FROM THE BISHOP OF MEATH TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES GRAHAM, BART., SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. Mould's Hotel, Suffolk-st., London. SIR, I had the honour of receiving your letter of the 1st inst. in Dublin, on my way to London. The very high respect I have always entertained for her Majesty's present ministers, and the confidence I have always reposed in their integrity and wisdom, make it most painful to my feelings to differ from them upon any subject, and more particularly upon a question arising out of a sincere desire upon my part of reconciling the clergy of my own diocese, and also many others, with the measures of her Majesty's government regarding National Education in Ireland. Nothing but a strong sense of duty to the flocks committed to my care could have induced me to differ-on the one side, from the majority of my brethren on the Irish bench; and on the other, from her Majesty's ministers. I beg once more to crave your indulgence-probably for the last time upon this subject-while I endeavour to explain some particulars referred to in your letter, as well as contained in my own. For the members of the Board of National Education, so far as I am acquainted with them, I feel the highest respect, and I am aware of the delicate position in which you at present stand with regard to some of the members. I should not have hinted at any alteration in the constitution of the Board except in that section representing the Established Church, and that by no means from any suspicion I entertain of the honour and integrity of the members, but simply because they are of that rank, and, in their respective departments, so overloaded with business, that it is impossible for any of them to attend to the detail of the proceedings. We have not one working man at the Board who has leisure, as well as zeal, ability, and knowledge of the business, sufficient to enable him to attend to the detail. Therefore, so far as our Church is concerned, we are virtually unrepresented in that most important duty; and the interests of the Church must be left to others and to subordinates. It is perfectly right that a high dignitary of our church should preside over the Board, even although his peculiar duties should (as now) be sufficient to occupy all his attention; because the impossibility of his attending to the detail might be compensated by the assistance of working men possessing his confidence. It is also proper that a lay nobleman of our Church, to whom occasional reference might be made, should be a commissioner; but the others ought to be gentlemen such as I have described above. The Provost has been a friend of mine for upwards of half a century, and I should be far from saying a disrespectful word of him; he undertook the duty, at the request of Lord Grey's government, when he was in a situation which afforded him sufficient leisure. He continued to hold it when he was appointed Provost, the duties of which station render it impossible for him to attend to the details of the Education Commission. I am certain that his sense of duty, and the amiability of his disposition, would induce him readily and cheerfully to give way to a working man of business. Of the Solicitor General I have the highest opinion, but it is impossible for him to attend to the details; he holds the office of a Commissioner at the desire of government, and, in obedience to the same desire, would cheerfully relinquish it. I am certain that it is irksome to those two functionaries to give their names where they cannot give their attention. It often happens in Boards, nominally composed of persons of rank, that the business is, on that very account, left to subordinates. These and other matters might have been discussed, and amicably arranged, if government had condescended rightly to appreciate my motives, and grant me a hearing. But from the very first intimation they had of my intention of bringing the subject under their consideration, and long before they knew that I had any fault to find with the proceedings of the Board; and although they were well aware of the moderation of my opinions upon the question, they peremptorily refused to listen to any proposition, or enter into any negociation. On my mentioning to the Lord Lieutenant my intention of addressing her Majesty's ministers on the subject, his Excellency communicated my intention to them; and in his letter dated November 1, 1844, long before the Archdeacon's Report went to press, he wrote to me as follows: "It is now my duty to inform your Lordship "in reply, that the Government is not prepared to "enter into any negociation respecting the plan of "National Education in Ireland, which has received the "sanction of several Parliaments, and which has been "supported by successive administrations. I stated in แ my last letter that her Majesty's present ministers "had adopted the scheme after long and careful consi"deration, and the result of experience has not led "them to contemplate any change. "Under these circumstances, although I cannot "decline receiving any communication which your "Lordship may think it right to address to me on the "subject, it will be impossible for me to enter into any negociation. Any complaint or suggested alterations "must be addressed to the Board, which has been "constituted by the supreme authority of the state." We applied to the Board, requesting information as to the authority of their Rules of 1843. They answered by enclosing a printed copy of a minute of their proceedings, without date, which stated that "several "applications having been made to the Board for "explanations of some of their rules," and other inquiries therein specified, "it being judged by the Board "objectionable that the Secretaries or Commissioners "should be engaged in answering such inquiries, IT IS แ ORDERED, that for the future any person making such "inquiries should be simply referred to the documents already printed." 66 In accordance with that order, we requested to be referred to the particular document already printed affording information as to the sanction and authority of the Rules of 1843 in the Appendix. To this request we received the following answer :"That if you think the Rules of the Board do "not carry with them due sanction and authority, although issued by the Board, laid before Parliament by her Majesty's command, and acted upon by Parlia "ment in making the grant which the Board is appoint"ed to administer; or if you consider them open to objection, on the ground of ambiguity, or otherwise, "it is to her Majesty's government or the legislature that you should address any representation or complaint "that you may be disposed to make on the subject." Being thus peremptorily refused any explanation, and referred for such explanation, not only as to their Rules but as to any ambiguities therein, to her Majesty's government, and her Majesty's government having refused to listen to any representation on the subject, it became necessary for us to state our case so strongly as to shew to her Majesty's ministers the necessity of their interference and control. We, therefore, closely investigated the proceedings and plans of the Board, as given in their own Reports. We put forward no allegation; we made no charge; we analyzed their proceedings; we compared one fact with another;—and the charges to which you allude followed, as the natural and obvious conclusions. We considered them again and again to avoid "error," and are not conscious of any "misconstruction." G |