66

clergymen of that town, on what grounds it is needless to enquire. Everyone does not know but it is a fact, that Fishbourne subscribes to the "Irish Church Missions Society." People are generally rather anxious to ensure the success of an undertaking which they are so much interested as to give their money. Is it probable then that a person desirous for the success of a society, which has for its object the extirpation of "Romanism," would afford every facility to parents desirous of removing children from the schools under the direction of that Society, and placing them in establishments in which are taught those principles, which it is his desire to eradicate? Tacitus tells us that the sons inherited the quarrels and friendships of their fathers, and were bound to carry on hostility until the original cause of offence was wiped out." If to the original cause of dispute were added any personal impulse as a declaration of war by the nation of the offended against that of the offenders, with what vindictiveness would not the former pursue the enemy. Now this is just the position of Fishbourne; to his hereditary grudge is added the inducement of the Missionary Society. We cannot now help these things, but our readers will see what was the result. The duties of the Commissioners were very various, their power extensive. The object for the attainment of which they were associated, was the only limit to their authority. We need not enter into an analysis of what, under the warrent they were bound to do; it is expressed with sufficient clearness in the above quoted extract. The only point to which we shall at present direct our readers' attention, is the clause by which the Commissioners. are required to report to her Majesty "all and every of the several proceedings of yourselves had by virtue of these presents." The clause is in the following words :

"And our further will and pleasure is, that you or any three or more of you, when and so often as need or occasion shall require, so long as this our Commission shall continue in force, do report to us in writing, under your hands and seals respectively, all and every of the several proceedings of yourselves had by virtue of these presents, together with such other matters, if any, as may be deserving of our Royal consideration, touching or concerning the premises."

How they have complied with this part of their duties, we know not, but if the report which the public was permitted to see be the report which was presented to her

Majesty, we must say that we do not think that "all and every are faithfully related, and we fear that those noblemen and gentlemen who signed that report, had very little regard for truth. If the appendix be, as it is said to be, a verification of the Report, then the Report proves "Dr. Cullen's" charges; if the appendix is not intended to verify the Report, then the report, as far as relates to "Dr. Cullen's" charges, is a tissue of falsehood, for every material assertion, in denial of "Dr. Cullen's" statements, contained in the report, is contradicted by the appendix. This, it will be our business to examine and prove; but before taking up the Charge and its Refutation, we must be permitted to refer to a conversation which is reported to have taken place in the House of Lords, in April last, on a motion by the Duke of Norfolk, for the production of papers in reference to the management of the Patriotic fund. The Duke moved an address to her majesty, for-1. A copy of correspondence relating to the case of Mrs. Rosina Bennet and her children. 2. A copy of the minute, with date when passed, by which the form of application, appendix 14, was first adopted, (this is the form signed by Mrs. Norris, acknowledging that she knew the teaching of the Hampstead school to be Protestant.) 3. A copy of a minute, by which pecuniary provisions was made to meet the case of those Roman Catholic mothers, who objected to sending their children to mixed schools. The next, which we give in full, contains the real git of the motion:

"4 Return of all publications or recommendations to the commissioners for the admission or transfer of children of non-commissioned officers and privates to any schools or asylums, or for placing such children under charge of any persons other than their mothers, with date when such application was received, and the name of the person who made it, together with the names, regiments and religious persuasions of the surviving mothers; and stating, further, the decisions of the commissioners or their committee, on such applications, with date thereof; and date at which each child was placed in or transferred to any such school or asylum, or placed under any such temporary guardian, and the religious teaching used in such institution, school or asylum, or the religion professed by such guardian."

This was a fair challenge; it amounted to this: "I have had what to my mind seems reasonable ground for suspecting that this great National fund, this noble charity intended for the benefit of all, has been perverted to the destruction of some;

under that impression I have made certain statements, these statements you in your report deny. I now call upon you to produce your proofs. Archbishop Cullen labours under a similar impression; I may say a large portion of the Roman Catholic subjects of this empire feel very grave doubts as to the impartial administration of this fund. Produce these correspondences, remove the misapprehensions under which a large portion of the public labours, and thus re-establish that confidence in the integrity of your conduct, upon which the efficiency of your body, and that of other bodies to whom the management of similar charities may hereafter be entrusted, mainly depend." Was there anything exacting in that demand, anything unreasonable in thus affording an opportunity to the Commissioners of freeing themselves from the foul imputations under which they lay, and still continue to lie? Had it not been done, what an outcry would there not have been raised; and when the demand is made let us see how it is met. It is really sickening, nor can we understand how men with a spark of honesty, not to speak of honour, con go on canting in such an absurd and humbugging manner, about "public object," "a public object." Is it not a public object well deserving attention to rescue from odium honored names? Is it not well to prove that a public body, against which charges of misappropriation have been brought, supported by evidence sufficiently strong to call for enquiry, is free from all taint of corruption? Had a charge of a similar character been brought against a commercial firm, even by persons who had no direct present interest in the concern, would not these charges be thoroughly sifted, every means adopted to prove the accusation false, and if the accused were innocent, no efforts spared to drag the slanderer to justice. So do not the Commissioners act : crouching behind the barriers of form and public advantage, they seek to escape from the just animadversion which their conduct has deserved. But let them not hope thus to hide their shame; time will show forth, more and more each day, the wrong they have done, and will bring with it their punishment for time is an avenger. Lord Derby is reported to have said, that it was not fair to ask the government to lay on the table at great expense, five or six bulky volumes, in regard to what had not occurred in a government office. Our answer is the Duke's motion was for an address to her Majesty, praying that she would order a report upon the subjects mentioned, to be laid on the table. The expense of such a report would

