hands of the Plierarchy of 
 the Established Church, and the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, an uncontrolled power over two separate grants for supporting 
 schools for separate education, is, certainly, not the mode of dealing with 
 this vexed question, which I, for my part, would counsel or advise.” 
 
 No such uncontrolled power is claimed by the Pastoral, and the sense 
 in which a separate grant is demanded has been already explained. So 
 far back as 1850, the Catholic Hierarchy, in the First Article of the De- 
 cree of the Council of Thurles upon the National Schools, thus clearly 
 demanded the substitution of the British, or Denominational, instead of 
 the National or Mixed System : — 
 
 “ We have seen, with satisfaction, the British Government latterly give, in Eng- 
 land, aid towards the education of Catholic children separately , and according to the 
 standard of Catholic Religion. A right thus admitted, we claim to participate in for 
 ourselves. Eor, if it be just and expedient that the Catholics of Britain be aided out 
 of the Public Treasury, in the Separate Education of their youth, there is no reason 
 why the faithful Catholics of Ireland should not be treated in the same manner.” 
 
 His Grace the Protestant Lord Primate, therefore, entirely misrepre- 
 
37 
 
 sents, although unwittingly, I have no doubt, the demands which are 
 embodied in the recent Pastoral of the Catholic Hierarchy. 
 
 The Resolutions of the Presbyterian General Assembly, recently passed 
 in Belfast, similarly misrepresent the claims of the Catholic Bishops. One 
 of the Resolutions “ deprecates the proposal made by the Roman Catholic 
 Hierarchy of a separate grant, under their own irresponsible control” but 
 in so doing, it deprecates a proposal never made. 
 
 Another of the Resolutions of the Presbyterian General Assembly states 
 that “ Their Church has uniformly and invariably acted upon the*^sdn- 
 ciple of non- compulsion , since it was first planted in this country.” This 
 statement is not borne out by evidence ; on the contrary, the means for 
 its disproof are ample. W. D. Ferguson, LL.D., Q.C., in his Pamphlet, 
 “ National Education in Ireland — 1858,” states, after having, as Assistant- 
 Commissioner under the Endowed Schools’ Commission, inspected many 
 of the Presbyterian Schools, in Fermanagh, Donegal, Londonderry, and 
 Antrim ; 
 
 “ In the times of the Kildare-Place Society, the Presbyterians, certainly, had a 
 considerable number of Schools in its connection. They had also many Schools in 
 connection with the London Hibernian Society ; and the universal and compulsory 
 reading of the Bible was the rule in both Societies. In 1832, the Synod of Ulster 
 again declared that the Bible, unabridged, should be the basis of National Education ; 
 and, prior to 1835, the Presbyterian Body, in Ireland, does not appear to have made 
 any declaration in favour of this principle of non- compulsion” 
 
 Rev. Dr. Henry, President of the Queen’s College, Belfast, a Commis- 
 sioner of National Education, when under examination, before the Lords’ 
 Committee, in 1854, was examined by Right Rev. Dr. O’Brien, Protestant 
 Bishop of Ossory, in reference to the contradiction between old Presbyte- 
 rian practice and recent Presbyterian profession, when that Prelate thus 
 summarised Rev. Dr. Henry’s sworn evidence.: — 
 
 “ You have deprived yourself, by your connection with those Societies, in which the 
 Compulsory System was carried out, of the power of saying that the Compulsory rule 
 is contrary to Presbyterian principles ” 
 
 A sect whose apostle, Calvin, had Servetus burned, at a slow fire of 
 green faggots, on a charge of “Heresy and Blasphemy,” although he 
 merely professed to have studied the Scriptures, in the true Protestant 
 spirit, and found, therefrom, that our Saviour is not God; a sect whose 
 apostle inculcates the duty of the civil magistrate to punish for false doc- 
 trines; a sect that entraps thousands of Catholic children into their 
 National Schools, inveigles them into attendance at religious instruction, 
 contrary to that which their parents profess, and then boasts that non-com- 
 pulsion , or proselytising without physical violence, is their principle ; — 
 larceny, and not highway robbery ; coaxing the last loaf from the poor 
 man’s child, by the decoy of other willing children, and then pleading 
 non-compulsion, — this is the morality of the Ulster Calvinists. The de- 
 claration in their Resolution is false, and the History of their sect, from 
 Geneva to Belfast, contradicts it. 
 
 Whatever may be your own opinion, Sir, or that of the present Mi- 
 nistry, as to the extent to which the demands of the Catholic Prelates 
 should be yielded or resisted, time will reveal to you that no previous 
 agitation ever entered upon, in this country, has moved the Catholic con- 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 science, stirred up recollections which were better forgotten, or arrayed 
 the Irish millions in such deadly hostility to the Protestant Church Es- 
 tablishment, as would a refusal — which I cannot suppose — to concede 
 Free Education to the Catholics of Ireland. The Catholic and Liberal 
 Irish vote may determine the tenure of office of any Ministry, that 
 rejects the claims of Catholics, and, should any Catholic, or Liberal Mem- 
 ber act contrary to the feelings of the constituency which he professes 
 to represent, popular indignation will, I doubt not, consign him to merited 
 political annihilation. It was not Lord Grey’s Ministry, still less was it 
 Lord Stanley, who generously granted the Scheme of 183 1 ; it was the votes 
 of the honest farmers of Ireland, that extorted it from the Government. 
 
 In my next Letter, I shall bring under review some of the other lead- 
 ing abuses of the present National System, before entering upon the 
 mode by which the demands of the Catholic Hierarchy may be practically 
 conceded. — I have the honour to remain, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh. 
 
