'vote for education without religion' should be placed on his banner, and that schools entirely secular should be established by the state." Sir Robert Peel thus spoke: "I am for a religious, as opposed to a secular, education. I do not think that a secular education would be acceptable to the people of this country. I believe, as the noble Lord (John Russell) has said, that such an education is only half an education, but with the most important half neglected.”

Need we add anything to these observations. Surely nothing can be more conclusive. And the necessity of a religious education being admitted, the question arises, does the term "religious education" apply to every other sect, and exclude only the members of the Catholic persuasion. We apprehend that such a distinction was never contemplated by the legislature, for in the measure which gave rise to the above quoted speeches, the rights of the Catholics are fully recognised. The teaching in their schools, endowed by this act, is Catholic, and everything connected with the system Catholic. Yet in this great public body, acting under the sanction of a royal commission, the rights of the Catholic children of Catholic soldiers are disregarded. It is a principle of the constitution that the child should be brought up in the religion of the father, but notwithstanding this well-established rule, the children of poor Catholic soldiers are seized upon by the proselytizing agents of the commissioners, and compelled either to forfeit all chance of protection or abandon their faith. Such is the fate which England has ordained for the children of those brave soldiers who have shed their blood in copious streams to defend her empire, increase her dominion, and exalt her power. The letter of his Grace the Archbishop, above quoted, drew forth from Lord St. Leonards a statement, in the form of a note, addressed to the Editor of the Times, and published in that influential and authoritative journal. This statement attributes to the Archbishop, notwithstanding his Grace's express declaration to the contrary, a desire to "induce Roman Catholics to withhold their aid from the Relief Fund for the sufferers in India." Lest we might inadvertently omit any material part of this statement, we give his lordship's letter in extenso:

SIR,

To the Editor of the Times.

I have just read with much surprise and regret the contents of a letter in your journal of this morning, written by Archbishop Cullen, dated from Rome, and addressed to one of his vicars-general, with the object, as it seems, of inducing Roman Catholics to withhold their aid from the Relief Fund for the sufferers in India. If he really believes that there is danger that the fund may be applied by bigots to proselytizing purposes,' his better course would be to raise by the subscriptions of Roman Catholics a separate fund for the relief of the sufferers of their own persuasion, in that respect following apparently the example of a higher authority in the Roman Catholic Church. But could anything be more unwise? Is this a moment to add a drop to the cup of bitterness between the two churches? The heart of every man beats warmly in favour of our suffering and brave soldiers and fellow-subjects in India, without reference to creed. I cannot believe that any subscriber has considered whether his dona. tion will relieve a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. The Sultan of Turkey has set us an example in his munificent subscription which may make us Christians ashamed of insisting upon differences between our churches as a ground for not subscribing to the general fund. Roman Catholic equally with Protestant blood has been freely shed with a noble daring in defence of our sovereignty in the East. Christians of all denominations have suffered torture and death in their most savage forms, and the object of the subscribers is to alleviate the suffering of those who survive. It is treason to humanity to suppose that the fund will not be honestly dedicated to the sacred surposes for which it is designed. Still, I should not have felt it my duty to make any remark on Dr. Cul en's letter, had he abstained from attacking the management of the Patriotic Fund as regards the widows and orphans of Roman Catholic soldiers during the period I had the honor of being chairman of the executive and finance committee. According to his statement, applications were made by Catholic clergymen of Dublin to the manager of the fund, in favor of the widows and orphans of soldiers killed in the Crimea, yet, as far as he could learn, not one shilling was then obtained by such applications. Now, I assert that no application for the relief of any widow or orphan of a soldier killed in the Crimea was ever rejected or neglected, although I think it probable that applications by Roman Catholic clergymen of Dublin for money to be remitted to them for distribution by them among claimants of their own creed were not complied with. But I say, without fear of contradiction, that in distributing relief no question ever arose as to the religious persuasion of the claimant, except so far as to make the mode of payment as agreeable as it might be to the recipient. Archbishop Cullen then states that when relief was granted in Dublin, a parson was always employed to administer it, and he had heard that he generally selected a Protestant church or vestry as the place of doling it out. I never heard, during the many months of my attendance on the duties of my office as chairman of the committee, any complaint of the manner

of the distribution, and the payments were made by the paymasters of pensions wherever their services could be obtained, and always so as to meet the convenience of the claimants as far as might be. Dr. Cullen then refers to the manner in which the funds were ultimately allotted, and he says that they seem to be all grants to Protestant institutions and Protestant purposes. This only proves that Dr. Cullen is writing from Rome upon a subject dear to England and Ireland, in regard to which he is ill-informed. At every step care has been taken to extend the same relief to the widows and children of Roman Catholics as to those of Protestants. But while religious belief forms no element in the claim to relief, due regard has been paid to the religious feelings and education of the Roman Catholics. Some attempt was made to obtain a separate allotment out of the fund, to be managed by a committee of Roman Catholic gentlemen, for the relief of Roman Catholic objects in Ireland; but this was resisted, and I certainly understood that the arrangements as they now stand satisfied all classes and every denomination of Christians. the charge of unfair conduct in regard to relief from the Patriotic Fund should be persisted in, it may be found necessary to enter more particularly into facts, in order to vindicate the conduct of the committee, which, up to this moment has never been impeached. "I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "ST. LEONARDS.

