1 - . iMK^C-^^' j VxX 1' x\vX''''''x ■"V"' '''^'^' xX v ' \ X > V N X \^x X^ X-^ ^'Vx X ' X . .X-x-' vx^ ^ x>'^ X '^' x^^X^XlX x:%^^^mX''\xXx^' 'x x\v\'''xx x \x'x; x^x;'"^" XxX^'x ' X V\X;^X5!M4•Xx|M^^X^x\xVX^'^x Xxx "\ A xX'x x< ^^X X X xx ''X, x' X, X X=-^X^^^^%'^^'xX^^^|^xx\x^'^X\" xXx' x^- XX xV X^ X^x-' X,xx.,xxxxx-,,.A\V,,X.^.,V>X.,XXVV.XX.X^XX^» I XxxV xX^x x\ V \ '‘ V ''■• Xixx'.- < x>. ^ x\^ ;-Xx^NX 4|V\ ^ s > \s\Vi,\\\>, \ ^ \s ^ ^ N % Vx ^''SV'^ ^ N \ xA \ ^ X v'-V^ ^ r. 'x x x ' ''''4 4V X^ \'x''\axa\^H\''^xX xi '■\xX^'l X x''' "x x"\^ V '' ''' Cxx x ' ^^X V' C4^\Vn\ \^x ^xxxv^ AX^'xxX" ' • Itvrv> : x>\ >xx>v\x ^x $:: 4 ::-\^jx:: x^ ^ x ' vV' » \' . ^ ^ » V A •^ NsVS\ A ,. 'X ^ .V \ss V I S \ '\ ^x^xX^' I'x' xVx''^t'''x XX X X X x^ X, X ^ BX 890 .H84 1864 Hughes, John, 1797-1864. Complete works of the most Rev. John Highes, D.D., fe ^^- '. V - ;-v' - 7r>'-:^- -< :-: V;'-' . • .: ', .-v' •Si!*' Ji - "t-m cv,.v,^. _ i ' . V ■’e';^i:,0^5,%;'3iV;'f r^:;'i«^ , ■ ..' ■ V -Vu ;^ • ■^^;^-' :.V' .' i'A;. u. ■ L-j, \ : ' ■• . ' . . •. O '■ i:" y • r ' V, ■ rt .« r ' * » ■- ■>' ■■ -.V ;l ■'« r' V' "■ ■ • ' ^ '- i* . • • • t'-' V gs"- ' '-5'- r ’ ' . ' :• - . /• ■‘ t; f3?V\ ■•*ir‘'‘VV • ^ i- • -i-."" ry*.'- •* •■'» ✓ / i' y '* - “S’ jfc '.: ■^f 1,, • if'i.'< »'’' - •#» .i-. • N '.r f f . • ' » '• ■ >.W-Vf'\i' . ' .V- ^,C rJ- ■ ' ■» . ■' i > • :/ v :'v-f, .■' v:'^T ■•^' V. r; y4r " Vt! -a”' 't'A'- ri: i-." \- .-rB lV., 't^ t- -T>- . .V ;'r^, • *■' s \ . -v'’, , •) r *>,.•» K > ' - J • V'. / >- , , -''j "•u '- ■ 'V- V/ '. • •<« -< * ' • B4£\> f. . ,/ •?-, j f' / . i'. t V\..4' V >l**' Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library h ttps ://a rc h i ve . 0 rg/d etai I s/co m p I etewo r ksof m 0 1 h u g h_0 ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK. COMPRISING ni8 SERMONS, LETTERS, LECTURES, SPEECHES, ETC. fcMlj Compile)) from tire (rest Sotirrej, I AND EDITED BY LAWRENCE KEIIOE. VOL. I. NEW YORK: THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION HOUSE, ' Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, BY LAWRENCE KEHOE In the Cloiii's Office of the District Court of the United States for tne Southern District of New York. ■ I PKEFACE. Having heard many persons, admirers of the late Archbishop Hughes, express a wish that his public lectures, letters and speeches might be collected and published in book form, the com¬ piler of this volume has, after some deliberation, undertaken the task, which, he trusts, will prove acceptable to the Catholic com¬ munity in general. The following pages are the first installment, and will be immediately followed by another volume of about the same size, which will complete the work. The biographical sketch merely touches upon the principal events in His Grace’s career, but is the most complete one yet published. The speeches of His Grace on the School Question — a question which first brought him prom¬ inently before the New York public — will, no doubt, be read with pleasure as well as profit by thousands who have heard of these great efforts of Dr. Hughes, but who liave had no chance heretofore of reading them. His speeches before the Board of Aldermen, as well as his great Three Days’ Speech in Carroll Hall on this ques¬ tion, will be found in this volume in full. Other important docu¬ ments are also given entire. The concluding volume will also contain important writings of Archbishop Hughes, which should be read by every Catholic in the land. The Editor. New York, Se^Umber, 1864. ^ ■ S'" ? ®* » . < . tr .-' . ' i- t’l^X " ■ ’ rl m .'/;• ^ f* 'v -'a ■■'^^riiir yi^^'-’ ':■ -V v - ’‘ ’ ' i - .-a* r i, *. .- *rv t * 2 • » , t . ^ ' I^^^KMHIH * */ KKCMj t • j itiiri''^4' ’ " ."'V. .h' ‘*"''' > , / .“V •, ■/(»■* V".' , I li A: * ’ , .-**-'is'?*". CONTENTS TO VOLUME I p^oa Biooeaphical Sketch of Archbishop Hughes . 7 Funekal Ceremonies . 15 Names of Bishops and Priests Present . IS Oration of Kt. Rev. John McClosket, D. D . 17 Resolutions of the Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral — The Courts — Com¬ mon Council, State Legislature, etc., on the Death of Archbishop Hughes . 22 Letters from the President of the United States, Secretary Seward and Governcr Seymour . 24 Month’s Mind Ceremonies . 25 Sermon of Rt. Rev. John Loughlin, D. D . 28 WRITINGS OF ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. Serjion on Catholic Emancipation, Preached in 1829 . 29 ’THE SCHOOL QUESTION— Speech in St. Patrick’s School-Room, July 20th, 1840 . 41 “ Basement op St. James’ Church, July 27th, 1840 . 48 Address op the Catholics to their Fellow-Citizens of the City and State OP New York— Speech of Archbishop Hughes . 50 Speech in Basement op St. James’ Church, August 24th, 1840 . 66 Letter to “Evening Post” in Answer to an “Irish Catholic.” . 79 Speech in Basement op St. James’ Church, Sept. 7th, 1840 . 81 “ “ “ “ “ 21st, 1840 . 96 Petition op the Catholics op New York to the Board op Aldermen for a Portion op the Common School Fund . 102 Speech in Basement op St. James’ Church, Oct. 5th, 1840 . 107 “ “ “ “ “ 19th, 1840 . 114 “ before City Council— First Day . 125 “ “ “ — Second Day . . . 143 Great Speech in Carroll Hall— First Day . 183 “ “ -Second Bay . 197 “ “ — Third Day . 211 Review op Mr. Ketchum’s Rejoinder . 227 Speech in Washington Hall, Feb. 11th, 1841 . 242 “ IN rehends, the idea may appear superstitious ; but to me it seems in accordance with the certain though mysterious economy of Di¬ vine Providence, that during this illustrious period of her pre-eminence in science and in piety, Ireland was guided by some spirit of prophetic benev¬ olence from above, that gave her a glimpse of her own future situation, and breathed in her soul the counsel of eternal wisdom, to labor while the day is, for the night coineth when no man can work. When we behold her standing on her own hospitable beach, to receive the stranger youth of eve¬ ry land with a mother’s affection, does it not appear that with a mother’s prospective solicitude, her vision pierced the gloom of futurity, and rested on that melancholy period when her own persecuted sons should be obliged to visit other climes in pursuit of science, because at home they would not be allowed to drink the waters of knowledge, except at fountains which they deemed polluted ? As if she foresaw the time when her own expatri¬ ated children would be borne afar, and afer on the surge of every ocean, and cast on every distant shore, there, like uprooted plants, to perish, un¬ less fostered by the hand of foreign kindness. There was a time when the other nations of Europe were indebted to Ireland ; but her fortunes chang¬ ed ; the means of conferring benefits were taken from her, and in her turn slie became their debtor. To the seminaries of Germany and Italy, and still more to those of France, she owes, under the same providence of Almighty God, the unbroken succession of her priesthood during the persecution of her religion ; and now that it has ceased, she acknowledges the obligation in the fullness of her own gratitude, as if she had deserved nothing at their hands. About the close of the seventh century, Egfred, King of Northumberland, made a transitory incursion into the country, and this was the first foreign enemy, coming in the attitude of hostility, that ever trod on Irish soil. After his expulsion, Ireland enjoyed her usual tranquillity until about the beginning of the ninth century, when the Danes and Norwegians aimed at, and partly succeeded in efi'ecting, what they considered a permanent estab¬ lishment in that delightful country. The eftbrt, we are told, cost them a sti'uggle of thirty years ; and we know from the history of other nations which they visited merely as a passing scourge, that their hatred of those studies which gave polish and refinement to social life, was equaled only by their hatred of Christianity. In Ireland they had time and opportunity to indulge the double hatred — they had abundant material whereon to wreak their Gothic vengeance, by destroying monasteries, in which science and religion dwelt like sisters in the same sanctuary, and against which the Danes cherished a universal and hereditary spite. They were inhabited by monks, a class of men who have been so traduced, and calumniated by the learned ingratitude of modern times, that their veiy name sounds in the ear of popular credulity, as synonymous with ignorance and indolence. They were not ignorant, my brethren ; but that ignorance which is charged upon them, would be at this day aurs, if they had not been learned. One portion of their time was devoted to prayer and singing the jiraises of God ; the residue was employed in transcribing the Holy Scriptures, and books of antiquity. They were not indolent ; on the contrary we find them in every country, engaged •\’vith patient industry in building across the middle ages that bridge which connects ancient with modern literature, and by which the wisdom and the folly of other days and of other generations have trav¬ eled down to us. They were engaged in saving whatever of learning could be saved by hu7nan exertion from the ravages of those turbid waters that swept beneath its extensive span. The annals of pagan as well as of Chris¬ tian Ireland were deposited in these monasteries, which were pillaged and ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 35 destroyed by the vandalism of the northern invaders. Then did perish those national monuments, the al)sence of which Doctor Johnson, in the name of enlightened posterity, deplores, because, says he, being the records of an ancient and once an illustrious people, if they had come down to us, they would have thrown light on two important but disputable sul)jects ; viz : “ the origin of nations, and the affinity of languages.” They have not come down to us ; and we can judge of ancient Ireland, from Irish docu¬ ments, only as we judge of a long ruined edifice, by the quality of the scat¬ tered fragments which strew the place around. After the destruction of her monasteries, however, in the ninth and tenth centuries, the sun of her literai’y glory ajipears to have set ; although the reflection of his departed splendor, like the mellow light of evening, lingered on her horizon; and dur¬ ing the darkness — the night that followed — hers were some of the bright¬ est stars in the firmament of letters. The Danes were finally expelled, just time enough to show that the coun¬ try was still unconquered, and free from every foreign yoke, when the Eng¬ lish commenced its invasion about the year 1171. Then it was that Eng¬ land’s second Henry established in Ireland a power which, under all cir¬ cumstances, would perhaps have been a blessing, if it had been conducted on the principles of distributive justice or of common equity ; but which, as it was, operated like a canker worm at the root of the nation’s happiness, blighting every virtue that adorns human nature, and giving occasion to the exercise of every vice that degrades humanity. But, on the very thresh¬ old of this topic, a question arises, and it is asked by what right did he invade, and by what title did he claim the territory of an unoffending peo¬ ple ? Why, the ostensible right was a v/ritten instrument, obtained by some means or other, almost twenty years before, from Adrian IV., Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the Universal Church. In virtue of this, Ireland was disposed of in the form of a donation, under certain stipulated terms. The invader knew very well that the donation was a mockery ; but then it might serve a purpose. It was carefully concealed until the desired mo¬ ment arrived ; then ambition grasped the sword, and artifice thought to hide its lancet point, in the folds of this flimsy document; in order that while the scruples of the nation should be excited, touching the Pope’s authority, its liberties might be assassinated quietly, and with as little waste of English blood as possible. The Irish people then, as well as now, bowed to the spiritual authority of the Pope, as the visible head of the Christian Church ; but then as well as now, they knew that the act of Adrian did not derive its authority from Him “ whose kingdom was not of this world.” The document may have surprised and divided the nation ; it may have weakened, though it did not paralyze the arm of resistance ; but the fact is, that at all times England’s best title was the sword. The Irish soon after protested publicly against the whole proceedings ; and forw'arded to the Vatican itself a remonstrance, which is written in a tone of uncompromising complaint, and which, but for the deeply- wounded spirit of those wdio penned it, would be considered reprehensible even at this day ; such is the bitter independence of its language. This was the' most unwarrantable stretch of assumed prerogative in the annals of what modern writers call papal usurpation. It was unnecessary, it was unavailing, it was unjust. And having said thus much, I will be iiermitted to show, by a few remarks, that this and similar acts have become too much the theme of satirical ani¬ madversion and unmerited invective. Good sense, and sound criticism, and common justice require, that be¬ fore we pronounce on the proceedings of former ages, we should examine them in connection with the times in which they occurred ; the cotempo* raucous prejudices, the nature of the governments, the manners and gen- 36 ARCnBISUOP HUGHES eral condition of society ■when they happened, should all be thrown into the scale of judgment ; and they would guide us to a just -verdict of cen* sure or of approbation. The direct contrary, however, is the general prac¬ tice with writers otherwise eminent and learned. They seize an isolated fact in the darkness of the dark ages, and di-ag it forth naked, divested of all its concomitant circumstances, to be judged, and, as a nratter of course, to be condemned by the superior light of the present day. If they allowed it, however, to return naked as tliey found it, the world would not be, as it is, the enlightened dupe of unsuspected jrrejudice on a thousand historical and religious topics. But disregarding tlm moral f)f the Holy Scripture, they put new cloth on old raiment, and dismiss the fact, whatever it may be, in its chequered and consequently ridiculous dra¬ pery. Thus, for example, when we are told that Popes interfered with the government of kingdoms, it should not be left untold that kings and na¬ tions had first invoked that interference, and besought them in the name of humanity and religion, to protect the claims of justice, to prevent civil war, and the shedding of kindred blood. It should not be left untold that very frequently the brows to whom it belonged were too weak to sustain the diadem, against the usurpations of some other aspirant, who was ready to tear it away. Interest,' in the form of chivalrous gratitude, not unfrequently tendered a kingdom at the feet of the Pontiff, and found its best security in receiving it as a fief of the Holy See, by the common tenure of the feudal system which prevailed. Thus, the power of the Popes was as simple in its origin as the power by whic'h a priest, or other clergyman, settles a dispute between two neighbors, who appeal to Mm rather than to the dagger or the magistrate. The influence which they jjossessed enabled them to extend the shield of peaceful justice for the protection of injured and otherwise defenceless innocence. If they became formidable to kings, it was because kings laid the foundations on which they built the edifice of power. The state of the world is changed ; that power has been taken from them, and transferred to others. If it had not, the Pope at this day could effect, without bloodshed, what English bayo¬ nets will be necessary to accomplish in the kingdom of Portugal, 1 re¬ joice, for the sake of religion, that it has been removed from the chair of St. Peter ; because he who occui)ies that chair is not an angel, but a hu¬ man being, and whenever he mingles in human affairs he is liable to be swayed by human motives. This was possibly the case with Adrian IV.; he was an Englishman, and, so far as in him lay, he bequeathed Ire¬ land, which never was at his disposal, by feudal right or otherwise ; he be¬ queathed it, nevertheless, as an appendage to his country’s greatness. This is the fact. And yet there are considerations which might shield him from the harsh severity with which even Catholic writers have visited his mem¬ ory. He is known to have been a man austere and simple in his manners, and unblemished in the sanctity of his life ; but it was his lot to govern the Church at a time when the prejudices of temporal power, alluded to above, were already established by prescription. On the other hand, the motives which prompted him to the act were evidently good. "We can see by the very tenor of the document, that he was led to suppose the good of religion and the promotion of piety were the only objects for which Henry the Second desired the sovereignty of Ireland. For, my brethren, unre¬ strained ambition, whether it operates on the bosoms of kings or of other men, does not hesitate to put on the appearance of sanctity, to make use of religion, aye, and of religion’s God, as stepping-stones beneath its feet, if it cannot otherwise ascend the eminence to which it aspires. You will pardon this apparent digression from my subject. My limits would not allow me to delmeate the iinatomy of Irish history ; I could only ox CATHOLIC EMAXCIPATIOX. a: exhibit the mere skeleton ; and as the concession of Adrian is one of ita most important joints, I felt prompted by a sense of justice to the calumni¬ ated dead, to trace its connection to the circumstances of the times in which it took place. During the period subsequent to the English invasion, we behold noth¬ ing but ruin and desolation, where we have been hitherto admiring the vision of .‘.reland's now departed glory. The portion of the country which was conquered by the first adventurers was denominated the Pale^ an ap¬ propriate and significant term, pregnant with all the partiality that power could confer on those who were within its limits, and with all the injus¬ tice, tyranny, and oppression which the spirit of lawless conquest could inflict on those who were without. By virtue of the state secret, the little wire, which was carefully concealed from the vulgar gaze, but which moved every spring in the machiflery of government, the seeds of national jealousy, of recijirocal hatred and revenge, were sown and fostered ; and when these passions grew’ up into a harvest of political disorder, then those who had moved the wire came forth from behind the curtain, in the name of loyalty, to reap the profits. They had a right to them. Thus, the laws produced a kind of reflex ojjeration profitable to the governor ancl his minions, in proj)ortion as it was ruinous to the people. One deputy after another appeared to represent the majesty of England ; and with few' ex- cejotions, private interest, avarice, and ambition were the standards w'hich regulated their administration. They went forth at intervals to extend the “ pale and when they had depopulated a section of the country, leaving behind them, not the conquered inhabitants, but the silence of death and the solitude of the sepulchre, the news was transmitted to Eng¬ land, and reached the monarch’s ear in the character of a victory “ gained over the natives.” In the judicial department the case was even w'orse, if possible. The laws stood at the portals of judgment, to prevent justice from entering ; and when murder appeared, his sabre reeking with human blood, the first question of him who sat upon the tribunal w^as touching the birth-place of the fallen victim, an important question ; for if he was one of the original proprietors of the soil, which they expressed by calling him a “ mere Irish¬ man,” then the statute declared that it w’as no felony to kill him. The whole nation, at diiferent times, petitioned for tlnQ protection of the English law's, but their petitions were as often rejected. This is a sketch of the policy adopted and pursued by the government in Ireland, from the inva¬ sion dow'n to the accession of Queen Elizabeth; but the nature of the present occasion would make it criminal in me to torture your feelings by any further description. This bad system of government naturally caused Ireland to retrograde in morals and in virtue, as well as in science and literature. And yet, Sir John Davis, an Englishman and a Protestant, tells us there was less crime there than in England, in the reign of James I., 200 years ago. He was then attorney-general, and the first in that capacity who visited all the parts of Ireland ; his office qualified him to pronounce, and, comparing the annals of guilt in both countries, he strikes the balance of morality decidedly in favor of Ireland. A similar testimony w'as given, the other day, in the House of Peers (where it would not have passed uncontradicted, if it had not been susceptible of proof), by another Protestant nobleman, that at this moment the proportion of crime is doubly greater in England than in the unhappy country of whose ignorance and vices so much has been said, even on this side of the Atlantic. England, and every other country, has its splendid virtues, and I am as ready to proclaim them as I am to admit that Ireland has her numerous vices. But I mention these facts as a matter of B8 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES pleasing astonishment, that her vices are not more. When we reflect that the blessings of justice and mercy, and an impartial government, which makes other nations virtuous and haj^py, have been denied to Ireland for nearly seven hundred years, we would hardly expect to find a remnant of virtue left ; but to see her surpass them in the test of comparison, this must appear a phenomenon in the order of morality. For, my brethren, there is a connection between the cause and the effect in moral as well as physical nature. If the tempest roll in fury on the smoothest sea, that sea will im- Ijibe a portion of the spirit that disturbed it ; it will rise from its slumbers, it will foam and rage, and woe to the fragile bark that is overtaken by its indignation. So, if a people are oppressed, if their treaties are violated, if their generous confidence is abused, and their professions disbelieved, and their honor doubted, and their sacred rights invaded, and their liberties trodden under foot — if, in a word, they have lost everything except a paltry life, wdiich, but for the hope of religion, would not be worth endurance, then it is not to be wondered at, if such a people sometimes turn on their oppressors in the spirit of vindictive retribution. This has been the case more than once in unhappy Ireland. No nation could feel moi'e keenly the disgrace of her degradation, the injustice of her bondage : is it, then, mat¬ ter of surprise that the peculiar sensibilities of her heart sometimes rose to her head, and engendered there that sj^ecies of political frenzy which broke out at intervals in fitful, wild, and sometimes infuriated ebullitions of revenge ? For the fact is, that Ireland at all times understood the equal rights to which she was entitled, and the measure of strict impartial justice without which she would not, she could not, be satisfied. Begin at whatever epoch you think proper to select, and descend from one steji to another of her history down to the present day, test the feelings of every generation as you 2)ass, and you will perceive that no duration of time could ever tame the mind of Ireland to the yoke of unmerited and ignominious servitude. You might tell the youth, the striifling of the village, or the peasant boy, around whose tender hands you bound the manacles in i:>unishment of his birthqflace, that they came to him by lineal descent, that his fathers had worn them for ages, that they were consecrated to his family, hereditary a])pendage of the soil ; you might tell him all this, and instead of concili¬ ating, you only roused his impatience for the moment when he might burst the fetters, and remove the malediction. What ! injustice heredi¬ tary ? Oh, no. But one thing was hereditary — that magnanimous and immortal s^jirit of the nation, which for so many ages has been tortured, but could not be broken on oppression’s wheel. The neck of Ireland might have been bound at any time, on a level with her feet, in the dust ; but, even then, her soul, towering in the consciousness of its own original integrity, stood erect, unsubdued, unbending, and — indomitable. This was the secret of that turbulence of character which ignorance has ascribed to her, and recorded against her in the book of calumny. Until recently there was no mirror to reflect on England and on the world the image of her feelings, but there were at all times the scattered materials from which such a mirror might have been fabricated. Those feelings were like ob¬ structed waters, breaking out irregularly wherever they found an issue ; when, at ’ength, a sujjerior mind arose to fireside over them ; then they flowed in one direction, and, as they advanced, acquired the easy majesty as well as the irresistiljle influence of a mighty tide, which swept away the barriers that had hitherto prevented justice and p)eace from embracing each other. The laws of England, which were refused to the country while their operation might have been salutary, were extended in the reign of Eliza* ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION, 39 betli when they had been new-modeled in accordance with the change ot religion in the state, and were no longer desirable. Then, for the first time, they took their march throughout all Ireland, bearing liberty in one hand and degradation in the other. If they had asked the apple of her eye, in exchange for the boon of freedom and of justice, Ireland would have given it. But much as she loved civil liberty, there was one thing that she loved infinitely more ; it was the faith which she received in olden times. This she regarded as the boon of heaven : it was hers before she knew England ; it was at all times the solace of her grief ; it was the anchor of her last and best hope, and neither bribery nor persecution could detach her from it : she is at all times seen clinging to it with the tenacity of despair : thus leaving an¬ other instance to prove that faith is stronger than death, and that persecution can make martyrs or hypocrites, and there its power ends. The civil oppres¬ sion of Ireland would have terminated the moment she embraced, or pretended to embrace, the religion which the Parliament had decreed, and were deter¬ mined to support. But she saw no reason to believe in its veracity, and to profess it would have been hypocrisy ; it would have been acting against her conscience ; it would have been apostasy from her God ; it would, in fine, have been that base thing of which Ireland has proved herself incapable. For this she is entitled to the admiration of the world ; because, for this she suffered. The laws continued unequal, and the inevitable result of their operation was to break the intercourse of charity among men of different religions, arraying the Catholic against the Protestant, and the Protestant against the Catholic ; and in spite of their united efforts to exclude it, intruding perpetually to disturb the harmonies of social and sometimes domestic life. You may be surprised, my brethren, that I have dwelt so long on the early portion of Ireland’s history, and so briefly on the civil thraldom and religious persecution which have succeeded each other since the English invasion in the twelfth century. But why should it be otherwise, when the wisdom of better times has applied an effectual remedy to the evils of that long-injured country, and she herself has already forgiven, what it may not be so easy to forget ? It was but yesterday the Legislature of Great Britain covered over her wounds with the mantle of justice, and mine shall not be the hand to tear it off so soon Those wounds already begin to cicatrize ; and they say that darkness and silence are best calculated to promote convalescence ; and, besides, if I did exhibit to your view a full picture of Ireland’s wrongs, pity would rise from the canvass, and extort the tribute of your tears ; whereas the occasion calls for no teal's, except peradventure those of gratulation and of joy. But ray brethren, I would not have you retire from this jilace unim¬ proved by the moral of a subject, which, but for its illustrative connection with the state of fallen humanity, w'ould be altogether foreign from a Christian pulpit. Let us not forget, that every one of us has to watch the first movements of the very same passions which have produced so many black clouds in the moral as well as political atmosphere of now regenerated Ireland. For, to trace her misfortunes to any national peculiarity in the English character, would be unsatisfactory and unjust. We all know that the genuine English character is proverbial for its sterling, almost infalli¬ ble, integrity — the more to be admired, because it is unclogged by any out¬ ward display. Heither would it be just to trace them to the religion of England, because Ireland’s oppression commenced nearly four hundred years before that religion existed. Religion is the daughter of God ; her office is to pluck thorns out of the human breast, not to plant them — to prepare men for a better world, by raising, not depressing them in the scale of virtue here. It would be cruel to charge religion with the crimes of which Ireland has been the victim, not only since the Reformation, but be¬ fore, when there was but one religion, and the good of both nations wor- 40 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. shipped God around the same altars. Where, then, shall we find the solu¬ tion ? Go to the ground where children are at play : wait till a quarrel arises, and the sjjoils are to be divided ; and ascertain how it happens that the largest portion of the common toys remains hy right in possession of the strongest or most artful competitor. Here is the solution. Here is the infant passion ; but do not lose sight of it here ; watch it up to manhood, pursue it across the ocean to the shores of Africa, and there you will detect it, putting manacles, by the mme rights on hands that were free. Observe its operation on a large scale, and you will behold it, as in unhappy Ire¬ land, by the same rights grinding down the immortal energies of a chival¬ rous nation under the millstone of predominant, and therefore irresponsible pow-er. The history of that country is the tragedy of the bad passions, and every good man rejoices that it has been brought to a close. We rejoice, because the Catholics have obtained that to which they were at all times en¬ titled by the rights of nature and the laws of justice ; we rejoice more, be¬ cause in this reason and principle have triunqihed over prejudice and folly. We rejoice for the sake of England as well as Ireland, for the sake of Protestants as well as Catholics. We rejoice in the name of all the virtues, in the name of justice, and of peace, and of humanity, and of religion, and of God. To Him is the glory and the praise. He has made use of human means, and great must be the satisfaction of those who have been made the instruments of a victory, diflerent from other victories, in this, that it has cost neither blood nor tears. Does not every good heart in this assem- l)ly rejoice ? Surely that generous spirit of our hajipy country, the freest under the sun, that spirit which lately cheered the captive onward in the enterprise, is gladdened by its success. Those who look back to Ireland as the home of their infancy, must feel the influence of a yet stronger sensa¬ tion. But what must be the feast which this day presents to the feelings of those who in times of greater peril, and for the object we commemorate, risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — men whose for¬ tune it was to have been born in Ireland, with a genius which the Crown could not purchase, the Parliament could not crush, and who were con¬ strained to leave their country, because — ^they loved their country too much. Greece would have immortalized them ; and America, the country of their choice, does honor them, as they do honor to their various profes¬ sions ; their pens have been employed even here in the vindication of their degraded country and their countrymen. The stigma has been removed ; and to them this occasion must be a joyful one. Neither is that alfection diminished by the consideration that others 1)ear away the honor of hav¬ ing achieved an event, which their- exertions contributed so much to accel¬ erate. Posterity will do them justice; and their names, some of which I could, but do not mention, -will stand conspicuous on the records of Irish talent and of Irish patriotism. But enumeration would be endless as the subject itself. I thank you sincerely for your kind and patient attention ; I will now descend from this place to mingle with you in the expression of our common gratitude to Almighty God, for the termination of those moral evils to which I have alluded — and with you also, to breathe the prayer of hope, that henceforth the inhabitants of Ireland, and not of Ireland alone, but of every country on the globe, may live as brethren, if not in religion, at least in social kind¬ ness, in the bond of holy peace, in the practice of virtue, and of piety and fidelity to our common and blessed God. This is the benediction T would invoke upon you and on the world. In the name of the Father, and of ^he Sou, and of the Holy Ghost. — Amen. THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 41 SPEECHES ON THE SCHOOL QUESTION. On July 30th, 1840, an important meeting of the Catholics of New York was held in the school-house attached to St. Patrick’s Church, at which the Very Rev. Dr. Power presided ; and in accordance with the wishes of the Right Reverend and respected Bishop, stated to the meeting the naked truth respecting the origin of the present agitation of their claims as Catholics to a portion of the School Fund of this State, for the education of their children. Towards the end of last January, Dr. Power received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Schneller, of Albany, earnestly urging that he should come and judge for himself, and see how easy it would be for the Catholics to obtain a portion of that fund which was set apart by the law for the education of all the children of the commonwealth, but of the benefits of which, under its present management, they were- unable, as Catholics, conscientiously to partake. After some deliberation he called a meeting of the Trustees of all the Catholic churches in the city, and laid the subject before them. He Icnew that amongst those trustees were men of different shades of politics, but he also knew, and he said it in the fullness and sincerity of his heart, that politics had nothing to do with the question upon which he convened them ; that it was a question which appealed to every one of them as Catholics with equal force, whatever might be their respective political opinions, and he anticipated no dissen¬ sion, no wavering, nd*hesitation amongst them on this all-important ques¬ tion, and he was not disappointed. They unanimously resolved to apply for a portion of that fund to which they had contributed as citizens of this State, and to which they were undoubtedly entitled, and for that purpose agreed that he should go to Albany; and he did go accordingly. And having gone, he found nothing but honesty of purjiose, as he believed, and he returned to this city thoroughly persuaded that the application would be successful if it was pressed forward with Catholic unanimity. And this expectation he doubted not would have been realized but for an unfortunate article that appeared in the Truth Teller of this city, which endeavored to convert what was purely a question of Catholic and religious princijile into a political one — slandered their motives, and declared that with sinister and unworthy objects in view, they were preparing to press upon the Corporation of the city a demand which, if complied with, would be a palpable violation of the constitution of the State, and the equality of rights which it secured to all citizens. This opening of the warfare against the Catholics proceeding from amongst themselves, gave color and support to the hostility which they afterwards experienced. The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose to address the meeting, and was received with enthusiastic plaudits. When they had subsided, he s;fid, he 42 ARCHtrSHOP HUGHES. had listened with great attention to the explanations otFered by the Very Reverend gentleman who presided over the meeting, and to those n^hich fol¬ lowed from Dr. Sweeney; and it afforded him very great pleasure and Con¬ solation to have reason to believe, from the solemnity of the statements of both, that a higher and a holier feeling than mere politics was the soul of this agitation. (Applause.) The reason why he expressed this pleasure was, that of all things he dreaded the introduction of political feelings as most destructive of their internal peace, and of that calmness of mind which (fis- pioses man either for just judgment or the discharge of his religious obliga¬ tions. lie had known nothing which was so intoxicating in its effects, even on good men, as that unexplained chapter in the history of the human mind, the influence of party politics. He was glad, therefore, to hear the disclaim¬ ers which were made this evening ; for when he had read, on a foreign shore, of the attempt made in one of the churches here to distribute papers in the pews, he felt how far that feeling influenced the actions of men. lie had come to this meeting because he believed it was not a political meeting ; be¬ cause the question which brought that meeting together was infinitely above anything that could be found in mere politics. It was a question, too, that was not n.ew to him ; it was a question on which he had deeply reflected before he had departed for a foreign land, not foreseeing that it would arise before his return, the question, namely, whether Catholic children were ex¬ posed to the danger of forfeiting their faith by an attendance on these schools. For that purpose he had obtained a copy of all the books which it was stated to him were used in these schools, and he had examined them deliberately ; and though he found some things that were objectionable, yet, on the whole, they appeared to him sufficiently free from anything that could be construed into a direct attack on their religious principles. He had had reason, howevei’, since his return, to believe that, in fact, all the books had not been submitted to him, but that some books which contained objectionable matter were withheld. He had seen one such at least, since, and ke was satisfied that no Catholic parent, who felt his responsibility to God, could sufl’er it as a school¬ book in the hands of his children; and therefore it was, that he was inter¬ ested in the question which then engaged their attention ; not as a politi¬ cian, but as a Bishop having charge of tliis Diocese, answerable to the Eter¬ nal Judge for the discharge of his responsible duty, which included a jealous and tender solicitude that the infant mind received only suitable food, and such instruction as was salutary in its tendency. Then, with these remarks, and those which had gone before, he felt, if politics were mixed up with the question under discussion, by others, that meeting was not responsible for it ; and he hoped that in future time, politics, except as a corollary, would be wholly left out of consideration, and that parties and party men would be left wholly to themselves. They would see, before he finished, the necessity of this course. But if he could have thought that mere politics had brought them together, he should have felt it a reproach to themselves, and a dese¬ cration of that place, connected as it was with the Cathedral of the Diocese. He therefore again rejoiced that higher purposes had brought them together ; and he would observe that, feeling as he did the injustice exercised towards the Catholics by tlie operation of the Common School system, as it was now dispensed, if they had not been previously called together, before he had been home three weeks, he would have warned Catholics either to have that system of education expurgated, or to withdraw their children from it. True, it professed to be a system of Common School education, but it was equally true, that while its great professed charm was the expulsion of sec¬ tarianism, there tvas in it, and inseparable from it, a sectarianism of another kind, which was sapping the young minds of the Catholic children ; and an- happily, though parents might impart instruction to their offspring, the ope- THE SCHOOL QUESTION". 43 ation f.f tins system was such that the instruction of the parent was like wmter dtopped into a vessel that leaked below; it passed away, and nothing was found remaining; the labor of parents was neutralized by secret indu- ences, and notwithstanding all that their parents and pastors were doing to engraft in the minds of their children the faith they had received from their fathers, tliey are entirely disappointed in the result. It wms not his intention to examine at length the tendency of the system in its civil and social hear¬ ings, nor to inquire whether a wise statesman would adopt such a system, but he hesitated whether wise statesmen, in a country like this, would recommend it, even under these relations. Did they know whence it came ? It originated in the dark regions of Prussia. And why ? Because the King of Prussia saw the time was coming when the people would be educated ; and with the wisdom and cunning of absolute diplomacy, he thought that education, which the people were determined to have, might be made by delicate means, and skillful management, an admirable instrument for work¬ ing out the purposes of enlightened despotism. Hence the Common School system of that country. And we all know what grandiloquent praises were bestowed on the great and liberal monarch. Men exclaimed, “ See what even the absolute King of Prussia has done for the cause of education !” Oh ! but he took care to have the masters and the whole system under his own con¬ trol. That scheme having succeeded, another was introduced on a still more comprehensive plan, viz., a plan not only of a common education, but of a com¬ mon religion. In those dominions there were two distinct branches, the Lutherans and the Calvinists (they knew that the Catholics were not the subjects for such an experiment), and these two branches were compelled to meet, where they never met before, and read a common liturgy. The King allowed them, indeed, their own opinions in private : one might be Lutheran and the other Calvinist, in private ; but, for the good of the State and the general harmony, they were made to coalesce in a common ritual, prepared by himself. He carried this system with the Protestants ; but he could not with the Catholics. (Applause.) From that country, then, this common education system spread, and in France education is a mere bureau of the Police, and yet that government wants credit for this system of education, and for taking from the parent his peculiar duties. They go to the parent and say, in effect, “We are more interested in the education of your children than you can be.” The Riglit Rev. Bishop continued : God forbid that he should even suspect that our Government had such feelings. The policy of statesmen might be bad, while their intentions were good, and that the policy of this system was bad would be seen, by reflecting how it operated in religious belief. They wished a common education, because education is one of the greatest of blessings, and they knew no religious denomination would have their con¬ sciences tyrannized over. They exclude all sectarianism, so called ; but they have here a secret power of deceit, which, wherever they go, operates on the young mind. Now, this system was manifestly not essential to the preservation of the United States, or of this State ; and what were its bear¬ ings on the inhabitants of the State? The system has not yet been tested by its results ; sufficient time has not elapsed to develop them ; but when they reflected that all morality was founded on religion, and that this w.as an attempt to make man moral on the basis of education without religion, he would ask what could be the harvest that such culture would produce, and he replied, time alone can proclaim and determine. For his own part, he was of opinion though it was not nominally infidelity, that it was practical infidelity, and that, instead of sectarianism, they would have those with no feeling in favor of religion; that the bearings of the system were to produce men with uo feeling but of indifference for religion, unless, perhaps, a feeling 44 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. of contempt for religion. The wise, the immortal Washingtoit, he who had so much talent and so much dignity of character, leaving, as it were, the last words of the dying patriot to his country, said, “Beware of the man who attempts to inculcate morality without religion.” (Applause.) That was 'Washington; and he wondered whether the advocates of this system, who j)roclaimed as a point of merit that it excluded all religion, conceived them¬ selves to be following in the footsteps of the illustrious "Washington. The Right Rev. Prelate then said he would pass from that to the religious bear¬ ings of the question, and he thought he could state to them safely that a Catholic could not conscientiously approve this system, if he were an enlight¬ ened Catholic, and understood his duty to his God and the principles of his religion, and remembered that education comprehended the mysterious de¬ velopment of the young mind, with its three-fold faculties of will, memory, and understanding. The inculcation of knowledge is only a part of an en¬ lightened system of education ; a training of the will is as necessary as the cultivation of the other faculties of the mind, and as the Common School sys¬ tem is in this respect deficient, he repeated that a parent who understood that system, and had a knowledge of his religion and of his own responsi¬ bility, would never submit to it. The Catholic primitive, continuous, per¬ petual church never recognized the principles of leaving the mind of a child without religious culture until it grew up. Such a course was contrary to the spirit of their church, and was contrary to the practice and preaching of the apostles to the Pagans ; for when they converted the Pagan head of a family, the children Avere also trained up to the church as a part of the formation of the mind. The parent was the coadjutor of the pastor, and both were like guardian angels over the tender mind, and thus they transmit¬ ted the blessings they enjoyed to their children. Therefore, he said, this common system was Protestant, but it was not the system Catholics could adopt with their children, because they gave religious instruction to their children as a duty which was imperative, while Protestants were indepen¬ dent of religious education, and were of opinion that it was best to have religion to come at some uncertain period, when a change of heart ivould occur, and a person was to “join the church.” But Catholics had the spiritual interests of their children at heart, and their own responsibility for their eternal welfare ; and though by sending them to these Com¬ mon Schools they might not be taught Presbyterianism, or Episcopalian - ism, or Baptism; yet, if by drop following drop, if by expression following expression, their young minds should be influenced, alienated, and imper¬ ceptibly drawn from their own faith, he asked, could a parent, knowing his obligation to God, permit it. He contended for the right of conscience, and for the sacred right of every man to educate his own children ; and when these are the consequences that follow this system of Common School educa¬ tion, he asked if it were just to tax such a man for its support, while its ten¬ dency was to draw away the mind of his child from the religion which he professed and which he desired to teach him. (Applause.) The question was a simple one, and he was sure they would see but very little difierence between it and the question of tithes for the support of the Protestant church in England and Ireland. To be sure, in those countries they had not ex¬ cluded the Catholics from the churches : they said, our churches are open ; we have provided them expressly for your benefit; if you don’t come, it is your own fault ; but whether you come or not, you must give us your mon¬ ey, and they did accordingly take the Catholics’ money. Did the Catliolics submit? Ho, they adhered to their religion, and when they did not put their own hands into their pockets, somebody else did, and took out their money for them. (Laughter.) lie did not ask for the Catholics any thing that was not just; that was not constitutional. All laws of the country — THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 45 all constitutional laws — are necessarily founded on the principle which se¬ cures to every man his religious rights, and if any law trenches