 11th October, 1859. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Sir — In my present Letter, I propose to point out some of the many 
 other evils, in the present system of Education, of which Catholics justly 
 complain. As I am anxious to close, for the present, this correspondence 
 with another Letter, I am obliged rather to indicate those abuses than to 
 enter into a minute exposure of each of them, a course the less necessary, 
 as I have, elsewhere, stated, at length, each of those matters of complaint. 
 First of these evils, in point of principle, is the Training and Instruction 
 of Catholic Teachers. Like other great Institutions, the Normal or 
 Training School for Teachers is Catholic, and existed in France long 
 before Pestallozzi was born. The Abbe de la Salle, founder of the 
 Christian Brothers, was known to fame before Bell, Lancaster, Stowe, 
 Wilderspin, or any British or Irish Educationist had appeared above the 
 horizon. It would be not only a waste of time, but it would be dis- 
 respectful to you,- Sir, to dwell upon the importance of the Training of 
 the Teacher. If the maxim, “ As the Teacher , so will be the School ,” be 
 true ; then, clearly, “ As the Trainer , so will be the Teacher , and thence 
 the School .” The Normal School is, therefore, the head and heart of 
 every system of Education. Whoever holds and directs that power, com- 
 mands the mind of the Nation. The Books are important, but their 
 living interpreter, the Teacher, is far more so. Evil in the Books might 
 be rendered comparatively innocuous ; the good in them might be per- 
 verted to evil. Under almost every system, the heads of the Normal 
 School are the authors of the Manuals of Method, and of most of the 
 works on Education. Stowe, in Glasgow ; Dunning, in the Borough 
 Road Schools ; M c Leod, in Chelsea ; Hughes, in Greenwich ; Tate, when 
 in Kneller Hall ; and, thus, in St. Mark’s, in Westminster, in White- 
 lands, and other Training Colleges, and Normal Schools, the Heads of 
 the Institutions are generally the authors of the Works upon Education, 
 
09 
 
 a result most natural, and most reasonable. They embody, in those 
 Manuals, their own views, the Lectures, which they are accustomed to 
 deliver, and the practices and methods, which they prescribe, that the 
 Teachers may have the Manuals by them, as works of reference. Soon 
 after the National System had been introduced, the new Commission 
 opened Model and Training Schools. The Resident Commissioner, Rev. Mr. 
 Carlisle, went to his Academy, on Ormond-quay, and turned in, therefrom, 
 his nephew, Dr. M‘ Arthur, and his other usher, Mr. Rintoul, both Scotch- 
 men and Presbyterians, to be heads of the Model School, for the Catholic 
 children of Dublin and the Catholic Teachers of Ireland. Kildare- street 
 Model School, from which the Catholic Clergy had withdrawn all their 
 Teachers, sent in two Heads, for the Female Department. In a little 
 time, an Infants’ Department was required, and Mr. Wilderspin, an 
 Englishman and a Protestant, who got charge of its organisation, 
 brought in his daughter and her husband, both English and Protes- 
 tants, as the sole teachers of 400 infants, over four-fifths of whom are 
 Catholics. Rev. Mr. Carlisle retired, owing to fiscal difficulties, of an 
 official kind ; and Dr. M' ‘Arthur, on having become insane, obtained a 
 pension from the Crown ; but, out of the 35 works published by the 
 Board, and now in use in the Irish National Schools, these two Scotch- 
 men wrote, compiled, or edited 21, that is, three-fifths of them. Of 
 these 21 volumes, 14 are upon Scripture, Sacred Poetry, History, 
 and English Literature. On the withdrawal of these two Scotchmen, 
 who had had chief charge of Didactics, or the art and science of Teaching, 
 Professor Sullivan, an Ulster Protestant, was appointed in their stead. 
 This gentleman, assisted by Mr. Rintoul, a Scotch Calvinist, has, for the 
 last twenty-one years, discharged the duties of the Professorship of Edu- 
 cation, filled by the Rev. Mr. Carlisle, and is Professor of History, English 
 Language, and Literature, Logic, Political Economy, and Geography — of 
 every moral subject in fact, in the Teachers’ Course of Study. The mathe- 
 matical and physical portions of the course are taught by Catholics. Pro- 
 fessor Sullivan, also, succeeds the Scotchmen in the monopoly of author- 
 ship. He has written or published three works on Education, and six 
 others on the English Language, Geography, and History. School- 
 mistresses, as well as Masters, are included in Professor Sullivan and Mr. 
 Rintoul’s classes, Mr. and Mrs. Young, English Protestants, have, for 21 
 years, had charge of hundreds of Catholic infants, and they, too, have 
 brought out the Manual of their System, for the use of Teachers. Rev. 
 Dean Dawes (of Hereford) has also contributed a work on Education, 
 which is on the Board’s List, and strongly recommended for Teachers. 
 This brief statement affords an incomplete idea of the sad position of the 
 normal establishment for Catholic Teachers, wdio form upwards of four- 
 fifths of the whole staff of the Irish National Schools. 
 
 Our Catholic Female Teachers are taught all the above-named moral 
 branches by Professor Sullivan, an Ulster Protestant, Mr. Rintoul, a 
 Scotch Calvinist, and Mr. and Mrs. Young, English Protestants. They 
 are taught Drawing, by an English Protestant ; Cutting out and plain 
 needle-work, by an English Protestant; Fancy work, by three Ulster 
 P resbyterians ; the House-Keeper, who superintends their domestic life, 
 
 4 B 
 
40 
 
 is a Protestant ; the Doctor is an Ulster Unitarian; the Dentist is a Pro- 
 testant ; the very Manual of Cookery and Domestic Thrift was written in 
 England, and by Protestants ; the sole Inspector of their Domestic Economy 
 and Life, was, up to a short time past, an Englishman, and a Protestant, 
 and has been succeeded, by two gentlemen, one of whom is an English- 
 man, and, of course, a Protestant. I feel, Sir, that I incur the risk of 
 exciting your secret contempt, for Irish Catholics, who, for 28 years, have 
 submitted to such a state of things. An Irish Catholic has only to cross 
 over to Liverpool, and then he will see, in vivid contrast, in the Female 
 Training College, under the Nuns of Notre Dame, the relative working of 
 the Irish Mixed, and the British Denominational Systems. Suffering 
 would appear to be the badge of all our tribe, so extend your pity, Sir, 
 to us, but your indignation to the shameless London Press, that grossly 
 abuses the highest and the holiest amongst us, because they demand the 
 British System, and threaten the destruction of the Irish, which has pro- 
 duced results such as I have detailed. Under the Kildare-Place Society 
 u our tyrants were,” at least, u our countrymen,” and, if such chains as 
 theirs failed to bind, what think you of the strength and durability of 
 those forged by Archbishop Whately, Bishop Higgin, Dean Dawes, Messrs. 
 Cross, Claridge, Wilderspin, and Young — all English — and Rev. Dr. Car- 
 lisle, and Messrs. M ‘Arthur, Rintoul, and others, Scotch Calvinists ? You, 
 now, can have no great difficulty, Sir, in understanding why non-Catholics, 
 the Church Education Society, and the Presbyterian General Assembly, 
 should support the Mixed System. 
 