"Boyle Farm, October 5."

If

This letter it will be apparent does not touch the real point at issue, it keeps wide of the question, it indulges in imputations for which there is no ground, and proposes that a course should be adopted which the writer immediately scouts as most unwise His lordship charges the Archbishop with "treason to humanity" in supposing that the fund will not be properly applied, and asks, "is this a moment to add a drop to the cup of bitterness between the two churches?" The insinuation contained in this question is most unfair, for it assumes that the Archbishop intended to produce, by his letter, such an effect. To us, who have attentively read his Grace's communication to the Very Reverend Monsignor Yore, it seems that his Grace's intention was quite the contrary, and that his desire, as manifested by his letter, was, that in the removal of the doubts entertained by his flock as to the proper administration of the patriotic fund, such an explanation of the course pursued by the commissioners and their agents might be afforded as would extinguish that "bitterness" which his lordship affirms to exist between the churches, and dispose the Roman Catholics to contribute to the Indian relief fund. His lordship proceeds, writing at random, upon this subject. The

manner in which he tries to evade the statistics of his Grace is really unworthy of a person occupying the high position of his lordship. He says, "Dr Cullen then refers to the manner in which the funds were ultimately allotted, and he says, 'that they seem to be all grants to Protestant institutions and Protestant purposes." This only proves that Dr. Cullen is writing from Rome upon a subject dear to England and Ireland, in regard to which he is ill-informed." Any unprejudiced person can see the drift of this observation it is a base attempt to pander to the anti-Roman passions of Englishmen. How locality can affect the existence or non-existence of a fact we are really at a loss to determine. But his lordship, seeing he could not deny the statement made by the Archbishop, and knowing the antipathy that exists in the minds of most Englishmen towards any person or anything connected with Rome, hoped to escape from the difficulty in which he found himself by an appeal to the fanaticism of English bigots. Such a subterfuge will not avail; for, though at particular periods opposition to Romanism may cloud the judgment and obscure for a time the reason of the English people, still their sense of justice and love for impartiality is too deeply rooted to permit any mere feeling of antagonism to impede the due course of unbiassed opinion. The English people value too highly the privilege of free utterance which they possess to allow themselves to be induced to yield up that right by the cajoleries of the most skilful charlatan. The Archbishop, confident in the correctness of his figures, tries to convince their judg ments and their reason. Lord St. Leonards, conscious of the weakness of the cause he has undertaken to advocate, appeals to their prejudices and their passions. Let us not be supposed to question the right of the English people to indulge feelings of dislike towards Rome as the city of the Pontiffs; we consider the feeling as the result of a groundless prejudice, but they no doubt think themselves justified in fostering that sentiment; we do, however, most strongly object to public men endeavouring to excite those feelings by inconsequential reasoning, seeking to import partizanship into a case from which it should be sedulously excluded. To prove that we were justified in attributing to his lordship a desire to enlist the popular prejudice in his favour, it will be sufficient for us to point out the character of his argument. The Most Reverend Dr. Cullen made a certain

statement which his lordship does not attempt to displace, but contents himself with saying, "this only proves that Dr. Cullen is writing from Rome upon a subject dear to England and Ireland, in regard to which he is ill-informed." How such a deduction can be drawn we cannot conceive What proves that "Dr. Cullen is writing from Rome?" The statement? If so it would follow that a fact, which is admitted to be a fact by the Report of the PatrioticCommissioners, ceases to be such when the person who reiterates the fact dates. his letter from "Rome." Ifhis lordship mean this it is absurd; if he do not mean this, he means nothing. But his lordship, we are sure, never contemplated any such fallacy; the predominant idea in his mind was, to create against the writer such a sentiment in the minds of his readers as would disincline them to lend a favourable ear to any future representations. This was the reason why his lordship placed in antithetical proximity Rome and England. Then comes the appendix "in regard to which he is ill-informed." This is only filling stuff, for his lordship knew very well that his Grace, in common with others, her Majesty's subjects at least, was in full possession of the facts disclosed by the report, perhaps signed by his lordship, and it would be rather too much to expect an intelligent reader to believe that his Grace was ignorant of the contents of a report in which so many of his flock were concerned, published in the newspapers fifteen months previous to the date of his Grace's letter. It was a nasty little trick, natural enough, perhaps, in a petty fogging attorney of the Old Bailey, but most unbecoming in a distinguished member of the House

of Peers.

With regard to his lordship's understanding that the arrangements satisfied all classes and every denomination of christians, "we fear he was ill-informed;" if indeed his lordship includes Roman Catholics in any denomination of Christians. Any delusion under which his lordship may have laboured on this subject must have been removed by the letter of the Duke of Norfolk, which we subjoin :

64

MY LORD,

"Norfolk house, Wednesday, October 7, 1857.

"I have just read your lordship's letter to the Evening Mail animadverting upon a pastoral isued by the Most Rev. Dr. Cullen. I do not write for the purpose of commenting upon the general merits