Catholic Church in claiming a controlling voice in the secular education of the young are: first, that, unless the Church has this control, the faith and morals of the children will be seriously endangered; therefore, as the spiritual end of the child must be looked to rather than the civil, the State ought to give way: second, that the parent's right to decide the form of his child's education is inviolable, therefore the Church ought to have control.

If it were clearly proved that a State system of secular education would seriously endanger the faith and morals of children, the Church would have a strong claim on the consideration of all who believe, as I do, that, without the reality of a spiritual life, all else is gray and barren. But the statement that State secular education has this effect is an assertion that has never been proved. In fact, when one tests it by one's own experience in the immediate circle of one's acquaintances, the assertion proves baseless. Several of my friends were educated in nonCatholic schools and colleges, without the slightest injury to their faith. A cause that has to be backed up by vague or untrue assertions is, if not weak, at least likely to be suspected of weakness.

The right of the parent to decide on the education of his child may be viewed in different lights. The right of the parent to decide on the religious education will be conceded by all who believe in religion. Religion is too intimate a thing, too personal a relation between the individual and God, to be submitted to State interference. With secular education, it is different. The individual to a certain extent merges in the State, and becomes one with it. The individual forms the State and controls it; but he is bound to regulate his life by its laws. Owing to the close connection between good government and the education of all

citizens, the parent's right to decide on the question of his child's secular education seems to merge in the State. No one now questions the right of the State to insist on the attendance of children at school for a specified number of days and hours. This right of the State would be useless if it could not prescribe the course of instruction. But, even if the parent's right were conceded, it would by no means follow that control ought to be given to the Church. Not all Catholic parents prefer Church schools.

That it is possible in present conditions for the State to delegate authority in secular education to the Churches, is not clear. In the abstract, the State has the right to choose the best agencies through which to act. Provided the Churches were efficient educators, the State could delegate to them the control and administration of education. In the concrete, difficulties arise. For Roman Catholics the Church is one; but for the modern State the Church is diverse and multiplex. In Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States, the Roman Catholic Church is not only not in a majority, but is a comparatively small minority of the whole, having a majority only in Ireland. In America and England, besides the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian Churches, there are a number of other sects which form no inconsiderable proportion of the population. In England there is an Established Church which has a close connection with the State, and which managed to secure the passing of the last Education Act. But the days of Establishment are threatened; and a permanent settlement of the Education Question must be effected independently of Establishment, and in the light of its non-existence. Apart from the question of efficiency, the difficulty of the State in delegating educational authority to a Church or Churches lies

Το

in their number and diversity. whom is control to be given? From whom is it to be withheld? The difficulty will further increase with Disestablishment; for, within the Church of England to-day, there is such a diversity of opinion as to doctrine, that, with Disestablishment, will come a break-up and a further increase in the number of Churches. The State has to deal with all Churches alike. It cannot be supposed to share in the religious convictions of individuals who themselves differ widely. Direct control delegated to one Church or sect will be resented by the rest. Control given to a few will arouse the anger of the many. The ideal State would surround the child with religious influences all through its education. But what is the concrete State to do? Diversity of belief makes its choice of a Church almost impossible. A recognition of all forms of belief would introduce a system impossible because of its complexity. With all these difficulties in view, it is not easy to see how the State is to delegate its power over secular education to the Churches.

There still remains the question of efficiency. What reason is there to believe that the Church school would prove an efficient secular educator? It is here that the claim of the Churches can be judged apart from abstract reasoning, by the test of facts. It may be urged, by the supporters of the Church school, that it cannot be judged by the past, that want of the necessary control or lack of funds was a bar to its efficiency. These reasons cannot be given in favor of the American Church schools, which are entirely under the control of the clergy, nor of the Irish National schools under clerical management. Taking these two classes of schools as a whole, they do not give as efficient secular instruction as the ordinary American or English State school; nor do they give such re