be defrayed out of the Patriotic fund, and would cost nothing to the country. But even did it, we can assure the noble Earl that there never was better money expended than the sum which might be requisite to allay the public suspicion and remove the public distrust; always supposing the commissioners guiltless; if they be not, it is better to leave matters as they stand. With regard to Lord St. Leonard's statements we shall merely say, that his observations only prove that he talks a great deal about a matter in regard to which he is very illinformed. The most interesting feature of the debate on the motion was the tone that was adopted by Lord Camoys; we give his sentiments in full:

"Lord Camoys had thought it possible that in the multitude of cases there might have been some mistakes made in sending Roman Catholic children to Protestant schools; but he never thought they had been sent with a view to proselytism. He felt bound now to say that the accusations made against the commissioners had been completely and satisfactorily answered—(hear, hear)—and that the accusations of proselytism might rather have come from the other side (hear, hear). It appeared that in one of the cases the commissioners told the mother that the child would be brought up as a Protestant in the school she wished it to be sent to, and that she had, notwithstanding, persisted in her desire.”

With what pleasure the lords heard this statement we may guess by the applause with which it was received-how the hereditary legislators must have sneered at the little-minded liberality of self-sufficient ignorance. We shall not criticize these observations: there are some persons beneath contempt,we pity and forgive them. Let us however see whether we may not be able to furnish a more plausible, because the real reason why the fourth return was refused, and this will bring us to our subject "The Charge and its Refutation." It will be in the recollection of our readers that in the former paper on this subject we informed them how exactly matters stood when his Grace published his letter to Lord St. Leonards. We shall now briefly state the two questions between the parties. They include the others with regard to matters of detail we shall in the course of this paper take notice of them, but we think an undue prominence has been given to them, as will ever be the case when the material charges cannot be met and denied. A great deal of capital has been sought to be made out of Hort's case, but the venom of that sting has been completely destroyed by the straightforward manner in which "Dr. Cullen" has acknowledged his mistake. Had the Commissioners but

half his Grace's fairness, it is not a report like the present we would be obliged to read. It is a remarkable feature in this report that when the Commissioners uudertake anything they invariably succeed; if they answer a charge they refute it, but if the Archbishop reiterates his accusation, it appears to the Commissioners that "his attempts to substantiate the charges have altogether failed." This reminds us of that ingenious method of playing "pitch and toss" which a smart boy endeavoured to introduce, and by which had he succeeded in establishing his system, he would have amassed immense wealth it was this, "heads I win, tails you lose."

The two great questions are, first, "Was there proselytism, or was such a line of conduct pursued as would lead an unprejudiced person to entertain a suspicion of attempts at proselytism?"

Second, "Was the residue fund disposed of in a way of which Catholics could approve ?"

The first charge is, "that Catholic clergymen in Dublin applied to the managers of the fund in favor of the widows and orphans of soldiers killed in the Crimea; yet as far as I could learn, not one shilling was then obtained by such application." The Report answers, "there have been only two such applications from Dublin and both have been granted." If this statement be as true as the one by which the same charge is answered by Fishbourne we can fully estimate its value. In the "memorandum" he says: "Individual applications on behalf of widows have been it is true made by Roman Catholic clergymen, and have invariably received the same attention as those made by others (in proof of which we beg to refer to the letter of Canon Grimley which was allowed to remain unanswered from the 25th of March, to the 20th of April, the interval being consumed in doing the wrong against which he had protested and when an answer did come it was couched in most insolent language.) These applications are filed in the office, and if any proof were wanted of the impartiality of the distribution it would be found in the fact that it is entirely out of the power of the executive committee to distinguish Protestants from Roman Catholics unless the religion be supposed from the position of the gentleman attesting the widow's applications; but no record of such distinction in religion or country is kept in the office."

If the applications be filed surely they are a record. Besides supposing the religion not distinctly mentioned, according to