 In 182 6, the Catholic Hierarchy unanimously declared to the Government : 
 
 “ That we consider it improper that Masters and Mistresses, intended for the Reli- 
 gious instruction of Roman Catholic youth, should be trained, or educated by, or 
 under the control of persons professing a different faith.” 
 
 In 1840, the Prelates, including Most Rev. Dr. Murray, then a Com- 
 missioner of National Education, unanimously passed the following Reso- 
 lution, which they submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant : — 
 
 “ That the Lecturer in the Model Schools, appointed to instruct the Roman Catho- 
 lic Teachers of National schools in the principles of Religion, Morals, or of History 
 (which is capable of being explained in an irreligious or offensive manner) should be 
 Roman Catholic.” 
 
 In 1841, the Holy See admonished the Bishops, on the same subject, 
 adding — 
 
 u For it is not fitting that a Catholic should be taught the method of giving instruc- 
 tion in Religion or Religious History by one who is not a Catholic.” 
 
 In 1850, the Council of Thurles re-affirmed this declaration, which 
 again appears in the recent Resolutions of the Catholic Prelates, and 
 forms a portion of the grounds upon which they are charged with 
 inconsistency, with advancing new and aggressive demands, and with 
 repudiating all state control in the matter of education. 
 
 Within the last ten years, a new and most serious evil has been brought 
 into action — namely, the extension of local Model Schools, throughout 
 the provinces. In brief, the State has turned Schoolmaster, in Ireland. 
 Under a Despotism, this would be reasonable and intelligible, but under 
 a Representative Government it is an invasion of civil right. Already 
 the State has erected large and numerous Schools, in twenty of the 82 
 counties of Ireland, and each year brings an extension of those establish- 
 
41 
 
 merits, the Schools in which now number about one hundred. That the 
 State should control the Army, the Navy, and the Police is just, but that 
 it should monopolise the education of the Freeholder, who determines the 
 Government, is unconstitutional, and dangerous to civil liberty. Within 
 the length and breadth of Great Britain, there is not one school, save 
 those connected with the Army and Navy, under the exclusive control of 
 the State. These Model Schools are being built in open defiance of the 
 strongest remonstrances of local feeling, and of the opposition of the Ca- 
 tholic Prelates. Sites have been selected and contracts entered into for the 
 erection of Model Schools in Enniscorthy, Sligo, Derry, and Cork, in 
 open contempt of the Bishops of those Dioceses. These establishments are 
 objectionable in the highest degree. Neither ecclesiastical nor local control 
 i of any kind, is recognized in them. The staff, in every instance, consist- 
 ing of a mixture of creeds, is appointed by the Board. In almost every 
 one of them the reprobated Scripture Lessons are read, and taught by 
 Protestants. About 2C0 Youths, called Pupil-Teachers, aged from 16 to 18 
 years, reside in them, as Boarding Schools, the resident Teachers and these 
 Youths being, in every instance, mixed ns to creed. Considering differ- 
 ence of circumstances, the bastardy and other grave immoralities in some 
 of the model schools as Coleraine, Clonmel, Dunmanway, Farrahy, Limerick, 
 and Glasnevin, are worthy of the worst days of the Charter schools. In 
 Galway the Presbyterian minister uses the Visitors’ Book to set forth con- 
 troversial diatribes against Catholics, in Ballymena, three of the Catholic 
 pupil teachers had to resign, to avoid dismissal, for refusal to use 
 some of Professor Sullivan’s books, which their spiritual director had 
 inhibited ; and in Belfast a brisk trade is attempted by Bev. Mr. 
 Prentice, lately an assistant-master in that very model school, who pro- 
 poses to buy up the souls of the Catholic boys, at the rate of 5s. a week 
 each.* In the Central Model, West Dublin, Limerick, Clonmel, Kilkenny, 
 Athy, Trim, Galway, Newry, Belfast, Ballymena, and Coleraine Model 
 Schools, the teachers of thousands of Catholic infants are Protestants and 
 Presbyterians. In brief, in the Model Schools, with their annexed Training 
 Departments, is concentrated every abuse that Catholics have alleged 
 against the Charter Schools, the Kildare Place Schools, the Queen’s Col- 
 leges, and Trinity College. The Lord Chancellor, in his address on Fri- 
 day last, when conferring Degrees upon the students of the Queen’s 
 University, clearly and distinctly stated, in your own hearing, Sir, that 
 the National Schools and the Queen’s Colleges are only different grades of 
 the same scheme, and pointed out how the connection might be drawn 
 still closer by the addition of classics to the course of study in the Model 
 Schools, which would thus make them feeders to the languishing Queen’s 
 Colleges. His Lordship is a Commissioner of the National Board, and 
 five other Members of that body were selected as Members of the Senate 
 of the Queen’s University. 
 
 Inspection forms the subject of another of the Resolutions of the Ca- 
 tholic Prelates. The objection made by the Hierarchy is not to State 
 
 * One of the Catholic Female Teachers of the Belfast Model School has just re- 
 nounced her Paith, and has become a Presbyterian. The public Press has given ex- 
 tracts from Whittaker's Goldsmith's History of England, prescribed for the use of 
 Catholic pupils in this Model School. 
 