on that right, he asserted that it was not, and could not he constitiUional. In this he was borne out even by the former practice of those who administered the school fund. The fact was, that fora longtime this money was distributed among the different religious societies for the purpose of education. He was told there were 1,500 Catholic children attending these schools: and suppose Catholics gave them the same education that they would got in those schools, did they not etfect the same benefit to the State? But if, with morality, they also at proper times inculcated the principles of religion, he asked whether they should not make the rising generation better citizens, more upright in their intercourse with their fellow-men, more mindful of the sacred relations of the marriage state, and more attentive to their social du¬ ties? He had been told that the old system was not attended with inconve¬ nience, but that some agent or minister of those funds had peculated or mis¬ applied them — but he was not a Catholic. (Laughter.) But why were the Catholics to suffer for the peculation of others ? It was a constitutional principle that every man should enjoy not only his 0'5\Ti opinions, but that he should discharge according to his own sense of it, his duty to God, of which the education of his child is one of the most sacred. He claimed nothing for the Catholic Avhich was not at the same time due to other denominations — to the Jew and the Gentile. He was pleased that the gentlemen who had preceded him had advocated no crooked policy — the changing a name and not a cause ; and he hoped the time had gone by Avhen Catholics would bend their heads as though to court a burden, but that henceforth they would stand erect. It was no¬ thing but simple justice which they contended for, and if they should not get it, they must only submit with the philosophy which gives dignity to disappointment. (Great applause.) He had arrived so recently that he had not had time to examine all the facts in the case ; but the testimony of the clergy Avhom he had consulted was unanimous and decisive that the influence of these schools is prejudi¬ cial to the faith of the Catholic children. Then the question resolved itself into this — should they submit to this if they had the power to cor¬ rect it ; or should they submit even without an effort to correct it ? That was the question, and it had three issues. First, those who had the dispo¬ sition of these funds should dispense them according to that clear and beautiful privilege of the Constitution, which secures the religious rights of all and inflicts evil on none. Now if they gave Catholics a ijortion of that fund after taxing them for the accumulation of the fund, the benefit to the State would be the same and the disijosition would be consistent with their constitutional right, and they should receive it gratefully from those who had the power to give it. But if they insisted that Catholics should pay their money, and after seeing that they did pay, no real benefit was conferred on them in return, but injury, he left it to those concerned whe¬ ther they would go on in support of a system of that kind. He had an< illustration in point — not one furnished by Catholics, but by another de¬ nomination whose magnanimity in contending for the principle of right did them credit — he alluded to the Synod of Ulster, the Presbyterians of Ireland. They saw a system of religious instruction for the National Schools in Ireland made up by the Government, as a kind of mixture of diluted Scripture into essays which would suit either Unitarians, or Meth¬ odists, or Baptists, or Episcopalians — a religious compound Avhich did not mean any thing precisely, but from which any one might take what he pleased. Now the Presbyterians, according to their religious belief, had a fixed principle that the Bible, the whole Bible, and the Bible alone, wan 46 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. the best book of Education, and they protested against this system which did not admit the Bible ; and they stood up fdi' their rights, and that strong iron-handed government, as it is, granted their claim ; and he asked if it would not have been doing violence to those people to have taxed them for the support of a system that would have been destructive of their religious principles. Here was a case in point ; and in precisely the same course they were called ui^on by the circumstances of the present case, to follow. And let him observe that men may weigh but little, and political I)arties may weigh but little, and in point of importance, even money may weigh but little : men may change, but if they took principle for their guide and disencumbered it of all the rubbish of politics and all such things, they would see it shine like a ray of light. What was the princi¬ ple in this case to consider which they were convened together ? \Vhy if they were convinced, as he was, of the evil of the present system, they could not send their children to these Common Schools with safety, as they are now constituted. It remained, then, that they ask those having the power to dispense a remedy to do it. If Catholics contributed to the funds and a jiroportion were returned to them to be expended in precisely the same way as at present, while Catholics preserved their direct religious rights, they would be content, and no other party would have cause to complain. But, as he had a book used in these Common Schools with him, which had been this day handed to him by Hr. Power, he would read one of its amiable little chapters to show its insidious and dangerous tendency and to illustrate the system. The chapter is as follows ; It was Sunday morniny. All the bells were ringing for church, and all the streets were filled with people, moving in all directions, and here numbers of well-dressed persons, and a long train of charity children were thronging in at the wide doors of a iiaudsome church ; there a miinber equally gay in dress were entering an elegant meeting-house. A Roman Catholic congregation was turning into their chapel ; every one crossing himself, with a finger dipped in holy water, as he went in. The opposite side of the street was covered with Quakers, distinguished by their plain and neat attire, who walked without ceremony into a room as plain as themselves, and took their seats, the men on one side, the women on the other, in silence. A spacious building was filled with an overflowing crowd of Methodists, while a small society of Baptists assembled in the neighborhood. Presently the services began. Some of the churches resounded with the solemn organ, and the murmuring of voices following the minister in pr.ayer; in others a single voice was heard ; and in the quiet assembly of the Quakers not a sound was uttered. Mr. Ambrose led his son Edwin round these assemblies ; he observed them all with great attention, but he did not so much as whisper lest he should interrupt any one. \Yhen he was alone with his father, “ Why,” said Edwin, “ do not all people agree to go to the same place, and to worship God in the same way ? ” “ And why should they agree? ” replied his father. “Do you not see that people differ in a hundred other things? Do they all dress alike, and eat and drink alike, and keep the same hours, and use the same diversion ?” “ In those things they have a right to do as they please,” said Edwin. “ They have a right, too,” answered his father, “ to worship God as they please. It is their own business, and concerns none but themselves.” And this, said the Kt. Eev. Bishop, is one of the lessons for children. Now, who docs not see the malice of this, and how it will operate on the minds of children of quick perceptions ? and children are capable of observing, and of im¬ bibing in their souls either good or bad instruction, at a very early age. “ They have a right, too,” answered his father, “ to worship God as they please. It is Ihcir own business, and concerns none but themselves.” “ But has not God ordered particular ways of worshiping him ?” Why the child appears to have much more sense than his father, (Laughter, ) “ But has not God ordered particular ways of worshiping him ?” THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 4t “ He has d .rected the mind and spirit with which he is to be worshiped, but not the manner. That is left for every one to choose. All these people like their own way lest.’' And this to children, you observe. “ The several congregations now began to be dismissed, and streets were again oi'er- sprea-d with persons going to their own homes. It chanced that a poor man fell down in the street in a fit of apoplexy, and la3' for dead ; his wife and children stood round him, crying and lamenting in the bitterest distress. The beholders immediately flocked round, and with looks and expressions of compassion gave their help. A Churchman raised the man from the ground by lifting him under the arms, while a Presbyterian held his head, and wiped his face with his handkerchief. A Roman Catholic lady took out her smelling-bottle, and applied it to her nose. A Methodist ran for a doctor. A Quaker supported and comforted the woman ; and a Baptist took care of the children.” Edwin and his father looked on. “ Here,’’ said Mr. Ambrose, ” is a thing onwhich man¬ kind is made to agree.” So that religion is a matter of choice, but humanity is that in which all agree. Why, he asked, if this humanity did not exist before Jesus Christ ? Yes, the Pagans understoo'd it. But the malice was not so much in approving good actions as in throwing ridicule on ail religion ; and yet this is the system of instruction which our statesmen adopt for our youth — a system whidr will give us what Washington cautioned us against, “ morality without religion.” Let there be granted to the Catholics a fair and just proportion of the funds appropriated for the Common Schools, provided the Catholics will do with it the same thing that is done in the Common Schools, and leave no reason to complain that the system is not followed. If they wdll do that they will take away the Catholic’s cause of anxiety for his children. Then; if they will not give the Catholics a due proportion of the funds, let them be released from the taxes for the creation of this fund. But if they will do neither, and the present .system is insisted upon, the question is whether Catholics, even in this country, are not compelled to do that for the Common Schools, which the Catholics of Ireland do for the English church, contribute to that of which, in their con¬ sciences, they cannot avail themselves, (Applause.) One word, in conclusion, of politics and political men. For his part, he had reason to believe — there were good patriots no doubt of both parties, though perhaps such men were small in numbers — but his opinion of the mass of them was, that they care very little for us or for our rights, provided they can have our services. That was bis opinion of them generally speaking ; and therefore he belonged to neither party ; nor should he ever belong to either party. (Great applause.) He cared not much which party succeeded; he thought that both one and the other were like the two sides of a copper ; but one thing he should like to see, whichever party might be in power — he should like to see justice done to Catholics, for great respect for them was professed when their services were required. He conceived, then, the principles to which he had adverted claimed their first regard ; and if it were, as it struck him, then the Catholics’ first duty should be to secure the rights of conscience for themselves and for their children. Men were changing, and he advised them, strenuously advised them to look simply to principle. It would be to them a guide ; and whatever course was taken, he should like to see them throw overboard person entirely. He should like to see principle laid down as the guide of Catholics ; and this principle spread out to reasonable men of every party, showing that they had not a fair participation in the rights of conscience, of which this system deprived them. Then they would be able to judge between friends and enemies, and he could not be a true iLnerican that would impose burdens to support a system which weakened their children’s regard for religion, and drew them from the faith of their fathers. That was precisely the view in which the case presented itself to him ; and whether this question had come up or not, before his re¬ turn, it had Ijeen his intention most assuredl}^ to draw the attention of Catho- ics to it. But now let them not be ready to impute motives — evil motives to 48 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. each other. Let them always be cautious not to impute had motives to each other. Men will differ in their views ; and he who is first to^ impute a bad motive to his neighbor, is most liable to be misrepresented himself in turn. There was a way of treating all questions, and yet leaving men’s characters safe — not to weigh men’s intentions, but leave them to God. It was not for men, living men, to judge of the intentions of their fellow-men. But let them as Catholics and as citizens prove themselves worthy of that constitution under which they lived, and which they must be prepared to support. But could they support the system which he had explained ? He was satisfied they could not, and on this subject he believed there was not a difference of opinion in the whole body of the clergy in New York. [The Right Rev. Prelate resumed his seat amidst great applause.] Meeting in the Basement of St. James’ Clmrcli, July 27, 1840 Pursuant to a resolution of the meeting held in St. Patrick’s School-room, an adjourned meeting of the Catholics of New York was held in the School-room in the basement of St. James’ Church, James street. Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was called to the chair, and the secretaries of previous meeting were re-elected to their respective offices. One of the secretaries having read the minutes of the last meeting, the venerable chairman opened the business of the evening with a few pertinent remarks, during which the Right Reverend Bishop Hughes entered the room, accompanied by a large body of clergymen, and on being recognized he was loudly cheered. The applause having subsided, the chairman proceeded with his re¬ marks, and made allusion to some published statements respecting his share in the series of meetings which tliey had held, and denied that he was ambitious to be more than a subaltern in their just and righteous cause — a cause which tha't great meeting proved to be one of deep and general interest with the Catholics of the city — and a cause which interested so large a number, he was satis¬ fied, must ultimately succeed. That it had not succeeded before, he believed, was attributable to the fact that the public di il not un¬ derstand the question, nor Avould they attend to it until Catholics THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 49 made themselves heard. He repudiated any political feeling in connection with this subject, and counseled the Catholics to unani¬ mity, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Com¬ mon School System with which they warred, he designated as a monopoly of the worst kind, and in illustration of its evils he said that now $111,000 a year were spent for the education of less than 12,000 children, whereas, if the claims of the Catholics were conceded, upwards of 30,000 children would be educated for the same amount. After a few other observations he resumed his seat loudly applauded. ^le Right Reverend Bishop Hughes then came forward and was received with great applause. He said, as the evening was short, and as the object of the meeting was practicalj he had deemed it unnecessary to wait for a formal introduction, and especially as his remarks had been so ably anticipated by their respected and vener¬ able chairman, with whose sentiments, which his long experience, and matured judgment, and sound Catholic feeling had inspired him to utter, he (the Bishop) fully concurred. He entirely concurred with the sentiment that in this country, when light is diffused on any question in which justice and injustice are involved, the Ameri¬ can people would deal justly, and not oppress any portion of the people with injustice. He likewise concurred with their venerable chairman in the opinion that up to this time the question which then occupied their attention had not been properly understood ; he would go so far as to say that the persons who had declined granting their reasonable request, had done so because they had not understood the justice of their claims — nay, further, when this matter was thorouglily understood, he was satisfied that even the gentlemen connected with the public schools would admit their claim. He was authorized to make this statement from a knowl¬ edge of the genius and constitution of this nation. Here let but their grievances be made known, and every honest man, and every true American — every man who understands the justice and fair play of the American constitution — would be ready to redress their grievances. [Applause.] Passing from the necessity for spreading abroad the true ground of their claim, he would come to the design and intention of the Legislature of this State in granting a bounty for the promotion of education. And he would contend that it was a libel on the char¬ acter of this great State to suppose it was ever intended or de¬ signed that the education of the children of the poor should be partial or injurious to some; and he felt authorized, also, from the character and professions of those statesmen, to say that their in¬ tention was both good and honest, that it was prompted in good faith, and with a desire that every poor man’s child should have the benefit of this bounty, without any encroachment on any civil privilege or religious right. [Applause.] Yet, notwithstanding that this was the design, they saAV that intention had been most admirably defeated — that the object was prevented, and that the 4 50 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. matter had now assumed such a form that, contrary to the inten¬ tions of the Legislature, Catholics were virtually excluded from the benefits of the system. This they w'ould have an opportunity of seeing before he had done. ISTo doubt, the intention was that the money should be expended to make education general ; for every enlightened and educated man was convinced that education was such a blessing that he should not be consulting the true interests of the country, unless he were disposed to foster the education of the young; but did they think it would be worthy an enlightened American Legislature to conceive such a design, and to plan it for the jiurpose of impairing the universal right of conscience and its liberty ? [Applause.] The history of the application of this bounty of the State had been already alluded to. The first principle was that this bounty of the State should be apportioned to the difterent religious Societies, that they might educate the children under their charge ; but because one peculated or perverted this bounty to iniquitous purposes, not con¬ templated by the Legislature, the whole was put under the manage¬ ment of school directors — he might not be right in the use of terms, but they would know what he meant — and they were to visit the schools, and one principle which they were to carry out was to exclude sectarianism utterly and entirely ; and in examining the reasons of the Common Council for refusing to accede to the claim of Catholics, they found that this exclusion of sectarianism was thought the great charm of the system, but he should show them that it did not exclude sectarianism, and that its directors knew it did not, and that they knew it operated injuriously on Catholics. Under this state of the case they were to set their grievances before the commu¬ nity — the grievance of being obliged to contribute to the support of a system from which they could derive no benefit, but which was perverted as an instrument to destroy their religion in the minds of the children under the pretence of excluding sectarianism. But now, to convince them that the exclusion of sectarianism was impossible — did not those directors each belong to some sect ? Did not the gen¬ tlemen putting the books into the hands of the children belong to some sect? He came to this point that they either belonged to some sect or acted on the principles of deism ; and, though this system had now no name under a religious head, it was either deism or sec¬ tarianism. If it were said that it was not sectarianism, he wanted to know Avhat was Christianity ; for if they excluded all sects, they ex¬ cluded all Christianity. Where are the Christians ? Take away Ca¬ tholics, and Baptists, and Methodists, and Presbyterians and some others — and tliey were all sects — take away all the sects, and they had no more Christianity in the land. Nor could they exclude secta¬ rianism ? And if they did, what remained but deism ? There was no alternative. It was as plain as that two and two are four. And did they suppose that this community which belonged to one or the other sect would subscribe to a system Avhich in its essence was anti- Christian? Exclude sectarianism! and in a country, too, which THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 51 prides itself on its Christianity ! He should like to know, then, what sect would receive the greatest benefit from this system ? why, the sect that excluded sectarianism — the “ Common School Sect,” for it ought to have a name. [Laughter.] How let them examine for a moment the school-books used under this system, a couple of which had fallen into his hands, and they had here a reading lesson on the '‘^Character of Martin Luther.'''' Now, no doubt Martin Luther had a character — [laughter] — but people draw it very differently. Here it was drawn by one of hi-s admirers — Catholics, thanks to the education which they gave him, may think highly of his talents, but they have not much admiration of his virtues — here was a chapter on his char¬ acter drawn by Hr. Robertson, a Presbyterian ! But would Catho¬ lics wishing to educate their children put Hr. Robertson’s character of him into their hands ? Here he was made out one of the greatest men that ever lived. [Laughter.] But let that pass. Next they had a chapter on the '"'■Execution of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury A And was that by a Roman Catholic ? Oh no ; they would not trust a lesson by a Roman Catholic into the school ; but they introduced this chapter written by Hume, the historian whose veracity they all could aiipreciate. [Laughter.] Another chapter was entitled the ‘•'■Character of the Great Founder of Christianity.'''' What a name! The Great Founder of Christianity! instead of snying our Lord Jesus Christ. And who is this from ? Hr. Beattie, a Scotch Presbyterian ! But did they want their children to be taught by him ? The next chapter was entitled '■'■The Spirit and Laws of Christianity sxiperior to those of any other religion.’’’' And this was a lesson for children ! And who was this from? Hr. Be.attie again. Now might they not as well seclect lessons for children from the life of Sir Thomas Moore, the Lord Chancellor of England, who gave his head to the block rather than sacrifice his religion ; or from those glorious annals of patriotism which show how Catholic bishops and barons wrung from a king that charter which was now perverted against them. [Applause.] But Catholics did not want their children to be educated by the conductors of this Common School System, whose intentions might possibly be good, though Catholics believed them to be mistaken, at least. The anxiety betrayed to get Catholics to these schools, was proof in itself that there was something in the sys¬ tem that Catholics could not agree to. Need he go further? If it were necessary he could appeal to that Church and to others for proofs of the sacrifices they (the Catholics) had made for the preparation of a place for the education of their children free from the poisonous infection of those Common Schools. What induced them to provide some shelter like this, in which they were now assembled for the pro¬ tection of their children, but that they deemed it a blessing to give good instruction to their children instead of that poison which would pervert their minds from the faith which they reverenced, and which they had received from their fathers ? But here was another book entitled, “ Lessons for Schools, taken from the Holy Scriptures, in the Words of the Text, without Note or / 62 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. Comment.” But when did Catholics allow the Scriptures to he given to children that they might be learnt, “ Without N ote or Comment,” admitting even that these were the true Scriptures? and he asked if this was not a direct interference with the religion of Catholics, and if so, why should they tolerate it if they had the pow er to obtain re¬ dress, or even to appeal against it. If he had access to the libraries of these Common Schools he should find them stuffed full of books that were obnoxious to Catholics and to their feelings ; but, as these books were now being called in, it w^as very difficult to get them, though not long since any child might have them gratis, and he should therefore call their attention to a quotation from a recent publication on these books by a writer who Avas well acquainted with the subject : “ In each of the Public Schools there is established a library, to which the more advanced scholars have access — and what do we find there ? ‘ Martin Luther ’ and ‘ An Irish Heart.’ The latter is addressed to the ‘ Irish Protestant Association ’ of the city of Boston.” Not to Boston alone, but to its essence and spirit — the “ ‘ Protestant Association ’ of the city of Boston, and is a libel upon the Catholics, and an insult to the Irish. From the preface I extract the following : ‘ The emi¬ gration from Ireland to America, of annually increasing numbers, extremely needy, and in many cases drunken and depraved, has become a subject for grave and fear¬ ful reflection. Should this influx continue for a few years more, in the same ratio of increase which has existed for a few years past ; should this imposing subject continue to be thought unworthy of legislative provision, and should the materials of this oppressive influx continue to be the same, instead of an asylum our country might be appropriately styled the common sewer of Ireland.’ From page 24 I copy the following verbatim: ‘As for old Phelim Maghee, he was of no particular ' religion.’ ” Well, then he belonged to this Common School System, said the Bishop. [Laughter.] “ ‘ When Phelim had laid up a good stock of sins, he now and then went over to Killarney, of a Sabbath morning, and got relaaf by conjissing them out o’ the way, as he used to express it, and sealed his soul up with a wafer, and returned quite invigorated for the perpetration of new offences.’ ” There is a lesson for your children in a school system Avhich pro¬ fesses the exclusion of all sectarianism ! Again, on page 120, when speaking of intemperance, we find the following : “ ‘ It is more probably, however, a part of the papal system.’ ” Father Mathew, for instance. " ‘ For, when drunkenness shall have been done away, and with it that just, re¬ lative proportion of all indolence, ignorance, crime, misery, and superstition, of which it is the putative parent, then, truly, a much smaller portion of mankind may be expected to follow the dark lantern of the Romish religion,’ ” And Ave read this while we see Father Mathew going abroad, and hundreds of Protestants joining Father Mathew. ETe spoke of this as one of the books of learning which Avere unfit to be introduced THE SCHOOL QUESTIOIf. 63 into schools from n hicli all sectarianism was professed to be ex¬ cluded. But it goes on : “ ‘ That religion is most likely to find professors among the frivolous and the ■wicked, which by a species of ecclesiastical legerdemain can persuade the sinner that he is going to heaven when he is going directly to heU. By a refined and complicated system of Jesuitry and prelatical juggling — That, I supjjose, is a hint for me — “ ‘ the papal see has obtained its present extensive influence through the world.’ ” Now he would leave it to themselves whether that system, which professed to exclude all sectarianism, and yet adopted books like these, would stand the test of examination before an enlightened community ; he wished to know how any gentleman could stand up before the Common Council and say that in it there was no secta¬ rianism ; he wanted to know how these books could be defended , and he wished to know on what ground any gentleman who re¬ ported on the part of the Common Council could have justified the refusal of the claims of Catholics, with such truths as these before him. But, passing from this state of the case, he would call their atten¬ tion to the disadvantages under which Catholics labored by the operation of this system. And first, though not the greatest, yet what in a country like this must be deemed unconstitutional, was taxation for the support of a system by -which they were not ben¬ efited. It was a great grievance to take the money of Catholics for that from which no benefit was realized. But the next objection was, its inequality. They found a system supported by the commu¬ nity in general w'hich gave instruction to the children of their neighbor, who knew not or cared not how it operated on the reli¬ gious training of his child ; while the Catholic who did care for the interests of his child’s religious principles could not, for that reason, conscientiously partake of its advantages. But its inequality was equaled by its injustice : for why were they taxed for such a sys¬ tem, when that system is so perverted as to make it their duty to relinquish its benefits, rather than sacrifice that which was of greater importance. The next fact w'as, the operation of this system on their children ; and he asked them to judge for themselves, from the specimens they have had, what must be the inevitable effect on their children. But this was not all ; for after submitting to taxation for this system, they were obliged to tax themselves anew, as well as their means would permit, to give their children an education that would not compromise their religious faith. Now, if he had an oppor¬ tunity to address the gentlemen more intimately mixed up with the Common School System, he would desire them to bring their better feelings to contemplate the scene in this place when the children of the poor came there, and not only the children but their teachers, who were wilimg to sacrifice health and life that they might impart instruction to their minds ; he would bring them here and ask them to look upon the spectacle; he wmuld ask them, also, if it were just 54 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. that they should be deprived of the benefit of an education -vvliich the money of their parents contributed to provide ; he would ask them if it were just that these children should come here with bare feet, during inclement weather — and why bare feet? because the money had been expended in books, which should have purchased them shoes. The Legislature did not intend that they should be thus excluded from the benefits of this system; nor yet that the children of the poor emigrant should not participate in it, for they are poor, and for the poor in an especial manner was it intended, that they might become good citizens. They, then, were the victims of a system which was so perverted that they could not, without sacrificing their consciences, send their children to participate in its benefits, for which they had, in common with other citizens, sub¬ scribed the funds. Now, with this outline of the case, which he should be glad to see in print and sent abroad to justify their course, he came to the remedy ; for he did not suppose they would present themselves to the constituted authorities and demand this money, unless they could show it was right. They did not ask a favor; but, according to sound judgment, ^public right, to which they were entitled. Nor was it expedient that those in power shoukl grant that ivhich the Catholics demanded, until they had shown them some good and sound reason, and its justice and propriety ; and, therefore, he was glad that their grievances were laid before the wdiole land and were not confined to that room. They must seize the public attention, and if their just claim was still denied, then let it be branded on the flag of America that Catholics were denied and deprived of equal rights. [Applause.] It appeared, from the histoiy of their pro¬ ceedings before his arrival, that difficulties had been throwm in their way most inexpediently, most injudiciously, and he might use a harsher expression still in respect to the sentiments put forth in relation to their agitation against the abominable system which ex¬ cludes all Christianity, but does no good. That anybody calling himself a Catholic could have used such language was indeed sur- ])rising ; and they could only suppose that such an individual did not know his religion or wdiat this Common School System was. But let that pass. There had been another difficulty — that those to Avliom the law entrusted the disposition of this money Avere not the persons by vdiom it was originally recommended. It might happen, in some cases, that those not in power should be ready to recom¬ mend a measure with the hope that they might embarrass others. Now, in matters of this kind, reflecting men would not regret a benefit because those recommended it who were not usually of their own way of thinking. It reminded him of a man who should be without his breakfast till about eleven o’clock, and is then recom¬ mended by his enemy to take it ; but, says another, “ You know I have eA"er been your friend, while he has been your enemy, and I recommend you to wait.” After listening to both advisers, the man says : “ In the first place, have I the right to my breakfast ? If so, THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 55 it is no matter who recommends it. It is not because this man or tliat man recommends it, but because I have the right to it, that I will take it. In addition, it is near twelve o’clock, and I feel hun¬ gry ; and no doubt, after taking it, I shall feel better. Indepen¬ dently, then, of your advice — and you both wish me well — I have reasons of my own for eating my breakfast, with which I hope you will be satisfied.” And so it was on this Common School Question. .It was very silly to bring such reasons here as had been stated, and he hoped they were now excluded. He feared he was taxing their patience and employing the time that would be more usefully employed by others, and therefore he would conclude with the remark, that they must bear in mind they were not to accomplish this work in a day. They would have to speak to those by whom they expected justice to be done them; they would have to diffuse light, for there were in the country public men of high honor and good feeling of all parties — men who really wished to be just ; and if others were mere trading politi¬ cians, he hoped they would be mindful of that old adage, which was as true here as elsewhere, “ Honesty is the best policy and if they wanted to be successful politicians, their course was to be honest politicians. He was aAvare that even Avhere politicians were not honest, from Maine to Georgia, their policy was to appear so : but there were men independent of this class that Avere men of gen¬ erous minds and pure motives, AA'ho sympathized with the people and Avere Avatchful of the interests of the country, and who would grant the justice to Avhich Catholics Avere entitled, and drive out from this system that sectarianism Avhich its professed friends say does not exist in it. In order, then, to proceed in the Avay whicli cases of the kind require, he would suggest the adoption of the fol¬ lowing preamble and resolutions ; Whereas^ The Avisdom and liberality of the Legislature of this State did provide, at the public expense, for the education of the poor children of the State, Avithout injury or detriment to the civil and religious rights A’ested in their parents or guardians by the laAvs of nature and of the land : And, whereas. Catholics contribute and ha\'e ahvays contributed their proportion to the funds from which that system is supported : And, whereas, the administration of that system, as noAA' conducted, is such that the parents or guardians of Catholic children cannot alloAV them to frequent such schools Avithout doing violence to those rights of conscience Avhich the Constitution secures equal and inviolable to all citizens, viz. ; They cannot alloAV their children to be brought up under a system AvLich proposes to shut the door against Christianity, under the pretext of excluding secta¬ rianism, and Avhich yet has not the merit of being true to its bad promise : And, whereas. Catholics Avho are the least wealthy and most in need of the education intended by the bounty of the State, are thus cut off from tlie benefit of funds to AALich they are obliged to conti’ibute, and constrained either to contribute neAV funds for the purposes of education among themselves, or else to see their I 56 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. children brought up under a system of free-thinking and practical irreligion, or else see them left to that ignorance which they dread, and which it was the benevolent and wise intention of the Legisla¬ ture to remove. Therefore, 1. Resolved, That the operation of the Common School System, as the same is now administered, is a violation of our civil and reli¬ gious rights. 2. Resolved, That we should not be worthy of our proud distinc¬ tion as Americans and American citizens, if we did not resist such invasion by every lawful means in our power. 3. Resolved, That in seeking the redress of our grievances, we have confidence in our rulers, more especially as by granting that redress they will but carry out the principles of the Constitution, which secures equal civil and religious rights to all. 4. Resolved, That a committee of eight be appointed to prepare and report an address to the Catholic community and the public at large, on the injustice which is done to the Catholics, in their civil and religious rights by the present operation of the Common School System. 5. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to prepare a report on the public moneys Avhich have been expended by the bounty of this State for education, both in Colleges and in Common Schools, to which Catholics have contributed their proportion of taxes like other citizens, but from which they have never received any benefit. The resolutions having been unanimously adopted collectively, the committees designated in the resolutions were then appointed by the chairman, as follows: Rt. Rev. Bishop Hughes, James W. McKeon, Thomas O’Connor, Dr. Sweeney, James W. White, James Kelley, Gregory Dillon, B. O’Connoiq John McLoughlin : C. F. Grim, James W. McKeon. ADDRESS OF THE CATHOLICS TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE CITY AND STATE OP NEW YORK. Speech, of Right Rev. Bishop Hughes. A GENERAL meeting of the Catholics of Kew York was held in the basement of St. .James’ Church, James street, on Monday, August 10, 1840, on the subject of Common School Education, and- the claim of the Catholics to a portion of the Common School Fund. The meeting was very numerously attended. Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was again called to the chair, and the secretaries of the pre¬ vious meetings were also re-elected. THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 57 Tlie Right Reverend Bishop Hughes, having entered the room accompanied by a numerous body of the clergy, was received with enthusiastic plaudits. He then, as the chairman of the committee appointed by the last meeting to prepare an address to the public on the subject which those meetings were convened to discuss, came forward and said, the object they had in view, in drafting and adopting a report, was that the public at large might be informed of the nature of their pretensions, and of the grievances of which they complained, in order that if there 'were in the public a sympa¬ thetic response to their cry for justice, it might come forth. For himself he had but little doubt of the issue, for he had great con¬ fidence in the public justice. And whatever might be the conduct of the editors of the daily journals, and of others who were but ob¬ scurely informed, or who but darkly understood the nature of their position, he still hoped that when they comprehended thoroughly the ground on which Catholics stood, they would not persevere in the course of which their venerable chairman so justly complained. [Applause.] With the permission of the meeting, he would then read the draft of the report which was about to be submitted to them. The Right Reverend Prelate then read the following address, which was received with responsive cheers throughout : ADDRESS Of the Roman Catholics, to their Fellow Citizens of the City and State I of New York. Fellow Citizens : We, the Roman Catholics of the City of Hew York, feeling that both our civil and religious rights are abridged and injuriously alfected by tbe operation of the Common School System, and by the construction which the Common Council have lately put on the laws authorizing that system, beg leave to state our grievances, with the deepest confidence in the justice of the American character; that if our complaints are well founded, you will assist us in obtain¬ ing the redress to which we are entitled — if they are not well founded, we are ready to abandon them. We are Americans and American citizens. If some of us are foreigners, it is only by the accident of birth. As citizens, our am¬ bition is to be Americans — and if we cannot be so by birth, we are so by choice and preference, which we deem an equal evidence of our affection and attachment to the Laws and Constitution of the country. But our children, for whose rights as well as our own we contend in this matter, are Americans by nativity. So that we are either, like yourselves, natives of the soil, or, like your fathers from the Eastern world, have become Americans under the sanction of the Constitution, by the' birth right of selection and preference. We hold, therefore, the same idea of our rights that you hold of 68 AECHBISnOP HUGHES. yours. We wish not to diminish yours, hut only to secure and enjoy our own. Neither have we the slightest suspicion that you would wish us to be deprived of any privilege, which you claim for yourselves. If then we have sufiered by the operation of the Common School System in the City of New York, it is to be im¬ puted rather to our own supineness, than to any wish on your part that we should be aggrieved. The intention of the Legislature of this State in appropriating jjublic funds for the jjurposes of popular schools, must have been (whatever construction the lawyers of the Common Council put upon it) to diffuse the blessings of education among the people, without encroachment on the civil and religious rights of the citizens. It was, it must have been, to have implanted in the minds of youth, principles of knowledge and virtue, which would secure to the State a future population of enlightened and virtuous, instead of ignorant and vicious members. This was certainly their general intention, and no other would have justified their bountiful appropriation of the public funds. But in carrying out the measure, this patriotic and wise intention has been lost sight of ; and in the City of New York, at least, under the late arbitrary determination of the present Common Council, such intention of the legislature is not only disregarded, but the high public ends to which it was directed, are manifestly being defeated. Here knowledge, according to the late decision, mere secular knowl¬ edge, is what w'e are to understand by education, in the sense of the legislature of New York. And if you slrould allow the smallest ray of religion to enter the school-room ; if you should teach the chil¬ dren that there is an eye that sees every wicked thought, that there is a God, a state of rewards and punishment beyond this life ; then, according to the decision of the Common Council, you forfeit all claim to the boimty of the State, although your scholars should have become as learned as Newton, or wise as Socrates. Is then, we would ask you, fellow citizens, a practical rejection of the Christian religion in all its forms, and without the substitution of any other, the basis on which you would form the principles and character of the future citizens of this great Commonwealth ? Are the meek lessons of religion and virtue, which jiass from the mother’s lips into the heart of her child, to be chilled and frozen by icy contact with a system of education thus interpreted ? Is enlightened villainy so precious in the public eye, that science is to be cultivated whilst virtue is neglected, and religion, its only adequate groundwork, is formally and authoritatively proscribed ? Is it your wish that vice should thus be elevated from its low and natural companionship with ignorance, and be married to knowledge imparted at the public expense ? AYe do not say that even the Common Council profess to require that the Christian religion should be excluded from the Common Schools. They only contend that the inculcation of each or any of its doctrines would be sectarianism, and thus lest sectarianism THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 59 should be admitted Chi'istianity is siibstantially excluded. Chris¬ tianity in this country is made up of the different creeds of the vari¬ ous denominations, and since all these creeds are proscribed, the Christian religion necessarily is banished from the hall of public edu¬ cation. The objections which we have thus far stated, fellpw citizens, ought to appear to you, in our opinion, as strong to you as they do to us. For though we may differ in our detinition of the religion of Christ, still we all generally profess to believe, to revere it, as the foundation of moral virtue and of social happiness. Now we know of no fixed principle of infidelity, except in the negation of the Christian religion ? The adherents of this principle may difter in other points of skepticism, but in rejecting Christianity they are united. Their coufession of faith is a belief in the negative of Chris¬ tianity — but they reject it in toto — whilst the Common School rejects it only in all its several parts, under the name of Sectarianism. It is manifest, therefore, that the Public School System of the City of New York, is entirely favorable to the sectarianism of infi¬ delity, and opposed only to that of positive Christianity. And is it your wish, fellow citizens, is it your wish more than ours, that infi¬ delity should have a predominancy and advantages, in the public schools, which are denied to Christianity ? Is it your wish that your children should be brought up under a system of education so called, which shall detach them from the Christian belief which you profess, Avhatever it may be — and prepare them for initiation into the mysteries of Fanny Wrightism, or any other scheme of infidelity which may come in their way ? Are you willing that your chil¬ dren, educated at your expense, shall be educated on a principle antagonist to the Christian religion ? that you shall have the toil and labor of cultivating the ground, and sowing the seed, in order that infidelity may reap the harvest. With us it is matter of surprise that conscientious persons of all Christian denominations have not been struck with this bad feature of the system as understood by the Common Council. A new sec¬ tarianism antagonist to all Christian sects has been generated in, not the common schools, as the State originally understood the term, but in the public schools of the Public school Society ; this new secta¬ rianism is adopted by the Common Council of the City, and is sup¬ ported, to the exclusion of all others^ at the public expense. Have the conscientious Methodists, Ejnscopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, and others, no scruples of conscience at seeing their children, and the children of their poor brought up under this new sectarianism ? It is not for us to say, but for ourselves we can speak. And we can¬ not be parties to such a system, except by legal compulsion and against conscience. Let us not be mistaken. We do not deny to infidels for unbelief any rights to Avhich any other citizen is entitled. But we hold that the Common School System as it has been lately interpreted by the Common Council of the City, necessarily trans- 60 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. fers to the interest of infidel sectarianism, the advantages which are denied to Christian sectarianism of every kind. Again, let us not be misunderstood. We are opposed to the admission of sectarian¬ ism of any and of every kind, whether Christian or anti-Christian in the schools that are supported by the State. But we hold also that, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned in the character of her future citizens, even the least perfect religion of Christian sectarianism would be better than no religion at all. And we hold that of all bad uses to which the public money can be jierverted, among the worst wmuld be the expending of it, in the shape of a bounty to education, for the spread and propogation of sectarian infidelity. Far be it from us to suppose that either the Legislature, Common Council or School Commissioners, ever intend¬ ed such perversion. We hold, nevertheless, that the consequence which we have pointed out and the apprehension of which is one of the reasons wLy the Roman Catholics cannot conscientiously par¬ ticipate in the benefits of these schools, is necessary and inevitable. The education which each denomination might under proper re¬ straints and viligance give to its oxon poox', has passed and become a monopoly in the hands of “The Public School Society of New York.” That corporation is in high and almost exclusive standing with the Common Council. Now, the education which is imparted on the principles of the schools of that society, is, in our decided opinion, calculated from its defectiveness to disappoint the benevolent hope of legislative bounty, and to make bad and dangerous citizens. We all know that the belief of another world is ultimately at the base of all that is just and sacred in this. The love of God — the hope of future re¬ wards — the dread of future punishment — one or all of these consti¬ tute and must be the foundation of conscience in the breast of every man. When neither of them exists, conscience is but an idle word. Re¬ ligion is but the development of these important truths, governing man by their internal influence on his passions and aflections, regu¬ lating the order of his duties, to God, to his country, to his neigh¬ bor and himself. If they have their full force he will be a man of justice, probity and truth. And in proportion as such men are nu¬ merous in the Commonwealth, in the same proportion wall the State enjoy security and happiness from within — honor and high estima¬ tion from Avithout. Now holding these truths as indisputable, we ask you, fellow citi¬ zens, to say whether this, not common, but Public School System, as it is now administered, under the interpretation of the Common Council, is calculated to raise up for your successors, in the State, men of this description ; or rather, Avhether it does not promise you men of a difierent and dhimetrically opposite character ? The Common Council makes it a condition, an essential one of those schools, that religion shall not “ be taught, for this would be sectari¬ anism.” And thus the intellect is cultivated, if you please, but the THE SCHOOL QUESTIOSr. 