In almost every American diocese there is an expensive Roman Catholic school system, side by side with the State schools. The Church schools are maintained on the so-called voluntary system: that is, by money raised by the pastors from the laity by annual subscriptions, often not voluntarily, and in very many instances grudgingly given. A number of these subscriptions are given by the poorer and more ignorant members of the Church, generally by Irish emigrants, whose feelings are excited by vigorous sermons portraying in vivid colors the dangers to Catholic faith and morals of State school education. Enthusiasm for the Church-school system is generally confined to priests and nuns and other religious, the lay element in the Church being mere subscribers to a system they often condemn in private conversation. The richer and more independent Catholics, while on the best terms with the Church authorities, send their children to non-Catholic schools. Many of the more intelligent Catholics, even among the poorer classes, refuse to send their children to the Church schools, preferring the State schools because of the better education given there. As one woman who sent her children to the State school said: "The teaching is better; and my children have to make their way in life." It is an extraordinary organizing power that has enabled the Roman Catholic Church in America to collect millions of pounds to build up its Church-school system, and to expend enormous sums yearly on its up-keep, in order to carry out an idea the majority of educated laymen do not approve of, and some of the more intelligent American bishops discountenance. One of the most prominent American Catholics, who possesses in a high degree the confidence of his co-religionists, expressed

perhaps the feeling of the whole of his class when he said of the Churchschool system:

It imposes an unjust and excessive tax, mainly on the artisans and poorer store-keepers. Viewed from an educational standpoint, it gives a lower training than the State school. It defeats its own purpose on the religious side.

On being asked what he meant to convey by the last sentence, he explained:

I shall illustrate it by my own example. I was educated at a New England State school with Unitarian schoolfellows. No attempt was ever made to interfere with my religion. The moral standard of the school was of the highest. Occasionally a school-fellow sneered at some article of my faith. He generally got well beaten for his sneer; but, if I did not understand the point he objected to, I took care to ask my mother, when I went home, to explain it to me; if she couldn't explain, the priest was called in, and I was instructed. I have a good working knowledge of my religion now; but I got it through contact with my Unitarian school-fellows. I left that school carrying with me the respect and affection-which I retain to this day-of school-fellows who differed then, and who differ now, from me in religion. Boys who attend the Church schools now-a-days never hear of an objection to their religion until they are grown up. The slight religious instruction they bring with them from the Church school is of little use to them, and they fall an easy prey to unbelief.

This is an intelligent appreciation of the American school question. The Church school, as a rule, follows the same course of instruction, but with less efficient teachers and insufficient inspection, as the State school. There are, besides, purely formal religious exercises which, while they perhaps create a religious atmosphere of a certain kind, in no way add to the pupil's

knowledge of his faith or of the moral law. One of the leading Church schools in New York placed no higher ideal of civic morality before its senior class than to vote with their Partyin their case "Tammany Hall." One of the most common objections to the Church school in America is, that it produces no influence whatever on civic morality, and that, in New York especially, the Church-school pupils are, in many cases, the most corrupt politicians.

A few of the Church schools in America are highly efficient. One in Chicago is perhaps one of the best primary schools in the world-the pastor happens to be an intelligent and highly cultivated man, with abundant

means.

But he is not hopeful of the future of his school. "When I go," he said, "it will fall through. The people take no interest in it. They find the cost, too, a great burthen." The farseeing American Catholic parent often sends his children to the Church school up to ten years of age: "The sisters look after them," one of them said, naïvely. At ten the children are sent to the State school.

Two objections are brought against the Church school in America, which would apply with equal force in the United Kingdom. One is, that celibate clergy and nuns are less fit than lay people to instruct the young in the ordinary secular duties of life; the fact that clergymen er professo place the end of all their efforts in another life, makes them, it is said, the worst possible guides in the struggle for material and social advancement. The second is, that the Church school tends to keep alive religious bigotry which is injurious to the welfare of the State. The State aims at efficiency of citizenship, not mere skill in arts and crafts only, but citizenship in a much wider sense. The State has urgent need that all its citizens should be men grounded in the

civic virtues, in municipal and political honesty, in that charity which will enable them to regard their competitors and fellow-workers of a different religion, as fellow citizens all equally interested in the welfare of the State. Insistence on religious differences all through the school years of children tends, it is said, to destroy civic charity; experience has shown that it tends to produce civic hatred and distrust. This view seems to be confirmed by facts in the north of Ireland. In Ulster, three sets of schools are maintained by the State-Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. Intense sectarian bitterness prevails, pervading the whole business, social, municipal, and political life of the province. In the west and south of Ireland, on the other hand, where Catholics and Protestants attend a common school, peace and charity prevail. It is a curious anomaly, if civil discord arises from religious interference in secular education!