Inspectors, as incorrectly represented by the Protestant Lord Primate, 
 and by all the anti- Catholic Press, but to Protestant Inspectors over Ca- 
 tholic Schools. Upwards of 21 years ago, in a letter to Lord John Rus- 
 sell, the Archbishop of Tuam, thus denounced this feature in the system : — 
 
 “ Had I been hitherto silent on this anti-National Board, the singular appointment 
 of twenty-five District Inspectors, of whom a majority, for Catholic Ireland, are 
 Protestants, should force from me the exposure of all its evils. What has any of your 
 Protestant Inspectors to do with the Catholic children of the province of Connaught, 
 for example, with whom there are scarcely any Protestants to mingle ? As your 
 ‘system is avowedly a mixed one, for a mixed population, its working cannot be 
 adapted to a country in which no such mixture is found. Does your Lordship se- 
 riously imagine that I shall permit that Board, or any such uncanonical body, to 
 send their Protestant missioners into the Schools of this Diocese, composed, exclu- 
 sively, of Catholic children, there to be in communication with them, and tainting 
 the simple purity of their Faith with the poison of the Books of Mr. Carlisle ?” 
 
 The Inspectors now number seventy, and while the number of pupils 
 is over five times that of the Protestants, less than half of the Inspectors are 
 Catholics. Some of the Inspectors are open and known infidels, some 
 are Apostates, some are Arians, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, 
 some Anglicans, and many are Freemasons. Nine of the Staff were taken 
 from the Queen’s Colleges. Almost all these men obtained their places 
 through political and official influence, without even the form of an exa- 
 mination, and numbers of them would fail to pass in the entire of the course 
 prescribed for Second Class Schoolmasters under them. As might be 
 expected — some from want of qualification, others from the corrupt 
 influence of the service — most of them are the mere creatures, and trem- 
 bling dependants of the Resident Commissioner, and of the Heads of 
 the Staff. The moral tone of the Institution may most easily be exempli- 
 fied by the following statement. After the publication of my Book, u The 
 Catholic Case Stated ,” instead of the Board giving an official and prompt 
 contradiction to any allegation in it, if such could be given, the Presby- 
 terian Head of the Inspection Department went off duty for some weeks, and 
 prepared the two Pamphlets which, doubtless, Sir, are in your hands, and 
 copies of one of which have been sent to every Patron of a National 
 School in Ireland. To defray the expenses of these publications, the fol- 
 lowing circular, soliciting subscriptions, was sent from the Education Office 
 to each of the Inspectors, and to the staff in all the Model Schools. For 
 your information I have added to the names the offices held by the 
 respective parties. 
 
 [May be returned to any of the parties named in List.] 
 
 THE ANTI-CALUMNY FUND. 
 
 Intended to give circulation to the refutation of misrepresentations published 
 against the Board and its officers. 
 
 1859. To the following Subscriptions 
 May. 
 
 Sullivan, Dr., Professor 
 
 . £1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Cross, M., Secretary, 
 
 Kelly, J., do 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 I 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Claridge, J., Accountant. 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 M‘Creedy, W., Chief of Inspection . 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Keenan, P. J., do 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Fleming, J. G., Head Inspector 
 Fitzgerald, Michael, Inspector. 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 f> 
 
 0 
 
 Rintoul, J., Asst. Professor 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 0 
 
43 
 
 O’Sullivan, Daniel, Assist. Professor . 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 0 
 
 Larkin, J., Head Master, Model Schools . 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 Young, T. U., Head Master of Infants’. School 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 Dunbar, H., Clerk 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 Additional Subscriptions in the Office 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 0 
 
 (Signed) . . W. M‘Creedy. 
 
 Men subscribed to this Fund who had never read The Catholic Case , and 
 almost all subscribed in utter ignorance of the contents of the publication, 
 the circulation of which they were called upon to promote. Inspectors 
 subscribed to it who, if examined on Oath, would be the best witnesses 
 to' prove the truth of every statement in the alleged misrepresentations. 
 Of the 13 names, Messrs. Cross, Claridge, and Young are English, Mr. 
 Rintoul, Scotch; we pay these gentlemen £2,100 a year, to help to civi- 
 lise us, and, as a just return, they vilify ourselves, our creed, and our 
 country. There are the names of five Catholics to this List, four of whom 
 had held situations under me, at least to two of these I rendered impor- 
 tant services towards their advancement, and some of the four have, them- 
 selves, repeatedly charged the administration of the System with many of 
 the grave abuses which I expose in my book. The Appeal being headed 
 by the Chiefs of all the Departments, most of the subordinates subscribed, 
 but Mr. Keenan and others omitted to state how deeply indebted to them 
 I stand for the best materials of my Book. The Fund was obtained 
 under false pretences, and misapplied ; no refutation of any statement in 
 my Book has as yet ? been published, and I doubt not that you, Sir, never 
 expect to see such a publication. 
 
 The control and influence of the Inspectors, over the Teachers and the 
 Schools, have, f»om year to year, been increasing, owing to a variety of 
 causes, and hence the necessity of saving the Schools from lapsing under 
 the direction of Protestant Inspectors. 
 
 To the following evils I can barely refer : — 
 
 1. Prohibition of all traces of the Symbolism of the Catholic Church 
 upon, within, or about Catholic Schools. The sign of the Cross, pictures, 
 statues, and religious emblems of every kind are banished. 
 
 2. The use of the sign of the Cross, even in silence, and mental prayer are 
 forbidden. Three National Schools at Phibsboro, the Cabra Convent School, 
 the Kells Convent School, the Sienna Convent School, the Goresbridge 
 Convent School, and other Schools have been struck off, or suspended, solely 
 on these grounds. These practices had been permitted up to Sept., 1853. 
 
 3. Monks’ Schools, save the five existing ones, are denied all aid, so 
 that the Christian Brothers’ Schools, if they would accept aid, could not 
 obtain it. Up to 1855, Monks’ Schools got grants. 
 
 4. New restrictions have been imposed, which prevent the spread of 
 Convent National Schools in large Cities, and the grants of Salary both to 
 Monks and Nuns are below the half of those given to ordinary teachers. 
 