61 heart and moral character are left to their natural depravity and wildness. This is not education ; and above all, this is not the edu¬ cation calculated to make good citizens. Education cultivates all the faculties of the human soul, the will, as well as the understanding and memory. The Public School System not only does not cultivate the will (for this can hardly be done without the aid of religion), but it al¬ most eniancij^ates the will, even in the tender age of childhood, in reference to the subject of religion itself. We have found in the hands of our children lessons setting forth, in substance, that, after all, humane feelings and actions are about the best religion. In these schools, you give them knowledge, without the moderat¬ ing principle which will direct its use, or prevent its being applied to the worst of purposes. What principle do you inculcate that will check the lie that is rising to their lips, or cause confusion on their brow when they have uttered it ? None. Religion could ac¬ complish this — but religion is excluded. If you tell them there is a God who will punish them, the Athiest father who thinks himself an honest man without God, and who thinks his own opinions good enough for his child, will appeal to the decision of the Common Council, and show that you violate the condition of the grant in favor of common schools, by speaking of God or anything sectarian. What principles of self resti'aint are inculcated in this spurious system of education, which leaves the will of the pupil to riot in the f erceness of unrestrained lusts ? “ Train up a child in the way in which he should walk, and when he is old he will not depart from it,” is the maxim of one who judged of human nature with more than human penetration. But the Common Council has reversed it, and decided that the child will train up itself, provided you give it knowledge without religion. Thus far, fellow-citizens, we have stated our objections to the present system of common school education, not as they aflect us more than any other denomination of Christians. We have stated them in view of the bearing which that system is likely to have on interests in ivhich you are concerned as much as, or more, than ourselves, viz. : religion, morals, individual and social happiness, and the welfare of the State. We believe it was the warning voice of the illustrious Washing¬ ton, among the last solemn words of the patriot, breathed into the ear of his beloved country, to beware of the man who would inculcate morality xoithout religion. ■ We now come to the statement of grievances which affect us in our civil and religious rights, as Roman Catholics. Under the guarantee of liberty of conscience, we profess the re¬ ligion which we believe to be true and pleasing to God. We inherit it, many of us, from our persecuted fathers, for we are the sons of martyrs in the cause of religious freedom. Our conscience obliges us to transmit it to our children. A brief experience of the Public School System in the city of New 32 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. York convinced us that we could not discharge our conscientious duty to our offspring, if we allowed them to be brought up under the influence of the irreligious principles on which those schools are conducted, and to some of which we have already alluded. But besides these, there were other grounds of distrust and danger which soon forced on us the conclusion that the benefits of public education were not for us. Besides the introduction of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment, with the prevailing theory that from these even children are to get their notions of religion, contrary to our principles, there were in the class books of those schools false (as we believe) historical statements respecting the men and things of past times calculated to fill the minds of our children with errors of fact, and at the same time to excite in them prejudice against the religion of their parents and guardians. These passages were not considered as sectarian, inasmuch as they had been selected as mere reading lessons, and were not in favor of any particular sect, but merely against the Catholics. We feel it is unjust that such pas¬ sages should be taught at all in schools, to the siipport of which we are contributors as well as others. But that such books should be put into the hands of our oton children, and that in part at our own expense, was in our opinion unjust, unnatural, and at all events to us intolerable. Accordingly, through very great additional sacri¬ fices, Ave have been obliged to provide schools, under our churches and elscAvhere, in which to educate our children as our conscientious duty required. This Ave haA’e done to the number of some thousands for several years past, during all of which time we ha\m been obliged to pay taxes ; and Ave feel it unjust and oppressive that Avhilst wo educate our children, as Avell Ave contend as they would be at the public schools, we are denied our portion of the school fund, simply because Ave at the same time endeavor to train them up in principles of virtue and religion. This Ave feel to be unjust and unequal. For Ave pay taxes in proportion to our numbers, as other citizens. We are supposed to be from one hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand in the State. And although most of us are poor, still the poorest man amongst us is obliged to pay taxes, from the sweat of his brow, in the rent of his room or little tenement. Is it not then hard and unjust that such a man cannot haAm the benefit of education for his child Avith- out sacrificing the rights of his religion and conscience ? He sends his child to a school under the protection of his Church, in Avdiich these rights Avill be secure. But he has to support this school also. In Ireland he was compelled to support a church hostile to his re-, ligion, and here he is compelled to supjjort schools in Avhich his religion fares but little better, and to support his OAvn school be¬ sides. Is this state of things, felloAv-citizens, and especially Ameficans, is this state of things worthy of you., Avorthy of our country, worthy of our just and glorious constitution? Put yourself m the poor man’s place, and say whether you would not despise him if he did THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 63 not labor by every lawful means to emancipate himself from this bondage. He has to pay double taxation for the education of his child, one to the misinterpreted law of the land, and another to his conscience. He sees his child going to school with perhaps only the fragment of a worn-out book, thinly clad, and its bare feet on the frozen pavement ; whereas, if he had his rights he could improve the clothing, he could get better books, and have his child better taught than it is possible in actual circumstances. Nothing can be more false than some statements of our motives, which have been put forth against ns. It has been asserted that we seek our share of the school fundfi for the support and advance of our religion. We beg to assure you with respect that we would scorn to stip- port or advance our religion at any other than our own expense. But we are unwilling to pay taxes for the purpose of destroying our religion in the minds of our children, Tliis points out the sole difference between what we seek and what some narrow-minded or misinformed journals have accused us of seeking. If the public schools could have been constituted on a principle which would have secured a perfect neutrality of influence on the subject of religion, then we should have no reason to complain. But this has not been done, and we respectfully submit that it is impos¬ sible. The cold indifierence with which it is required that all relig¬ ion shall be treated in those schools — the Scriptures with.out note or comment — the selection of passages, as reading lessons, from Prot¬ estants and prejudiced authors, on points in which our creed is sup¬ posed to be involved — the comments of the teacher, of which the Commissioners cannot be cognizant — the school libraries, stuffed with sectarian works against us — form against our religion a combi¬ nation of influences prejudicial to our religion, and to whose action it would be criminal in us to expose our children at such an age. Such, fellow-citizens, is a statement of the reasons of our opposi¬ tion to the public schools, and the unjust and unequal grievances of which we comjflain. You can judge of our rights by your own. You cannot be ex¬ pected to know our religion ; many of you have, no doubt, strong prejudices against it, which we are fain to ascribe precisely to the circumstance of your not having had an opportunity to know it. But notwithstanding your iirejudices, and your disapproval of our faith, we have confidence in your high principles of justice, under the sanction of our common constitution, which secures equal re¬ ligious and civil rights to all. Put yourselves in our situation, and say whether it is just, or equal, or constitutional, that whereas we are contributors to the public fund, we shall be excluded from our share of benefit in their expenditure, unless we submit to the arbi¬ trary and irreligious conditions of the Common Council, and thereby violate our rights of conscience ? Our religion is dear to us ; for in the hearts of many of us it is connected with the history of our fathers’ sufferings, and our own. 64 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. Education is dear to us, for the tyrants who wished to enslave onr ancestors and ns, made it felony for the schoolmaster to come among us, unless he were the avowed enemy of our creed. We seek for nothing but what we conceive to be our rights, and which can be granted without violating or abridging the principles of any other denomination or individual breathing. They may be refused as they have been. If they should, neither shall we yet suf¬ fer our children to receive the anti-religious education of the public schools, nor shall we kiss the hand that fixes a blot on the Constitu¬ tion by oppressively denying our just claims. What do we contend for ? Simply that our children shall be educated apart from these influences. We contend for liberty OF CONSCIENCE AND FREEDOM OF EDUCATION. We hold that the laws of nature, of religion, and the very Constitution of the coun¬ try, secure to parents the right of superintending the education of their own children. This right we contend for, but we have hitherto been obliged to exercise it under the unjust disadvantages of double taxation. If the State, considering our children as its own, grants money for their education, are we not entitled to our portion of it, when we perform the services which are required. It appears not, according to the decisions of the Common Council, unless we send our children to schools in which our religious rights are to be violated, and our offspring qualified to pass over to the thickening ranks of infidelity. This shall not be ; much as we dread ignorance, we dread this much more. If justice were done us, we could increase the number of our teachers to a proportion corresponding with the number of children. W e could improve our means of teaching ; we could bring our children out of the damp basements of our Churches into the pure air of better localities. In a word, give us our just proportion of the Common School Fund, and if we do not give as good an educa¬ tion, apart from religions instruction^ as is given in the public schools, to one third a larger number of children for the same money, we are willing to renounce our just claim. Let the proper authorities ap¬ point any test of improvement that shall be general, and we shall abide by it. Neither do we desire that any children shall attend our schools, except those of our own communion ; although so far as we are concerned they shall be open to all. In a country like this it is the interest of all to protect the guar¬ anteed rights of eacli. Should the professors of some weak or un¬ popular religion be oppressed to-day, the experiment may be repeated to-morrow on some other. . Every successful attempt in that way will embolden the spirit of encroachment, and diminish the power of resistance ; and in such an event the monopolizers of education, after having discharged the office of public tutor, may find it con¬ venient 1o assume that of public preacher. The transition will not be found difficult or unnatural from the idea of a common school, to that of a common religion, from which, of course, in order to make THE SCHOOL QLESTION. 65 it popular, all Christian sectarianism will be carefully excluded. Resist the beginnings, is a wise maxim in the preservation of rights. Should the American people ever stand by and tolerate the open and authoritative violation of their Magna Gharia^ then the Republic Avill have seen the end of its days of glory. The friends of liberty throughout the civilized world will fold their hands in grief and despair. The tyrants of the earth will jAoint to the flag Avhich your fathers planted, and cry, Ila ! ha ! The nations from afar will gaze upon it, and behold Avith astonishment its bright stars faded and its stripes turned into scorpions. After reading the address, the Right Rev. Prelate said, as he had had some connection Avith the drawing up of the address, it might be proper that he should mention some of the circumstances au¬ thorizing the language adopted in it. An idea appeared to prevail that because the schools to AA^hich a desire Avas manifested to compel them, as it Avere, to send their children, were called “ public schools,” they belonged to everybody. ISTow' they spoke of a “ public square ” as of something that was public; and, in ordinary phraseology, “public schools” would be schools belonging to the State; but, if they conceived that idea of the public schools in question, they were mistaken. What belonged to the State belonged to the people of the State, and what belonged to the city belonged to the people of the city; but here these schools belonged, to a private incorpo¬ rated Society, and from the commencement they had changed their character as much as it was pqssible for them to change. For Avhat purpose does the first charter of this incorporated Public School Society purport to have been gh^eii ? They had read the language of the report draAvn up by the Common Council, in Avhich it Avas stated that anything sectarian or religious in the instruction given in a school was a disqualification, and cut off that school from all participation in the Common School Fund ; but this Avas not the lan¬ guage of the charter by Avhich the Public School Society Avas incor¬ porated ; for in that it was recited that it was giA^en for the educa¬ tion of children belonging to no known denomination, and for im¬ planting in their minds the principles of religion and morality. There Avas no dread of sectarianism then. From that time this Public School Society, thus incorporated, passed on, step by step, enlarging their poAvers, and becoming favorites Avith the State and City author¬ ities, until this private incorporation took charge of the children — hot of no knoAvn denomination, that they might be taught religion and morality, but of all classes, and upon a principle that operated to exclude religion altogether. It Avas not then Avithout authority that the language of the address Avas so strong on this matter. The Common Council held the doctrine that the schools to be common- schools, should be open to all, and that those branches of education, and those only, should be taught Avhich tend to fit youth for the ordinary occu])ations of life. They strip it of all religion, because religion has reference to a future state ; and to make the system 5 66 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. common, they profess to provide for the education of Mohammed¬ ans and Jews, without violating religious belief. Well, but Cath olics, as has been repeatedly and abundantly shown, could not send their children to those schools without violating their religious be¬ lief, and he thought they ought to have the privilege that was so bountifully provided for the Mohammedan. [Apjalause.] But not¬ withstanding the professions made, this system, so full is it of incon¬ sistency as well as mischief, did not exclude religious teaching, for the Scriptures were read, and that was one form of religion, and many people thought it sufficient for all purposes. But all the teaching the State had in view, according to the construction of the Common Council, was confined to what would make man useful in this life ; that is, make him an intellectual and mechanical machine. Now he did not understand that a man would not be equally w'ell qualified to become a good mechanic, if he understood the Christian religion, or that to blend religion with his secular knowledge would disqualify him for usefulness in this life. [Applause.] Oh ! but only get him to read Mr. Hume’s chapter, entitled the “ Execution of Cranmerf Dr. Robertson’s “ Character of Martin Luther f the little innocent story of “ Phelim Maghee,” and the “ Irish Heart,” and then he would make an excellent mechanic. [Laughter.] He had made these few observations merely to show that these schools did not belong to the public, in the common sense of the terra, but to a private corporation which had received a vast deal of the public money, and still continued to receive it, while they who contributed that money were deprived of the benefits 'which the State intended it should confer, and they, in conse4uence, were obliged again to contribute to the education of their children in another form. [Great applause.[ The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes counseled them, while they joined to obtain their just demands in reference to this Common School System, to be good citizens in all the relations of life, and to be kind and charitable in the world, and thereby throw suspicion on the minds of even their enemies of the truth of the ridiculous and absurd tales told of them in the books which were now read in the Public Schools; but in the mean time let them withdraw their children from their bad influence. [Great applause.] Meeting in the Basement of St. James’ Church, August 24. 1840. Pursuant to adjournment, another crowded meeting of Catholics was held in the basement of St. .James’ Church, James street, on the evening of Monday, August 24, on the subject of their claim to- a portion of the Common School Fund for the education of their children. Mr. Gregory Dillon was called to the chair, and the THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 67 I secretaries of previous meetings were re-elected. The minutes of the last meeting having been read and approved, The Kight Kev. Bishop Hughes came forward to address the meeting, and was most enthusiastically received. Ho commenced by observing that it might not be unadvisable to remind the meet¬ ing, which consisted of persons deeply interested in the question before them, of the true principles which the question involved, of the extent to which their claim reached, and of the limit by which it was and ought to be bounded, for they ap^ieared to be peculiarly unfortunate in making themselves understood wheii they come be¬ fore the public to vindicate even one of the simplest rights belong¬ ing to the citizens of this country ; they were peculiarly unfortunate in having their motives misrepresented and their intentions not charitably construed. This, however, was greatly less the case at the present time than heretofore ; nevertheless, even now there had been published in newspapers of this city statements of circum¬ stances in regard to their proceedings which had never occurred, to his knowledge, and to which the meeting would also find themselves strangers. [Applause.] Certainly, they were not of much import¬ ance ; but as there was much credulity abroad, and as everything which went forth to their disparagement from their opponents could not be contradicted in writing, for which few of them could find the time, it became necessary, on an occasion like the present, to avail themselves of the opportunity to give utterance to their disavowal. [Applause.] In the Journal of Commerce of that morning there was a writer who acknowledged himself to be a teacher in a public school, and that gentleman appeared to be highly offended with tliem for lan¬ guage and proceedings which he attributed to them in the progress of that work. Now many of those then present had heard him (the Right Rev. Prelate) and others speak there from tlie first hour to the present, and they had not heard one uncharitable, one unkind, one disrespectful word respecting the character or the motives of any person connected with the Common School System. They had made and did make a broad distinction between the system of Common School education, in connection with its necessary results, and the private characters of the parties who administered it, and the standing of those who were its special protectors. This gentle¬ man said that they (the Catholics) say in amount that the persons connected with the Common School System are all infidels. But who ever said such a thing ? Did they ever say that infidelity was taught in those schools? Never; but they did say that the con¬ ductors of the Common Schools profess to exclude everything secta¬ rian, and that this they could not do if they would ; and should not, if they could ; for if they did, there would be the absence of every¬ thing like Cliristianity, and there would consequently be nothing remaining but what they (the Catliolics) call infidelity. Those schools would teach children the mathematics, but not a word about God ; and what would that be but practical infidelity ? What 68 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. I would be tlioir creed but that which knows not God? l^ow this they believed would be the result of the system, though not the intention of its managers. They (the Catholics) would respect their intentions, though they knew them not; and they therefore could only meet them on the ground which they had themselves chosen to occupy, judge of them by their own professions and by the docu¬ ments which they had given to the world, and on a comparison with the results w'hich were unavoidable ; then say whether the Public School System, if it could have any influence, was not hostile to Christianity, and, consequently, infidel. [Applause.] He did not pretend to say that this was intended, but that it would be the re¬ sult. He did not say that the boys, because they attended those schools, would necessarily become infidels ; but if not, no thanks to that school system, but to the teaching of the parents at home ; to the knowledge, and piety and anxious solicitude of parents, and to their pastors too [applause] — for which the system was entitled to no credit. [Renewed applause.] But there were other remarks made by the Churchman. Now that was the paper of a very respectable denomination — the Epis¬ copal — and it did not quarrel with the arguments ; it did not dis¬ pute the grounds on which their claim was based, but, half sidling for and half sidling against tliem, it concluded by observing that it was not so much surprised at the nature of the claim itself as at the boldness with which it was put forward. [Laughter.] He should like to know if, in this country, this Churchman would like to see, or expected, that they would creep when they came to demand a right ; or whether in a country and under a Constitution which treated all men as equal, and respected all men alike, they should not stand straight iip and say what they wanted — their claim being couched in respectful language, which should 'not entitle it to the charge of “ boldness.” [Applause.] But there had been nothing in their proceedings to justify the charge of boldness ; there had been no presumption ; and this the Churchman ought to know. In the United States, Catholics are not obliged to recognize “ Canterbury high. Sir.” [Great applause.] Having made these remarks, he would call the attention of the meeting to another subject. When the application was made to the Common Council, it appeared by the case, as submitted to the public, that the Common Council sat as jurors, that the Catholics appeared as opposed to the Common School Society, and stated that they could not in their consciences send their children to these schools, and that advocates, as representatives of the Public School Society, appeared to oppose them, and determined that Catholics could in their consciences send their children to them. Now he (the Bishop) understood that, in this country, one man had not the right to say what, in conscience, another man could do ; and if he did so, that it Avas an assumption of a prerogative that Avas not his. Those advocates, too, set forth a statement in contradiction of those made by the Catholics, and of some which they had not advanced, in THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 69 Tvliich they asserted that there was nothing in their books which Catiiolics might not permit their children to read, that there was nothing in tliem hostile to the Catholic religion, nor anything that could prejudice against it the minds of Catholic children. Yet had they not heard chapter after chapter, and page after page, which they would not allow their children to read ? Had they not heard the chapter by Mr. Hume, on the Execution of Cranmer ; and the Character of Martin Luther^ by Hr. Robertson ; and other chapters from Presbyterian clergymen ; and on subjects too which deeply involved their religious faith, and which they could not conscien¬ tiously and religiously allow their children to read ? [Applause.] Now, with their permission, he would draw their attention to some passages in the report of the committee of the Common Council ; he would merely allude to some few principal points, for it was too long to be read at length. They set forth that Catholics made such and such objections to the existing system, and that they were con¬ tradicted by the Superintendents of the Public Schools ; and then they came to what they regarded as the vital part of the question. They say as follows: “The questions to which the committee have directed their attention are as follows : First, Have the Common Council of this city, under the existing laws relative to common schools in the city of New York, a legal right to appropriate any portion of the school fund to religious corporations ?” Now, with great deference, he did not conceive that that was the case at all. He should like to know from the venerable chairman of their pre¬ vious meetings, whether he and those who accompanied him went to the Common Council to ask for money for a religious corpora¬ tion ? That v\^as not the question, he (the Bishop) contended posi¬ tively ; but this and this only was the question which that com¬ mittee should have asked themselves : w^hether the Common Council, under a law of the State, should impose a tax on the people, and not allow them the equivalent intended by law for which it was imposed, in return. That was the true question [applause] ; and he declared to the meeting that if any person had asked for money, in the name of Catholics, for “ a religious corporation,” he would have been the first to refuse it. They wanted no money for reli¬ gious corporations. Their religion they wished to support, and they wished all other men to have the same privilege, hy their oivn free choice, and in no other way. [Applause.] The next question which the committee ask — and it is as a corol¬ lary of the Other-— is, “Would the exercise of such power be in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and the nature of our government ?” N ow, what child would not be able to make an argument on that ? Why that was an incorrect issue, and was not the question at all. The real question was this : “ Have any por¬ tion of the citizens of this State been subject to a law which compels them to pay a tax, and have the benefits, for which it was intended, been so returned to them that their religious consciences would be violated in their acceptance?” [Applause.] That is the question. 70 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES. The committee could have no difficulty in proving that “ religious corporations ” were not the proper recipients. True, the trustees of the Catholic churches might be considered as the citizens of that communion, but he disclaimed the application to the Common Council on other grounds than as American citizens claiming the riglits of conscience and the liberty to educate their own children. Religion was entirely a private matter. If the conductors of the ])ublic schools would see that our children were educated imder the Public School System and discipline — whether Lancasterian or other¬ wise — they (the Catholics) cared nothing about it ; but they Avanted their children, without injury to conscience, to have their share of the benefits from taxes AAffiich they had contributed. Now, of all things calculated to spoil the merits of a question, an incorrect statement of it had the most power to do so. If the state of the question as to its real issue were erroneous, they could not arrive at just conclusions ; and if the issue were false, all arguments in its support would fall to the ground. But these gentlemen, in their report to the Common Council, with w'onderful energy, had almost proved that it would be a union of Church and State ; and so it would, if Avhat they stated were correct. While the advocates of the Public School Society Avere asserting that there Avas nothing in the books to Avhich Catholics could object, he Avould appeal to the meeting Avhether they had not seen page after page which showed clearly the evils that Avould result from such a system. [Applause.] But the gentlemen go on to shoAV in that committee’s report the history and the progress of the question, and AAdiat the law Avas. He (the Bishop) should not go through the Avhole facts Avith them, nor into . the inquiry Avhether a certain Baptist church Avas guilty of peculation ; he should confine himself to the evils of this system, and to the inquiry whether Catholics got their rights, and by and by he would show them some further extracts from the books, and shoAV that the managers of the Public Schools could not, or at least should not, but knoAv that the books contained passages reflecting on the Catholic religion, and consequently that they Avere unfit to put into the hands of their children. After setting forth the evils of sectarianism, they proceed in their report to say : “ To prevent, in our day and country, the recurrence of scenes so abhorrent to every principle of justice, humanity, and right, the Constitution of the United States and of the several States have declared, in some form or other, that there should be no establishment of religion by laAv.” Precisely what Ave wish. “That the affairs of the State should be kept entirely distinct from, and unconnected Avith, those of the church ; that every human being should Avorship God ac¬ cording to the dictates of his OAvn conscience and yet they will not allow us to do so ; “ that all churches and religions should be supported by Amluntary contribution ; and that no tax should ever be imposed for the benefit of any denomination of religion, for any cause or under any pretence Avhatever.” Just as if you AA'anted the Common Council to pay your church dues or peAV rent. [Laughter,] THE SCHOOL QUESTIO^It. 11 Now Catliolics did not want this money foi’ their own benefit, but for the benefit of those to whom the law appropriated it, and with¬ out violating the rights of conscience, which they ^vere told the Cons'titution secured to them. Tliey then passed on to the observ¬ ation, that “ An appropriation of any portion of that sum to the support of schools, in which the religious tenets of any sect are taught to any extent, would be a legal establishment of one denomination of religion over another.” Now let them not be misunderstood. Catholics did not wish to teach religion in those schools ; but when they taught their children to read, instead of giving them, as a reading lesson, Hume’s chapter on the “ Execution of Cramnerf they thought they could give them a better chapter out of Lingard, respecting the struggle of the English barons and bishops on the one hand, and the English king on the other, when the great char¬ ter of liberty was secured. That would be a better lesson, too, than Dr. Robertson’s Life of Luther. And here, again, they were told, after the observation about the “ legal establishment of one denomi¬ nation of religion over the other,” that this “ would conflict with all the principles and purposes of our free institutions, and would vio¬ late the very letter of that part of our Constitution which so emphat¬ ically declai’es that ‘the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or ■preference., shall for ever be allowed, in this State, to all mankind.’ ” Why, here again the committee were laboring with a phantom of their own inven¬ tion, unless the ‘gentlemen who waited ui^on the Council asked for money to help the Church. Mr. O’CoNNon. No, sir, I believe not. The Bishop. Then it was the working of their own imagination, and with all respect for these gentlemen, for they quote the law fairly ; but when they supposed the law, as quoted, applied to them (the Catholics), they reversed the position of the Catholics. Finally, “ In this opinion your committee hope the Board, the petitioners, and the public will concur that is, when they say it ought not to be given. “The question is one of that character which appeals to the liveliest feelings of our nature, and one which is too apt to create excitement and jealousy.” Not if it was properly understood and fairly discussed ; for he believed the public mind in this country, at least, the highland generous portion of it, would not allow any man's civil or religious rights to be encroached upon without any pretext whatever. “ They conclude by expressing the hope that the petitioners, upon a full examination of the question, will perceive that the granting of their petition would be at least of doubtful legality, foreign to the design of the School Fund, and at variance with the spirit of our public institutions.” Then it followed that the support of a f)ublic institution required that their consciences and their freedom should be violated. And who would contend for that ? In the commencement he had stated that it appeared the repre- eentatives of the public schools had contradicted the statement of 72 lA.ECnBISHOP HUGHES. Catholics, that their hooks contained lessons that reflected on Catho¬ lics. Now they had read several passages at previous meetings, of which they were all able to judge ; but he would take one or two other brief passages, and he should like to see whether those gentle¬ men would again stand before the Common Council and say that the books contained nothing against Catholics. In “ Putnam’s Se¬ quel,” page 296 of the Appendix, they had a note on Luther, Avhich said, “ Luther, the great reformer, Avas, at first, a Benedictine monk.” Now, he was not, for lie Avas an Augustinian. [Laughter.] “He lived toward the close of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries. The cause of learning, of religion, and of civil liberty, is indebted to him more than to any other man since the apostles.” Well that Avas a matter of opinion j but at all events there should be excepted Erasmus, who was a scholar, though a priest like himself. He Avas first led aAvay, though he neA^er doubted the Catholic faith, by popular abuses, Avhich he thought could be removed ; but he Avas devoted to literature, and he deplored the Reformation precisely on the ground that it would throAV back the progress of literature a hundred years. Here letters were reviving, men Avere devoting themselves to the study of antiquity, and here, he complained, there was nothing but broils and polemical disputations, and literature Avas neglected. Whether Luther Avas such a friend to literature, he (the Bishop) kneAV not. But here Avas another passage, on “John Huss,” of Avhom it said, “John Huss, a zealous reformer from Ppjnry^ Avho lived in Bohemia toAvards the close of the fourteenth, and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. He was bold and per¬ severing ; but, at length, trusting himself to the deceitful Catholics, he Avas by them brought to trial, condemned as a heretic, and burnt at the stake.” Now these are lessons for the instruction of your children, and yet gentlemen go to the Common Council and tell them these books contain nothing against Catholics. Noav, besides the injury done to their children, let him observe that he did not conceive, even if Catholic children Avere separated from those schools, AA'hile they Avere supported at the public expense, that passages like thesd, Avhich were calculated to fix a settled prejudice in the mind of one class of felloAA^-citizens against another, were in accordance with the spirit of their constitution, or those high and holy principles which religion taught them ; nor could they be of advantage in an enlightened system of public education. GNe to Catholics their proportion of this fund, and they might search their books from one end to the other, and however much they might insist on the truth of their oAvn religion, there Avould not bo found a single ])assage calculated to implant in the minds of their children a single con- tem})tuous thought of any man or body of men in the United States. But he was surpiised that the Public School Society, because they taught no doctrine from any specific text, Avhile they introduced page after page such as he had read, should appear before the public authorities and claim the money Avhich Catholics conceived to be due to th'em, and deprive them of their rights secured to them by THE SCHOOL QUESTION. u law, on the ground that there was nothing sectarian in their books. And he was equalfy surprised that the gentlemen should feel hurt at that which they ascribed to the system, and not to tlie men con¬ nected with it, though they had said that Catholics could send their chikU'en to these schools without any violation of conscience — that there was nothing that could possibly give oflence — and he would ask them how this could be reconciled with the specimens he had quoted. But there was another ground. He was surprised that that Society should think it was their interest to compel all children learning to read, to learn under their exclusive patronage. lie thought the intention of the State was that every child in the Com¬ monwealth should be educated^ and not that his religious rights and liis conscience or those of his parents should be violated. He would concede to the Public School System, with all dne respect, and nothing more, that which it was entitled to; but that Society thought it was exclusively entitled to not only what was appropri¬ ated to it, but also to hinder Catholics from obtaining their rights, which >vas sacred and indisputable. And why was it he felt so sur¬ prised ? It wms this ; this Public School Society was not at any time from its orign the representative of the State, but merely a private corporation ; ifs trustees w'ere not elected by the voice of the jieople ; but they 'were a society composed of members who ■were qualified by contribution, or other-wise became members by election within their pwm body. [Hear, heai’.] Before they ex¬ isted as a society, provision was made for the education of the chil¬ dren, and there was no turmoil, there was no civil war; there -were none of the terrible consequences and evils which appeared now to be anticipated if the claim of the Catholics should be conceded. Then education Avas amply provided ; each school had its own chil¬ dren ; each party took care of its OAvn rights, which they thought sacred, and everything went on in perfect harmony and for the good of the Avhole. And when this Public School Society Avas formed, it AA^as formed Avith a laudable purpose, with a name at its head Avhich shone among the brightest on the page of American history — De Witt Clinton. [Applause.] The gentlemen forming that society saAV a number of surplus neglected children apparently Avith no one to take care of them, and they proposed to take care of the children for Avhoni nobody cared before. Their object Avas pure, and be¬ nevolent, and jjatriotic ; and accordingly in the A’ery first charter of this society, Avhich however has since repeatedly changed its name, the object Avas stated to be — “the education of the children of per¬ sons in indigent circumstances, and Avho do not belong to, or are not provided for, by any religious society.” In that charter there Avas nothing said about excluding sectarianism : nothing of the sort ; but when they go before the Legislature, they go before a Christian legislature, and no doubt they Avere Christians themselvgs and men of good motive. After the first }>aragraph in their act of incorpora¬ tion, the second begins — “ And whereas the said persons have pre« seated a petition to the Legislature setting forth the benefits which 74 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. would result to society from the education of such childien, hy im- flaMing in their minds the 'principles of religion and morality, and by assisting their parents to provide suitable situations for them, where habits of industry and virtue may be acquired, and that it would enable them more effectually to accomplish the benevolent objecds of their institntion, if the association were incorporated,” And this line Society which was originally instituted to implant in the minds jf children “ the principles of religion and morality,” now came out against Catholics tind said, if they gave children such instruction they were not entitled to any benefit from the Public School Fund [hear, hear], and they have not only said so, but from the period of the misapplication of the funds by one society being detected, the part which related to religious societies before, was altered by law. Until that time, every society had the right to go before the Corpo¬ ration and demand its share ; but from that time they were deprived of the right to demand it, but a discretion was given to the Common Council ; as though the Legislature had said, “ here is abuse ; if it is connected with that system let it be abolished ; but we leave the Common Council of New York to determine what schools shall be entitled to the money;” and after that arrangement between the Legislature and the Common Council, they each (Christian denomi¬ nation) apparently gave up to the system, and so it had gone on. But up to this time other societies had been receiving the money, and there was nothing in their institutions or schools to disqualify them ; for they would observe that they were called either “ insti¬ tutions or schools,” and either were proper for the exercise of the discretion of the Common Council ; but while the Common Council would exercise this discretion, behold these gentlemen, who were originally incorporated for the giving of religious instruction and implanting of moral principles, step between Catholics and the Cor¬ poration and say, “ No ; because you teach your children religion YOU are not entitled to it.” Now it was a matter of discretion with the Common Council ; there was certainly not a single provision that stood in the way of such a just and fair interpretation ; and when the obstacles already alluded to were put in the way, they (the Public School Society) were receiving their portion for the same purpose. And after all what was this incorporation but a private incorporation like any other ; not one certainly to dictate to the whole of New York. It was instituted for a specific purpose, useful and honorable in itself ; and he had no doubt that those gentlemen’s best wishes were for the extension of their system of education ; but they ought not to force it on Catholics ; it was not modest in them to do so, nor to send advocates to the Common Council to plead against the rights of Catholics when they were but a private corporation themselves. If they had represented the whole State and had olitained a “patent-general” he should have respected them and their opposition ; but their act of incorporjition was private, and they had never been able to raise it to more- than that. But he would show a little of its history by an abstract of its several acts THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 75 of incor])oi’ation. Originally, it seemed, it was the smallest of all, but like Pharaoh’s lean kine, it had eaten up all the rest. In 1805 it was incorporated by the name of “ A Society instituted in the city of New York for the establishment of a Free School, for the education of poor children, Avho do not belong to, or are not pro¬ vided for by any religious society.” In 1808 its power was extended to any poor or destitxxte childi-en, and its name was changed to that of “ The Free School Society of N exv York.” Here in three years after its origin was the first extension of its powers, thoxxgh there were several intermediate acts swelling its j^rivileges. The enactment was in these words : “ The name of the said coi'poration shall be, and hereby is, changed, and that it shall in future be denominated, ‘ The Free School Society of New Yoi'k,’ and that its powers shall extend to all children, who are proper objects of a gratuitoxxs education.’ ” Noav there Avas something Avoi-thy of notice in the last naxne as- sxxmed, that of “Public Schools,” Avith which they were axxthorized by another act of the Legislature of 1826, to label these schools, “ Pxxblic School Society of New York !” as thoxxgh they belonged to the State, Avhereas the schools belonged bixt to the Society itself, ac¬ cording to their charter. It was to be observed that this Society claimed, and he did ixot pretend to deny their claim to, patriotic in¬ tentions and good motives, but if their good intentions conflicted with the rights of Catholics it could not be expected that Catholics Avould submit to their good “ intentions.” Thus this Society had gone on, and it had received aid to erect its public schools, and in another act they were authorized to receive payment from the parents of scholars, and yet Avere not to be deprNed on that accpxint of a coi*responding portion of the public fund ; so that they could receive pay from the parent and yet count the child in the number of those for whom they received payment from the State. No doubt they wished the poor to attend those schools : the schools Avere intended for all, but principally for the poor, Avhose 'parents were not able to give them a good edxxcation ; but they Avere now attended by the children of such respectable citizens that the children of the pooi’, in their mean robes and xxnseemly garments, were often ashamed to appear in such genteel company. W ell, then those schools received certain specific appropriations, they then might receive payment from the parents of children attending and did receive from the State for the same children ; and yet they came in and interposed betAveen Cxxtholics and this money Avhich they wanted for the educa¬ tion of their OAvn poor children Avho could not be educated at those schools without violating the sacred rights of American citizens. [Applaxise.] It was xxnnecessary for him to enlai-ge much furtheiv He had no Avant of respect for the Public School Society, but it Avas vain in them to saj that Catholics impeached their motives, or that when Catholics objected to the system they objected to them per¬ sonally. Catholics could not certxxinly recognize in them the poAver of the State ; and with such documents and books as those he had referre I to they could not sxxbniit to the system notAvithstanding 76 AECHBISnOP HUGHES. the Public School Society could see nothing in it objectionable to Catholics. The question was a simple one and did not require much deep investigation of facts to determine what should be the issue. Enough was seen before this discussion commenced in the sacrifices of the poor Catholics — for they were comparatively poor — to make room ixnder their churches for the education of their children (while they were paying taxes like other citizens) apart from the instruc¬ tion which taught them of the “ deceitful Catholics” who burnt Iver¬ sons at the stake. This proved that it was no affectation on the part of Catholics, but that their consciences prompted them to make sacrifices to multiply schools — to take into their own hands the burden of giving an education to children, imperfect as it must be, with their means, to 3,000, 4,000, or 8,000. children at a double ex¬ pense. For they first paid to the State, but seeing the advantages come back so diluted, they paid a second time to secure education without insult to their religious faith. It was conscience then and not affectation which prompted them to do this, and whatever might be the result with the proper authorities one thing was certain, that with those schools, so constituted. Catholics could have no commu¬ nion. [Applause.] If, according to the spirit of legislation on this subject, their proportion of this money was set apart in a manner that Catholics could avail themselves of it, they would accejvt it with gratitude : if they would give them a place to educate their children in, or if they would even organize their schools, they should be satis¬ fied. To the system, that is, the machinery of the system of educa¬ tion, Catholics did not object ; and they should give proof that they wished no opportunity to peculate, nor should be guilty if they hacl, of jveculation of these funds. Let them give to Catholics their own books, and they would be content if the minds of their children were not poisoned against the faith of their fathers, for which for ages those fathers had been ready to die. [Applause.] If this were done Catholics would be grateful, but in their gratitude they should tell those gentlemen that it was nothing more than that to which they were entitled. [Hear, hear.] But if this should be refused, they would but be still as they are at present; and many of them were not strangers to inequality and oppression which would strive to make them less than their fellow-citizens. But let it come to this that either they would have the benefit of education according to their religious convictions, or that those refusing it should say, “ you shall not, and for no other reason but because you are Catholics.” That should be the ultimate issue; let the question be reduced down to that ; and if the day was at hand when the public authorities of America would ofter such violence to conscience, and debar them of their rights as citizens, then they might despair of the Bepublic. But he liad no apprehensions of that kind. As he had said before, several times, whatever might be the misconception or the want of inlbi-mation or wrong information or prejudice on the subject — • making allowance for all this — there was running through the public mind a vein, a rich vein of public equity which would not allow the THE SCHOOL QUESTIOK. 11 Catholics thus to he deprived of their rights, [Applause.] But still he was not surprised at the misrepresentations of the Journal of Commerce and of the Churchman,, or any other paper. It wms sur¬ prising that there was not more misrepresentation, when they con¬ sidered the way their fellow-citizens were taught, and when they reflected that they w^ere brought up at the same literary table where they imbibed with their aliment a prejudice which an acquaintance with Catholics for life, of men honorable and high minded, was scarcely able to destroy. What remained for them was simply to persevere — with moderation and dignity, but with a firmness wor¬ thy of their standing in the American community — persevering with great moderation, but at the same time with great dignity and great flrmness, narrowing the question down until the two issues he had mentioned j^resented themselves alone, and they obtained that of which hitherto they had been denied. [Applause.] Yes, this was the course that was left for them. He himself had no objection if the whole Public School Society were there to hear all he had to say ; for in all he had said in either public or private, as far as he remembered, he always se^^arated men from things — he always sep¬ arated the men connected with this school system from that which was the legitimate subject of criticism. He had therefore separated the public school and the teachers, but when they sent books of this description, and when Catholics contended for their rights on Chris¬ tian principles, they were told there was no cause of complaint, justice required that they should animadvert on the subject so far as was necessary to vindicate themselves, but no further. He knew that was not the place to enter upon the truth or falsehood of the lesson on “JohnHuss.” They knew the crime for which he suf¬ fered ; it had been on the statute books for more than six hundred years, as far back as Justinian even. It Avas a barbarous, a cruel punishment ; but if so, the gentlemen should have known that it Avas not Catholics that inflicted it but the laAV of the empire to Avhich he was subject. He might mention that he had the opportunity once to meet a Protestant gentleman in an assembly as large as this ; that AA'hen he pressed him for proof he had none to give : and Avhen he Avent further and brought the case of ,Iohn IIuss, not from a Cath¬ olic but from a Presbyterian writer aaJio Avrote the history of the Council of Constance, the Catholics Avere acquitted and the Emperor alone Avas implicated, because it Avas believed he betrayed Huss, to Avhom it Avas supposed he had given a free pass. But L’Enfant tells ATS that before IIuss Avent to the Council the Emperor told him if the Council pronounced his doctrines heresy, and he did not retract, he must sufter the penalty of the laAV, and he (the Emperor) Avould be the first to apply the torch. But they miglit as Avell attempt to run the stream of Niagara back as to tell this. This Avas shoAvn, hoAveA^er, in th.e presence of a I’resbyterian clergyman. It Avas printed and published in the report of that discussion, and to tlie present time he has had not one Avord to say on the subject. He repeated, this AA^as not the place to bring up things of this kind, but 78 AECHBISHOP nUGHEB. what must be his feelings when he saw such things in these school books, and this barbing of the arrow against the Catholic religion, when he knew they were not true. Even if true they should not be put into the hands of children ; nor should Catholics if they taught their own children let them read as a lesson a chapter on the burn¬ ing of Michael Servetus by Calvin. If these things were true they should not be admitted, for it was not right to prejudice one class against another. But when they saw these things in the books of the public schools it was not surprising tbat they spoke with empha¬ sis, or, as the Churchman has it, that they should be a little bold, [Great applause.] Mr. MuLLEiSr rose and said : “ Mr. Chairman, I move a vote of thanks to the Editor of the Freeman'' s Journal for the trouble he has gone to, and expense he has incurred, in publishing an ''’'Extra'"' con¬ taining; the Address, and for the uniform interest he has taken in this cause from the commencement.” A gentleman, who sat in front of the Bishop, said that if a vote of thanks was passed, it was first due to the Bishop for his untiring exertions. The Bishop rose and said : “ I will offer a simple observation on this subject ; certainly, Mr. White, the Editor of the Freeman's Jour¬ nal, is entitled to a vote of thanks, and I think it worthy of the gen¬ tleman who has proposed it ; but at the same time there are so many who may be entitled to the same distinction, in one form or another, that perhaps it might be thought a little invidious if one should be selected and another not. I am sure Mr. White will feel highly rewarded by the consciousness that he has been at all instrumental in helping the cause forward, and at a later period, when we have ajiproached nearer to the accomplishment of our wishes, the opportu¬ nity may present itself for such compliments. But at the same time, while I acknowledge the kindness and the propriety of feeling w"hich dictated it, at this moment I think it would be better to omit it. Mr. White, you know, is a Catholic like ourselves and feels the interest that we all feel, and if you commence this, the first vote will perhaps be due to the Editor of a daily paper in this city who is not a Catholic, but who has had the spirit and sense of justice to come out in our favor. [Applause.] But even in this case I should not be for moving a Amte of thanks, for I am sure he Avas actuated by a sense of public duty, and in that consciousness he Avill feel his reward. We should not be ungrateful, but for the jiresent I would suggest the propriety of AvithdraAving the motion.” Mr. Mullex". Mr. White has gone to great expense in publishing an Extra and has ably advocated our cause, for Avhich he is entitled to our thanks ; but I consent to withdraw the motion. [Applause.] THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 19 LETTER OF BISHOP HUGHES TO THE EVENHSTG POST. The following letter of the Right Reverend Bishoj) Hughes was written in answ^er to an anonymous communication addressed to him, which appeared it the Evening Post, signed “An Irish Catholic,” slandering the motives of the Catholics, and charging the Bishop with being the dupe of one of the political parties of the day : Mr. Editoe: Your correspondent who signs himself “An Irish Catholic,” and dedicates his homily to me by name, must he a very inconsistent man. He must know that thousands of the children of poor Catholic parents are growing up without education, simply because the law as interpreted and administrated under the Public School Society, requires a violation of their rights of conscience. The number of such children may be from nine to twelve thousand. Of these the Catholics, by bearing a double taxation, educate four or five thousand ; a few hundred have attended the Public Schools ; and the rest may be considered as receiving only such e’ducation as is afforded in the streets of New York. Now I should think that an “Irish Catholic ’\should see in this state of things quite enough to excite my pastoral solicitude for the spiritual and moral condition , of the ])eople committed to my charge. In the part which I have taken in the matter, I am only discharging a conscientious duty. But it appears that your correspondent understands my duty better than I do, and that I am only the well-meaning dvpe of a ‘^Vhig club in disguise,” notwithstanding the “great abilities” which he is pleased to ascribe to me. When I returned to this city, I found the Catholics broken up and divided, thanks to the in¬ terference of such men as your correspondent. Now, happily, that the question has been relieved from all the dead weight of poli¬ ticians of either side, they are united. Y/e exclude politics from our deliberations, as carefully as religion is excluded from the Public Schools. W e are composed of all parties in politics ; but as the topic is never introduced nor alluded to, there is no occasion for disagreement. We meet to understand the injuries which we are compelled to sufter, and to seek for their removal. Among the sufferers are men of both parties — among those who would perpetu¬ ate the injuries, are men of both parties — and our object is to seek justice from just and upright men, who will comprehend our griev¬ ances, without distinction of party. 60 AECHBISnOP HUGHES. But it appears that the Catholics are to rest satisfied with what- es^er injustice may be inflicted on them, lest their complaining should be construed into a “political purpose.” If so, there re¬ mains nothing for them but to endure in silence. Is that 'v^hat this “ Irish Catholic ” requires ? The Catholics are divided in their politics ; it is their right to be so. But on the question of public education, in the city of Ncm'’ York, there is not a Catholic who is acquainted with the subject, and deserving the name, who is not of the same mind. I doubt much whether your correspondent is one of the number. He is extremely liberal of imputations against the Catholics for preferring Avhat he admits to be their “ rightful claims.” But he has forgotten to get any respectable voucher to endorse the purity of his motives in opposing them. He calls one of the parties into Avhich the country is divided “ our natural enemies.” I do not know what such expressions mean in the slang of politicians, but there is no class of enemies of whom the Catholics shbuld be more on their guard than of such as would traflic on their creed and country in order to get their votes — men who in periods of political excitement become more Irish than the Irish themselves, and more orthodox than the Church ; Avhilst to both they are little less than a permanent scandal at all other seasons. Can your correspondent show me a certificate from any pastor of ISTew York, that he hff^ complied with his religious duties as a Catholic within the last seven years? He is a political Catholic, just as Lelande, although an atheist, professed himself a Catholic atheist. Now I charge upon your correspondent the attempt to defeat those claims whicii he acknowledges to be just. And yet he is ap¬ prehensive, forsooth, that I shall narrow the sj^here of my useful¬ ness by supporting those just claims, and doing so without giving any op2:)ortunities for political demagogues of either party to carry divisions into our union. Let him not be uneasy. If he be an “ Irish Catholic,” his communication proves that he must have be¬ come very “ enlightened ” since he arrived in this country. The manual of politics must have superseded the Council of Trent in his mind. He is not even a good reasoner, nor in my mind a clever poli¬ tician. He acknowledges the claims of the Catholics to be just, and yet he denominates their efforts in urging those claims a “ pious fraud.” He knows that the Catholic public are unanimous in their determination to prosecute their “rightful claims,” and yet he asserts that they will receive from the Catholic public {i. e. themselves) “that contempt which they deserve.” Even the party which he affects to support cannot escape the havoc of his hasty logic. He tells us that our better hope of justice will be from his party, “ when in power,” as if nothing but power was wanting, when they refused those claims last spring. They had the power and refused to exercise it. Wliat more could our “natural enemies ” do ? But I will save him from the consequences of his THE SCHOOL QUESTIOIT. 81 vitaoiis reasoning by observing that the Common Council, in conse¬ quence of not understanding our claims as they should have been set forth and understood, made a false issue — and refused what we do not ask, viz., public money for Catholic education. I believe that •had they understood our grievance simply as they exist, they would have come to a different conclusion. Consequently, in connection with the subject of Public School Education, it is not necessary for any Catholic to change his political party, although they are free to do so if they choose. I regret exceedingly, Mr. Editor, to be obliged to trespass upon the limits of your valuable paper, or to appear before the public in reply to a correspondent who conceals his name, and adopts a signa¬ ture of which, in the present instance, I believe him to be altogether un¬ worthy. I have had no connection with political parties — I shall have none. They are much less important in my mind than the salvation of one child from spiritual and moral ruin. I see thousands of the children of our poor Catholics exposed to both; and 1 appeal to just, and humane, and patriotic men of all parties, to aid me in effecting their rescue. It coixld not be, therefore, without much pain that I saw my name pinnacled at the head of a political appeal by a partisan in politics, who professes by his signature to be a member of my flock. I look upon it as an attack upon me, as an attack upon the efforts of the Catholic body to secure their rights of education to the children, without prejudice to the dearer rights of conscience. Let your correspondent or any other respectable person write over his own signature, and not as a political partisan, and I am prepared to meet him on the whole question. But as for anonymous attacks, I hope the present communication will relieve me from the necessity of noticing them in future. I have the honor to be your obedient servant, ^ JOHN HUGHES, Bishop, Coadjutor and Administrator of New York. New York, September 3, 1840. Meeting in the Basement of St. James’ Church, Septem¬ ber 7, 1840. On Monday, the 7th September, the largest and most numerously attended meeting of the Catholics which had yet been held on the subject of Common School Education, convened in the basement of St. James’ Church. The meeting having been called to order, Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was unanimously elected to preside over their deliberations, and the secretaries appointed on former occasions were asain re-elected to that office. After the minutes of the last 6 82 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. meeting had been read and approved,- the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes rose and was received with great and enthnsiastie cheering. After the plaudits had subsided the Bishop proposed* to the meeting, for their adoption, two resolutions designed foi‘ the regu¬ lation of their proceedings in discussing the important subject* which had called them together. The object of the resolutions, 'he said, was to recognize the pi’opriety of adhering strictly, in all re¬ marks that should be offered to the meeting, to the question before them, and to induce gentlemen who should favor the meeting with the expression of their sentiments, to give to the subject that careful consideration which its importance required. The resolutions were then proposed and unanimously adopted ; and the Bishop continued. All present, he said, wmuld at once un¬ derstand the peculiar propriety, if not necessity, which existed for the adoption of these resolutions ; narrowly watched as their move¬ ments were on all sides by many who were ready to pervert ■what¬ ever might be said, and to impeach the purity of their motives and intentions, a more than ordinary degree of circumspection wjfs necessary. In other places, and at meetings held for the discussion of other questions of public concern, a greater degree of latitude was allowed, and so strict a scrutiny of whatever might fall from gentlemen in the excitement of public speaking was not instituted — but if any person at our meetings, continued the Bishop, should make a slip, or inadvertently say anything that was susceptible of misrepresentation, it was immediately seized upon. Our meetings here, although not political meetings, are yet composed of persons of every variety of political ojiinion. But these political opinions are all repressed here ; they are not suffered to influence the con¬ duct or sentiments of any one, although they are not abandoned nor laid aside. A man cannot lay down his opinions on entering this room, as he would lay down his coat. He carries his feelings and his opinions with him ; they form part of his identity, but they are not allowed to influence him on this subject. Our meetings are not then political ; we meet for the purjiose of examining and investi¬ gating this important subject ; for the purpose of extracting light that we may see, and understand, and be enabled to vindicate our rights. Neither should it be wondered at by political men that we should assemble here to discuss the question of our riglits, and that we should complain of our grievances. They need not be aston¬ ished when they witness* it. If they tickle us we must laugh — if they bruise us we must complain ; when a cause exists they must look for the effect, and need not be surj)rised to find it. And of all considerations that can press anxiously upon the public mind, the present system of education in the Public Schools of this city is the most important, both as it I'egards the present and the future wel¬ fare of those Avho are subjected to its influence. It is my intention this evening to review' tliis subject briefly. Wh.at is the question, Mr. President, w'hich presents itself to ua on examining this subject ? THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 83 The State of New York, for the purpose of improving the moral and intellectual condition of the people, has appropriated a certain fund for effecting that object ; some one who has professed to understand the law, has declared that it was intended to aid in diffusing the threefold blessings of religion, morality, and education. But by the present Public School System in this city, two of these ends are set at naught. That system does not indeed say in express terms that it is opposed to religion — it only declares that it is opposed to sectarianism. But sectarianism in this country means the whole body of Christianity. By the Constitution there can be no established religion, but all sects are held alike, and the general body of Christians is made up of all those sects, and when you exclude the sects or sectarianism you exclude Christianity. The object of this law was to aid in the inculcation of religion ; but as it is now interpreted to mean religion without sectarianism, it oper¬ ates, as I have shown, to exclude that for which it was professed to be established ; it excludes the two prior ends for the attainment of which it was designed — religion and morality — for religion forms the whole basis of the moral character, and without it education is but a dry and barren gift— good for nothing — and worse still, being often, as we daily see, only a source of ignominy and deeper shame. Here, then, is the position in which we are placed. We are required to sid)mit to a system which in fact promotes irreligion. But the Constitution forbids the teaching of irreligion by the State as positively as it forbids the teaching of any creed of sectarianism. It is as great a violation of the Constitution and of the sacred rights of conscience, which it guarantees to all alike, to support irreligion, as it is to support any particular Christian creed. But by the management and the theory now recognized by the public authorities, a state of things is brought about in which we see a great overgrown monopoly, a false monopoly — grasping at all the public money — assuming to itself the exclusive right to control and direct popular instruction — dealing out education according to its own notions — setting parents and guardians, and all who have a natural or moral right to interfere in the question of the education of their children, at naught — and all upon the bold pretense that the religious tendency of other sys¬ tems is a disqualification for them to claim a share in the business of public education. From beginning to end this is their argument, in fact, that religion is a disqualification, and that the absence of religion in their system qualifies them to become the exclusiA^e teachers of the youth of the country — to acquire a monojDoly of all the rights and privileges of public instructors. And now, sir, I have some public documents connected with this subject, to which I will call your attention. The first of these is the “ Keport of the Commissioners of School Money, for the Year 1840,” ordered to be printed and placed on file by the Board of Al¬ dermen of this city, on July 27, 1840. After a very meagre statement of the proceedings, for a whole year, of the institutions subject to their supervision, we come to 84 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. the concluding part of their report, where we find the follow¬ ing: “ The Commissioners, in closing this rejjort, refer with satisfaction to the recent decision of the Board of Assistants, by which a renewal of ecclesiastical connec¬ tions with the Common School System in this city has been unanimously denied.” Pray, what “ ecclesiastical connections ?” asked the Bishop ; I know of none that were sought for or desired ; I have heard of none. But it answered a purpose to use these terms. The odium of foreign ecclesiastical connections upon the city authorities would, if it could he fastened upon the Catholics, go far towards defeating their just claims. They asked to be allowed to participate without violating their sacred rights of conscience in the benefits of this public fund towards which they had contributed, and they are on the instant accused of seeking to impose upon the State “ ecclesias¬ tical connections,” and an appeal is thus made against them to un¬ worthy prejudices by their opponents, instead of reposing themselves upon the eternal rock of Truth, and looking to the polar star of Justice as their guide in this important matter. No; they prefer to invent an imaginary case in order to ground upon it an appeal to popular prejudice ; for I have never yet heard or understood that the gentlemen who presented themselves before the Common Council on behalf of the Catholics, sought for any money for ecclesiastical purposes, for any ecclesiastical connection. Never, sir!” exclaimed some of the gentlemen referred to.] Ilow can they then — how can these Commissioners, continued the Bishop, talk of an ecclesiastical connection Avhich was never asked for nor desired — which was never contemplated, nor ever entered into any person’s mind but their own — which never at least entered into the mind of a single Catholic on this subject ? But to proceed with their report : “ Without adverting to inflexible political maxims, which forbid such an union, the Commissioners believe that practically it would be offensive to tlie public feeling.” Not to justice, exclaimed the Bishop, no — but “ public feeling !” They will not speak the truth, and declare that we are a people with eight or ten thousand children deprived of education for which we have paid our money into the public treasury, and from the benefits of which those children are excluded because we will not outrage our consciences. No, they will not say this, because this would not help their system, nor justify their conduct with the public ; they will not advert to the principles of truth or justice or inflexible political maxims, but to public feeling — to prejudices ; and if they can make out that the Catholics Avant an ecclesiastical con¬ nection, these popular prejudices are excited and their faA'orite sys¬ tem sustained. Here the Bishop again read from the report : “ Without adverting to inflexible political maxims which forbid such an union. THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 85 the Commissioners helieve that practically it would be offensive to the public feel¬ ing; unequal in its benefit to the various religious denominations; and destructive, perliaps, to the cause, now so fiourisliing, of free and general education.” How can they, said the Bishop, call it free, where ten thousand of the children of the city are excluded, by the bad principles involved in this Public School System, from a participation of the benefits which it would confer if wisely administered ? The Bishop then continued from the report ; “ Should the school moneys be dispensed among the seminaries, the first qualifi¬ cation of whose teachers is sectarian orthodoxy, and wherein prescribed forms are inculcated, to which the assent of no entire neighborhood within the city could be expected, — ” I have not heard, said the Bishop, that any such distribution of the school moneys was proposed or asked for ; but how these ad¬ vocates of the Public School Society have lived by sectarianism — which seems to be the beginning and the end and the whole bur¬ then of all that they can say in commendation of themselves! We are no friends of sectarianism. But it is not the business of the State to interfere with it. Every man has a political right to be a sectarian ; and if we begin by excluding sectarian teaching from the Public Schools, by and by the same authority may creep into the Church, and exclude all sectarianism there. Every man has a right to freedom of conscience, to sectarianism, if they please to call it so. And it is against this freedom of conscience that this Public School Society ai-e arraying themselves, taking from us our money, and forcing upon us a system of education at which our consciences revolt. [Great applause.] But to return to the Commissioners . — “ it is to be feared,” they say, “ that such a distribution would be regarded as inconsistent with the common rights whieh the present scheme of public instruction professes to secure.” How' anxious they are I They raise up a fabric of dangerous de¬ signs that had no existence but in their own imagination, and then make a display of their public zeal by denouncing it. Why did they not look at the reality, and tell the Common Council that it W'as a grievance for Catholics to pay taxes for the support of a com¬ mon system of education, and then to be excluded from that system and obliged to pay again for the education of their own poor ? But no, instead of that, they make out an imaginary case in order to justify the course which they have pursued, and waste their paper in describing dangers which were no where to be seen. But I have repeatedly shown that this sectarianism is nothing else than Chris¬ tianity, and that therefore the exclusion of it is the exclusion of Christianity. If this is not the design of those who have the dis¬ tribution of this public fund, if they are sincere in their professions of regard for religion, and that they desire that the youthful mind of the country should be imbued w'ith its spirit, why require the public moneys to be given to the support of a system that can only 86 AECHBISnOP HUGHES. aid in producing subjects for infidelity, already so rampant in tha land. I knoAV, sir, of the case of an individual, he was one who lived long, and who carried Avith him in his mind but one single idea, that was the idea of the length and breadth of a dollar. And by turning that one idea OA^er and over, he doubled and multiplied it, and Avhen in his old age he died, he died Avorth fifteen millions of dollars. That man AAnas Stephen Girard, of Philadelphia. lie made a Avill and appropriated a large portion of his wealth to the educa¬ tion of orphans. In that will there is a clause of a genius so similar to the spirit of our Public School Society, that one Avould suppose they had both derived their philosophy from the same source. I Avill read it for you — I have the entire will here Avith me. This is the clause : “ Secondly, I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastical missionary or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station whatsoever in the said college ; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college. In making this restriction 1 do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever ; l>ut as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans [Oh, the merciful Stephen Girard !] who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.” Almost a copy word for Avord of the doctrines of our Public School Society ; only that as Stephen Girard is dead some eight or ten years, and must haA^e made his will before he died, Ave might doubt which of them, Stephen or the Public School Society, Avas entitled to the credit of originality in this rigid and pertinacious ex¬ clusion of all sectar ianism from their system of education. [Laughter.] But the Avill continues : “ My desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality,” — Just as the gentlemen of the Public School say. But Avhere Avill you get morality Avhen you exclude religion ? — “ so that on their entrance into life they may from inclination and habit evince benevolence towards their fellow ci'eatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.” That is, said the Bishop, regarding the mind of the pupil just as you Avould a machine, Avhich when once set in motion Avould con¬ tinue on Avithout change or cessation, that Avould be so long accus¬ tomed to turn on one particular cog that it would continue to do so for ever after. [Laughter.] I knoAV, sir, of no parallel to the course of our Public School So¬ ciety biAt this individual instance of Stephen Girard. But the par¬ allel does not hold good throughout. It fails in one important-point. There Avas this difference, that if he had his OAvn lAeculiar notions of education, Stephen paid the expenses out of his OAvn pocket. [Great laughter and applause.] If he Avas cruel to the unhappy orphan and THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 87 Wbhed to deprive him of the blessings of a religious education, he was willing, so far is pecuniary considerations were involved, to be himself tlie victim of his experiment. But. these gentlemen require you to pay for the infliction upon you of the evils of their system. They demand to be made the exclusive recipients of the public money ; that it shall all be handed over to them, and that they shall be alloM'ed to give you in return just such a system of education as they shall be pleased to provide, no matter how it may conflict with your rights or your consciences. [Great applause.] I will now offer some remarks upon some other public documents connected, with this subject which I have with me this evening. In document No. 80, of the records or proceedings of the Common Council, is contained the Report of the Committee of the Common Council, to Avhom the claims of the Catholics to a portion of the Common School Fund was referred. In this Report the Committee draw a distinction between the name “ Incorporated Religious So¬ cieties,” Avho under the old law had an absolute right to the fund, and the term “ societies,” as used in the Revised Statutes, and come to the conchision that a religious incorporated society is not a “ so¬ ciety,” within the meaning of the new law. But Ave Avill not be par¬ ticular about terms, and if they Avill deny it to us as a “ Society,” they are still authorized to grant a share of the public fund to “ In¬ stitutions or Schools,” and Catholic schools can certainly, equally Avith others, be embraced under one of those terms. The Committee also take up the objections made by the Catholics to the present administration of the Common School System and attempt a reply to them. “ It is urged,” say the Committee, “ on the part of the Catholic petitioners that they, as tax-payers, contribute to the fund thus annually raised, and that tlvcy are thus entitled to participate in its benefits. This is undoubtedly true, but it should be borne in mind, that they are taxed not as members of tlic Eoman Catholic Chiu'ch, but as citizens of the State of New York.” That is, said the Bishop, Ave are citizens Avhen they come to us to gather the taxes, but we are Roman Catholics when Ave look for a share of the fund thus contributed. [Tremendous applause.] I am at a loss to learn the grounds of this distinction. Th at Ave Avere cit¬ izens so long as we had taxes to pay Avas not denied ; but when Ave seek to participate in the fund, with all their best efforts they could onfjjl' see one thing, that Ave were Roman Catholics. But we tell them now that we Avant this money as citizens. We are Catholics, it is true, and the Constitution gives us a right to be Avhat Ave are, and as citizens Ave come and ask for our rights in this matter. But the Avhole proceeding on their part has been designed to baffle and put us off. To use a homely expression, they haAm only been throAA"- ing dust in the eyes of the public. What is it but throwing dust, teaching all who are interested, that we are looking for the public money to support religion, Avhen we Avould be amongst 'the very first to resist such an application of those moneys. Thera is another point in relation to this Report ; and it is one of 88 AKCHBISnOP HUGHES. humiliation when I consider that the disingenuousness to whicli^I refer could enter into the minds or plans of the high-minded gen¬ tlemen who framed the Report, It is entitled “ The Report of the Committee on Arts and Sciences and Schools, on the petition of the officers and members of the Roman Catholic and other churches in the city of I^ew York, for an apportionment of school moneys to the schools attached to said churches.” Row, said the Bishop, with the exception of the trustees of the Scotch Presbyterian Church and the Hebrew congregations in Crosby and Elm streets, there was no church in the city of Rew York that petitioned the Common Coun¬ cil on the subject. They sent in no petitions. They sent remon¬ strances, however, against the claim of the Catholics, saying in effect to the Common Council : if you grant to these the Catholic peti¬ tioners what they claim, you will be run down with applications. And even the Hebrews and the Scotch Presbyterian Church who profess to claim a portion of the fund do not directly petition for it. The Committee should not therefore call them petitions, but should class them where they properly belong, with the remonstrances, for as such they were intended to operate. Do I find these alleged petitioners complaining of the present system? They say: “Your memorialists had not thought of asking that any portion of the Com¬ mon School Fund might be directed from its present channels of disbursement.” What is this but an admission, an implied declara¬ tion, that such a diversion of the fund from its present channel would be improper, and the whole is designed to impress upon the Common Council the recollection that if the Catholic demand was granted other claimants would arise ; for this purpose these petitions were sent in and intended to be used, and in that respect they are more effective than the remonstrances which they appear designed to co-operate with, I do not say that such was the design, but such is the effect in point of fact. “ They had not thought,” they say, “ of asking that any portion of the Common School Fund should be directed from its present channels of disbursement.” Why then petition unless to discredit the Catholics ? Here again, following iip the same idea : “ But understanding that the trustees of the Cath¬ olic Schools of this city have asked for a part of said fund, if your honorable body shall determine to grant their request and thus estab¬ lish the principle that this fund though raised by general tax may be appropriated to church or sectarian schools, then your inemoriiiRsts respectfully but earnestly contend that they are entitled to a ratable portion thereof.” We do not, said the Bishop, want this money for church or sec¬ tarian schools. We merely want to educate our children without instilling poisonous matter into their minds. (The Bishop here read the conclusion of the Petition of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, praying that they may be allowed to draw on the school fund for the children taught at their schools ; and also the petition of the Hebrew Congregation of a similar tenor, praying foi a portion of the fund, ‘‘'“provided the Common Council should de- THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 89 termine to appropriate it wlih reference to religious faith.’’’'') These two petitions, then, continued the Bishop, tlie only ones praying in any manner for a portion of the fund, are, in fact, prayers against our rights — remonstrances — and should he classed with them. They do not allege that they want the fund or that they are suffering any grievance — h*ut they caution as it were the Common Council against grantmg the relief we ask, as, in that event, they w'ill^also demand a share. » /■ All these gentlemen seem to think that we are very difficult to please; and they particularly urge that -if we ^Dress our claims, the present system of public education will be broken up. But I have a simple answer to these objections. The schools are not as sacred as conscience. The Constitution secures the right of conscience to jiarent and child, but is silent on the rights of Common Schools. There is then this answer to the argument which they draw from the dangers to which the prosecution of our claim exposes the Com¬ mon School System. But we have another answer. Every other denomination seems entirely satisfied with the present system. But we are not satisfied with it. It is not one that we ever can be satis¬ fied with. I shall show you presently that all who have sent in re¬ monstrances against our rights approve of the present Public School System. The first on the list of remonstrances against our rights which we have in this document No. 80, is “The Remonstrance of the Trus¬ tees of the Public School Society they of course approve of their own system, and after stating their objections to our claim, they conclude by saying, that their Executive Committee will present a remonstrance more in detail. And in this remonstrance of the Ex¬ ecutive Committee which I have also here, are some allegations that require a pfcssing comment. They state there that the objections of the Catholics to the Public Schools are not “ on account of any relig¬ ious doctrines taught in tliem, but because the peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome are not taught therein ; and they now ask (the remonstrance adds) for a portion of the public money, in order that these doctrines may be taught in connection with the kind of instruc¬ tion for which tliese moneys were raised.” In the preceding jiara- graphs are the following statements: “The managers of these schools (the Catholic schools), having what they might deem higher and more important objects in view, in the inculcation of religious creeds or dogmas, could scarcely fail to neglect the literary for the religious culture* of the* children’s minds. If it be urged that the Catholic schools are open to all, without distinction as to religious sect, your remonstrants reply that this fact only enhances the objec¬ tion to granting the prayer of their petition ; wdiich then virtually is that they may he enabled to gain proselytes at the public expense.'''’ First they object to us that if we should be enabled to establish schools for the education of the Catholic children, we Avould teach our Catechism in them. And then if we reply that our schools are open to all, they charge us with a scheme for making proselytes at 90 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. the public expense. On what data do these gentlemen predicate these calumnious statements? We do not want nor ask for the public money to enable us to teach any religious doctrines. The assertion is a calumny for which no foundation can be discovered. [Great applause.] And now we come to the Methodists. * The membei;^ of the Methodist Episcopal Church, after stating in their remonstmnce their objections to the grant of the Catholic k'ijjplication, add : “ Yonr memorialists wish to be understood distinctly to declare their increased confidence in, and approval of, the policy of appropriating the Public School money to the Public Schools only, and therefore remonstrate most decidedly against granting the petition of tlie Trustees of the Roman Catholic Schools, which, in their estimation, would be a perversion of the Public School Fund.” Here we find the Methodists expressing their confidence in the Public School System. We have, then, the remonstrance of William Holmes and sixty one other citizens, protesting against the diversion of the Public School Fund from its present channel, blext comes the remon¬ strance of the “ East Broome street Baptist Church,” in which they express their belief “ that the present popular and highly efiicient Public Schools are better calculated to promote the education of the rising generation than it could be done if entrusted to the great diversity of religious sects into which the people are divided.” “ Lockwood Smith, and two hundred and nine other citizens,” also remonstrate ; reiterating the groundless assertion that the Catholics want the public funds to aid them in educating their children according to their religious faith. N o, that is not what- we want ; but simply that our children shall not be taught that Catholics are “ deceitful.” % There is, then, no reason for the Public School Society to appre¬ hend danger from the opposition of other denominations. The Baptists — the Methodists — Mr. Lockwood Smith and two hundred and nine others — all approve of the present distribution of the public fund. They have full confidence in the present system. Let them. We have none, and have no reason to. We have here, too, the remonstrance of the “ Reformed Protest¬ ant Dutch Church,” which I must not pass over ; for you all know that some leading persons in that church are the most gentlemanly, polite, charitable, kind and conciliatory characters imaginable, when¬ ever they treat of us or of our religion. [Laughter.] Well, these gentlemen, too, declare in their remonstrance their unqualified approval of the present administration of the Common School Fund. But in referring to our application, they make some further observations. “We believe,” they say, “it is the only instance in which any society of professed Christians h^s ventured to invite the 2)ublic au¬ thorities in so open a manner to forget or disregard that fundamental principle of our civil compact, '■free toleration of all religious denorn- THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 91 {nations^ special and exclusive privileges to none^ and has hoklly soli¬ cited that their private and sectarian interests may be taken under the fostering care of this State.” According to the princijiles of this remonstrance, then, said the Bishop, it is necessary, for the existence of free toleration, to tax you for tlie support of schools from which you must either derive no benefit, or allow your children’s religious feelings and principles to be perverted. For this is the alternative that the present system imposes upon Catholics, and it is to be relieved from this injustice that they ask, and not, as is untruly charged, to violate any princi- 2)les of free toleration. In the same manner with those I have read do all the remon¬ strances proceed, aiiproving fully of the jiresent appropriation of the public funds. There are no grounds, then, for the jiretended alarm for the pros¬ perity of the public schools ; or that the costly public sy-uctures w'hich they have raised Avill become worthless. Every denomina¬ tion besides the Catholics appears to be satisfied with the present system, and from among those who have this confidence enough will be found to fill their schools. But those'- gentlemen go too far in their ojiposition : they place it on grounds that cannot be sustained ; they go too far for the law ; and even if the law bears them out, they go too far ; for if any laiv of the State of iMew York operates either to compel a violation of our consciences, or to dejirive us of the benefit of taxation, it is not constitutional. There is in the Constitution no principle that can justify coercion of conscience ; and against this injustice tve will appeal to the end. We cannot be wmrse than we are now. We are paying now for a system from which w’e receive nothing in return. When I speak of jiaying, I do not speak of men who live in three-story houses ; for w^e all jiay, the jioor as well as the rich — the poor man in the labor which he contributes — not only he who owns 01 occupies a house, but every one who boards in a house pays for the support of this system. We cannot be worse than we are. We have striven for years to jn-ovide a substitute for those schools from w^hich we are excluded, and we cannot be reduced to a worse extremity. They say to us, We throw open our schools; why do you not enter? But if, instead of learning truth, our chil¬ dren are stultified by false history, are ojien doors a compensation for such a result? Yes, take their books, and when your child has read them through from first to last, what does he know of Catho¬ lics ? Nothing; hardly knows that such a people existed, excejit when killing Cranmer, or when reading of Luther as the greatest character of the age ; or about Huss being burned by those “ de¬ ceitful Catholics.” But if they choose to represent Cranmer as a saint, or a martyr, they must not force their opinion of his character upon us. Scholars ■ — men who have studied and know what the truth of history is — know that, so far from being a saint or a worthy character, he was ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. (at least in our opinion, and in this country we have a right to onr opinion) one of the greatest hypocrites. In discussing this matter, gentlemen will say to me, “ Bishop, do not press your rights too strenuously ; it will only excite prejudices which you know exist on the subject.” Yes, they will deplore those prejudices, and yet they will put into the hands of the children of the public the very sources from which these prejudices are derived. They will tell me, “ Oh, you know how prejudiced the public mind is but if they put into the hands of the youth of this country the false history of Cranmer, and others like it, what can they expect will be the result but a prejudiced- public ? When they bring forw'ard passages, for the instruction of children, from Beattie, Robertson, Hume, how will children come out from such schools ? as if they thought that Cath¬ olics had no existence — did not know their own history. I speak of historical learning parti culaidy. In the schools they must have works to exercise and inform the minds of children : but why always select tfiose which convey the worst meaning ? We have some recollections. Catholics have had a past — a glorious past ; they liave had a history — one from which might be drawn ample lessons of virtue, and wisdom, and patriotism ; and instead of selecting from false and prejudiced writers, they might as well have gone . back and extracted some portions of Catholic history — something of Catholic achievements — something of Catholic inventions and dis¬ coveries. We should not then witness the depressing effect which the repetition of all those slanderous tales against Catholics pro- 'duces on the young Catholic mind. Have you not observed it yourselves ? Have you not seen the young Catholic, whose mind has been filled with these calumnies, half ashamed, when he enters the world, of his Catholic name and his Catholic associates, regard¬ ing them often as an inferior, worthless set ? and how often has he selected a different class of companions, merely from the servile influence of these prejudices ! But if we were allowed our rights, and permitted to draw from the treasures of Catholic knowledge, how different would be the result ! Our children might then have their minds imbued with a knowledge of all that their Catholic fathers had done ? they would then know that almost all the inven¬ tions and discoveries which have ennobled the history of the modern world are the productions of Catholic genius or enterprise ; the invention of printing — that greatest and most powerful means in the dissemination of knowledge ; the post-office ; the Sabbath-school, on Avhich they so much pride themselves, and which is the fruit of the benevolence and 2^iety of a Catholic Archbishoji — the sainted Borromeo ; the newspajier or gazette ; the telescope ; the mariner’s compass ; the discovery of this great continent ; all associated Avith Catholic names and Catholic genius. And to jiass from the material Avorld to the Avorld of mind and morals, we Avill find there the same abundant store of Catholic associations Avith Avhich to fill the mind of the Catholic child, and teach him to look upon himself and those fi'om whom he has derived his name, Avith respect and honest pride. THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 93 If you would let them have an idea of what there is great or excel¬ lent in the Constitution of England, only tell them to take away all that is Catholic, and what will remain ? Take it all, and what will be left but poor-laws, and poor-houses, and two or tliree similar institutions. Such would be the result of a Catholic education. But, dep^'i^^ed of our rights, we can only expect to see two classes — one educated, deriving benefits from a fund to which we have a rightful claim, but from which we are excluded ; one class able to devise the means for their elevation ; the other uneducated, depressed and degraded ; one composed of mechanics, men of knowledge and enterprise ; the other left to carry the water and hew the wood, without any means for improving their state except Avhat the poor Catholics can themselves provide. And all this because we will not send our children where they will be trained up without religion ; lose respect for their parents and the faith of their fathers, and come out little philosophers, turning up their noses at the name of Cath¬ olic, and ashamed of what they are in truth too ignorant to respect or comprehend. Never was there a more cruel injustice than this system entails upon us, but I am willing to believe that it is an injustice of which those who inflict it do not know the full extent. If the Public School Society would remove the objections of which we complain ; if they will not allow bad books or anti- Catholic influences to operate in their system, we should gladly send oiir children to partake of its benefits ; provided advantage be not taken of the humility of their state, and that it will not be as 1 have known it once, when a child came home from one of these schools abashed, and saying that he could not again attend where all were dressed in their fine clothes and ridiculed liis rags and poverty. We have no objection that these gentlemen themselves should take the whole management of the instruction into their hands, provided it be done without the accomjianying violations of conscience of which we complain. But I shall press this subject upon those who have the right and the authority to relieve us. I will reduce them to the necessity of admitting the justice of our claims, whether the relief is granted or not. We shall take away every pretext from them which they now use to deprive our children of the rights which a benevolent country has provided for them. Our consciences may appear to them to be singularly sensitive. But what subject is there of greater interest? At the death-bed of the parent what is there that excites in his breast a more keen and anxious solicitude than that his child should remain true and faithful to his religion ; and if such is the anxiety of the dying parent, what must be the feelings of the living ? But these sacred feelings of the parent are disregarded in this Public School System, and they treat us like tlse or])hans of Stephen Girard. But with the difference which I have before noticed, that in this case the money which they waste in the experiment is ours. But so long as the system remains unreformed, they shall not, they may rely on it, have Catholic children to prac¬ tice upon. ARCHBISHOP HliaaES. i.4 In the Report of the School Commissioners for the past year there is one thing I am sorry to see — the small number educated by the Public School Society with the large means at their disposal during that period. It is stated there that they educated 13,189 children, ■while we educated at our own expense one-third of that number ; and while we were also obliged to swell their fund. They received from the public fund $115,'7'&9 42, during the 2')ast year, and yet, while Ave at our own cost educated one-third as many children as they have done, they come in and remonstrate against onr receiving any portion of the ijublic money to Avhich we had contributed. They may tell me it is zeal for the cause of general education that actuates them ; but I assert that, Avith zeal and good management, a much larger number of children might haA’e been educated Avith the same means than this Report shoAvs. They say they have but . one end in view— the public good; but being as they are such large recipients of the public bounty, they should not be the first to step betAveen us and the public councils. They do not comjirehend their OAvn ])osition. They do not believe that they are all this time SAvelling the tide of irreligion. They allege this, and therefore I do not discredit their motives ; still, they are not infallible nor im¬ peccable. And I do not see but that, Avith all their love for poAver, grasping for the public money, and stepping in to defeat the appli¬ cation of rightful claimants, there may be more that is earthy and fallible in their motives than they admit even perhaps to themselves. But hoAvever this may be, one thing is certain, that v^hile the system remains unchanged there can be no more connection on the part of Catholics Avith thie Public Schools. They pretend that the'laAV cut off all religious societies. But the laAA^ did not cut them off. It only moderated the right to demand a portion of the fund. It left it discretionary Avith the Common •♦Council to grant or to refuse the money. It did not disqualify reli¬ gious societies from becoming recipients of the public fund. I have examined this question carefully and as well as my numerous other engagements would permit, and I am entirely satisfied that no Cath¬ olic can conscientiously alloAV his child to attend those schools as at present constitiited. While in the popular efforts at reform a hue and cry has been raised against monopolies, there has been gradually a monopoly of mind established ; taking it, too, in its most tender and susceptible period ; and this monopoly is one which should be guarded against AA’ith the utmost jealousy. The duty Avhich it assumes belongs of right to the parent and the citizen, and it is the last Avhich should be given up. If parents had delegated the right, it could not be more authoritatively used than it is noAV by this monopoly. But the i-ight has not been delegated. It is a self-elected public in¬ structor Avhose members are chosen Avithin themselves on the prin¬ ciples of the close borough system. And against this monopoly and its spirit of encroachment Ave must never cease to direct our most anxious attCTition. THE SCHOOL QUESTIOJr. 95 The adversaries of our claims will seldom now dispute the fact of the existence of our griev:ances. But they will hid us look to . public feeling ; they will, appeal to prejudices which they say are arrayed against us. But I have no alarm. All denominations they say will be leagued against us. If we ask for anything itnjust, we might feel apprehensive. But if we make the justice of our case clear, if we clear away the mist which these documents and other similar misstatements have created, my confidence is unshaken that their sense of public justice will make even our opponents them¬ selves accede to our just and, temperate demands. The Right Rev. JAelate here closed his address, throughout the delivery of Avhich he Avas repeatedly applauded in the most enthu¬ siastic manner, and he sat down amid loud and long-continued cheering. When several other speakers had addressed the meeting, the Bishop rose and said, that in their present position in relation to this question additional measures should be taken to insure the suc¬ cess of their cause. They must pi'omote it now not by speaking alone, and he Avould propose that some means of approaching the Common Council should be devised ; that a committee be apjminted for devising some mode of ascertaining whether the Common Council are still disposed to perseA’ere in denying to the Catholics tlieir rights ; that mode might be either by petition or in some other form. The Legislature had not denied to religious societies the right to receive a portion of the Common School Fund. By the alteration which had been made in the old laAV the ohUgaiion to dis- tribxite a portion of the fund among the religious incorporated soci¬ eties had ceased,#but the discretion to make such a distribution Avhere it Avould be reasonable to do so was still left. The law does not state that a school connected AA’ith a church should not receh'e a share of the fund. There is no such disqualification imposed, and consequently a discretion is still left to the Common Council to make such -a school one of the recipients, when a proper case should arise. It is objected that the Catholics cannot bring themselves within the meaning of any of the terms used in the recent laws. But let this verbiage be put aAvay ; let them call it schools or soci¬ eties, they are certainly one or the other. The laAV never designed that the Common Council should indulge caprice or Avhim; but, Avhen they found a just or reasonable ground for the application, they should grant it. This committee might arrange the Executive part of the business, said the Bishop, so that while Ave talk and Avhile Ave write {for it may yet be necessary to Avrite much on this subject) Ave shall also take some more definite action in the matter. I will therefore move that a committee of five be appointed for the purpose I have indi¬ cated. I will suggest that, in order to guard against any imjiuta- tion of political partiality, tAvo gentlemen of the committee be selected from each of the leading political parties. [Great ap¬ plause,] 96 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. Tlie Bishop’s motion being seconded, was then pnt to the meet- ing by the chairman and carried unanimously, and the following gentlemen were appointed members of the pommittee : Rt, Rev. Dr. Hughes, Thomas O’Connor, Dr. Sweeney, James W. McKeon, and James Kelley. Meeting in the Basement of St. James’s Church, Septem¬ ber 21, 1840. * On Monday evening, .September 21, the Catholics again met in great numbers in the basement of St. James’s Church, to receive the report of the committee appointed at the previous meeting to pre* pare a memorial to the Common Council on the subject of their claim to a portion of the Common School Fund for the education of Catholic children. The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes was present and was received with a warm and affectionate gi-eeting on his entrance. The Very Rev. Dr. Power was also cordially welcomed as he entered the place of meeting, accompanied by a large body of clerical and lay gentlemen, after an absence of some months from the city for the restoration of his health. At the time appointed for the commencement of proceedings Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was again 'called to the chair, Gregory Dillon, Esq., was chosen Vice- President, and the secretaries of former meetings were re-appointed Mr. B. O’Conner, one of the secretaries, read the minutes of the last meeting, and they were approved and adopted. Mr. James W. McKeon then rose and said that the committee appointed at the last meeting to prepare a memorial to the city authorities had dis charged the duty assigned to them, and were ready to make theii report. He therefore moved that the Right Rev. Bishop. Hughes, tiie chairman of the committee, be respectfully requested to read the memorial which the committee had prepared. The motion having been carried liy acclamation, the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes came forward and read the memorial, which was a most able and interest¬ ing document. On the motion of Mr. Gallagher, the report of the committee was unanimously adopted, and another committee, consisting of Thomas O’Connor, Esq., Dr. Hugh Sweeney, James W. McKeon, Esq., and J. Kelley, Esq., were appointed to proceed at once to present the memorial to the Board of Aldermen which was then in council. In the absence of the chairman on this mission as one of the committee appointed for that purpose, the vice-president became the chairman of the meeting, but he requested the aid of the Very Rev. Dr. Power, who took the chair amidst loud acclama¬ tion. A motion was then made that the Petition just read, be printed and published ^as containing an able, lucid, and clear exposi¬ tion of the whole question, and the grounds on which the claims of THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 97 the Catholics rested, and that by so doing it would prevent a gar¬ bled statement of its contents going before the public. But on the suggestion of Bishop Hughes that it might be showing a want of proper courtesy on their part, to do so before publication by order of the Common Council, the motion was withdrawn.* After Dr. Power had addressed the meeting, the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes presented himself, and was received with great applause. He said he had mentioned, some time ago, that he had understood that a reply, which usually meant an attempt at refuta¬ tion, was being jirepared by the Trustees of the Public Schools. Happening to allude to it one evening, he had ventured to turn projihet and say that it would be no reply in the sense of a refuta¬ tion, and that prophecy was fulfilled in the document in his hand. He said then there would be no meeting and grapjilmg with the facts and arguments of the Address, and he now found that instead there was an appeal to public opinion ! They had^ the idea that the 2)repulices of the community were with them, and that consequently they could dispense with the trouble of contending with facts and arguments at all ; and to get the “ weather guage,” as the sailor would say, they introduce in the first paragraph the old phrase about “ Church and State,” and they represent the Catholic Address as a new appeal for a portion of the School Fund for the support of their church-schools, as schools m which nothing but the cate¬ chism was taught from morning to night. He trusted now, that the language of their Petition would make it clear, for they had been reduced to the necessity of telling them what they did not petition for. [Applause.] Well, after the introduction, which was the making their bow to the prejudices of the community, they come to a proposition at which he was startled ; the proposition was in these words : “ It is proper, therefore, that the allegations contained in the Address of the Roman Catholics, be either admitted or refuted.” Bravo, said he [laughtei'J, now you talk like men. In the next sentence they said, “ They are of a grave and serious character” — that they were [applause] — “ and such as should, if true, justly deprive the Trustees of the con¬ fidence which has been so long reposed in them. But they are not trueB And that — “ But they are not true ” — was all the refutation they gave. After that they might look in vain and they would not find a single fact in their Address disproved ; but they proceed to ad¬ minister to that disrejuitable prejudice on which they calculated with so much certainty. And as they had furnished no ground of review, as they had taken up no point of the Address, as they had not re¬ futed any of its facts or reasonings, of course he was dispensed from the necessity of going over all they had said, and he should there¬ fore merely go over some portions of it, more for the purpose of pass¬ ing the evening than for any other purpose. Well, they take advant¬ age of this public prejudice ; then they state what they are charged 7 * This Petition is given on page 102. 98 AECHBISHOP HUGHES, with, and they add the significant words “But we forbear.” [Laugh¬ ter.] They say of the books, though, afterwards — they are brought a little to their senses and cry peccavi — they do say they have had wrong books in the schools. This they acknowledge.' But they say “The reading-books used in the Public Schools are the same as those used in private schools of a similar grade, in which children of vari¬ ous religious persuasions, including those of our more wealthy fel¬ low citizens of the Roman Catholic Church, are educated.” And pray was it an approval of those books because some of their “more w'ealthy fellow citizens of the Roman Catholic Church” allowed their children to be educated where they were used. No ; but they submitted to it. But it would seem that the spirit of Proselytism, and the device of meeting the children at the threshold, had be¬ come general. They attacked the young mind, knowing that they could not convert the grown-up Catholic in whose mind their holy and divine faith was well established. [Applause.] But if Catholics had allowed their children to attend schools where these books were used it did not follow that they approved of them. Again they say “ many of them contain the best, most sublime and impressive essays on morals and religion that can be found in the English language,” ■ — that is, they being the judges, — “ and are calculated to impress on the young mind a belief in the existence of God ” — what a long creed that is ! — [laughter] — “the immortality of the soul” — why, Plato believed that ! — and a futiire state of rewards and punishments. “ They pictiire vice in its naked deformity,- and pre.sent virtue in her most pleasing and attractive colors.” And this is the answer they give to the Address of the Catholics; and then, by way of showing what ex¬ cellent institutions these Public Schools are — for they have not a high test of their moral influence — they say, “ Let the records of our crim¬ inal courts, our prisons, and the receptacles of those who by reason of ‘ rioting in the fierceness of unrestrained hists,’ have become a public charge, be examined with reference to the efiect of our system of education on the mind and morals, as compared with any other system, and the result will be found highly favorable to the Public Schools.” That is to say, if the scholars do not find themselves forthwith in the Penitentiary, the system is not so bad ! But we should expect something better. He had said so to the Trustees, and he violated no confidence by the disclosure — [laughter] — he had told them that though the scholars educated in those schools were not the persons most frequently found in the criminal jails, he was able to prove, so far as such a matter was susceptible of proof, that the exclusiveness and the sj)irit of monopoly in that body of men, and the consequent exclusion of so many from means of education, was the cause why others do go to the Penitentiary. The children of the poor who did not go to those schools were not allowed by the pre¬ vailing exclusiveness in the Trustees to be educated out of their “ shop;” they were consequently left uneducated and unrestrained; they were left to form bad acquaintances by whom they became cor- ruj^ted, and they corrupters in their turn. The cause was in the ex- THE SCHOOL siTJESTION. 99 chisiveness of those men who would not allow them to have teachers in whom they had confidence. [Applause.] Here they refer to a chapter entitled “ Sunday Morning,” which ho read at a previous meeting from one of those school books ; and of all chapters they thought this was selected with the least judgment. They would recollect it was a story of a father and his son passing on the Sunday morning through the churches of the different deno¬ minations, and after entering a Catholic place of worship and re¬ marking on every one of the Catholic congregation dipping his finger in holy Avater and crossing himself as he went in, they Avound up that sincerity was the true spirit ; or in other words that it made no difference what they believed — whether Quaker, Baptist, Epi-scopa- lian, Unitarian, Methodist, or Roman Catholic — provided they raised the man who fell in the street ; or provided one raised him, and another applied a smelling-bottle to his nose, and another ran for a surgeon, and another attended to his Avife and children, it was no matter Avdiat their rehgious creed was. [Laughter.] Roav this had been before commented on in a neAVspaper paragraph, and in a leisure half hour he Avrote an answer, and to put it to the test he asked in that letter that some Christian minister in UeAV York should be got to endorse that chapter from the pulpit, and no one could be found to do it. Noav there Avas a very poAverful .ansAver or refutation — for it was to be obsei’A'ed that they lay down the rule that what they don’t refute Avas to be admitted — they meet one of the charges of objections of Catholics in the folloAving manner : “ They say that they could not discharge their conscientious duty to their offspring if they al¬ lowed them to be brought up under the irreligious principles on Avhich the Public Schools are conducted” — and observe they profess to exclude all sectarianism, and if they do they exclude all Christian¬ ity, and the system must be irreligious. Having quoted those Avords, they gwe this answer : “ And while they ask of the State the means of supporting their schools, that they may train up their children ‘in principles of virtue and religion,’ they assure the public that they Avould scorn to support or adAnoce their religion at any other than their own expense.” Certainly, Catholics assure the public of that, and he repeated the assurance. But they proceed: “A solution of some of these incongruities may, perhaps, be found in the fact, tliat they do not class themselves among sectarians, or denominations of Christians, but claim to be emphatically ‘ The Church.’ ” ISToav they never foAind any such expression in any thing they had said. They (the Catholics) spoke of their position as they stand before the coun¬ try. The laAV called them a sect, and they spoke of themselves as the laAV spoke of them, and those men thus readily resorted to this perversion of their ideas Avithout one iota of proof. They (the Ca¬ tholics) defied them to show that they had spoken as was asserted. [Applause.] The reverend gentleman who referred a few minutes ago to his 2:)art of the subject might have extended his remarks a little further in the same chapter. They speak of the question of education in Ireland, and to justify themselves they introduce Avhat they had 100 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. said at a recent conference and the reply that was made to them. They say: “It is known that a large portion of the bishops and cler¬ gy of the established and other Protestant churches, and a majority of the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland, have agreed upon a gen¬ eral system of education, and a collection of extracts from the sacred Scriptures for the National Schools of that country. At the confer¬ ence just referred to, the question was distinctly put, whether the objection of the Catholic clergy to the Public Schools, so far as re¬ gards reading the Scriptures without note or comment, would be re¬ moved by the use of these extracts in them. The answer was, that the dissenting bishops had appealed to the Pope against the majority of their body, and as his Holiness had not yet settled the question, he was not prepared to give his answer. The Trustees very much regret that circumstances have placed them in a situation which ren¬ ders this exposition necessary. But they could not do less and dis¬ charge their duty to themselves and the public.” Why, the Trustees must have strange notions of the subject to suppose they need express regret for making disclosures which are published in every paper in the Britsh Empire ; but the meeting would perceive they were still feeding that abominable prejudice of the public mind ; saying in effect: “Though the Protestants quarrel among themselves, they are agreed against you” (Catholics). Oh! but Catholics have appealed to the Pope, and they wanted to create prejudice by that, while they claim credit for the moderation with which they had made it known. Yes, the Catholics do consxilt the Pope, and they glory in consulting the Holy Father, the Catholic Chief Pastor. [Great applause.] Now it was not to be i^assed over that these gentlemen are over royal in their ambition when they would place themselves in juxtaposition with the British Crown — would consider themselves as bolding the same relation to us that the British Government held with the Irish clergy in the qxiestion in dispute between them. But here the ques¬ tion was not the same ; for the Trustees of the Public Schools in New York were a private corporation, while the Catholics in Ireland had to do with the British Government ; and concession yielding to that government should form no precedent here. The contracting parties on the other side were exceedingly different. Bxit they come to another point to show their liberality — they “yield to the conscien¬ tious scruples of the Roman Catholics!” They yield! What have they to yield ? But they “ are bound to protect the feelings and in¬ terests of the Protestant churches !” In England there is an officer who is designated the “ Keeper of the King’s Conscience,” and the Trustees of the Public School Society are become the guardians of the consciences of both the Catholics and Protestants — emphatically the protectors of “the feel¬ ings and interests of the Protestant churclies!” [Laughter.] They stand as umpires between the chui'ches, and they profess to regret that the Catholic clergy have not met them to obtain their confidence, and to have a joint examination and expurgation of the Public School books. Why, if they had, in what a situation would they have been ? THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 101 Suppose he should go to the study of those hooks day after day, and week after week, to point out the necessary corrections, and after he had taken that trouble by courtesy to supply their want of ability to understand them themselves, should be told that they must first “protect the feelings and interests of the Protestant churches?” Did they think Catholics had no “feelings” at all to be “protected?” Did they think Catholics would make those corrections and submit them to a board where there were but one or two voices that would be raised to “ protect ” their religion, and enforce their constitutional . right to their doctrines? A question was asked of him whether Catholics would be content if they excluded all Scripture “ without note or comment.” But he told them that Catholics were too hum¬ ble to expect such a sacrifice. He was not willing to put it in their power to place Catholics before Protestants as having such enmity to the word of God. He did not say they would do so, but it would have been in their power to make that use of that concession, and he Avas resolved not to make or give them the opportunity. And here, again, after referring to the Pope, and the question of education in Ireland, they tell us they “remain ready and anxious to join Avith the Roman Catholics in efforts so to model the books and studies in the Public Schools, as to obviate existing difficulties. They think that it may be done. But ” - and Avhenever they heard hxit in language of this kind, they might expect something insurmountable — [laughter] — “if, as Avas the case in the Irish National Schools, an appeal to the Pope should be necessary, they are free to confess, in the language of the Address, that ‘a perfect neutrality of influence, on the subject of religion,’ is indeed impossible.” Why, the fact is if they had not truth whereAvithal to meet the Catholic’s facts and argu¬ ments, as this shoAved they had not, it was not worth their Avhile to sneer at them, or to introduce this sly observation as though it Avas matter of their concern Avhether Catholics consult the Pope or not. But Catholics did not require the aid of intrinsic light, Avhile they saAv the Public Schools teaching their children that Catholics Avere “deceitful,” Avithout distinction of age, clime or country. Catholics., Avho were more than triple in numbers all the other bodies togethei’, when they saw books put into the hands of their children which stigmatized them as deceitful, they had no great necessity to consult the Pope about the business. But it Avas not worth while to pursue the subject further. [Great applause.] 102 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF NEW YORK FOR A PORTION OF THE COMMON SCHOOL FUND. TO THE HONORABLE THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OP NEW YORK. The Petition of the Catholics of New TorTc^ Pcspectfully represents : That your Petitioners yield to no class in their performance of, and dispo¬ sition to perform all the duties of citizens. — They bear, and are willing to bear, their portion of every common burden ; and feel themselves entitled to a participation in every common benefit. This participation, they regret to say, has been denied them for years back, in reference to Common School Education in the city of New York, except on conditions with which their conscience, and, as they believe their duty to God, did not, and do not leave them at liberty to comply. The rights of conscience, in this country, are held by the constitution and universal consent to he sacred and inviolate. No stronger evidence of this need be adduced than the fact, that one class of citizens are exempted from the duty or obligation of defending their country against an invading foe, out of delicacy and deference to the rights of conscience which forbids them to take up arms for any purpose. Your Petitioners only claim the benefit of this principle in regard to the public education of their children. They regard the public education which the State has provided as a common benefit, in which they are most desirous and feel that they are entitled to participate; and therefore they pray your Honorable Body that they may be permitted to do so, without violating their conscience. But your Petitioners do not ask that this prayer be granted without assign¬ ing their reasons for preferring it. In ordinary cases men are not required to assign the motives of conscien¬ tious scruples in matters of this kind. But your petitioners are aware that a large, wealthy and concentrated influence is directed against their claim by the Corporation called the Public School Society. And that this influence, acting on apuhlic opinion already but too much predisposed to judge unfixvor- ably of the claims of your petitioners, requires to be met by facts which Justify them in thus appealing to your Honorable Body, and which may, at the same time, convey a more correct impression to the public mind. Your petitioners adopt this course the more willingly, because the justice and im¬ partiality which distinguish the decisions of public men, in this counti-y, inspire them with the confidence that your Honorable Body will maintain, in their regard, the principle of the rights of conscience, if it can be done without violating the rights of others, and on no other condition is the claim solicited. PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. 103 It is not deemed necessary to trouble your Honorable Body with a detail of tbe circumstances by which the monopoly of the public education of cliil- dreu in the city of New York, and of the funds provided for that purpose at tlie expense of the State, have passed into the hands of a private corporation, styled in its Act of Cliarter, “The Public Scliool Society of the City of New York.” It is composed of men of different sects or denominations. But that denomination, Friends, which is believed to have the controlling influ¬ ence, both by its numbers and otherwise, holds as a peculiar sectarian prin¬ ciple that any formal or official teaching of religion is, at best, unprofitable. And your petitioners have discovered that such of their children as have attended the public schools, are generally, and at an early age, imbued with tbe same principle — that they become untractable, disobedient, and even contemptuous towards their parents — unwilling to learn any thing of religion — as if they had become illuminated, and could receive all the knowledge of religion necessary for them by instinct or inspiration. Your petitioners do not pretend to assign the cause of this change in their children, they only attest the fact, as resulting from their attendance at the public schools of the Public School Society. This Society, however, is composed of gentlemen of various sects, includ¬ ing even one or two Catholics. But they profess to exclude all sectarianism from their schools. If they do not exclude sectarianism, they are avowedly no more entitled to the school funds than your petitioners, or any other de¬ nomination of professing Christians. If they do, as they profess, exclude sectarianism, then your petitioners contend that they exclude Christianity — and leave to the advantage of infidelity the tendencies which are given to the minds of youth by the influence of this feature and pretension of their system. If they could accomplish what they profess, other denominations would join your pefttioners in remonstrating against their schools. But they do not accomplish it. Your petitioners will show your Honorable Body that they do admit -what Catholics call sectarianism, (although others may call it only religion,) in a great variety of ways. In their 22d report, as far back as the year 1827, they tell us, page 14, that they “are aware of the importance of early religious instruction,” and that none but what is exclusively general and scriptural in its character should he introduced into the schools under their charge." Here, then, is their own testimony that they did introduce and authorize “ religious instruc¬ tion ” in their schools. And that they solved, with the utmost composure, the difficult question on which the sects disagree, by determining what hind of '■'•religious instruction" is '■*■ exclusively general and scriptural in its char¬ acter." Neither could they impart this “early religious instruction” them¬ selves. They must have left it to their teachers — and these, armed with official influence, could impress those “early religious instructions” on the susceptible minds of the children, with the authority of dictators. The Public School Society, in their report for the year 1832, page 10, de¬ scribe the effect of these “ early religious instructions,” without, perhaps, intending to do so ; but yet precisely as your petitioners have witnessed it, in such of their children as attended those schools. “ The age at which chil¬ dren are usually sent to school affords a much hetter opportunity to mould their minds to peculiar and exclusive forms of faith than any subsequent period of life." In page 11, of the same report, they protest against the injustice of su])porting “religion in any shape” by public money ; as if the “early re¬ ligious instruction” which they had themselves authorized in their schools, five years before, was not “religion in some shape,” and was not supported by public taxation. They tell us again, in more guarded language, “ The Trustees are deeply impressed with the importance of imbuing the youthful 104 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. mind with religious impressions, and they have endeavored to attain thi? object, as far as the nature of the institution will admit.” Report of 1837. In their Annual Report they tell us, that “ they would not be understood as regarding religious impressions in early youth as unimportant; on the contrary, they desire to do all which may with propriety be done, to give a riglit direction to the minds of the children intrusted to their care. Their schools are uniformly opened with the reading of the Scriptures, and the class-books are such as recognize and enforce the great and generally acknowl¬ edged principles of Christianity.” Page 7. In their 34th Annual Report, for the year 1839, they* pay a high compli¬ ment to a deceased teacher for “the moral and religious influence exerted by her over the three hundred girls daily attending her school,” and tell us that it could not but have had a lasting effect on many of their susceptible minds.” Page 7. And yet in all these “early religious instructions, religious impressions, and religious influence,”’ essentially anti-Catholic, your petition¬ ers are to see nothing sectarian; but if in giving the education which the State requires, they were to bring the same influences to bear on the “ sus¬ ceptible minds of their own children, in favor, and not against, their own religion, then this society contends that it wmuld be sectarian ! Your petitioners regret that thei’e is no means of ascertaining to what extent the teachers in the schools of this Society carried out the views of their principals on the importance of conveying “early religious instructions” to the “ susceptible minds ” of their children. But they believe it is in their power to prove, that in some instances, the Scriptures have been ex- ])lained, as well as read to the pupils. Even the reading of the Scriptures in those schools your petitioners cannot regard otherwise than as sectarian ; because Protestants would certainly con¬ sider as such the introduction of the Catholic Scriptures, which are different from theirs, and the Catholics have the same ground of objection when the Protestant version is made use of. Your petitioners have to state further, as grounds of their conscientious objections to those schools, that many of the selections in their elementary readijig lessons contain matter prejudicial to the Catholic name and charac¬ ter. The term “ Popery ” is repeatedly found in them. This term is known and employed as one of insult and contempt towards the Catholic religion, and it passes into the minds of children with the feeling of which it is the outward expression. Both the historical and religious portions of the read¬ ing lessons are selected frorn Protestant writers, whose prejudices against the Catholic religion render them unworthy of confidence in the mind of your petitioners, at least so far as their own children are concerned. The Public School Society have heretofore denied that their books con¬ tained any thing reasonably objectionable to Catholics. Proofs of the con¬ trary could be multiplied, but it is unnecessary, as they have recently retracted their denial, and discovered, after fifteen years’ enjoyment of their monopoly, that their books do contain objectionable passage.s. But they allege that they have proffered repeatedly to make such corrections as the Catholic Clergy might require. Your petitioners conceive that such a proposal could not be carried into effect by the Public School Society without giving just ground for exception to other denominations. Neither can they see witli what con¬ sistency that Society can insist, as it has done, on the perpetuation of its monopoly, when the Trustees thus avow their incompetency to present unex¬ ceptionable books, without the aid of the Catholic, or any other Clergy. They allege, indeed, that with the best intentions they have been unable to ascertain the passages which might be offensive to Catholics. With their intentions, your petitioners cannot enter into any question. Nevertheless, they submit to your Honorable Body, that this Society is eminently incom- PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. 105 potent to the superintendence of public education, if they could not see that the following passage was unfit for the public schools, and especially unfit to be placed in the hands of Catholic children. They will quote the passage as one instance, taken from Putnam’s Sequel, page 266 : “ IIuss, John, a zealous reformer from Popery^ who lived in Bohemia, towards the close of the fourteenth, and heyinning of the fifteenth centuries, lie was hold and pcrseverring ; hut at length, trusting himself to the deceitful Catholics, he was hy them hr ought to trial, condemned as a heretic, and burnt at the stalce.'’' The Public School Society may be excused for not knowing the histori¬ cal inaccuracies of this passage ; but surely assistance of the Catholic Clergy could not have been necessary to an understanding of the words “ deceitful,” as applied to all who profess the religion of your petitioners. For these reasons, and others of the same kind, your petitioners cannot, in conscience, and consistently with their sense of duty to God, and to their offspring, intrust the Public School Society with the office of giving ‘‘ a right direction to the minds of their children.” And yet this Society claims that office, and claims for the discharge of it the Common School Funds, to which your petitioners, in common with other citizens, are con¬ tributors. In so far as they are contributors, they are not only deprived of any benefit in return, but their money is employed to the damage and detriment of their religion, in the minds of their own children, and of the rising generation of the community at large. The contest is between the guarantied rights, civil and religious, of the citizen on the one hand, and the pretensions of the Public School Society on the other ; and whilst it has been silently going on for years, your petitioners would call the attention of your Honorable Body to its consequences on that class for whom the benefits of public education are most essential — the children of the poor. This class (your petitioners speak only so far as relates to their own denomination), after a brief experience of the schools of the Public School Society, naturally and deservedly withdrew all confidence from it. Hence the establishment by your petitioners of schools for the education of the poor. The expense necessary for this, was a second taxation, required not' by the laws of the land, but by the no less imperious demands of their conscience. They were reduced to the alternative of seeing their children growing uj) in entire ignorance, or else taxing themselves anew for private schools, whilst the funds provided for education, and contributed in part by them¬ selves, were given over to the Public School Society, and by them employed as has been stated above. Now your jietitioners respectfully submit, that without this confidence, no body of meq can discharge the duties of education as intended by the State, and required by the people. The Public School Society are, and have been at all times, conscious that they had not the confidence of the poor. In their twenty-eighth report, they appeal to the ladies of New York to create or procure it, by the “persuasive eloquence of female kindness page 5. And from this they pass, on the next page, to the more efficient eloquence of coercion under penalties and privations to be visited on all persons, “ whether emigrants or otherwise,” who being in the circumstances of poverty referred to, should not send their children to some “ public or other daily school.” In their twenty- seventh report, pages 15 and 16, they plead for the doctrine, and recommend it to public favor by the circumstance that it will affect but “ few natives.” But why should it be necessary at all, if they possessed that confidence of the poor, 106 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. vntliout which they need never hope to succeed ? So well are they con vinced of this, that no longer ago than last year, they gave up all hope of inspiring it, and loudly call for coercion hy “ the strong arm of the civil poicer ” to supply its deficiency. Your jietitioners will close this part of their statement with the expression of their surprise and regret that gen¬ tlemen who are themselves indebted much to the respect which is properly cherished for the rights of conscience, should be so unmindful of the same rights in the case of your petitioners. Many of them are by religious principle so pacific that they would not take up arms in the defence of the liberties of their country, though she shoultl call them to her aid ; and yet, they do not hesitate to invoke the “strong arm of the civil power” for the purpose of abridging the private liberties of their fellow-citizens, who may feel equally conscientious. Your ''petitioners have to deiilore, as a consequence of this state of things, the ignorance and vice to which hundreds, nay thousands of their children are exposed. They have to regret, also, that the education which they can provide, under the disadvantages to which they have been sub¬ jected, is not as efficient as it should be. But should your Honorable llody be pleased to designate their schools as entitled to receive a just projiortion of the public funds which belong to your petitioners in common with other citizens, their schools could be improved for those who attend, others now growing up in ignorance could be received, and the ends of the Legislature could be accomplished — a result which is manifestly hopeless under the present system. Your petitioners will now invite the attention of your Honorable Body to the objections and misrepresentations that have been urged by the Pub¬ lic School Society to granting the claim of your petitioners. It is urged by them that it would be appropriating money raised by general taxation to the support of the Catholic religion. Your petitioners join issue with them, and declare unhesitatingly, that if this objection can be established the claim shall be forthwith abandoned. -It is objected that though we are taxed as citizens, we ap2)ly for the benefits of education as “ Catholics.” Your petitioners, to remove this difficulty, beg to be considered in their .application in the identical cajiacity in which they are taxed — viz. : as citi¬ zens of the commonwealth. It has been contended by the Public School Society, that the law disqualifies schools which admit any profession of religion, from receiving any encouragements from the School Fund. Your petitioners have two solutions for this pretended difficulty. 