[Rambler, May 1859.]
Judgment of the English Bishops on the Royal Commission
As we have given admission to the objections which have been felt—and that, we are bound to say, by many considerable persons—to the mode in which it was rumoured that our Bishops intended to meet the Royal Commission, we are called, not only by duty, but by simple justice, to insert the formal expression which they have given in their late pastorals to their decision on the subject of its provisions and their reasons for making it. To that decision we submit ourselves must sincerely and unreservedly, though it is superfluous in a magazine professedly Catholic to make such an avowal.
The Cardinal-Archbishop speaks as follows:
“There is no subject on which we have more frequently or more earnestly addressed you in our Pastorals than on that of education. It is one which is daily brought before our minds by the exigencies of our diocese, and even by its general interest in the public mind. We should indeed be happy if these were the only motives that impelled us now to return to this subject. But the enemy is choosing it for the field in which to sow the tares of division among Catholics. Deeply, indeed, do we deplore that any one should endeavour to lead you astray from the simple path of right and dutiful feeling, on a matter so obviously belonging to the ecclesiastical authority. The circumstances which have given rise to the dissensions to which we allude are briefly these: —
“Some time ago a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the state of education. To the questions proposed by it, to be answered in writing, objections were not made, after they had been revised, provided they were communicated to schools through our recognised channels; but on deliberate consideration, the construction of the Commission was not considered by the Bishops fair towards Catholics, nor such as could be acquiesced in without modification. For the matter was considered sufficiently important to engage all the Bishops of England to come together at a most inconvenient period of the year. They met consequently in London, on the 9th of November last. They entered into a full consideration of the case. In the Commission, not only Anglicans, but Dissenters were represented; while not a single Catholic had been placed upon it. We knew by experience, as well as from the very nature of the case, how difficult, not to say impossible, it is for a commission to draw just inferences, or judge accurately where Catholic education is concerned, without any competent person assisting to give explanations. It was therefore considered all-important to obtain the addition of one single Catholic to the Commission. This was peremptorily refused, and all negotiations ceased.
“But further, this Commission named a number of sub-Commissioners, to inspect schools of every religion—ours, of course, included. Not one of these was a Catholic; yet the instructions issued to them enjoined as follows: ‘The Commissioners wish you to ascertain, exclusively as a question of fact, what are in practice the difference(s) between the course(s) of religious instruction afforded by different religious denominations; what (if any) are the recognised formularies adopted by them, and how far those formularies are taught in such a manner that the pupils have such perception of their meaning as children of an early age and average intelligence may be expected to acquire’ (p. 14).
“This rendered the difficulties of acquiescence infinitely greater. We recalled to mind how, from the beginning of our participation in the benefits of educational grants, we had made it a condition for accepting them, that Catholic inspectors should be appointed for the inspection of our schools, exclusive of all others; and that even these should exercise no inspection whatever of their religious teaching. Now here it was proposed to permit Protestant inspectors to assume, not only the functions accorded hitherto solely to Catholics, but those jealously reserved from them. They were to examine if our formularies (that is, our catechisms) were taught in a way suitable to the understanding of our children. We need not ask how a Protestant, possibly abhorring every Catholic doctrine, could be intrusted to examine how far our children acquire a proper perception of the rosary, or of confession, or of invocation of saints, or of transubstantiation; for we cannot realise how we should be able to examine Protestant children, so as to ascertain whether they obtain adequate perception of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, or the Lutheran theory of works, or the Anglican latitude on the Eucharist. But, putting aside the mere absurdity of sanctioning such preposterous examinations, not merely to satisfy any curiosity, but to afford materials for a judgment on our religious teaching, the Bishops have felt that a sacred and religious principle was at issue, and that the concession demanded was equivalent to a surrender of the very ground on which Catholic inspectors had been demanded and obtained.