 I shall not enter upon any of the other numerous grievances which the 
 System imposes, but proceed, in my next Letter, to point out how the 
 British System, demanded by the Catholic Prelates, may be extended to 
 Ireland. Upon one point, Sir, I pray you will take early precaution. 
 The Catholic people have no confidence whatever in Lord this, or Sergeant 
 that, or Master So-and-so, as Catholic Commissioners. They repudiate 
 
44 
 
 any representation of them which these gentlemen may assume. They 
 are not organs or agents of the Catholic body, nor do they possess their 
 confidence. If you really desire to approach the settlement of the Edu- 
 cation Question, I beg, most respectfully, to suggest that all Catholic 
 placemen, Catholic placehunters, and, especially, all Catholic lawyers, 
 save Baron Hughes, who knows something of the subject, be excluded 
 from your councils. I hope to have the honour to lay before you, on 
 Wednesday morning, the closing Letter of this Series, and remain, Sir, 
 your very obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh. 
 
 17th October, 1859. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Sir, — In my previous Letters I have gone into an examination of all 
 but two of the Resolutions contained in the Pastoral of the Catholic 
 Hierarchy, who, this day, re-assemble to consider your Reply, on behalf 
 of the Government, to the demands embodied in those Resolutions. The 
 Resolutions which yet remain to be noticed, are, that in reference to the 
 change made as to school-property, and that which condemns the constitu- 
 tion of the Board. From the introduction of the National System, in 
 Oct. 1831, up to 1845, the Board aided the erection of Schools, the sites, 
 fabrics, and property, in which were vested in local parties, who held it 
 in trust for the public. These parties, three for each school, were ap- 
 pointed by the Parish or district, and, in case of Catholic Schools, gene- 
 rally included one or two clergymen. The Trustees not only held the 
 title to the property , but they had the election of the Patron or Manager, 
 who appointed or removed the Teachers ; determined the Books, pre- 
 scribed the course of study, fixed the arrangements for Religious Instruc- 
 tion, and, in fine, was invested with the entire moral government of the 
 schools. In 1845, the Commissioners obtained a charter of Incorporation, 
 cancelled the Rule as to Local Trustees ; and refused further aid to erect 
 schools under that form of tenure. Since 1845, all aid to erect schools is 
 refused, unless the locality provides an eligible site, rent free, contributes 
 one-third of the entire cost of the fabric and fittings, and, then, vests the 
 property in the Commissioners, in their Corporate capacity. Further, 
 they generously offer to accept the transfer of the Leases and Trusts of all 
 schools erected before 1845, the consideration tendered being to keep them 
 in repair. In the case of all schools vested since 1845, the board claims 
 the right to appoint the patron, this being the clear object of the serious 
 change then introduced. Local Model Schools, another innovation upon 
 Lord Stanley’s scheme, which contemplated a central Model School only, 
 were, at the same time, introduced, and thus the Corporation laid the foun- 
 dation of the monopoly which, if unchecked, would, in a few years, place 
 the entire control of education in the hands of a Protestant Government. 
 The Queen’s Colleges were established, the system of Model Schools in- 
 troduced, and the property in the school fabrics handed over to the new 
 Corporation, at the same period, so that all we now want is Intermediate 
 Schools, arid, as the Lord Chancellor states, the Imperial scheme is com- 
 
45 
 
 plete. The only portrait in the National School books is that of the 
 Queen ; the only symbol on them that of the Crown ; the only subjects 
 excluded from their contents are Ireland and the Catholic Church ; it 
 needs but the official herald’s art to devise the educational livery from 
 the simple collar of the Monitor, in the village school, to the ornate robes 
 of the Minister of Public Instruction. 
 
 The Catholic Hierarchy, Sir, at once reclaimed against, and resisted this 
 invasion and usurpation of local rights, on the part of the Heads of the 
 new Charter Schools. In 1847, the Bishops condemned this aggression; 
 again, at the Council of Thurles, in 1850, so that in their recent Pastoral 
 they but reiterate their previous condemnation of this dangerous scheme. 
 
 The last of the Resolutions of the Prelates, now to be noticed, is that 
 which refers to the Constitution of the Commission. The only Census of 
 Population, by Religious Persuasions, taken in Ireland, was that in 1884 ; 
 and, assuming that the relative proportion of the several denominations 
 remains unaltered, the Population of Ireland stands thus : — 
 
 Catholics 
 
 Established Church 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 Dissenters 
 
 4,854,780 
 
 643,456) 
 
 485,264 > 1,145,220 
 16,500) 
 
 Total *6,000,000 
 
 The Last Report of the National Board (1857) returns the gross num- 
 ber of pupils who had passed under instruction, in the National Schools, 
 in the year 1857, as 776,473, or rather over one-eiglith of the entire popu- 
 lation. A recent Parliamentary Return (Mr. Monsell’s) gives the propor- 
 tion of pupils of different creeds, so that, distributing those pupils, in the 
 same proportion, we find that there are in the entire of the 5,335 Na- 
 tional Schools : — 
 
 Pupils. 
 
 Catholics 656,120 
 
 Presbyterians 77,647) 
 
 Established Church 39,600 > 120,353 
 
 Dissenters 3,106) 
 
 Total ..... 776,473 
 
 The following comparison of the proportion of the numbers of the 
 several religious persuasions, in the general population, with the propor- 
 tion of the numbers of the several religious persuasions, amongst the 
 pupils in the National Schools, shows that, although not necessarily in 
 the same schools, there is full representation of all non-Catholic Persua- 
 sions in the aggregate of schools connected' with the National Board : — 
 
 Religious Persuasion. 
 
 Proportion in each 1,000 of the 
 
 General Population. 
 
 Pupils in Nat. Schools. 
 
 Catholics .... 
 
 . 809 
 
 . 845 
 
 Established Church 
 
 • v • 81 ) 
 
 . 100) 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 . 107>- 191 
 
 . . 51 > 155 
 
 Dissenters .... 
 
 . . . 3) 
 
 . . 4) 
 
 *This Table was inaccurate in the original Letter ; the items are now correct. 
 