1. Your peti¬ tioners are unable to discover any such disqualification in the law, which merely delegates to your Honorable Body the authority and discretion of determining what schools or societies shall be entitled to its bounty. 3. Your jietitioners are willing to fulfill the eonditions of the law so far as religious teaching is proscribed during school hours. In fine, your jietition- ers, to remove all objections, are willing that the material organization of their schools, and the disbursements of the funds allowed for them, shall be conducted, and made, by persons unconnected with the religion of your jietitioners, even the Public School Society, if it should please your Honorable Body to apjioint them for that purjiose. The public may then be assured that the money will not be aj)plied to the supjiort of the Catho¬ lic religion. It is deemed necessary by your petitioners to save the Public School So¬ ciety the necessity of future misconception, thus to state the things which are not petitioned for. The members of that Society, who have shown themselves so impressed with the importance of conveying their notions of “ early religious instruction ” to the “ susceptible minds ” of Catholic children, can have no objection that the parents of the children, and teachers in whom 107 I PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. • the parents have confidence, should do the same, jirovided no law is violated thereby, and no disposition evinced to bring the children of other denomi¬ nations within its influence. Your petitioners, therefore, pray that your Honorable Body will be pleased to designate, as among the schools entitled to jiarticipate in the Common School Fund, upon complying with the requirements of the law, and the ordinances of the corporation of the city— or for such other relief as to your Honorable Body shall seem meet — St. Patrick’s School, St. Peter’s School, St. Mary’s School, St. Joseph’s School, St. James’ School, St. Nicholas’ School, Transfiguration Church School, and St. John’s School. And your petitioners further request, in the event of your Honorable Body’s determining to hear your petitioners, on the subject of their petition, that such time may be appointed as may be most agreeable to your Honorable Body, and that a full session of your Honorable Board be convened for that purpose. And your petitioners, &c. THOMAS O’CONNOR, Chairman. GREGORY DILLON, ANDREW CARRIGAN, PETER DUFFY, Vice- diairmen. B. O’Conner, I James Kelly, > Secretaries. J. M’Loughlest, ) Of a general meeting of 'the Catholics of the City of New York, convened in the school¬ room of St. James’ Church, Sept. 31, 1840. Meeting in the Basement of St. James’s Church, October 5th, 1840. On Monday evening, Oct. 5th, the Catholics of this city again met in the basement of St. James’s Church, in great numbers, by adjournment of the meeting of that day fortnight, from which a memorial had been sent to the Board of Aldermen, setting forth their claim to a portion of the Common School Fund for the education of Catholic children. Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was again called to the chair, and the Secretaries were also re-elected. 108 • ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. James McKeon, Esq., one of the committee appointed to present the memorial to the Common Council, reported that they had dis¬ charged the duties assigned to them, and that it was highly probable that an eai’ly day would be fixed to hear the arguments of the Catholics and those that opposed their claim. The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then presented himself and Avas received with enthusiastic plaudits. He said the question was now in the hands of those whom the Legislature had appointed to dis¬ pose of the Common School Fund ; they had presented their claim to that body with confidence, but it was not to be supposed that their demand Avould be granted ivithout opposition ; it was not cer¬ tain they would be conceded at all. Nevertheless they had taken the only means worthy of their purpose, by applying with confi¬ dence and with firmness and ivith determination to those having in the first instance the power to apply a remedy to the evil of ivhich Catholics complain. The question as it will define itself before that Board, when stripped of aU the mystification in which their oppo¬ nents had enveloped it, was an exceedingly simple one. It will be a question whether it Avas the intention of the Legislature of the State of New York to fix on the population of this city, and to sup¬ port by taxation reaching to every citizen, a system of education from which one-fifth of the population can derive no benefit? for he thought he might say that Catholic children formed one-fifth of those who were subject to this taxation. And if this system is to be so constituted, as they found it to be, that Catholics in their con¬ sciences cannot allow their children to participate in its benefits, then the question Avill be Avere they excluded or not by an act of the Legislature ? It is plain they were not, unless indeed the Legis¬ lature intended that they should pay for education and receive no benefit in return. That the Legislature did not intend^//iai! it could not have intended ; and therefore between the act of the Legislature and the schoolmaster there must be some inquiry to pervert the stream of justice. [Applause.] The objections that have been raised by the Public School Society are objections Avhich sound alarmingly in the*ear, and which from circumstances which are easily accounted for, are apt to turn the judgments of even Avell-disposed men off' their equilibrium — he alluded to the clamor of sectarianism, and that Catholics wish civil money to be appropriated to the purposes of religion. The sound Avas calculated to alarm, but it required only the exercise of common sense to dissolve these objections into thin air, for Catholics wanted no money from the State of NeAV York for purposes of religion, but for the purpose for which it was claimed from them — for the purposes of education in the strict sense of the term. The education the Catholics were told was ready — the foun¬ tain floAvs constantly, but care was taken to dilute the current before it reached them, so that they could not taste it. [Applause.] THE SCHOOL QUESTIOJr. 109 They were told the doors were open to them ; they knew they were, but if they entered they went in to learn to live in ignorance of all that was sacred and honorable in the Catholic name ; if they entered they knew it was to have Protestant persons and Protestant writers brought up for their admiration ; it was to make their chil¬ dren familiar with things that were not theirs, and to leave them in utter ignorance of everything Catholic, unless it was to bring them in to grace some tragic incident and they were only brought in then as executioners. There were some respectable Catholic writei's, though perhaps their opponents knew it not, that wrote with flow¬ ing pens in the departments of history, morals, legislation, and gen¬ eral literature, but from the books put into the hands of their chil¬ dren in these schools they knew it not, but they did know about Cranmer’s execution, and the betrayal by the deceitful Catholics of John Huss; and if it were not for the purpose of bringing them in thus, their children would not know that Catholicism was older than Mormonism. [Laughter.] He had been exceedingly amused on looking at the manner the opponents of their claim maintained their exclusive right to the money which Catholics contributed in common with other citizens ; but with a great deal of talent and a great deal of confidence in the prejudices of the community, to which they ap¬ pealed, still it was difficult for them to make out a clear case, even to satisfy those prejudices. He would look at the system as it is. They were told that the state intended to exclude religion and make the fund applicable solely to civil purposes — solely to secular education — very well. If they excluded all religion then they bring lip the children like heathens, and they banish Christianity and leave to infidelity the whole benefit of this system of education. And he did not think it probable that the Christians of New York — that the Protestants of New York — would raise a fund for education from which only infidelity could receive the benefit. That was one ground. But then they were told again that religion was not ex¬ cluded from instruction. If they then have taught religion how have they been able to go before the Common Council and ask for money? Had Catholics less right than the celebrated body of Quakers ? And if the office of instructors was to be conceded at all to whom did it belong ? Hid it become Catholics to be the instruc¬ tors of Protestant children, or Protestants to become the instructors of Catholic children ? Surely if it was a crime at all it must be a greater crime in the managers of the present schools than in Catho¬ lics to teach religion to Catholic children ; and it was only in this way that they could throw the whole weight of the charge of giv¬ ing instruction on infidels, so that it carried water on both shoul¬ ders. Before the Common Council their opponents were scrupulous to a nicety, from a fear that its money should go to encourage and maintain religion; but they (the Catliolics) went in the name of religion and conscience which did not allow them to educate their children in these schools ; and because they went in the name of conscience they were told, Oh, the fund is intended for civil educa- 110 AHOHBISHOP HUGHES* tioH, and if you allow a penny to go for the support of religion, you violate the charter, for it says so and so. Then we (Catholics) charge them witli infidelity. And how do they answer? They say Catholics give religious instruction. Do they (the Trustees of the Public Schools) not admit that they do likewise in their report? And that shows that they are aware of the importance of early re¬ ligious instruction ; but they say that none but what is general in its character is given xmder their charge ; so that while the doctors are disputing about what is religion, the managers of these schools have no difficulty in determining at once. It is a pity the commu¬ nity does not send its difficulties to the Public School Society for they can soon decide what religion is. Does not each sect contend that its doctrines are purely Scriptural ? And do not the others dispute it ? But here the Trustees of the Public School Society de¬ cide for them at once ; and while they contend, and contend truly, that the State has provided that none of this money should go for the purposes of religion, they have a religion of their own made up, as they say, from what is Scriptural. When Catholics go before Coxmcil and ask for their proportion of this fund, “ Oh,” says the School Society, “ it is provided only for secular education.” But is that their own practice ? They have one reply for Catholics and another for Protestants ; they have piety enough not to wish infi¬ delity to have the predominance, and to please the Protestants they introduce religion — Scriptural religion as they call it — and when Catholics find fault with them and wish to teach their own children, they say that the introduction of religion into the schools will forfeit all right to it, for it was not intended or designed for religious pur¬ poses. In their report and remonstrance to the petition of Catho¬ lics they say, “ this fund is purely of a civil character.” If so it means that it is intended to teach children to read, and write, and the mathematics ; and there is not much religion in these sciences ; but they are not so careful to abstain from religion, for religion is religious instruction, and that they give in their own way and thus, in the expenditure of this money, which is appropriated to civil instruction, they contradict themselves ; and we shall see how they get out of the contradiction. They knew they had done this from the commencement, and the first sound of alarm came from themselves. They said, “ Oh, there is so mxich preipidice in the community !” and if Catholics were timid, they might be crushed down by that fear. But if there Avas prejudice, let its abutments be taken away, so that nothing but tinith Avould remain ; and if, Avhile their claim was based on truth, knowing the Avrong, it Avas still inflicted, let it be on the record, that the Avorld might knoAV that Catholics Avere opjjressed without any gi-ound of oppression. [Applause.] He said this because the gentlemen Avere going from one point to another in their statements from time to time of Avhat Avas the true ground on Avhich the right of the citizen was based. There is in this country the principle that no man should sutler for the free exercise of his freedom of THE SCHOOL QUESTION. Ill conscience ; that no man should suffer in his person or in his repu¬ tation, though the liw cannot arrest the j)en of the bigotted slan¬ derer, yet that is the spirit of the law that no man shall be tempo¬ rarily held accountable for those things which relate to his eternal destiny, for they were things between man and his God, and there¬ fore the rights of conscience were sacred and inviolate. But if that were the case, how can it be insisted on that Catholics shall violate their rights of conscience at the risk of eternal consequences ? How could it be pretended that Catholics could submit to a system about which they were not consulted ? And how was it that the support¬ ers of the existing system could insist that Catholics were wrong, and that they were right? How, since conscience cannot be bent or modified to suit the system. Catholics hoped to cause such a modification of the system that it would suit the consciences of all [Applause.] That was the ground on which Catholics stood. But they were told that Catholics held it to be an essential part of edu¬ cation that the Catholic religion and dogmas should be taught. They knew that schools were supported by the State for the pose of imjiarting that part of secular knowledge that Avould be ad¬ vantageous. But they did not believe it was designed by the State to establish a system of teaching by which all that was good would be extinguished in the process. They did not desire the jmblic money to be expended in the teaching of their dogmas, but they also did not wish to see it expended in the support of a system by which the bud of faith would be nipped which was springing up in the hearts of Catholic children. But then they were told that Cath¬ olics might teach their children after school hours, and on the sev¬ enth day. But, after six days’ teaching in these schools, every one must be well aware how feeble will be the impressions of religion ; how feeble will be the instructions of the pastor to a child that has imbibed the jirejudices which the lessons of the school were calcu¬ lated to create ; how feeble would be the admonition ; how feeble the inculcation of the dogmas of their faith, when the child was already biased against it by the lessons he was taught, by the asso¬ ciations to which he was exposed, and by the lectures of the teachers on the elucidation of the school lessons. Why, the child would be found to be half a Protestant before he was half a scholar. But then they were told that if this money were given to Cath¬ olics, every other denomination would look for it too. And if they did, he did not see that any great harm would result from it. If any other denomination had the same scruples of conscience, he should say immediately they were entitled to it ; but it did not aj:)- pear that they had. They had proof in the remonstrances that were sent in against the claim made by the Catholics, that they approved of the present school system. They were satisfied with the system, and their scholars were attending under it, wdiile the children of Catholics did not. attend ; so that, by conceding the claim of the Catholics, they would have the same schools as before, with this 112 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. difference, that the children of Catholics that 'vrere now without education, or but partially educated, would have a chance, and the ends of tlie Legislature would be carried out. But suppose it w'ould have the effect of breaking up the system, he did not think any great calamity would be produced by such a result, or any great suffering or disaster to the country or to the community. But the evils had been magnified, and in the j)amphlet wLich had been ]>ublished they had spoken of the bickerings that would be pursued — and they knew what they had been in other countries — that it would lead to contention and strife, and civil war and bloodshed. Well, but this fund was once divided, and there were no such con¬ sequences. It should be a part of education in America, that men should know the rights of conscience of others, and that they should learn to respect them. But wdien they gather children of all de¬ nominations together into these Common Schools, and under pre¬ tence that if they are not so taught, they are liable to fight in the street Avhen they meet, they lay down a principle different from that inculcated as a part of the system. If they are taught tolera¬ tion — if they are taught that all men are not born to think alike — that there are thousands of subjects on which they may differ, and that religion is one on which they are not only at liberty, but are justified and above all censure in fulfilling the dictates of their con¬ sciences, then they grow up with a spirit of tolerance to others with whom, when they are men, they have to mingle, and who differ in opinion from them. But when these principles of the schools are insisted upon, is it not in fact proclaiming to their children, “ Be- w'are of religion, or you wall all get to quarrelling” — [laughter] — it is not to be introduced, or you will get to civil w'ar and bloodshed, as they did in Germany when they got into a thirty years’ war ! But thus it was with the public School Society ; they had not one solid ground to take against the claim wLich the Catholics made. But, to avoid any difficulty, the Catholics said. Give us our books and teachers in whom wm have confidence, and let the School Society itself be the guardian of our schools, and see that the money be faithfully appropriated, and such instruction given as would qualify the children to be good citizens ; and then, when their minds and their intellects Avere stored and trained, and knowing their duty to God and to their fellow-men, then it w^as they Avould have the prospect of their children being good, and virtuous, and respect¬ able citizens. So that, putting aside all these difficulties, the question would present itself naturally and necessarily before the Common Council and simply on these grounds: Were Catho¬ lics, against their convictions, to be compelled to support and sub¬ mit to a system wffiich suited those gentlemen (the School Society), w’ho were not Catholics, and Avho had scarcely a feeling on this pai’- ticular subject in common wdth Catholics? Were they to insist upon Catholics paying a tax from which, in the exercise of the guaranteed rights of conscience, they could receive no benefit ? Or w'ere they prepared to relieve Catholics from the tax? Or, in a THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 113 vrorcl, if they Avill compel Catholics to pay the tax, seeing the diffi¬ culties that exist, will they give to Catholics their proportion of the money 'which the Legislature has set apart for that purpose ? The question reduces itself to these simple points : Free Catholics from taxation for schools of any description, and they would stand ready with the money thus saved to help their own schools, and to devote it to education amongst themselves. But if not, and it would be impracticable, for no denomination could be exempted from a gen¬ eral taxation. In the next place, 'would they allow Catholics to have the benefit of education, without the necessity of violating their consciences ; and if they would not, then there was no alterna¬ tive ; they 'were Catholics, and it was a pity that their consciences would not allow them to enjoy the system which suited others ; but they were Catholics, and their consciences W'ere not to be respected. It would be impossible, on any other ground, to deny their rights. It might not be couched in that language, but it would be that in substance : it could not be otherwise. Catholics were anxious for education ; and while the managers of these schools pretend that they Avill give the education, what is the fact ? It is obvious, be¬ fore their eyes, that where schools are open, and teachers are ready, and money is expended, there are hundreds and thousands growing up in the condition which the Legislature wished to remove. If they are willing to educate Catholic children, why not show their willingness ? If they were animated by a patriotic spirit, would they not yield a little to what they call the prejudices of Catholics, but which Catholics know to be right, to be the love of truth ? But those men would rather leave hundreds and thousands in per¬ manent ignorance, than that one tile should be removed from those palaces which they have built for their own children. That was the condition of the question at this time. What would be the decision of the tribunal before which it had to be discussed and decided they knew not. They had reason to hope that it would be a just one, a conscientious one, and a liberal one; but at the same time no explanation, no pleading, no specious exertions on the subject could ever reconcile them to a system which had done so much to destroy their enjoyment of their religious rights as this has done. It was in vain to say “ amend the books for if they were permitted to do it this year by courtesy, next year there might be put in a set of cor- jmrators that would put in again what they now took out. What was courtesy? Why, they (the Catholics) might sit in judgment on the books, and perhaps, when they had corrected them, their corrections might be again corrected, and the books left as they were before. What security, then could be given to Catholics for the enjoyment of their rights ? And while their rights were denied on grounds on which Catholics did not pretend to establish them ; ■while it was pretended before the Council that Catholics would teach religion, and therefore were disqualified, they did that them¬ selves which they said they expected Catholics would do, and for which they opposed the Catholic claim. They have introduced 8 114 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. religion, nnd it ivas impossible they could escape from the position of adopting a cold water religion in theory, and yet in practice incul¬ cating a religion to suit their own ideas in these schools. As well and as lawfully might they adopt a system of education supported by the State, wdiich should recognize the system of any one denom¬ ination, and disavow all other denominations. They told Catholics they did not teach any particular religion ; then they had better teach none at all, for any religion they could teach was far opposed to that of Catholics, who did not recognize them as men fit to go into the pulpit and teach their children. Let them teach those by whom they were recognized as teachers, but not the children of Catholics. He had made these remarks, as it were, as a kind of brief review of the whole ground on which the question stood, so that it might remain fixed on the mind of every one of them as a simple point. The Catholics asked for nothing but what was their right, and what was just ; and if there was any other light by which it could be shown that their claim was unjust and not right, they should have no disposition to prosecute it. But in the absence of such conviction, they could not but feel, if their right ^vas still withheld from them, that it could be but for one reason, and that was, that Protestant prejiidice was more powerful than truth and justice. [Applause.] But he feared not the issue. The question had made great progress since it was elucidated by their pnlDlic dis¬ cussions, and now scarcely a man that he had spoken to, that was competent to judge on the subject, that did not say, “ Sir, you are right ; there can be no objection to the concession of your claim.” But he knew there was in the less intellectual portion of the com¬ munity a substratum of prejudice. He was aware, however, that this was not the case among the enlightened and the liberal — among men of high, and just, and enlarged, and patriotic views — and it was from these that public opinion was alone worth accepting. [Great and long-continued applause.] Meeting in the Basement of St. James’s Church, October 19th, 1840, Aisr adjourned meeting of the Catholics was held in the basement of St. James’s Church on Monday evening, Oct. 19th, when the otficers of previous meetings were re-elected. The Right Rev, Bishop Hughes was receiv ed on his entrance Avith the warmest ex¬ pression of afiectionate regard. The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes came forward amidst gTeat and general plaudits. He commenced by observing that there was no¬ thing to alarm them in the conclusion at which some seem already to ha^ e arrived, or respecting the course to be pursued by the tri¬ bunal before which they had laid claim. There was nothing in it to THE SCHOOL QHESTIOIT. 115 alarm, and for himself there was nothing to surprise, because he had obseiu ed as they had progressed on this question, and whilst they had made some inroad on the advanced posts of public opinion, here and there, that the concentrated and monopolizing power which Avas opposed to them had been gathering its strength, and had been pre¬ paring to exert it to the utmost. They (the School Society) feel as if the charm should be broken, the dazzling prospect on which their eye had rested so long with complacency, the prospect of having seventy thousand children for a few years longer to be moulded at their discretion, and of having a larger number — even hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purpose of so moulding them, would disappear from before them. Such a dazzling prospect as this was enough to tempt men of their philanthropy to cling to the system and that they do cling to it they were assured, for, counting on that futurity they had multiplied schools, and they had not only multi¬ plied schools but they had built other and more splendid edifices — he scarcely knew what to call thein — Mr. O’CoNNOE (chairman) — Sessions houses. The Bishop. Yes, sessions houses, for the purpose of legislating into all future time for the education of the children of the citizens of Neiv York. This was evidence that they did count on this long futurity of domination, and therefore it was not surprising that they should cling with such tenacity to its perpetuation. Now it had been his duty to examine the books used in these schools, and whatever might be said hereafter, notwithstanding all that they had printed, or all that they had authorized to be printed by the Board of Assistant Aldermen, that there was nothing in their books against which the Catholics conld hai e any reasonable objec¬ tion, he, in an examination of the books to ascertain whether that statement was founded in truth, had found many things against Avhich Catholics had reasonable objections. But laying that aside, Avhile Catholics formed one-fifth portion of the citizens Avhose chil¬ dren were to be taught in these schools, from the first to the last their books did not contain a solitary sentence upon Catholic atlairs, nor one line from Catholic authors — not one sentence, not one essay on morals, not one chapter of history, not one section of geography, not a single line from the beginning to the end, as if Catholics from tlie beginning of creation had been men who had not known how to wield the pen, or to arrange ideas in a proper manner. And not only was this the fact, not only ivas there this suppression — for he might call it the suppression of the truth — and it was the suppression of the brightest trait in their character, which would affect the mind of their children, attach them to the creed of their fathers, and make them not ashamed of a creed Avhich had produced some of the brightest ornaments that CA'er did honor to human nature ; indepen¬ dent of that science, he had in his hand a dialogue used in these schools for the purpose of teaching their children to read, and to practice, them in elocution. It Avas a dialogue between Cortez the conqueror of Mexico, and William Penn, both founders of colonies, 116 AECIIBISHOP HUGHES, on the use of the sword, and the more honorable means of defence for the colonies. They discuss the principles on which the colonies were established, and then Cortez says : “ It is blasphemy to say, that any folly could come from the fountain of wisdom. iUhatever is inconsistent with the great laws of nature, and with the necessary state of human society, cannot possibly have been inspired by God. Self-defence is as necessary to nations as to men. And shall particulars have a right which nations have not? True religion, William Penn, is the perfection of reason. Fa¬ naticism is the disgrace, the destruction of reason. Penn says, “ Though what thou sayest should be true, it does not come well from thy mouth. A Papist talk of reason f Go to the inquisition and tell them of reason and the great laws of nature. They will broil thee as thy soldiers broiled the unhappy Guatimozin ! Why dost thou turn pale ? Is it at the name of the inquisition, or the name of Guatimozin? Tremble and shake when thou thinkest, that every murder the inquisitors have committed, every torture they have inflicted on the innocent Indians, is originally owing to thee. Thou must answer to God for all their inhumanity, for all their injustice.” “a1 Papist talk of reason !” There was a lesson for Catholic chil¬ dren ; and yet the School Trustees, through the Assistant Aldermen, told them there was really nothing in their books against which they ought to have the least objection. Yes, they would impress the minds of their children that Catholics are necessarily, morally, intel¬ lectually, infallibly, a stupid race. Now he should like to know what reason they had to give, in the introduction of their writers — Robertson, Hume, and others — what reason they could have, when they knew there were such a multitude of Catholic writers, to sup¬ press even the least occasional mention of Catholic writers. Was it because Catholics had no men who had labored in the fields of science to improve the human mind ? N o w, though it might be a secret to those gentlemen, there was no department of history or philoso¬ phy in which the mind of a Cath.olic had not taken the. lead ; and the time was when they found the Catholic arm the strongest in pushing the Sun of Science up the hea\^ens. Who had produced works of theology like theirs (the Catholics) ? In philosophy, whether of mind or matter, where were the books which for depth of research, or extent of knowledge, equaled or approached the mighty tomes ])roduced by Catholics ? And at the period when • ancient civilization was destroyed, when the edifice crumbled under tlie mighty stroke of the Goth and the Hun, and when society was dissolved, they found Catholic minds presiding over its recon¬ struction, laying its foundations broad and deep, and doing every¬ thing calculated to improve the public mind. Who reduced a mass of rude characters into letters which we now call our alphabet? Who but Catholics who thus gave a language to Europe by establish- iig its basis. Nay, more, after that, who introduced that most im¬ portant branch of civilization, agriculture ? It was the monks, by whose industry and labor the reclaimed wastes became the “ model farms” of Europe, and from them agriculture spread. They heard much of free government and of Parliaments, but was that a Protestant invention ? No, it was a Catholic invention; for THE SCHOOL QUESTIOJT. IIY it was copied from the Catholic Church. The first models of repre¬ sentative government, and of dignified and noble parliaments, were tlie councils of the Catholic Church, in which every part of that churcli had its representative. Thence, then, the idea was borrowed, which has been the pride and boast of England and of this country after her, of representative government. But he might speak also of navigation. Who discovered the continent on which they now lived? Was it not a Catholic ? Who made the second voyage to this continent, and stamped his name upon it? Was it not a Cath¬ olic ? — Americas Yespucius. Who made the first voyage round tiie globe? Was it not a Catholic? And Catholics were the first to visit both the East and the West Indies ; they traversed seas to carry the knowdedge of Jesus Christ to the ignorant, and they then became acquainted with tlie physical position of difterent countries, and they conveyed that knowledge to the wmrld either in letters or other documents, and added a mass of human knowledge which had assumed a gigantic size before Protestantism first sprung out of the earth. And while things of a less beneficial tendency were going on in other parts of the globe. Catholic missionaries, 200 years ago, penetrated this country and continued a chain round from Quebec to the Mississippi. While persecution was going on in the North and the South, Avith Avhich Catholics had nothing to do, their free banner waved over Maryland, where the rights of conscience were recog¬ nized. They Avent to tlie Indians, not to destroy but to convert, to save, and civilize. And if Ave turn our eyes from these things to others, Ave shall see those things which are calculated to reflect honor on those Avho effected their accomplishment. When Ave see the alleviation of the infirmities of human life, we naturally ask our¬ selves to Avhom the Avorld was indebted for the act of mercy. Who planned the structures and laid the foundation of those hospitals for the afflicted, and asylums for the decrepid, aged, and the young and exposed infant? Were they not all introduced and established by the beneA'olent spirits and the enlightened minds of the Catholics of antiquity ? Turn your minds to other structures, and then ask Avho laid the foundations of the universities ? Who originated the idea ? Who aided their establishment? It was Catholics alone; and if you blot out the benevolent institutions Avith which the earth is still studded, for Avlnch the world is indebted to Catholics, you will find but a feAV insignificant ones remaining. If you turn again from these things to the men distinguished by their OAvn intellect — to warriors and legislators — to men distinguished by their eloquence, by their scientific attainments, in jurisprudence, or in other stations in public life, Avhere do you find models Avorthier of imitation than those by whom the pages of Catholic history are adorned. Passing again from these to the ornaments of ancient literature, of classic Greece and Rome, and Avhile desolation and barbarism passed over Europe Avith their trains of evils, Avho, by patient, persevering in¬ dustry, gathered up the fragments of ancient literature to adorn the human mind ? It was done by the labor of the calumniated monks. 118 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. Yes, you may turn your eyes on whatever side you please, and you will find that Catholics have nothing of which to be ashamed. You will find no reason for the suppression of all these things with which Catholics can charge themselves, but you will find in every depart¬ ment, if you take away the volumes Catholics have written, and the mighty libraries they have collected, your shelves will present a barren appearance. Why, we have the testimony of eminent Prot¬ estant scholars themselves, attesting the fact that one single order alone — the order of Benedictines — did more than all the Protestants together. In every species of knowledge — in history, jurisprudence, and canonical and civil law — in a word, in everything appertaining to human knowledge, it was found that the great predominance was due to Catholic labor and Catholic success ; and why then did they not find one page to adorn these school-books from authors like these. Again, where are there poets like Catholic poets ? Take from England the works of Catholic writers : take away her Chaucer, and Spenser, and Shakspeare, and Dryden, and Pope, and you take away the cream of English literature. Then, if they turned their minds from these things to others not so immediately essential to the cultivation, but to the adornment of human life — take the study of the mathematics — and who was the first to culti¬ vate that study in the west of Europe ? Who invented and arrayed, and introduced that science but the Monk Jerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester IT. ; the same who introduced the first celestial globes. Then, again, in architecture and its application to the construction of bridges, which at one period of European history could not be constructed without calling in the aid of some learned man from a distant country, who was usually some humble monk who knew how to throw the daring arch, to span the river, or to cross the other¬ wise impassable valley. Take away from England even the archi¬ tectural structures left by Catholics, and what would remain ? — scarcely anything. Oxford would disappear, and the greater part of Cambridge, and nothing would be left but St. Paul’s, of which Lord Kingsbury said, after seeing St. Peter’s, it was scarcely fit for anything but to be blown up by gunpowder. If they turned from these things to inventions, they might ask, who invented the art of printing ? A Catholic. Who originated that by which information was sent round through every village and hamlet — the post-office ? A Catholic. Who invented the clock to tell what time of day it was ? A Catholic. Who invented the compass to guide the mariner across the trackless ocean ? A Catholic? What is it that Catholics have not done? And if this is the history of this people, why was it that these teachers despised them ? and why was it that not a line from Catholic authors was permitted in their books? And they pretended to be all impartiality and to possess feelings of the most liberal and philanthropic character. But turn away from this again to another thing. There are atfiictions resting on the children of sorrow, some of whom are deprived of sight, and the sunbeam falls to the earth in vain for them. Now it was a work of benevolence THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 119 to discover eyes for these children of sorrow, and to place them at the end of their fingers ; or, in other words, to enable them, by run¬ ning their fingers over raised characters, to read with rapidity ; and it is to a Catholic that the invention is to be attributed. Again, there is another class, the deaf and dumb, who can neither hear nor speak. Now, happily for them, there is an invention, which ema¬ nated fi’om a benevolent heart, by which they can communicate thought, and for this they are indebted to a Catholic jiriest. The language for the deaf and dumb was the invention of the Abbe Ponza, a Benedictine of Spain. Now if these gentlemen of the Public Schools would place Catho¬ lics under a dark cloud, he saw no reason why they should not jienetrate that cloud, and cause some of the rays of their former glory to return to them. It was then again the Abbe L’Eppe, who on visiting two sisters thus afflicted, as a man of God, was himself afflicted that he could not communicate to them the Christian Reli¬ gion. He began to move by signs, and continued to improve on his attempt, until at length he acquired the means of communicating with the deaf and dumb with ease and rapidity. Who was the founder of Sunday-schools ? It was Saint Charles Borromeo — a Catholic. In a word, there is no department of knowledge in which Catholics have not been distinguished. But to go further, who discovered a quicker means of communication than the railroad ? It was hot used so extensively in this country as in some others, but it might be important even here, if an invasion should be made of any part of our coast, to communicate information to Washington and receive an answer back in less time than it could be done by railroads. He would deserve a prize who should invent the means of sending information from Niagara to Washington and receiving an answer back in six or seven hours. And yet the equiva¬ lent of this had been done by a Catholic priest who invented the telegraph. [Applause.] If they turned to music, who had brought it to its present state by the perfection of instrumental music ? Who had taught the canvas to speak ? And who had given life and animation to the cold marble ? Catholics. And all the boasted superiority of Protestants was yet an infinite distance from the pro¬ ductions of Catholics, and they were proud to distraction if they succeeded in producing a tolerable copy of that which Catholics had invented. [Applause.] He had thus endeavored to claim for Ca¬ tholics that to which they were confessedly entitled. The gentle¬ men of the public schools had not treated them fairly or honorably, when they had thought proper to fill their pages for the instruction of their children, from Hume and Robertson, and other Protestant writers who were all opposed to the Catholics, and not given one sentence from Catholic authors. But he would go now to another point. They had said that there was nothing in their books to which Catholics could object. Why, in the most delicate manner [laughter] they teach th.at the ceremonies of the Catholic religion are the remnants of idolatry — so slyly and so gently is it introduced. 120 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. [Laughter.] In “ Conversations on Common Things,” which were used as reading lessons for their children, there occurred the follow¬ ing passages : “ D. What is frankincense ? it was burned in the Catholic church the day I was there ; I suppose it is a kind of gum ? “ M. It is an odoriferous substance, consisting of equal quantities of gummy and resinous particles ; it is collected in a very impure state, and refined after importation. We have the gum from Mount Lebanon and Arabia, also in great quantities from the western coast of Africa. It was formerly burnt in all temples of worship, and many Christians were put to death by the idolatrous Jews and Ro¬ mans, for refusing to burn it before idols.” They would see the connection which children, whether Catholics or Protestants, after reading this lesson would ever associate in their minds. They would never see frankincense without associating therewith the putting to death of Christians by “ the idolatrous Jews and Romans, for refusing to burn it before idols.” But take an¬ other. They had now, after the assertion of these gentlemen that they did not teach religion, the proclamation that Catholics ought not to be allowed any portion of this money because they would teach religion. Now they were told that the teachers were not allowed to give instruction in religion by way of explanation of the reading lessons, but they had a sermon printed at the end of the' text, and svch a sermon. [Laughter.] The book entitled “ Popular Lessons” contained a chapter on “ The Ten Virgins,” and the niys- terous words in that lesson were explained to the children at the end of the chapter under the title of “ explanations.” The first word explained was the word “ parable ;” and this was the explana¬ tion, “ A parable is sometimes called a comparison ; it shows one thing or circumstance to resemble some other.” [Laughter.] The next was the Avord “ virgins ;” and Avhat did they suppose that meant ? “ unmarried women,” according to the Public Schools. [Laughter.] After some other explanations they go on to the Avord “ marriage,” and here is the ex])lanation ; “ Marriage, — When a man and woman agree to live together all their lives, and to be called Husband and Wife, their agreement is called marriage. The Avife takes her husband’s name, and goes to his house ; and Avhatever belongs to one of them belongs to the other also. “ When the man takes the woman for his wife, the ceremony of the occasion is called a lucdding. At weddings, the friends of the couple to be married often as¬ semble, and most commonly the company are very merry and happy together. The marriage ceremony is different in different countries, and among people of different sects.” But here was another, and he confessed he considered it of a much more serious character. It was a chapter introduced for the instruction of their children on “The Character of Christ.” Noav those gentlemen, of all the men he ever kneAV, Avere, to his mind, the most inconsistent, and yet the most complacent in their inconsistency. They Avere first told that those gentlemen did not teach religion in their schools ; and then again, oh yes, they said, we do, but it is the morality of .all sects — a kind of religion which all agree in, so that uobody is offended. [Laughter.] Now here Avas a chapter from THE SCHOOL QUE8TI0K. 121 tlie Bishop of London, from which these men would teach their (Catholic) children the character of Jesus Christ. He would read a passage, and if Rosseau or Voltaire would not give a character more worthy of him, he did not know what they could write. It was certainly all panegyric, but still it suppressed the true part of his character, while it showed that he was not a Philosopher like Socrates, nor a Prophet like Mahomet. “He was not only free from every failing, but he possessed and practiced every imaginable virtue. Towards his heavenly Father he expressed the most ardent love, the most fervent, yet rational devotion ; and displayed in his whole conduct the most absolute resignation to his will, and obedience to his commands. “ His manners were gentle, mild, condescending, and gracious ; his heart over¬ flowed with kindness, compassion and tenderness to the whole human race. The great employment of his life, was to do good to the bodies and souls of men. In this all his thoughts, and all his time were constantly and almost incessantly occupied. “ lie went about, dispensing his blessings to all around him, in a thousand dif¬ ferent ways ; healing diseases, relieving infirmities, correcting errors, removing prejudices, promoting piety, justice, charity, peace, and harmony ; and crowding into the nan-ow compass of his. ministry, more acts of mercy and compassion, than the longest life of the most benevolent man upon eai’th ever yet j^roduced “ Over his own passions he had the most complete command ; and though his patience was continually put to the severest trials, yet he was never overcome, never betrayed into any intemperance or excess, in word or deed ; ‘ never once spake unadvisedly with his lips.’ “ He endured the cruelest insults from his enemies, with the utmost composure, meekness, patience, and resignation ; displayed astonishing fortitude under the most painful and ignominous death ; and to crown all, in the very midst of his tor¬ ments on the cross, implored forgiveness for his murderers, in that divinely chari¬ table prayer, ‘ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ “ Nor was his %visdom inferior to his virtues. The doctrines he taught were the most sublime, and the most important, that were ever before delivered to mankind ; and evei'y way worthy of that God from whom he professed to derive them, and whose Son he declared himself to be. “ Flis precepts inculcated the purest and most perfect morality ; his discourses w’ere full of dignity and wisdom, yet intelligible and clear ; his parables conveyed instruction in the most pleasing, familiar, and impressive manner ; and his answers to the many insidious questions that were put to him, showed uncommon quickness of conception, soundness of judgment .and presence of mind ; completely baffled all the artifices and malice of his enemies; and enabled him to elude aU the snares that were laid for him. “ From this short and imperfect sketch of our Saviour’s character, it ie eviden*^ that he was, beyond comparison, the wisest and the most virtuous person that ever appeared in the world.” “ Ilis answers to the many insidious questions that were put to hims, showed uncojnmou quickness of conception! — soundness of judg¬ ment! and presence of mindP'' and so forth. Now he asked if that was not a very liberal almission in favor of their blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, lie asked if a deist or an atheist could be found in New York who would not give him the character which these gentlemen would introduce to their children, and which woirld almost degrade him to the condition of the Philosophers of Greece, They praise him ! But it is with language the most insidious. They give him credit for duding all the snares of his enemies, but it is as though they said. Snares wmre laid for him by his enemies, but he 122 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. was too cnte for them. [Laughter.] And yet tnese men pretend that they, and they alone, ought to monopolize the direction of the mind of infancy. They pretend that they alone should take the con¬ tribution of Catholics for so noble a purpose as that of education ; become the guardians and directors of Catholic children ; and that they .alone are fitted to guard the heart, which is of infinitely greater im])ortance than the welfare of the body. These, then, were the men who were laboring to prove tha have nourished at your breast — give it to me, a stranger, .and I will direct its mind. True, you are its parent; but you are not fit to guide its youthful progress, and to implant true principles in its mind ; therefore give it to me, and give me also the means wherewith to instruct it.” That is the position of that Society ; and they ought to be ■ almost more than men for this — as doubtless they are honorable men in their proper places; but of that we should have the most satisfactory evidence, that we may be well assured that they are fitted to discharge their duties. It is this consideration that brought me here, as the first pastor of a body of people, large and numer¬ ous as they are known to be ; but poor as many of them are, and exposed to many hardships, they have children with immortal souls, whose condi¬ tion is involved in this question, and if it is an impropriety in the clerical character, I would rather undergo the reproach than neglect to advocate their rights, as far as I have the power, with my feeble ability. The Catholics of the city of New York may be estimated as one-fifth f»f the population ; and when you take account of the class of children usually attending the Public Schools, and consider how many there ar\j in this city 142 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. who are in affluent circumstances, which enable them to give an education to their children, who do not therefore participate in the teaching of the Public Schools; and when you consider the numbers not attending any school at all, I say, of those people, who, by their poverty, are the objects most usually composing the number that require the assistance of the Oom- mon School Fund, Catholics are one-third, if not more. And when I see this one-third excluded — respecting, as I do, their welfare in this life, as well as their welfare in a brighter world — then it is that I come forward thus publicly, and stand here to plead for them. I conceive we have our rights in question, and, therefore, most respectfully, I demand them from this Honorable Board. I am not surprised that there should be remonstrances against our claim ; liut I did hope, in an age as enlightened as this is, and among gentlemen of known liberality of feeling, that their opposition would not have been characterized as this has been. However, it is not to me a matter of sur¬ prise; for I believe if some of those gentlemen, who consider themselves now as eminent Christians, had lived at the period when Lazarus lay lan¬ guishing at the gate of the rich man, petitioning for the crumbs that fell from the table, they would have sent their remonstrance against his 2)etition. When the Methodist Episcoi^al Church sent its petition for a portion of this fund, some eight years ago, then it was not unconstitutional 1 Yet, did the Catholics send in their remonstrance against it ? When their theo¬ logical seminaries obtained (and they still receive) the bounty of the State, did, or do, the Catholics com^dain ? Has there been a single instance of illiberality on the jjart of the Catholics, or a want of disj^osition to grant rights as universal as the nature of man may require ? And I have been astonished only at this, that good men, with good intentions, should prefer to cling to a system, and to the money raised for its sirp2)ort by the jDublic liberality — that they would sooner see tens of thousands of jjoor children contending with ignorance, and the com2Janions of vice, than concede one iota of their mono2)oly, in order that others may enjoy their rights. I say this, because I am authorized to say it. And what am I to infer, but, that they 2Jrefer the means to the end. The end designed, is to convey knowledge to the minds of our children ; the means is the 2)ublic fund ; and, by refusing to cause the slightest variation in their system, they cling to the means, while they leave thousands of children without the benefit which the State intended to confer. They may 23ursue that course, but the experience of the 2>ast should have taught them that, while they maintain their present character, a large portion of their fellow-citizens have not — cannot have — confidence in them. But they have said that, if a portion of this fund is given to Catholics, all other sects will want it. Then, let them have it. But I do not see that that is 2}robable ; and my reason is this : They have sent in remonstrances against the claim of the Catholics, as you will see by a reference to docu¬ ment Yo. 80, all of which go to 23rove that they are satisfied with the 2ires- ent Public School System. And if they are satisfied, and their children de¬ rive benefit from it, let them continue to frequent the schools as they do now. The schools are no benefit to Catholics now ; w'e have no confidence in them ; there is no harmony of feeling between them and us ; we have no confidence that those civil and religious rights that belong to us will be enioyed, while the Public School Society retains its 2^resent mono])oly. "VVe do not receive benefit from these schools; do not, then, take from Catholic? their 2)ortion of the fund, by taxation, and hand it over to those who do not give them an equivalent in return. Let those who can, receive the advantages of these schools ; but as Catholics cannot, do not tie them SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 143 to a system wliicli is intended for the advantage of a class of societj of which they form one-third, but from which system tl. cy can receive no benefit. Tliere are many other topics connected with this subject, to which I might advert ; but I must apologize for the length of time that I have tresi^assed on your patience. I feel, unaccustomed as I am to address such a body, and hurried as was my preparation, that I have not been able to present the subject before you in that clear and lucid manner that would make it interesting ; but it was not with that view that I claimed your attention in relation to it ; it was with far higher motives : and I now, with confidence, submit it to your judgment. BISHOP HUGHES’ SECOND DAY’S SPEECH BEFORE THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND COUNCILMEN, IN ANSWER TO MR. SEDG¬ WICK, MR. KETCHUM, DR. BOND, DR. SPRING, AND OTHERS, WHO ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION OP THE CATHOLICS; ALSO THE DISCUSSION, IN REGARD TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE RHEMISH TESTAMENT AS A CATHOLIC VERSION, ETC. When Mr. Ketchum concluded his argument on the first day, the Rev. Dr. Bond appeared as the representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but he gave way to the Right Rer. Bishop Hughes, who desired to make a brief reply to the two legal gentle¬ men who had addressed the Board. He said : I have a few remarks that I wish to make, partly in reference to myself and partly to my principles, and the views submitted with regard to those principles ; but the debate has taken a range too wide and too legal for me to pretend to follow it throughout. I am not accustomed to the niceties of legislation or the manner of inter¬ preting statutes or acts of the Legislature ; but to sum up the ■whole of the two eloquent addresses made by the gentlemen Avho have just spoken, they amount to this : that either the consciences of Catholics must be crushed and their objections resisted, or the Public School System must be destroyed. That is the pith of both their observations. They argue that there must be either one or the other of these tAVO results, and those gentlemen are inclined to the course of compelling conscience to give Avay, they being the judge of our conciences which they wish to overrule ; so that the Public School Society — and I do not desire to detract from it as far as good intentions are concerned — shall continue to dispose of the Public School Fund notwithstanding our objections and reasoning on AAdiich they are based. The gentleman Avho last spoke appeared to imagine that I Avished the exclusion of the Protestant Bible, and that, for the benefit of the Catholics, I laid myself open to the 144 AECnniSHOP HtlGHES’ SECOND SPEECH charge of enmity to the word of God ; but I desire nothing of the sort. I would leave the Protestant Bible for those who reverence it; but for myself, it has not my confidence. Another objection which he made was of a personal character to myself; biit while that gentleman started with the beautiful rule of charity to others, and with a lecture on the propriety of retaining our station in life, and the impropriety of the public appeals of which he was pleased to speak, I regret that his practice was not in accordance with his precept — and that while he was lecturing me on the subject, he him¬ self shoiild have gone beyond anything which proper discussion called for. If I attended those meetings, it was because I felt the evil of the present system as regards us — not its evils as regards others ; and we must be permitted to be the judges of our own duties, and to see for ourselves, while we accord to others the same right for themselves. I beg to disclaim any intention to overrule this community, or to bring anything from Rome, except to those who believe in its spiritual authority. Consequently, all those re¬ marks of that gentleman have been out of place ; and for the rest, I conceive the true point has not been touched. Not one of our objections or scruples of conscience has he undertaken to analyze, nor the grounds on which they exist. When I gave those reasons for our objections, I thought some argument would have been urged fairly against them; but the only end the gentleman appears to have in view, is the preservation of the School Society, and to maintain that they have a patent right to the office. That, I know, is his object; but I did not expect to hear any. man construing the law as that its advantages cannot reach us unless we lay down and sacrifice our consciences at the threshold. I have spoken for myself, and I have disclaimed all high-handed objects ; but the gentleman insists, notwithstanding the 2!iledge which we have given, that, in spite of all, we shall teach our religion. I disclaim such intentions, and I do not think it fair in that gentleman to impute intentions which we disclaim. The gentleman has drawn a beautiful picture of society if all could live in harmony (I would it could be reduced to prac¬ tice), whether born in foreign parts or in this country. But if all coiild be brought up together — if all could associate in such a state without prejudice to the public welfare, while the Protestants use such books as those to which we object, it could only be by the Catholic concealing his religion ; for if he owns it he will be called a “ Papist.” The gentleman says that one of the books to which we object is not a text-book used in schools; but, if not, it is one of the books placed in the library to which I do not say loe con¬ tribute more than others ; but it is supported at the public expense, to which Catholics contribute as well as others. I will read you one passage and leave you to judge for yourselves what will be its effects on the minds of our children. The work is entitled “ The Irish Heart,” and the author, on page 24, is describing an Irish Catholic, and he says : “ As for old Phelim Maghee, he was of no particular religion.” BEFOBE THE CITY COTJKCIL, 145 And how do the gentlemen describe the Public Schools, but as schools of religion and no religion ! They say they give religious instruction ; but again they say it is not religion, for it does not vitiate their claim. “As for old Phelim Magliee, he was of no particular religion.” “ When Phelim had laid up a good stock of sins, he now and then went over to Kiilarney, of a Sabbath morning, and got relaaf by confissing them out o’ the way, as he used to express it, and sealed up his soul with a wafers That is the term they apjoly to our doctrine of transubstantiation ; and they want us to associate and to enjoy everything in harmony when they thus assail our religious right. “ - and return quite invigorated for the perpetration of new offences.” Now, suppose Catholic children hear this in the company of their Protestant associates ! They will be subject to the ridicule of their companions, and the consequence will be that their domestic and religious attachments will become weakened, they become ashamed of their religion, and they will grow up Nothingarians. But again, on page 120, when speaking of intemperance, we find the following : “ It is more probable, however, a part of the papal system.” And this, notwithstanding all that Father Mathew has done. “ For, when drunkenness shall have been done away, and with it, that just re¬ lative proportion of all indolence, ignorance, crime, misery, and superstition, of which it is the putative parent ; then tn;ly a much smaller portion of mankind may be expected to follow the dark lantern of the Romish religion.” “ That religion is most likely to find professors among the frivolous and the wicked, which by a species of ecclesiastical legerdemain can persuade the sinner that he is going to heaven, when he is going directly to hell. By a refined and complicated system of Jesuitry, and prelatical juggling, the papal see has obtained its present extensive influence through the world.” And, unless we send our children to imbibe these lessons, we are going to overturn the system ! But is that the true conclusion to which the gentlemen should come, from our petition ? Is that rea¬ soning from facts and the evidence before their eyes? I have promised not to detain the Board, and therefore I would merely say, if I have attended those meetings, it was not with the views the gentleman has imputed to me, nor to distinguish myself as has been insinuated. I have taken good care to banish politics from those meetings, and if I have mentioned the number of Catholics, or of their children, it was to show how far this system falls short of the end which the Legislature has in view. I disclaim utterly and entirely the intention imputed to me by the gentleman, but I will not longer detain the Board. Mr. Mott, one of the Public School Trustees, with the permission of the Board, explained the manner in which the book which the Right Rev. Prelate had last alluded to, had found its way into the schools. It was one of a series of tales published by the Temperance Society ; and when a committee was appointed for filling the library, 146 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH their attention was called to the first number of the series ; they had read two or three of them which had come from the press, and as they appeared adapted to the reading of children, the committee admitted them, and by some mistake it was supposed that all the other volumes of the same series and under the same title were ordered too, and they were sent in as they were issued from the press after that period, and in this way the book in question had crept in. But this being discovered by a Catholic Trustee, it was withdrawn, and of this the gentlemen were fully apprised, and therefore he asked if it was generous or just to quote that book, under these circumstances, to strengthen the cause of the Catho¬ lics. The Eight Eev. Bishop Hughes assured the gentleman that he, until that moment, had not heard of the books having been with¬ drawn. The Rev. Dr. Bond then again rose to address the Board as the representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; but as it was now 10 o’clock, it was proposed by one of the aldermen to take a recess until Friday afternoon at 4 o’clock which was agreed to, and the Board adjourned. The Board re-assembled at four o’clock on Friday the 30th October, 1840, by adjournment from the previous day, but some time elapsed before the debate could be resumed, in consequence of the difficulty which the gentlemen, who took part in the proceedings, found in gaining an entrance to the Council Chamber, through the greatly increased crowd of persons who were anxious and struggling to be present. After the room had been filled to overflowing, many hun¬ dreds were still excluded who desired admission ; but the room was filled to its utmost capacity, even to standing room in the windows, and those still crowding round the entrance door were obliged to endure the disappointment. David Graham, Esq., Alderman of the Fifteenth Ward, presided on this occasion as the locum tenens of the President, Mr. Alderman Purdy, who, however, was present seated with the Aldermen. There were also present many distinguished and reverend gentlemen of various denominations of this city, besides those who took part in the discussion. Dr. Brownlee was seated near Dr. Bond during that gentleman’s speech, but he did not at¬ tempt to address the Board. The Rev. Dr. Pise, and other rever¬ end gentlemen of the Catholic Church, were seated with the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes, and the Very Rev. Dr. Power, and many jireachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were in the vicinity of the orator by whom they were represented. When all the gen¬ tlemen were seated, the President called upon the Rev. Dr. Bond, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to proceed with the debate on behalf of the remonstrants of that body. When Drs. Bond, Knox, Reese and Bangs had addressed the Council, Dr. Spring, of the Bi’ick Presbyterian Church arose, and in the course of his remarks, said : “ The gentleman has sought to prove that the present system leads to infidelity. Now, sir, lei no man think it strange that I should prefer inji^ BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 14-7 delHtj to Catholicism. Even a mind as acute as Voltaire’s came to the conclusion that, if there was no alteiuiative between infidelity and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, he should choose infidelity. I would choose, sir, in similar circumstances, to be an infidel to-morrov}^ At the conclusion of Dr. Spring’s harangue, the President called upon the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes to conclude the debate, who im- meditately arose to reply to the arguments of all the gentlemeTi who had been heard on the subject, and spoke as follows : Mr. President, it would require a mind of much greater capacity than mine to arrange and mature the topics, relevant or otherwise^ that have been introduced into this discussion, since I had the honor to address you yesterday. No less than seven or eight gentlemen of great ability have presented their respective views on the subject, aucl not only on the subject in regard to its intrinsic merits, but on subjects which they deemed, at least, collateral, but which I think quite irrelevant. The gentleman who last addressed you (Dr. Spring) is entitled to my acknowledgments for the candor with which he expressed his sentiments in reference to it ; namely, that he was opposed to it more because it came from Catholics, than if it had been presented by any other denomination. Tliat gentleman is entitled to my acknowledgment, and. I award it, if worthy of his accejitance. The subject — for it is exceedingly important that the subject should be kept in view — is one, as I stated before, that is very simple. We are a portion of this community; we desire to be nothing greater than any other portion ; we are not content to be made less. There is nothing, sir, in that system of the Public School Society against which any of the gentlemen who have spoken, either in their individual capacity or as the representatives of bodies of people, have urged a single conscientious objection, and, of course, they have no right to complain — they are satisfied, and, therefore, I am willing that they should have the system, but I am not willing that they should press it upon me, and for good reason. And, sir, if this honorable body rejects the claim of your jietitioners, what is the issue ? That we are deprived of the bene¬ fits to which we are entitled, and that we are not one iota worse than we were before. That is our consolation. But the whole range of the argument of the gentleman, who spoke last, was, to show that this Public School System was got up with the concur¬ rence of public opinion, and that having been so got up, it had worked beautifully, and that gentlemen who never heard of con¬ scientious objections to it, because it suits their views, deem it wonderful that we can have any conscience at all on the subject. That is the amount of it. What ! no ground for conscientious ob¬ jection, when you teach our children in those schools that “ the deceitful Catholics” burned John Huss at the stake, for conscience, when evidences are numerous before you of a more just and a more honorable character — when you might find on the page of history, that in Catholic Poland every avenue to dignity in the state was opened to Protestants, by the concurrent vote of eight Catholic 148 AECHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH Bishops, whilst the vote of any one of them, according to the con stitution of the Polish Diet, of which they were members, could have prevented the law being passed — and what is more, when the lirst lesson of universal toleration and freedom of conscience the world was ever called to learn, was set by the Catholics of Mary¬ land — I speak in the presence of gentlemen who can contradict me if they know where to find the authority — and what was this but homage to the majesty of conscience, by a Church which they wish to establish as a persecuting Church. That Church, sir, which the gentleman has come here to prove justifies the murdering of here¬ tics, was the first to teach a lesson which Protestants have been slow to learn and imitate, but which the religion they profess should have taught them. But not these examples alone ; there are hun dreds more. At this day in Belgium, where Protestants are in a minority of one to twelve, the state votes them an equal portion, and where their clergy are married, a larger portion, and that with the concurrence of the Council and the Catholic Bisho2DS. The gentleman need not tell me of Catholicism ; I know it well ; and what is more, I know Protestantism well ; and I know the profes¬ sions of good will of Protestants do not always correspond with their feelings. But I should like to know whether or.not in Protest¬ antism they find authority for persecuting to the knife, not Catho¬ lics alone, but each other, even after they have proclaimed the right of every man to think for himself. With good reason, sir, do I contend for conscience, but they may think a Catholic has no right to have a conscience at all. They may think because this system is beautiful in their view, that this i^retension to conscience on the part of Catholics ought to be stifled, as a thing not to be admitted at all. But that will not do. Man in this country has a right to the exercise of conscience, and the man that should raise himself up against it will find that he has raised himself up against a tremen¬ dous opponent. Now, what is it we ask? You have heard from beginning to end the arguments on this occasion, and though I may not follow the wanderings of this discussion through all its minute parts, if I pass over any part, be assured it is not from any desire to avoid, or any inability to refute what has been said against us. I may j^ass over many points, but I will not pass over any great principle, and you have, no doubt, given so much attention to the subject as to enable you, if I should not recapitulate the whole, to decide justly. It has been urged, that if you give Catholics that which they now ask, you will give them benefits which will elevate them above others ; but, I contend most sincerely, and most consci¬ entiously, that we have no such idea ; and when you shall have granted the portion we claim, if you should be pleased to grant it, I conceive then, and not before, shall we be in the enjoyment of the in’otection, and not privilege, to which we are entitled. That is my view^ of the subject; but, I have been astonished to perceive the course of argument of the gentlemen who oppose our claim, generally speaking. What it is they contend for I cannot deter- BEFOKK THE CITY COUNCIL. 140 mine ; but, it seems to be the preservation of the existing system. They were among the first to disclaim the doctrine that the end justifies the means, and if in attaining their end they find they can not reach it without injustice, then as conscientious and high-mind¬ ed men, they should have jDaused by the way, and have ascertained whether the means were worthy of them and of our glorious country. Yet, sir, they have generally overlooked this, and it is no new thing to find that they have labored to promote the benefit of their own society, at the sacrifice of the rights of others. Sir, it is the glory of this country that when it is found that a wrong exists, there is a power, an irresistible power, to correct the wrong. They have represented us as contending to bring the Catholic Scriptures into the Public Schools. This is not true ; but, I shall have occasion to refer more particularly to this by and by. They have represented us as enemies to the Protestant Scriptures “ with¬ out note and comment,” and on this subject I know not whether their intention was to make an impression on your honorable body, or to elicit a sympathetic echo elsewhere ; but, whatever their ob¬ ject was, they have represented that even here Catholics have not concealed their enmity to the Scriptures. Now, if I had asked this honorable Bo%i’d to exclude the Protestant Scriptures from the schools, then there might have been some coloring for the current calumny. But I have not done so. I say, gentlemen of every de¬ nomination, keep the scriptures you reverence, but do not force on me that which my conscience tells me is wrong. I may be wrong, as you may be ; and as you exercise your judgment, be pleased to allow the same privilege to a fellow being, who must appear before our common God and answer for the exercise of it. I wish to do nothing like what is charged upon me — that is not the purpose for which we petition this honorable Board, in the name of the commu¬ nity to which I belong ; I appear here for other objects, and if our petition be granted our schools may be placed under the supervi¬ sion of the public authorities, or even of commissioners, to be ap¬ pointed by the Public School Society ; they may be put under the same supervision as the existing schools, to see that none of those phantoms, nor any grounds for those suspicions which are as un¬ charitable as unfounded, can have existence in reality. There is, then, but one simple question — will you compel us to pay a tax from which we can receive no benefit, and to frequent schools which injure and destroy our religious rights in the minds of our children, and of which in our consciences we cannot approve ? That is the simple question. Or, will you appoint some other system, or will you leave the children of our denomination to grow up in that state of ignorance which the School Society has expressed its desire to save them from ? Or shall the constable be employed, as one rever¬ end gentleman seems to recommend (Dr. Bangs), or some public officer to catch them and send them to school? For, from this mo¬ ment, in consequence of the language used, and the insulting pas¬ sages which those books contain. Catholic parents wiU not send 150 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SEC02fD SPEECH their children there, and any attemjits to enforce attendance would meet with vigorous resistance from them. I have now presented what is, in reality, the simple issue ; it is no matter whether we be¬ lieve right or not, for neither the Catholic nor the Protestant re¬ ligion is on trial here ; and I repeat, therefore, that the gentleman who rejiresents the Methodist Church has taken so much pains to distil through the minds of this meeting, a mass of jirejudice which it will take several hours, but at the same time very little beside, for me to refute and scatter to the winds. I shall, perhaps, not dwell long on that part, because I judge it is irrelevant to the case in hand, but still I shall feel authorized to trespass on the patience of the meeting a short time, though but a short time, to remove the im¬ proper prejudice which may have been created. He says that the people have a right to interfere and to give to the children of the State an intellectual education, that this must be carried out in some form or other, and that this system is as little objectionable as any that could be presented. That may be; I do not dispute the possibility of it, because it is unimportant ; but if he did mean to contend that that system which has been once sanc¬ tioned must continue to be sanctioned, although its sanction was merely by the tacit consent of the different denoininations, and although it should become violative of the religious rights of any, then he goes beyond the limits which even the Constitution of the land has made sacred. I have been represented as endeavoring to create excitement on this subject. To that I shall refer imme¬ diately ; but I may here refer to my objection to the existing sys¬ tem, on the ground that it has a tendency to infidelity, and may observe that I know clergymen of other denominations who are also opposed to it on the ground of its infidel tendency^. There are many who have the conviction that it tends to infidelity, and who know that the preventive referred to is not equal to stem the ten¬ dency to infidelity which does exist. The first gentleman who spoke, and he spoke with a frankness and sincerity for which I give him credit, contended — and when I answer his objection, I wish to be understood as speaking to all that took up that objection — and it was urged more or less by the whole — that it was inconsistent to charge upon the system a tendency to infidelity, and then a teaching of religion, and that this teaching was anti-catholic. Now this would be inconsistent under some circum¬ stances ; but the gentleman left out the grounds on which that charge was made, and it will be proper, therefore, that I should state those grounds. In the document which emanated from the Board of Assistants last spring, they say that the smallest particle of religion is a disqualification, and that “ religious instruction is no part of a common school education.” Now, was it the intention of your honorable body to exclude all religion? Was it the intention of the State Legislature ? Did any public authority requii e that the public school education should be winnowed as corn on a barn floor, and all religion driven out by the winds of heaven as d aft’ not BEFORE THE CITY COUlSrCIL. 151 worthy to be preserved? Was there such authority? Who made sucii a decision ? And yet that very decision, I ask you, if we are not authorized to interpret as proof of the charge, that the system has a tendency to infidelity? For, banish religion, and infidelity alone remains. And, on the other hand, we find the gentlemen of the Public School Society themselves repeatedly stating that they inculcate religion, and give religious impressions ; and I say it does them credit ; for as far as they can they ought to teach religion. It would be better, if they did, for those who are satisfied with THEIR religious teaching. This explanation will set us right in the minds of your honorable body. It is first said no religion is taught; and then it is admitted that religion is inculcated ; and next our petition is opposed because it is alleged that if our prayer be granted religion will be taught. What weight, then, is the objection oi" the Public School Society entitled to, if this be the fact ? And where is our inconsistency ? If there is a dilemma, to whom are we in¬ debted for it but to the Report of the Board of Assistants on the one hand, and to the testimony of the Public School Society on the other. Let us not, then, be charged with inconsistency. Now, sir, I contend there is infidelity taught. I do not mean in its gross form ; but I have found principles of infidelity in the books — and one that would pass current as a very amiable book — a religious lesson which I would not sufier a child to read, over whom I had any influence. The lesson represents a father and his son going about on Sunday morning to the difterent churches, the little boy asking questions as they pass along from one to the other ; at last the boy said to his father — I may not quote the words, but I shall be found right in substance — “ What is the reason there are so many different sects ! Why do not all people agree to go to the same place, and to worship God in the same way !” “ And why should it not be so ?” replied the father. “ Why should they agree ? Do not people differ in other things ? Do they not difier in their taste and their dress — some like their coats cut one way and some another — and do they not differ in their appetites and food ? and in the hours they keep and in their diversion?” Now, I ask if there is no infidelity in that ? I ask if it is a proper lesson to teach chil¬ dren, that as they have a right to form their own tastes for dress and food, they have the right to judge for themselves in matters of religion ? for, with deference to the Public School Society, children are too young to have such principles instilled into them. Let them grow up, before they are left to exercise their judgment in such weighty matters ; at least, do not teach Catholic children such a lesson at so early an age ; and, in all I have said, I desire to be understood as abstaining most carefully from prescribing any rule, or method, or book, for any denomination with which I am not con¬ nected. But for Catholic children I speak, and I say it is too early for them to judge for themselves. And is this all? No, sir; one other })assage, and for that there may perhaps be something to be said as to its defence, because it i/j from the pen of an eminent 152 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH Protestant divine, the Bishop of London. I presume the Bishop of London, when he wrote that passage, must have been writing on some subject connected with infidelity ; he must have been waiting against infidelity, and indulging in a range of argument which might be proper for such a subject, but out of place in the hands of com¬ mon-school children. What was that passage ? Why, it is one which represents the Divine Bedeemer as a man of respectable talents. Mr. Ketchum rose, and intimated his doubt of such a passage being in the books. The Right Rev. Prelate continued. I have read it in their books, but the Trustees have recalled them. I hope not for the purpose of depriving me of the ojiportunity of quoting the page. Such a lesson is now to be found in one of the books, which repre¬ sents the Divine Redeemer as showing uncommon quickness of pen¬ etration and sagacity. I ask whether such a lesson is a proper one for children, and whether such is the instruction to be given to them of the Redeemer of the ivorld ? The gentleman who first spoke, said it was not in reality religion that was taught, but mere moral¬ ity that was inculcated — the propriety of telling the truth and of fulfilling all moral duties. If this be true, it is still strange that the School Society should prefer the word “ religions.” He did not deny that it was a kind of religion, and that the precepts of the Decalogue were inculcated, and while the Public School Society admit that religion is inculcated — and the legal gentleman, their representative, does not disclaim it, so far as it forms the ground¬ work of a good moral character — it may be taken as admitted. And now, if they teach religion, let us know what it is to be. Let them not delegate to the teachers, some of whom may teach one religion, some another, the authority or permission to make “ reli¬ gious impressions,” to give “ religious instruction,” to give a “ right direction to the mind of youth,” and all the other phrases which we find in their documents. Row, on the subject of religion and morals, would they teach morals without religion, which I conceive will be found as visionary as castle-building in the air. Mr. Ketchum says they are taught not to lie, but without religion he furnishes no mo¬ tive for not lying. If a man tells me not to lie, when it is my interest to lie, I, as a rational being, w^ant a motive for telling the truth. My love of gain tells me if I lie, and lie successfully, it will add to my fortune ; and if I am told to abstain from lying, at the risk of my fortune, let me have a reason. But if I am told there is God to whom I am accountable, that is a motive ; but, then, it is a teaching of religion. Yes, sir, when I am told there is a God, I am taught religion ; and therefore I am astonished that the Report which has gone forth from the other Board shonld declare that the smallest teaching of religion vitiates the claim. You may as well think to build an edifice without a foundation, as to pretend to produce moral efiects without religious belief. There may not be the details of religion, but there must be the BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 153 principle, to a certain extent, otherwise you cannot lay the founda¬ tion of good morals for men. Now, sir, I will show you that Mr. Stephen Girard, of Philadelphia, who had no religious belief what¬ ever, in his will, by which he bequeathed large sums of mOney for the purpose of procuring great and material benefits to society — but which has been looked upon by many Christians, of every denomi¬ nation, in Philadelphia, rather as a curse than a blessing — even he speaks of morality without religion nearly as the Public School Society does. He says : “ Secondly, I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister, of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatsoever in the said College ; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said Col¬ lege. In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatever ; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orplians who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce. My desire is, that all the insti’uctors and teachers in the College shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of imorality, so that on their en¬ trance into active life they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow- creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopt¬ ing at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.” He left two millions of dollars to tbe city of Philadelphia, pro¬ vided that poor orphans should be brought up to respect infidelity, lie did not say a word against religion, but he took care to stand by, not personally, but by his executors, in his will, to prevent its precepts being inculcated in the minds of those who are the depen¬ dents on his bounty. They were to have the purest principles of morals instilled into their minds ; but the attempt, is vain when re¬ ligion is not placed as the foundation of morals. He, like the Public School Society, stands by to see that the pot¬ ter shall give no form to the vase, till the clay grows stiff and hard¬ ened. Then it will be too late. The gentlemen also made objection to our schools, because, he said, they were in our churches. The fact is, we were obliged to provide them where we could, and our means would iiermit ; and there are some of them in the basement of our churches. And he conceived it impossible to keep them from sectarian influence, be¬ cause the children would be within hearing of the chant of divine service ; as though sectarianism depended on geographical distances from churcli. But this could not have been a valid objection, be¬ cause the Public School Society has had not only schools under churches, but in the session rooms of churches. I shall refer now to the learned gentlemen who followed him (Mr. Ketchum), and I can only say that this gentleman, with a great deal of experience in this particular question, really seems to me to con¬ firm all I say on the ground we have taken. I know he lectured me pretty roundly on the subject of attending the meetings held under 154 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH St. James’ church. I know he did more for me than the Pope : the Pojie “ mitred” me hut once, but lie did so three or four times dur¬ ing the course of his address. He read me a homily on the duties of station ; and he so far forgot his country and her principles, as to call it a “ descent” on my part, when I mingled in a popular meet¬ ing of freemen. But it was no descent ; and I hope the time will never come when it will be deemed a descent for a man in office to mingle with his fellow-citizens when convened for legitimate and honorable purposes. But from his speech it would appear, that his experience has been obtained by the discharge of the duty of standing advocate of de¬ nial ; and yet, with all his experience and opportunities of research, his inability to overturn our grounds confirms me in the conviction that they are not to be removed, even by the aid of splendid talents ; for that speech, like most others, went on the false issue that we want privileges. But we want no privilege. That speech, like the speech from the throne, might have been the speech of years past, and might have been stereotyped ; for its only novelty, which proved to me that it was not all the work of antiquity, was the part which appertained to myself. And not only that, but I have to say, that when I came into this hall — and it is the first time I ever stood in an assembly of this description — I felt that I Avas throAvn on the hospitality of the jjrofessional gentleman ; and I think if I and that gentleman could have exchanged places, I should not have looked so hard at him as he did at me. In fact, throughout that speech he, with peculiar emphasis, and a manner which he may, perhaps, have acquired in his practice in courts of laAV, fixed upon me a steady gaze — and he has no ordinary countenance — and addressed me so solemnly, that I really expected every moment he -would forget him¬ self, and say “the prisoner at the bar.” (Laughter.) He did not, however. He passed that over ; and whilst I recognize and respect the “ human face divine,” because God made it to look upward, I may here observe, that it has no poAver to frighten me, eA^en if it would be terrible ; and therefore I was not at all disturbed by the hard looks which he gave me. The gentleman Avill pardon me, I hope, in this, for it is natural enough, after what has been said-7-though I know it Avas said in good humor, to claim the privilege to retort. Well, sir, this Avas not all, but he told us something about going to the stake. He Avas sure, if any of the public money was Amted to the denomination of a reverend gentleman, whose name I will not mention, the Catholics Avould go to the stake. Noav, sir, Ave haA^e no intention to do so. We knoAV the public money does go to the support of religion ; it goes to the support of chaplaincies, theologi¬ cal seminaries, uniAmrsities, and chaplains of institutions whose ap¬ pointments are permanent ; and be it remembered, that one of the first lectures deliA-ered in one institution, the UniAmrsity of this city, Avhich was aided from the public funds, was on the anti-republican tendency of Popery. And yet Ave did not go to the stake for that ; and Avhy ? Because, though our portion of taxation mingles with BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 155 the rest, we have no objections to the use of it which the law pre¬ scribes, so long as no inalienable rights of our own are involved in the sacrifice. But, again, he said, if any of the money was appropriated to the Catholic religion, Protestants would go to the stake. I will not say whether Protestants are so exclusive ; while we submit to taxa¬ tion for Protestant purposes, without going to the stake, whether, if we participate, they will go to the stake, is not for me to say. Then he came to the Protestant Bible, “ without note or comment;” and “ it was hard for him to part with that translated Bible.” He stood by it, and repeated that “ it was hard to give up the Bible,” just as if I had said one word against it ; and as if I was about lo bring the Pope to banish it out of the Protestant world, or wished to deprive any man who venerates it of any use he may think jiroper to make of it. And there, again, he looked so much as if he were in earnest, that, at one time, I thought he was actually about to rush to the “ stake.” But there was no stake there to go to, except that which he holds in the exchequer of the Public School Society. It is a most comfortable way of going to martyrdom. Sir, the gentleman taunted me for having .attended the public meetings of Catholics on this subject, and he imputed the prejudice which exists against the Public School system to the observations 1 have made, as though it were of my creation. In answer to that I may state, Avhat has been the fact for years, that Catholics have been struggling to have schools, and to the extent of their means we have them ; and what is the reason ? Do you suppose that we should impose additional burdens upon ourselves, if we were sat¬ isfied with those Public Schools? Do you suppose we should have paid for our bread a second time, if that which these schools ofiered had not, in our opinion, been turned to a stone? No, the existence of our own schools proves that I have not excited the prejudice ; but still it is at all times my duty to warn my people against that which is destructive or violative to the religion they profess ; and if they abandon their religion they are free ; but so long as they are attached to our religion, it is my duty, as their pastor, as the faithful guardian of their principles and morals, to w.a'rn them when there is danger of imbibing poison instead of whole¬ some food. That is the reason ; and I am sorry that he has not found a motive less unworthy of me than that he has been pleased to assign. Then — and I may as well take up the question now as elsewhere — it has been said that it is conceived to be an inconsistency in our argument, that we object to the Public Schools because religion is taught in them, and yet, in the schools which we propose to estab¬ lish, or rather, which we have established, but for which we now plead, we profess to teach no sectarianism ; and the question arises, “ if you are opposed to religion in these schools because it is secta¬ rianism, how can you teach religion in your schools, and yet your schools not be sectarian ?” This is the position in which they place 156 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH US ; and in answer I have to state, that, in the first place, we do not intend to teach religion. We shall he willing that they shall be placed under the same inspection that the Public Schools are now ; and if it should be found that religion is taught, we will be willing that you shall cut them olf. You shall be the judges. You may see that the law is complied with, and if we violate it, let us be deprived of the benefits for which the conditions were prescribed. But there is neutral ground on which our children may learn to read and cipher. If they read, it must be something that is written ; words are signs of ideas, and in the course of their instruction they may be made so to shape their studies as to loathe Catholicism, without learning any other religion. And this could be produced, not alone in reference to Catholics, but Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians, or any other. They might find that their children disregard their own religion, while they are not taught any other. Sujipose the Presbyterians, or any other denomination, were in the minority, and Catholics were numerically what Protestants are now, and therefore were able to decide what lessons their children should read in these schools, I ask you if the gentleman would not conceive he had rea¬ sonable objections, if they had forced upon them a system of educa¬ tion which teaches that their denomination, past, present, and td come, was deceitful? Now, take up these books, which teach all that is infamous in our history ; which teach our children about the “ execution of Cranmer,” the “burning of Huss,” and “the character of Luther.” If such a practice were reversed, what would he do ? Now, ill our schools, I would teach them ; I would give our chil¬ dren lessons for exercise in reading, that should teach them that w'hen the young tree of American liberty was planted, it was wintered with Catholic blood, and that therefore we have as much right to everything common in this country as others. I should teach them that Catholic bishops and Catholic barons at Riinneymede wrung the charter of our liberties — the grand parent of all known liberty in the Avorld — from the hands of a tyrant. I should teach them where to find the bright spots on our history, though the gentleman wdio represents the Methodists knew not wUere they were to be found. This I would do, and should I violate the law ? If, instead of the burning of IIuss, I gave them a chapter on the character ot Charles Carroll of Carrollton, as a reading lesson, wmuld that be teaching them of purgatory, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation ? But if our circumstances w’ere reversed, so that Catholics con¬ trolled the public schools, would not Presbyterians have a right to complain ? — and should not we be tyrants wdiile we refused to listen to their complaints, if wm spread before their children lessons on the burning of Servetus by Calvin, and on the hangings of members of the Society of Friends by those who held Calvin’s doctrines? I should listen to their appeal in such a case with feelings fiir different from those manifested by them in regard to others. But I would do more, in order that those little vagrants, of wdiom the gentleman speaks, might come into school. Their parents themselves having BErOEE THE CITY COITNCIL. 