Secular education given in Irish primary schools under clerical management is not, even in a moderate sense, efficient. Dr. Starkie, the Roman Catholic Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, said so, some years ago, in an Address delivered to the British Association in Belfast. He was immediately condemned in a series of resolutions by the clerical managers, who, however, can hardly be considered impartial judges in their own case. The Irish National school system has been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a solution of the religious difficulties in regard to primary schools, and has been held up as a model to England and America for the solution of similar difficulties. It is but a poor solution. If the Irish National school may be taken as an example of what the school under clerical management can do towards the secular instruction of

children, the claim of the Church school as an efficient secular instructor falls to the ground. Nominally an undenominational system, with schools open to children of all forms of religious belief, it is, to the knowledge of the Government, worked on denominational lines. The local manager is, with very few exceptions, either a Roman Catholic, Episcopal, or Presbyterian clergyman. The religion of the manager is the religion of the pupil. Clergymen become managers, practically ex-officio, on being appointed to certain clerical positions, irrespective of their knowledge of, or interest in, educational matters. Very often they have neither the knowledge nor the interest. The manager, in civil law, has the sole right of appointment and dismissal of teachers. For appointment a teacher must have a National Board certificate of competency. Teachers may be dismissed on three months' notice, without cause, or reference to the National Board. The manager is supposed to regulate the programme of instruction, the approval only of the National Board being necessary. Provided four hours' secular instruction is given each day, it is open to the manager to make what provision he pleases for religious instruction. Not even the most ardent supporter of the Church-school system can deny, that here we have the utmost clerical control of secular education, paid for out of State funds, that any modern State is likely to countenance. Yet impartial observers have written its history in the one word: "failure." It is founded on an untruth which recognizes a denominational school as undenominational; it gives the administration of public funds to irresponsible individuals; it is inefficient in its management and in its educational results; it is not even a help to the Church in promoting religious education. These are strong statements; but they are abundantly borne out by facts.

To take the last first; no real help to religious education is given in the Irish Catholic National school. The pupils are not more remarkable for their love of truth, of obedience, and of justice, than their fellows in the State schools in England or America. The only religious education given in the Irish Catholic National school is for a halfhour each day, generally in the morning, before all the pupils are present. There is a glib recitation of prayers, and of an elementary catechism, the meaning of which the pupils rarely understand. Irish Roman Catholic bishops have admitted these facts when dealing with this aspect of the question locally. Catholic bishops and priests in Australia and America are always deploring the religious ignorance of the Irish emigrant. No help is given to the pupil towards a decision of the grave moral issues that underlie the franchise. In fact, less religious instruction is given in the average Irish Catholic National School in a year, than an intelligent priest could give in a few hours' instruction. That no general local interest is shown by the Irish people in education, is evident to the most casual observer. The Irish elector has never given a vote on a purely educational issue. He has no real voice in education, beyond the paying of taxes.

He does not advert to the fact-often he does not even know that he pays for the education of his children. He has hitherto been heard of only as the dumb signer of petitions, the purport of which he never enquires into. The local clerical manager, when he acts at all, acts on his own or his bishop's initiative. Unfortunately, he is often inert, and takes no interest whatever in his schools beyond resenting any interest that is shown by others. It has recently been suggested-a confession of the failure of clerical management and one-man control-that the local control should

be taken out of the exclusive hands of the clerical managers, and vested in elected committees, with a view to try and promote a local interest which at present does not exist, and without which no true educational system can flourish. This proposal is, and will be, strongly opposed by the clerical managers, who, while making no effort to prevent the spread of dry-rot which is possessing the whole system, cling to an inherited power, and resent change.

The inefficiency of National School instruction is generally recognized. It leads to nothing; it takes no account of local conditions; it promotes a scrappy and insufficient literary instruction, without any relation to the future life or prospects of the pupil. It has no practical side. Efficiency of instruction depends largely on good management and local interest. The present system of management is opposed to all three. Many efforts have been made to promote efficiency of instruction, notably by Dr. Starkie. But all the schemes proposed depend for their success on local co-operation, which is not forthcoming. The local managers either are not interested, or do not understand the schemes, or refuse to help, for considerations in which educational efficiency is the last thing thought of.

The practical obstacle to efficient secular education in Ireland narrows itself down to the local clerical manager. As a rule, he is inefficient. There are notable exceptions; I speak only in general terms. The great majority of managers are not to be blamed. They are merely the instruments of a policy in the direction of which they have no voice. Yet they occupy an unfortunate position, to the lasting injury of the children of Ireland of this generation. Many of them are excellent priests, of great zeal, and high moral character. They occupy their present