46 
 
 The Protestant Dissenters have, above their full proportion of pupils, 3 
 in 1,000 ; fhe Established Church have somewhat less than half of their’s, 
 or 51 in 1,000 ; the Presbyterians exceed their’s by one-fourth, or, instead 
 of 81, fully 100 in 1,000; and Catholics have 845, or 36 in 1,000, 
 among the pupils of the National Schools, more than their proportion in 
 the General Population. 
 
 The next religious element, in importance, after the pupils, is that of 
 the Teachers, whose creeds may be thus exhibited : — 
 
 Teachers. 
 
 
 
 Proportion for 1,000. 
 
 
 Catholics 
 
 Presbyterians 
 
 1,142) 
 
 7,408 
 
 113) 
 
 805 
 
 Established Church 
 
 578 V 
 
 1,799 
 
 79 V 
 
 195 
 
 Dissenters . 
 
 79) 
 
 3) 
 
 
 Total . 
 
 • 
 
 9,207 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 Of the 5,335 National Schools, 341 only are under Joint or Mixed . Pa- 
 trons, and* these few consist chiefly of Workhouse Schools, under Boards 
 of Guardians, and of Model Schools, under the Commissioners of Na- 
 tional Education. At the Lords’ Inquiry, in 1854, the Earl of Derby 
 was astounded, on learning that, after 23 years’ trial of the united system, 
 there were only 48 Ordinary Schools under united or joint Management, 
 and still more, on learning, from Mr. Cross, that these 48 Schools gave 
 so much trouble, owing to contention between the Patrons, that should 
 the number of such schools, unfortunately, increase, the administration 
 of the system could not be carried on. The 4,994 Schools, under single , 
 or individual Managers, are thus classed, as to the creed of the Patrons. 
 
 
 Schools. 
 
 Proportion per 1,000. 
 
 Under Catholic Patrons 
 
 
 3,683 
 
 
 737 
 
 ,, Presbyterians . 
 
 688) 
 
 
 137) 
 
 
 „ Established Church . 
 
 597 V 
 
 1,311 
 
 120 V 
 
 263 
 
 „ Dissenters 
 
 26) 
 
 
 6) 
 
 
 Total .... 
 
 • 
 
 4,994 
 
 
 1000 
 
 The Catholic Patrons are at the rate of five Clerical to one lay Patron ; 
 the Presbyterians, nine Clerical to five lay Patrons ; the Established 
 Church, 3-| lay, to one Clerical Patron ; and the Dissenters, six lay to 
 one Clerical Patron. This statement, Sir, must make it clear to you that 
 the declaration of the Catholic Prelates finally decides the fate of the so- 
 called National System, as no less than 3,385, or 68 per cent, of the 
 Schools are under the control of Catholic clergymen. 
 
 The statistical summaries, now set forth, as to the Religious Census of 
 the whole Nation, of the pupils in the National Schools, of their Teachers, 
 and of the Management of the Schools, were necessary, in order to enable 
 you to understand the monstrous injustice of the Constitution of the Com- 
 
47 
 
 mission. The number of attendances at Meetings by the Members in three 
 years, ending July, 1858, are as follows 
 
 
 No. of Commissioners. 
 
 ' ' No. of attendances at 
 Meetings. 
 
 Catholics 
 
 Established Church .... 
 Presbyterians and Unitarians 
 
 Total 
 
 6 
 
 a} 9 
 
 240 
 
 l\l } 1 - 129 
 
 15 
 
 1,369 
 
 The Catholic pupils constitute upwards of four - fifths of the pupils ; the 
 Catholic Commissioners only taw-fifths of the Board, but make less than 
 on^-fifth in the attendances at the meetings. Lord Bellew attends one 
 Meeting, out of each 100 ; Sir T. Redington, 4 ; Sergeant O’Hagan, 7 ; 
 Very Rev. Dean Meyler and Master Murphy, 8 each ; and Mr. O’Ferrall, 
 15, out of every 100 meetings. The Resident Commissioner attended 
 579, out of 584 Meetings ; the three Presbyterians made 348 attend- 
 ances, the six Catholics 240 ; and out of the 1,369 gross attendances made 
 by all the Commissioners, the four Belfast gentlemen made 897 of them. 
 Some of the Catholic Commissioners know nothing, others care nothing, 
 others are too perverse to try and learn anything, of the System which 
 they are supposed to administer. One and all, they have lost the confi- 
 dence of the Catholic Body, having neglected and abused one of the 
 highest trusts which could be committed to men. Either they took active 
 part in the subversion of the system in 1840, and 1847, or, when they 
 learned that it had taken place, they never protested against it. They 
 authorise the largest scheme of proselytising the children of the Catholic 
 poor, and suppress and mutilate the Reports which would expose it. 
 They left Mrs. Ridley in Ballindine, and leave Rev. Mr. Prentice in their 
 Belfast Model School, to traffic in souls not less precious in their Maker’s 
 eyes than those of Catholic Commissioners. They are “ enemies to the 
 Cross of Christ,” and deprive of state aid the poor Nuns in Cabra, in 
 Kells, in Goresbridge, in Drogheda, and the Teachers in Phisboro’, who 
 inculcate the doctrine and practice, as to the “ Sign of the Cross,” which 
 is as ancient as the Apostles. They prohibit grants to those good men, 
 the Christian Brothers, who impart the best education afforded in Ireland. 
 Catholic Commissioners invade the very episcopal seats in Derry, Cork, 
 Sligo, and Enniscorthy, there to erect State Schools in open contempt of 
 the authority of the Bishops of those Sees. Such men, Sir, can be of no 
 use to you, at this crisis. That Catholics could be found to remain on the 
 Board, after the recent solemn and unanimous condemnation of the Sys- 
 tem, but increases the hostility of healthy Catholic opinion against the 
 whole scheme. However estimable their personal character, the Catholic 
 Members of the National Board are, this day, in the position pf u false 
 brethren,” and in an attitude of opposition to the whole Episcopacy of 
 the Catholic Church, in Ireland. 
 
 The Catholic Hierarchy justly, therefore, condemns the Constitution of 
 the Commission. A Scotch Presbyterian Minister was taken out of his 
 
48 
 
 little Academy on Ormond Quay, and, from 1831 to 1839, and charged 
 with the duties of sole Resident Commissioner, the Professorship of Edu- 
 cation, and the Authorship and compilation of the Books for the Catholic 
 millions of Ireland. The chief Clerk in your office, Sir, a Scot in blood, 
 an Englishman in education and feeling, and a Protestant in creed, to 
 which his family had only recently conformed — was appointed his succes- 
 sor, and thus, for 28 years, has the chief direction of the system been 
 confided to anti- Catholic and alien hands. To the Resident Commissioner 
 is entrusted the selection of the Inspectors and Chief Officers, and Ulster, 
 the Queen’s Colleges, and apostates enjoy a monopoly of his patronage. 
 A Parliamentary Return, ordered through Mr. Monsell, shows that of 1 1 7 
 officers stated as having £100 a year, or upwards, 29, or one-fourth of 
 them, are natives of Antrim, Down, and Derry, and these enjoy 
 £10,000 a-year, or nearly half of the aggregate salaries, which amount 
 to £24,000. The Resident Commissioner’s own county, Antrim, supplies 
 5 of the 15 Commissioners, the sole Chief of Inspection (for the past four 
 years,) 2 of the 6 Head Inspectors, the Chief Agricultural Inspector, and 
 8 of the 60 District Inspectors. England and Scotland supply seven officers, 
 who enjoy joint salaries of £2,650 a-year, whilst the province of Con- 
 naught is represented by three officers ; one, an apostate, who is one of 
 the chief clerks ; one, a Presbyterian ; and one, a Catholic, who is an in- 
 spector of the lowest rank, with £275 per annum, and even he is a 
 Queen’s College man. If time permitted, Sir, I would lay before you 
 numerous examples of official corruption, and of public depravity, paral- 
 lels for which you might, in vain, seek amongst the darkest records of the 
 Civil Service. The grounds in Marlborough- street, and the closets of 
 Tyrone House, are public marts, where a trade is driven scarcely less re- 
 volting than that in the auction saloons of the Carolinas ; two articles 
 only never obtain a bid, much less a buyer — genuine Catholicity, and 
 pure patriotism. Whatever cause may be assigned for the failure of the 
 Queen’s Colleges, whether the Religious Revivals, or the want of Gram- 
 mar Schools, it is certain that it is not the fault of Tyrone House that 
 Sir Robert Kane had only one solitary student to present, last week, for 
 the degree of B.A., as the National Board showers its Inspectorships, and 
 other lucrative offices, upon his alumni , from whom it does not exact even 
 correct orthography, but leaves them to learn to spell from the young 
 urchins in the National Schools, over which they are placed. 
 
 I have now,' Sir, considered, seriatim , all the Resolutions in the Pastoral 
 of the Catholic Hierarchy, proving, beyond the power of dispute that 
 they are an understatement of the evils and abuses to which they refer, 
 and I shall next address myself, in the brief space open to me, to the 
 only remedy which will satisfy the religious conscience of Catholics, in 
 this grave matter. 
 
 To remedy the evils, pointed out in their Resolutions, the Catholic 
 Bishops demand the extension to Ireland of the British, or Denominational 
 System. They suggest no untried scheme ; they propose no new theory ; 
 they ask for nothing for Catholics that has not already been granted to 
 members of every phase of Christianity, to Jews, to Mahometans, and 
 even to Heathens. The Denominational System has been in operation in 
 
0 
 
 Great Britain since 1839, and, under it, since 1849, Catholics have ac- 
 cepted grants. The Denominational System exists in the two Canadas, 
 in Newfoundland, in Australia, Tasmania, and India, where Mahommedan 
 and Heathen Schools enjoy, free from religious interference, the grants- 
 in-aid voted for Separate Education. Some years since, the Church Edu- 
 cation Society, in Ireland, took steps towards affiliating themselves with the 
 British system, in order to share in the aid which it affords. Under the 
 British Denominational System, Catholics have secured to them absolute 
 Episcopal control in all religious matters ; freedom, as to the choice of 
 Books; freedom as to the choice of Teachers, subject, however, to ex- 
 amination as to literary fitness ; freedom, as to the Training of their own 
 Teachers ; security, that there shall be none but Catholic Inspection ; 
 Episcopal veto, to exclude, at any time, even Catholic Inspectors, if dis- 
 approved ; and security, as to the property in School sites, and the 
 fabrics raised on them, the only condition imposed being the right of 
 State supervision, to see that a fair amount of secular, or literary instruc- 
 tion is successfully imparted, and that a certain proportion of local funds 
 shall be raised and expended, upon the Teaching Staff and upon the ma- 
 terial wants of the School, The great religious bodies in England, 
 Wales, and Scotland — the Established Church, Dissenters, Catholics, 
 Jews, Established Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, and 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church — all accept aid under the Denomina- 
 tional System. It is beyond the power of any Government to continue to 
 refuse, upon grounds either of principle or of expediency, the demand to 
 have the same system extended to Ireland. The Mixed System has been 
 tried, and with invariable failure, throughout all the British Colonies. It 
 has failed in the United States, failed in Germany, failed in Austria, 
 failed in Belgium. France grants aid to separate Schools, for her small 
 Protestant population, and the Lutherans and Calvinists of Hungary enjoy 
 absolute control over their own Schools in the Catholic Empire of Aus- 
 tria. The demand made by the Catholic Hierarchy, is not on the part of 
 a minority, but on behalf of upwards of five of nearly six millions of the 
 Irish Nation. It is a demand made, not for one, of two untried Systems, 
 but, one system having been tried for forty years with results, such as to 
 render it revolting to religious conscience, and dangerous to civil liberty, 
 another tried System is asked, as that alone under which Catholics can 
 receive a safe education. 
 
 The change demanded is not, Sir, a change of administration, but a 
 radical change of system. It is not a change of captain and crew, but a 
 change of ship. No amount of nautical science, no skill in seamanship 
 could induce Catholics to again venture in a crazy bark, in which they 
 have been so often wrecked, that the underwriters would not insure her, 
 and which those navigators in whom they implicitly confide pronounce to 
 be not sea- worthy. I can scarcely credit, therefore, that you should, Sir, 
 so totally misunderstand the nature of the demand made by Catholics, as 
 to propose, as is reported, that the present Resident Commissioner should 
 withdraw to the Glens of Antrim, on his full salary — to which I make no 
 objection — and that some Catholic Barrister should occupy Tyrone 
 
50 
 
 House, as his successor. It is to the System , Sir, that we mainly object, 
 and not alone to its administration. Can a lay Catholic, because he gets 
 £1,000 a year, remove the gravest evils, which a Catholic Archbishop, 
 a Catholic Bishop, a Catholic Dean, and seven Catholic gentlemen of 
 station, in 28 years, failed to prevent ? While tens of thousands of Ca- 
 tholic children are being proselytised, in Protestant National Schools, 
 what is it to the Catholic body who occupies Tyrone House? While 
 nearly 100,000 Catholic children are deprived of the right to receive Re- 
 ligious Instruction in National Schools save from Protestants, what does 
 it concern Catholics whether the £1,000 goes into the pocket of a Mac- 
 donnell or of a Kavanagh ? The Earl of Derby, so late as March 1858, 
 thus deplored the subversion of the system founded by himself : — 
 
 “ I regret that in so large a portion of the schools, support has been given to the 
 arguments of those [Protestants] opposed to them, and that, in fact, in the great hulk 
 of the schools , contrary to the intention oj those who originally proposed the System , 
 there not only is no Religious Instruction given, but no jacilities even are given for 
 Separate Religious Instruction, by the Ministers of different persuasions, out of 
 school hours.” 
 
 In the face of the Resolutions of the Presbyterian General Assembly, and 
 of the* Church Education Society, be so good, Sir, as to point out how the 
 nomination of the whole of the Catholic Episcopacy upon the Board could 
 restore Lord Stanley’s original system, without driving out every Pro- 
 testant from its ranks. All these attempts to meet the difficulty are idle ; 
 the system falls . Granted, even, that it were possible to restore the origi- 
 nal System, from experience of the past, it is clear that Catholics could 
 never accept such a scheme. The Catholic Prelates and the Government 
 have, therefore, but a single issue to determine. You either concede or 
 refuse the extension of the British System to Ireland. If you concede it, 
 which I earnestly hope, already the Schools are practically denomina- 
 tional throughout three of the provinces, and in these it will necessitate 
 little change. In Ulster the Schools are largely mixed, as to the creed of 
 the pupils, and there only would much change be necessary. If you re- 
 fuse, the Bishops have the following means of coercion open to them : — 
 
 1. Immediate withdrawal of all Catholic Teachers, by direction of the 
 Patrons of their Schools, from the Central Training Department, and of 
 Catholic Pupil-Teachers from the District Model Schools. 
 
 2. Immediate withdrawal of all Catholic Pupils from the Central Model, 
 and from every Model School in Ireland, under the direct control of the 
 Board. 
 
 8. Withdrawal of Catholic Pupils from allJSchools under non-Catholic 
 Management. 
 
 These three measures do not involve the loss of one shilling to Catholic 
 Patrons, Teachers, or Pupils, nor the cessation of connection with the 
 Board. 
 
 4. Catholic parents to instruct their children not to answer, speak to, or 
 hold intercourse with Protestant Inspectors in the School. 
 
 5. Introduction of some simple and uniform Catholic practice in the 
 Schools, such as the hourly use of the Sign of the Cross, with a short 
 
 \ mental prayer, as practised by the Christian Brothers, or of any Catholic 
 symbol. 
 
51 
 
 6. General withdrawal of all the Schools from under the Board, as a 
 final measure . 
 
 The political agencies by which your Government would be compelled 
 to grant the demands of the Prelates are simple — 
 
 1. Parochial and County Meetings. 
 
 2. The Press and Public Lectures. 
 
 3. Petitions. 
 
 4. A Central Organization in Dublin. 
 
 5. Solemn pledge by the Catholic and Liberal Voters, in every parish 
 and Town, to vote against every Candidate who will not use all legitimate 
 opportunities to eject from Office any and every Ministry that refuses to 
 concede Free Catholic Education. 
 
 At this solemn moment I declare, before the assembled Bishops of my 
 Church, before my country, and the Government, my deep conviction, 
 that the acceptance of any terms other than Denominational Grants, 
 would be perilous to Catholic interests, and would bring future pain and 
 sorrow to those who would be parties to such acceptance. In accepting 
 the British System, Catholics would accept its principle only, and could 
 accommodate its details to the circumstances of the country. 
 
 If I have, Sir, in any degree, thrown new light upon, or in any way 
 simplified, Catholic demands, so far as it is open to any one to read them, 
 in the Resolutions of the Catholic Hierarchy, I shall feel no regret at 
 having taken the liberty, and done myself the honour of addressing these 
 hastily drawn up letters to you. For the statements and opinions in them 
 I alone am responsible, as no person, lay or clerical, has suggested their 
 preparation, or offered any advice as to their matter. — I have the honour 
 to remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, 
 
 James W. Kavanagh. 
 
 19th October, 1859. 
 
 * 
 
In the Press , 
 
 PEOPLE’S EDITION 
 
 OF 
 
 “THE CATHOLIC CASE 
 
 OR, 
 
 PRINCIPLES, WORKING, AND RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL 
 SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN IRELAND”. 
 
 In Ten Weekly Parts , at 4 d. each . 
 
 “THE CATHOLIC CASE, 
 
 AND ITS 
 
 CATHOLIC ADVOCATE 
 
 VINDICATED”. 
 
 BEING A REPLY TO PUBLICATIONS BY 
 
 THE NATIONAL BOARD, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO THAT WORK. 
 
 Price One Shilling . 
 
 “ARITHMETIC; 
 
 ITS 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE”. 
 
 STATED 
 
 Fifth Edition . Price Two Shillings. $ 
 
 On the Privy Council List, in England ; used in the Catholic University, and in the 
 Catholic Colleges and Schools of Ireland and of the Colonies.