157 by persecution been deprived, in many instances, of an education, do not fully appreciate its advantages, and if you seek to enforce the attendance of their children, they will resist; if you attempt to coerce them you will not succeed. But if you put them in a way to be admitted without being dragged by force to the school, or without destroying their religious principles when they enter (which you have no right to do), then you will prepare good citizens, edu¬ cated to the extent that will make them useful to their countiy. Then their parents, having confidence in their pastors, will send their children to schools approved of by them — and the children themselves may attend schools where they need not be ashamed of their creed, and where their companions will not call them “ Papists,” and tell them that ignorance and vice are the accompaniments of their religion. That will be the result, and I conceive it will be beneficial. Much has been said about the distinction between morality and religion, and about those certain broad principles on which it is thought all can agree. And yet oirr opponents contend — and I am surprised at the circumstance — gentlemen who are not only Chris¬ tians themselves, but Christian ministers, contend all through for the rights of those who are not of the Christian religion, but are commonly called infidels. An attempt has been made to draw a distinction between morality and religion. I have already said, and there is not a gentleman here who will pretend to deny it, that mo¬ rality must rest on religion for its basis. I refer you, and it is not an ordinary authority, to a man who passed through life with the most beautiful character and the most blameless reputation that ever fell to the lot of a public man ; one who was distinguished almost above all other men ; one, of whom it would be profane to say that he was inspired, yet, of whom history has not handed down one useless action, or one single idle word, a man who left to his coun¬ try an inheritance of the brightest example, and the fairest name that ever soldier or statesman bequeathed to a nation — that man was George Washingtons'. Hear what he says in his Farewell Ad¬ dress, on the attempt now being made to preserve morality Avhilst religion is discarded from the public schools. “ Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the trib¬ ute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happi¬ ness. these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reimtation, for life, if the sense of re¬ ligious obligations desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge tlie supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both for¬ bid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious prin¬ ciple. • “ ’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. TTie rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of 158 AECITBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?” Such is the warning, the solemn warning of this great man. If you take away religion, on what foundation do you propose to rear the structure of morality? No — they stand to each other in the relation of parent and offspring, or rather they are kindred prin¬ ciples from the same divine source, and what God has joined to¬ gether, let no man pirt asunder. Now, with regard to all said by me against the Protestant Bible, I appeal to this honorable body whether I ever said one word hostile to that Bible ;• and yet, from the address of the gentlemen on the other side, men abroad, who should read their speeches, would be led to believe that I not only entertained, but that I had uttered sentiments of hostility to that work. And it is ever thus that our principles and our feelings are misrepresented, while gentle¬ men profess to be conscious of entertaining no prejudice against us as Catholics. One gentleman, however, avowed his hostility to us on this ground, and for his candor I tender my acknowledgment. The whole effort of some of the gentlemen, indeed of all who have spoken on the subject, has been to show that the system must be made so broad and liberal that all can agree in it — but I think they contend for too much when they wish so to shape religion and balance it on its pedestal as to make it suit every body and every sect ; for if infidels are to be suited, and it is made to rconcile them to the system, I want to know whether Catholics or any other class are not entitled to the right to have it made to suit them. And if everybody is to be made satisfied, why is it that Catholics and others are discontented and excluded ? Is it not manifest that what they profess to accomplish is beyond their reach ? Now the infidels have found able advocates in the reverend gentlemen who have spoken in the course of this discussion — I mean the interests of infidelity — and why is it, then, that the gentlemen who jdead for that side of the question, enter their protest against ours ? I should like to know why there is this inconsistency. If the rule is to be general, why is it not general ? I })ass now to the reasoning of one learned gentleman who spoke yesterday, and defended the Protestant Bible. Now this was un¬ necessary in that gentleman — it was in him a work of supereroga¬ tion to vindicate the Protestant Scriptures — it was useless to defend a point which had not been attacked. It was time lost ; and yet, perhaps, not altogether lost; for in some respects it may have been profitable enough. In entering on its defence, he said it Avas the instrument of human liberty throughout the Avorld — Avherever it was, there was light and liberty ; and where it was not, there was bondage and darkness ; and he brought it round so, that he almost asserts that our Declaration of Independence has been cojAied from the Bible. No doubt the just and righteous principles on which that Declaration has its foundation, have their sanction in the Bible, but I deny their immediate connection, and on historical grounds, BEFOEE THE CITY COENCIL. 159 for it is known that its author looked upon St. Paul as an imposter ; consequently their connection is not historically true. But while the gentleman referred to our notes (but which we disown and re¬ pudiate), as containing principles of persecution — how was it that after the Protestant Bible, “ without note and comment,” came into use, every denomination of Protestants in the ivhole world that had the misfortune, for it must have been a misfortune, to be yoked to civil power, wielded the sword of persecution, and derived their authority for so doing from the naked text? Yes, in Scotland, in all her confessions of faith — in England, and I appeal to her penal laws against Catholics, and those acts b}^ wdiich the Puritans and Dis¬ senters were pursued, men who had the misfortune, like ourselves, to have a conscience, were driven out, and all was done on the autho¬ rity of the Bible, without note or comment, and for the public good and the good of the Church. I do not say that the Bible sanctioned persecution, but I deny that the absence of notes is an adequate preventive. I refer to history. And almost to this day, though the Bible has been translated three hundred years, even in liberal governments, the iron heel of persecution has been placed on the dearest rights of Catholics. The gentleman to whom I alluded said, no doubt, what he knew would be popular out of doors, for he seems, with others, to imagine that the world began at the period of the Reformation. He seems to think that everything gi’eat originated at that period. But does he not know that eight hundred editions of the Bible had been printed before the Reforma¬ tion ? And docs he not know that tAvo hundred editions had been circulated in the common tongue, in the common language of the country ? And has he yet to learn that the first prohibition to read the Bible came not from a Catholic, but from a Protestant — from Protestant Henry VHI., of “ glorious memory ?” lie Avas the first to issue a prohibition, and it Avas not till Catholics saAV the evil — not of the Bible, but the bad uses men Avere making of the Bible, that they placed its perusal under certain restrictions, and cautioned their people against hastily judging of it for themselves. All had been united and harmonious, but by the use, or abuse, Avhich men made of the Bible, all became doubt and siieculation, the positive revela¬ tion of Christ Avas shaken or destroyed. They saAV this Bible, and what then ? But, AAdiile these school gentlemen contend that it is a shield against infidelity, and that all sects here agree, how is it out of the schools ? Why, no sects agree upon it. How is it that the Bible, Avhicli is given by the inspiration of God, the God of truth, is made use of in this city even, to prove a Trinity, and to disprove a Trinity ? Hoav is it that Trinitarians quote it to prove their doc¬ trines, and Unitarians quote it to establish the opposite doctrines ? How is it that Avhilst one says from the Bible that God the Father is God alone, and that Christ is not equal to Him, for He says, '•‘■The Father is greater than another argues from the same Bible that the Father and Son are equal, because Christ says '•'•The Father and I are one?'' And another comes with the Bible in his hand, and 160 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH says, I believe, and I can prove it from this Bible that Christ alone is the Almighty God, and the Father and the Spirit are only attri¬ butes of the same person ! AVhy, this Bible which they say is the foundation of all truth, and they say well, when it is truly under¬ stood, a grace which God can vouchsafe, and, no doubt. He does to many, this Bible is harmonious in its every doctrine. But' that is not the point — the point is the uses we see men make of it, and this is the sum of our reason that we wish our children not to be taught in the manner in which Protestant children are taught in reference to the Bible. And then, again, if you teach that there is a hell, according to the Bible, others will contend thaf the Scriptures teach no such doc¬ trine, and so I might pass on to other points, to show you whilst they thus contend for the Bible as the guide to truth, there is this disagreement among them, at least in this country, where human rights and liberties are understood as allowing every man to judge for himself. Is there not, then, danger — is there no ground to ap- jjrehend that when our children read this Bible, and find that all these dilferent sects father all their contradictions on the Bible as their authority, they will derive their first notions of infidelity from these circumstances ? But there is another ground on which it is manifest we cannot allow our children to be taught by them. Whilst we grant them the right to take, if they please, the Protes¬ tant Bible as the rule of their faith, and the individual right to judge of the Bible — and this great principle they proclaim as the peculiar and distinctive, and most glorious trait in their religious character and history — and let them boast of it, there is no difficulty on the subject — they interpret the Bible by the standard of reason, and therefore, as there is no given standard of reason — as one has more and another less — they scarcely ever arrive at the same result, while the Bible, the eternal Word of God, remains the same. But this is not a Catholic principle. Catholics do not believe that God has vouchsafed the promise of the Holy Spirit to every individual, but that He has given His Spirit to teach the Church collectively, and to guide the Church, and therefore we do not receive as the Bible except what the Church guarantees ; and wanting this guar¬ antee, the Methodist gentleman failed to establish the book, which he produced with its notes, as a Catholic Bible. We do not take the Bible on the authority of a “ King’s Printer,” who is a specu¬ lating publisher, who publishes it but as a speculation. And why ? Because by the change of a single comma, that which is positive may be made negative, and vice versa, and then is it the Bible of the inspired writers ? It is not. They proclaim, then, that theirs is a Christianity of reason ; of this they boast, and let them glory. Ours is a Christianity of faith; ours descends by the teaching of the Church ; we are never authorized to introduce new doctrines, be¬ cause w^e contend that no new doctrine is true, from the time of the apostles, unless it has come from the mind of God by a special reve¬ lation, and to us that is not manifest among the reformers. We are BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 161 satisfied to trust our eternal interests, for weal or woe, on the se¬ curity of that Catholic Church, and the veracity of the divine prom¬ ises. You perceive, therefore, that Protestants may agree in the system Avhere this Bible is thus introduced ; but it is not in accord¬ ance with the principles of Catholics, that each one shall derive therefrom his own notions of Christianity. It is not the principle of Catholics, because they believe in the incompetence of individual reason, in matters of such importance. It is from this self-sufficiency and imputed capacity that men derive such notions of self-confidence, Avhich, owing to a want of power to control in some domestic cir¬ cles, if taught to our children, lead to disobedience and disregard of the parental authority. I have been obliged to enter into this, which is rather theological than otherwise, to put you in possession of the true ground. We do not take the Protestant Bible, but we do not wish others not to take it if they desire it. If conscience be stifled, you do not make us better men or better citizens, and therefore I say, gentle¬ men, respect conscience, even though you think it in error, provided it does not conflict with the public rights. I have sufficiently disposed of the addresses of the two legal gen¬ tlemen who have spoken. I will now call the attention of this hon¬ orable body to the remarks of the reverend gentleman who spoke in relation to the Rhemish Testament. I did use, sir, yesterday an expression which I used with reluctance ; but when we were charged before this honorable body — when the reverend gentleman who represents a numerous denomination, charged us with teaching the lawfulness of murdering heretics, that expression came on me as a thunderbolt, because I thought that truth should proceed from the lips of age and a man of character. And, sir, I knew that position was not true, and that it was an easy matter to assert a thing, but not so easy to disprove it. I might take advantage of circumstan¬ ces to charge a man with things that it would take weeks to dis¬ prove, and therefore I thought it necessary to nail that slanderous statement to the counter before it could have its designed influence here or elsewhere. That gentleman began with great humility, and with professions of being devoid of prejudice, and then he said that those meetings to which he referred, and which he called “ piib- lic gatherings,” had caused him to feel greatly alarmed about this (question, as if the stability of your Republic was endangered, pro- A'ided Catholic children received the benefits of a common school education! He said I had applied certain remarks to the creed of the Society of Friends, and, though perhaps it was somewhat out of order, but wishing to set the gentleman right, I denied that I had done so. But since then the reporter has handed me the notes taken of what I did say, and from them also it appears that I said no such thing. He referred to the practice of teaching religion in the schools ; but of that I have disposed already. He then, while going through the introductory part of the re¬ monstrance of the Methodist Episcopal Church, threw out constantly 11 16?, AECHBISnOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH calnmuious charges against the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion ; he did not throw them out as assertions bnt by inuendo, as “if it be true,” and “I should like to know,” as if I am here for the pui-jiGse of suppljdng everything he would “like to know.” And how can I meet him when insinuation is the form in which his charges are thrown out? Why, their very feebleness takes from an opponent the power of refutation. But when he comes to something tangible, then I can meet him. Having gone through a series of insinuations, he misrepresents our intentions, notwithstanding we disclaim such an intention, he indulges in the gratuitous supposition that if your honorable body should grant our petition, we shall secretly teach the Catholic religion. But if we do, is not the law as potbnt against us as against the public schools ? If they teach religion, as they acknowledge, . why may not we? We are not grasping to obtain power over others, but we desire in sincerity to benefit a por¬ tion of our own neglected children. I shall pass over, therefore, a great deal of what the gentleman “ would like to know,” for I do not know if it is of importance to the subject. He said this Hhemish Testament was published by authority ; but he began by a retreat, .and not by a direct charge : he did “ not profess to say that our Church approved of it ;” but it was printed and published, and it was not on the “ Index,” as if every bad book in the world must be in the Index; and with this evidence of fact, he comes here and spreads before the American people the slander and calunmy that the Catholics by their notes and comments teach the lawfulness of mur¬ dering heretics. Now, sir, I wiU take up that book and the parts he read with the notes, giving an explanation as though they came from Catholics. Do you know the history of that book, sir ? If not, I can tell ymi. When Queen Elizabeth scourged the Catholics from their altars, and drove them into exile, these men held a com¬ mon notion, which was natural and just, that England was their country, and that they were suffering unmerited persecution. The new religion, not satisfied with toleration for itself, grasped the sub¬ stance of things, grasped the j^ower of the State, seized all their temples ; and not even satisfied with this, scourged the C.atholics from their home and country ; and they did write these notes, .and why ? They wrote them in exile, smarting under the lash and the torture, and in connection, too, with a plan for the invasion of Eng¬ land by Philip H. of Spain. Their object was to disseminate amongst Catholics of England disaffection to Queen Elizabeth, and thus dispose them to join the true Catholics and oppose the heretics, because the heretics were their enemies, were the enemies of their rights, and had crushed them. But when that book appeared in England, was there a single .approval given it, a single C.atholic that received it ? Not one. When it was published for political ends — to aid the invasion of Philip — did the English Catholics receive it ? Never. But the gentleman said it was published by the Bishops of Ireland, and with their approbation, and with the approbation of a great number of the Catholic clergy; and this after his own ad- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 16.3 mission that, insomuch as it had not been approved by the Holy See, the Bishop of Rome, it was not of authority in the Catholic Church. Now I shall take up both parts, and first I should like to know where is his authority +hat it was published by the Bishops of Ireland? I pause for a leply, and I shall not consider it an interruption. Dr. Bond. Do you wish an answer ? Bishop Hughes. I do, sir ; I desire your authority. Dr. Bond. Why, if we are to believe history, it is true ; it is stated in the “British Critic.” Bishop Hughes. Oh ! I am satisfied. Dr. Bond. It could not have been reviewed, if it did not exist. Bishop Hughes. Oh ! it is here ; and that proves its existence, without the “ British Critic.” It was gone out of print again, and not a Catholic now heard of it ; but your liberal Protestant clergy¬ men of New York republished it. What for? To bring infamy on the Catholic name ; and it w’as from this Protestant edition, and not from Ireland, that the Methodist gentleman received it. I am now not surprised at his saying so often that he would “ like to know,” for a little more knowledge would be of great advantage to him. I need not read it. Dr. Bond. Oh, you had better. Bishop Hughes. Well, sir, anytliing to accommodate you. “ It is a remarkable faet, that notwithstanding tlie whole New Testament, as it was translated and explained by the members of the Jesuit College at Rheims, in 1682, has been republished in a great number of editions, and their original annotations, either more or less extensively, have been added to the text ; yet as a work it is appealed to as an authority ; the Roman Church admit both the value of the book and the obligation of the Papists to believe its contents. W e have no more strik¬ ing modern instance to prove this deceitfulness.” It must be recollected that this is a Protestant publication ; the Catholics did not circulate it, but the Protestant ministers did, to mislead their flocks and to bring infamy on their Catholic fellow- citizens. “ The Douay Bible is usually so called, because although the New Testament was first translated and published at Rheims, yet the Old Testament was printed some years after at Douay; the English Jesuits having removed their monastery from Rheims to Douay, before their version of the Old Testament was completed. In the year 1816, an edition, including both the Douay Old, and the Rhemish New Testament, was issued at Dublin, containing a large number of comments, replete with impiefy. irreligion, and the most fiery persecution. That edition was pub¬ lished under the direction of all the dignitaries of the Roman Hierarchy in Ire¬ land, and about three hundred others of the most influential subordinate priests.” t Now, I called for the gentleman’s evidence of this, and the gen¬ tleman was found minus habens — he has it not to give. The prints said so, and he believed the prints ! Now, sir, this is a grave charge, and I am disposed to treat it gravely ; but I should not feel worthy of the name of a man, I should feel myself unworthy of being a mem¬ ber ol the American family, if I had not risen and repelled such a charge as it deserved. V 164 ARCHBESHOP HUGHEs’ SECOND SPEECH Dr. Bond. You have not read all I read. Bishop Hughes. I will read all the gentleman may wish, if he will not keep me here reading all night. “ The notes which urged the hatred and murder of Protestants, attracted the attention of the British churches, and, to use the words of T. Hartwell Horne, thirt edition of the Rhemish Testament, printed at Dublin in 1816, corrected and revised and approved by Dr. Troy, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, was re^dewed by the ‘ British Critic,’ vol. viii., pp. 296-308 ; new series ; and its dangerous tenets, both civil and religious, were exposed.” That is the testimony. Dr. Bond. There is another paragraph. Bishop Hdghes. Well, I will read the other. “ This publication, with many others of a similar character produced so great an excitement in Britain, that finally some of the most j^rominent of the Irish Roman prelates were called before the English Parliament to prove their own ■work. Then, and upon oath, with all official solemnity, they peremptorily disclaimed the vol¬ umes published by their own instigation, and under their own supervision and aus¬ pices, as books of no authority ; because they had not been ratified by the Pope, and received by the whole Papal church.” Now, what authority have we for this charge of perjury against the Irish bishops, better than the gentleman’s own ? It is so stated here ; what authority is there for that ? Dr. Bond. It was so stated before the British Parliament. Bishop Hughes. I should regret, on account of your age, if I used any expression that might be deemed harsh. Dr. Bond. Take the liberty to say what you please. Bishop Hughes. With regard to these notes, I have to observe, that they were written in an age (1582) when the rights of con¬ science were but little understood. Protestants in that age every¬ where persecuted, not only Catholics, but each other. And long after, the Puritans of New England, with the Bible, and without notes, persecuted with torture, and even to hanging their fellow- Protestants. It was not wonderful, therefore, if in such an age Catholics were found to entertain the opinions set forth in the notes. But, bad as they are, it is remarkable that they do not sustain the calumnious charge of the reverend gentleman, that they “ teach the lawfulness of murdering heretics.” And now, sir, let me call your attention to the book itself. In the 13th chapter of St. Matthew there is this text, at the 29th verse. It occurs in the parable of the cockle (in the Protestant version, iares) and the wheat, in answer to Christ’s disciples, who asked: “ thou that we gather it up?''' And he said, “No: lest perhaps, gathering up the cockles, you may root up the wheat also to¬ gether with it." The annotation on this is : “ Ver. 29. Lest you pluck up also. _ The good must tolerate the evil, -when it is BO strong that it cannot be repressed without danger and disturbance of the 'whole Church, and commit the matter to God’s judgment in the latter day. Otherwise, where ill men, be they heretics or other malefactors, may be inmished or sup¬ pressed without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may, and ought, by public authority, either spiritual temporal, to be chastised or executed.” BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 166 They may and ought, “ public an£hority P’’ Why, the propo¬ sition of the gentleman was, tliat Catholics were taught to kill their Protestant neighhors, Now, there is not throughout the whole volume a proposition so absurd as the idea conveyed by him. Bad as the notes are, they require falsification to bear him out. Again, Luke ix. 54-55 : ‘•''And when his disciples James and John had seen it, they said, Lord wilt thou we say that fire come down from heaven and consume them? And turning, he rebuked them, saying, Y^ou knoiv not of what spirit you areP Annotation: Ver. 65. He rebuked them. Not justice, nor all rigorous punishment of sinners is here forbidden, nor Elias’s fact reprehended, nor the Church or Christian princes blamed for putting lieretics to death. But none of these should be done for desire of our particular revenge, or without discretion and regard of their amendment, and example to others. Therefore Peter used his power upon Ananias and Saphira when he struck them both down to death for defrauding the Church.” I am afraid I shall fatigue this honorable body by gomg over these notes ; nor is it necessary that I should follow the gentleman in all his discursive wanderings. There is nothing in this to author- ize the murdering of heretics. But again, Luke xiv. 23. “ And the Lord said to the servant. Go forth unto the ways and hedges ; and compel them to enter, that my house may be filled.'''' Annotation : “ Compel them. The vehement persuasion that God useth, both externally, by force of his word and miracles, and internally by his grace, to bring us unto him, is called compelling ; not that he forceth any one to come to him against their wills, but that he can alter and mollify a hard heart, and make him willing, that before would not. Augustine, also, referreth this compelling to the penal laws, which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catholic Church, and are departed from the same after sects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the Universal Church again ; and therefore, in this sense, by the tw'o former parts of the parable, the Jews first, and secondly the Gentiles, that never believed before in Christ, were invited by fair, sweet means only ; but by the third, such are invited as the Church of God hath power over, because they promised in bajjtism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.” Sir, the punishment of spiritual offences and the allusions here made to it, have their roots too deeji and too wide-spreading to be entered into and discussed in the time that I could occupy this eve¬ ning. It would be impossible to go over the historical grounds which suggest themselves in connection with the subject, to show the results to the state of society which grew unavoidably out of the breaking up of the Roman Empire, and the incursion of new and uncivilized nations and tribes. Society had been dissolved, with all the order and laws of the ancient civilization. It was the slow work of the Church to re-organize the new and crude materials ; to gather and arrange the fragments ; to re-model society and social institutions as best she might. There was no other power that could digest the crude mass ; the fierce infusions of other tongues 106 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH and tribes and nations that had, during the chaos, become mixed up with the remains of ancient Roman civilization. She had to beuin by religion, their conversion to Christianity being the first step ; and the Catholic Church being the only one in existence. Hence the laws of religion are the first with which those new populations became acquainted, and the only ones that could restrain them. Hence, too, what is called canon law went before, and civil law gradually followed, oftentimes mixed with and deriving its force from the older form of legislation. The actual state of society made it unavoidable that this should be the order of things. Civil gov¬ ernments oftentimes eimrafted whole branches of the ecclesiastical law in their secular codes ; and ecclesiastical judges were often the interpreters and administrators of both. Canonical law and civil law, thus blended, became the codes of civil government, from the necessity of the case, and it is to this state of things that the authors of the notes make allusion in their text. But, as I have remarked, the subject is too deep to be prop¬ erly discussed on this occasion, Avhen time is so brief, and so many speakers to be reiilied to. We now come to Acts xxv. 11 : “ I appeal to Caesar. If Paul, both to save himself from whipping and from death, sought by the Jews, doubted not to cry for honor of tlie Roman laws, and to appeal to Csesar, the Prince of the Romans, not yet Christened, how much more may we call for aid of Christian princes and their laws, for the punishment of her¬ etics, and for the Church’s defence against them. Augiist. Epist. 50.” Here you see the working of human interest ; and it is not the first time, among Protestants and Catholics, nor will it be the last, that men have made the Word of God and sacred things a stepping- stone to promote temporal interests. They say there, “ Heretics have banished us, and is it not naturally the interest of Catholics to join a Catholic prince to put down our stern persecutors?” As if they had said to their fellow-Catholics of England, a Catholic prince will soon make a descent on our country, it will be your duty, as it is your interest, to join in putting down the heretic Elizabeth, who has driven us from our country. I go now to Hebrews x. 29; '•'‘How much more., think you., doth he deserve worse punishments who hath trodden the Son of God under foot, and esteemed the blood of the Testament polluted wherein he is sanctified, and hath done contrarily to the spirit of grace T'' Anno¬ tation : “ Tlw blood of the Testament. Whosoever maketh no more of the blood of Clirist’s sacrihce, either as shed upon the cross or in the chalice of the altar, for our Saviour calleth that the blood of the New Testament, tlian he doth of the blood of calves and sheep, or of other common dinnks, is worthy death, and God will in the future life, if it be not punished here, revenge it with grievous punishment.” “ God will in the next life punish !” Why, as bad as these notes are, objectionable and scornfully repudiated as they were by the Catholics of England, bad as they are, they do not sustain the gen¬ tleman, whose assertion has gone as far beyond the truth as it is so BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 167 very far beyond charity. I do not find the notes from the Apoca¬ lypse, wliich would have gone to show in like manner that, bad as they were, tliey do not sujiport the accusations made. l3r. Bond. There are others as well. Bishop Hughes. Well, I will give you the rest. The 1’eesident. Perhaps it is not necessary. But if they are, it is not necessary to interrupt the gentleman. Bishop Hughes. Such then, sir, are the notes put by the Catholic translators of the ISTew Testament, at Kheims, in 1582 — smarting as they were under the lash of Elizabeth’s persecution, and looking forward with hope to the result of the invasion by Philip H. They were repudiated indignantly by the Catholics of England and Ire¬ land from the first ; and were out of print, until some Protestant ministers of New York had them published, in order to mislead the people and to excite odium against the Catholic name. But here, sir, is the acknowledged Testament of all Catholics who speak the English language ; this is known and may be read by any one, it is the 14th edition in this country, it corresponds with those used in England and Ireland ; and if any such notes can be found in it, then believe Catholics to be what they have been falsely represented to be. But the reverend gentleman disclaims originating the slander. He took it, we are told, from the British Critic, as if that which is false must become true, from the moment it is put in type and printed. But, sir, he should have known that the article in the British Critic was refuted at the time, and has been since refuted in the Dublin Review. And it so happens that Doctor Troy, then Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and who is here represented as hav¬ ing approved these notes, had to sustain a law-suit with the Dublin publisher, who was also a Protestant — not for approving the work, but for DENOUNCING it, which destroyed the publisher’s speculation, and involved a suit against the Archbishop for damages ! ! This is attested by Dr. Troy’s letter, now before me, and by the legal pro¬ ceedings, and in a speech made by Daniel O’Connell to the Catho¬ lic Board at the time (1817), we find the following : "From the Dublin Emning Post of the 6th of December, 1817. CATHOLIC BOARD— THE RHEMISH BIBLE. A remai-kably full meeting of the Catholic Board took place on Thursday last, pursuant to adjournment — Owen O’Conner, Esq., in the Chair. After some preliminary business, Mr. O’Connell rose to make his promised mo¬ tion, for the appointment of a Committee to prepare a denunciation of the intoler¬ ant doctrines contained in the Rheinish Notes. Mr. O’Connell said, that on the last day of meeting he gave notice that he would move for a committee, to draw up a disavowal of the very dangerous and unchari¬ table doctrines contained in certain notes to the Rhemish Testament. He now rose to submit that motion to the consideration of the Board. The late edition of the Rheimish Testament in this country gave rise to much observation ; that work was denounced by Dr. Troy ; an action is now depending between him and a re¬ spectable bookseller in this city ; and it would be the duty of the Board not to in- 168 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH terfei’e, in the remotest degree, with the subject of that action, but, on Ihe othei hand, the Board could not let the present opportimity pass by of recording their sentiments of disapprobation, and even' of abhorrence of the bigoted and intoler¬ ant doctrines promulgated in that work. Their feelings of what was wise, consis¬ tent, and liberal, would suggest sucli a proceeding, even thoup-h the indecent cal¬ umnies of their enemies had not rendered it indispensible. A work called llie British Critic, had, no doubt, been read by some gentlemen who heard him. The circulation of the last number has been very extensive, and exceeded, almost be¬ yond circulation, the circulation of any former number, in consequence of an arti¬ cle whicli appeared in it on the late edition of the Rhemish Testament. He (Mr. O’Connell) said he read that article ; it is extremely unfair and uncandid ; it gives with audacious falsehood, passages, as if from the notes of the Rlieimish Testa¬ ment, which cannot be found in that work ; and, with mean cunning, it seeks to avoid detection by quoting, without giving either text or i:)age. Throughout, it is written in the true spirit of the inquisition, it is violent, vindictive, and uncharita¬ ble. He was sorry to understand that it was written by ministers of the Estab¬ lished Church ; but he trusted, that when the charge of intemperance should be again brought forward against the Catholics, their accusers would cast their eyes on this coarse and illiberal attack — here they may find a specimen of real intemper¬ ance. But the very acceptable w'ork of imputing principles to the Irish people which they never held, and which they abhor, w'as not confined to The British Critic. The Courier, a newspaper whose circulation is immense, lent its hand, and the provincial newspapers throughout England — those jiapers which are forever silent when anything might be said favorable to Ireland, but are ever active to dis¬ seminate whatever may tend to her disgrace or dishonor. They have not hesitated to impute to the Catholics of this country the doctrines contained in those offen¬ sive notes — and it was their duty to disclaim them. Nothing was more remote from the true sentiments of the Irish people. These notes were of English growth ; they were written in agitated times, when the title of Elizabeth was questioned, on the grounds of legitimacy. Party spirit was then extremely violent : politics mixed with religion, and, of course, disgraced it. Queen Mary, of Scotland, had active partisans, who thought it would forward their purposes to translate the Bible, and add to it those obnoxious notes. But very shortly after the establish¬ ment of the College at Douay, this Rhemish edition was condemned by all the Doctors of that Institution, who, at the same time, called for and received the aid of the Scotch and Irish Colleges. The book was thus suppressed, and an edition of the Bible, with notes, was published at Douay, which has ever been since adopted by the Catholic Chtirch ; so that they not only condemned and suppressed the Rlieimish edition, but they published an edition, with notes, to which no objec¬ tion has, or could be, urged. From that period there have been but two editions of the Rhemish Testament ; the first had very little circulation ; the late one was published by a very ignorant printer in Cork, a man of the name of M’Namara, a person who was not capable of distinguishing between the Rhemish and any other edition of the Bible. He took up the matter merely as a speculation in trade. He meant to publish a Catholic Bible, and having put his hand upon the Rhemish edition, he commenced to print it in numbers. He subsequently became bankrupt, and his property in this transaction vested in Mr. Cumming, a respectable book¬ seller in this city, who is either a Protestant or Presbyterian ; but he carried on the work, like M’Namara, merely to make money of it, as a mercantile speculation ; and yet, said Mr. O’Connell, our enemies have taken it up with avidity; they have asserted that the sentiments of those notes are cherished by the Catholics in this country. He would not be surprised to read of speeches in the next Parliament on the subject. It was a hundred to one but that some of our briefless barristers have already commenced composing their didl calumnies, and that we shall have speeches from them, for the edification of the Legislature, and the protection of the Church. There was not a moment to be lost — the Catholics should, with one voice, disclaim those veiy odious doctrines. He was sure there was not a single Catholic in Ireland that did not feel as he did, abhorrence at the principles these notes contain, llliberality has been attributed to the Irish people, but they are grossly wronged. He had often addressed the Catholic people of Ireland, He BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 169 always found them applaud every sentiment of liberality, and the doctrine of per¬ fect freedom of conscience ; the right of every human being to have his religious creed, whatever that creed miglit be, unpolluted by the impious interference of bigoted or oppressive laws. Those sacred rights, and that generous sentiment, were never uttered at a Catholic aggregate meeting, without receiving at the in¬ stant the loud and the unanimous applause of the assembly. “ It might be said that those meetings were composed of mere rabble. Well, be it so. For one, he should concede that, for the sake of argument. - But what fol¬ lowed ? Why, just this : — that the Catholic rabble, without the advantages of education, or of the influence of polished society, were so well acquainted with the genuine principles of Christian charity, that they, the rabble, adopted and ap¬ plauded sentiments of liberality, and of religious freedom, which, unfortunately, met but little encouragement from the polished and educated of other sects.” (Then follows the passage which we have quoted in the preceding article.) “ Mr. C’ConneH’s motion was put and carried, the words being amended thus ; “ ‘ That a Committee be appointed to draw up an address on the occasion of the late publication of the Rhemish Testament, with a view to have the same submit¬ ted to an aggregate meeting.’ ” Such, sir, are the history and the authority of the notes put to the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. The denuncia¬ tion of Dr. Troy spoiled the sale of the work in Ireland, and the publisher sent the remaining copies for sale to this country ; but even this did not remunerate him, as his loss was estimated at <£500 sterling. It must have been from one of these exiled copies, that the Protestant edition, published in this city, now produced, was taken. These being the facts of the case, if I were a Protest¬ ant, I should feel ashamed of a clergyman of my church, who, from either malice or ignorance, should take up such a book, with the un¬ christian view of blackening the character of any denomination of my fellow citizens. But not only this, sir, but look at the array of the names of Protestant ministers, in this city, certifying, contrary to the fixct, that this text and these notes are by the authority of the Catholic Church, and then say, whether there is no prejudice against the Catholics ! I shall now dismiss the subject. Sir, the Methodist gentleman, in the whole of his address, in which he made the charge I have now disposed of, and of which I wish him joy, slyly changed the nature and bearing of my lan¬ guage ill the remarks I made last evening. For instance, respecting Purgatory, of which I observed if they were not satisfied with our Purgatory and wished to go further, they might prove the truth of the proverb, which says they may “go farther and fare worse.” He said I “ sent ” them farther. But that corresponds with the rest. I did not send them farther. I here disavow such feelings in the name of human nature, and of that venerable religion which I profess. But he has seen that “ betting,” as he was pleased to call it, is a sin, because forsooth, “ he would get my money without an equiva¬ lent.” Now I think he suspected the contrary. But I did not pro¬ pose betting, llis calumny had taken me by surprise ; but was it not fortunate, almost providential, that I had at hand a direct refu¬ tation, for if his charge had gone abroad uncontradicted, the igno¬ rant or bigoted would have taken it on his authority, and quoted it with as much assurance as he uM on that of the British Critic — 170 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH and for the same unholy pui'pose. He took me, I say, at an unfair moment, and then it was, I stated, that if the gentleman could prove his charge — there were gentlemen here who had confidence in my word, and I said I would pledge myself to forfeit llOOO to be distributed in charities to the poor, as this council might direct, provided he would agree to the same forfeiture, if he failed to prove it. This is not betting. He says that his Church has taught him the sinfulness of betting. But this did not deserve that name. It was only an ordeal, to test, his confidence in the veracity of the slander contained in the Metho¬ dist Remonstrance. I may not, indeed, have the same scruples about what he calls gambling, that he has ; but I do remember, what he seems to have forgotten, that there is a precept of the Decalogue — a commandment of the living God, which says : “ Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” I now pass to another portion of this gentleman’s remarks. He contends that it is impossible to furnish reading lessons from history for the last ten centuries, without producing what must be offensive to Catholics. The history of Catholics is so black, that the Public Schools could not, in his view, find a solitary bright page to refresh the eye of the Catholic children. This is set forth in the Remon¬ strance of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and this the reverend gentleman undertook to support in his speech. He said that history must not be falsified for our accommodation. That the black and insulting passages against us and our religion, placed in the hands of our children at the Public Schools, were not to be charged as a defect in the system — inasmuch as the Trustees could find worse, but would be obliged to falsify history itself to find better. From this defence you can judge what confidence Catholics can place in this society, or in the schools under their charge. I contended that there existed portions of history eminently hon¬ orable to Catholics. But, says he, “history is philosophy, teaching by example — the good and the bad must be taken together.” Then how does it happen that the bad alone is presented in the Public Schools ? Besides, if all the good and all the bad which history ascribes to Catholics must be presented, it would make a library rather large for a class-book in the Public Schools. Hence the ne¬ cessity of a selection ; and how is it, that in the selection the bad is brought out, and the good passed over in silence as if it did not exist ? Why is tlie burning of Huss selected ? Why the burning of Cranmer ? Why are our children taught in the face of all sense and decency, that Martin Luther did more for learning, than any other man “ since the days of the Apostles !” Why is “ Phelim Maghee ” represented as “ sealing his soul with a wafer,” — in contempt to the holiest mystery known to Catholics, the Sacred Eucharist ? Why are intemperance and vice set forth as the necessary and natural effects of the Catholic Religion ? All this put in the hands of Catho¬ lic children, by this society, claiming to deserve the confidence of Cathohc parents ! BEFORE THE CITT COUNCIL. 171 Now the Methodist gentleman says that all this is right — that the Trustees could not possibly, within the last ten centuries, find history which would not be offensive to Catholics — and that to make it otherwise, it must be falsified. Now, sir, I should like to know, whether it can be expected that we should have any confidence in schools, for the support of which Ave are taxed, in Avhich our re¬ ligious feelings are insulted, our children peiwerted, and AA'hose adAm cates tell us gravely that we ought to be satisfied that things can¬ not be otherwise, unless history is to be falsified for our convenience ! To this Ave never shall consent ! Religious intolerance has done much to degrade us, and its most dangerous instrument was depriv¬ ing us of education. The gentleman (Dr. Bond) has corrected some of my remarks of last evening, on the Methodist Episcopal Church. The fact is, the style of Remonstrance presented here, as emanating from that Church, imposed on me the necessity of alluding to the history and principles of that denomination. It is unpleasant to me, at any time, to use language calculated to Avound the feelings of any sect or class of my felloAV citizens. But they Avho offer the unprovoked insult, must not complain of the retort. I stated that the Methodists in England had never done a solitary act to aid in the s])i-ead of civil and religious liberty in that country ; that Avhilst the Catliolics aided the Dissenters in obtaining the repeal to the Test and Corpo¬ ration Acts, the Methodists never contributed to that measure, by so much as one petition in its favor. But it appears I fell into a mistake, which the gentleman corrected Avith great precision and gravity. The “ Methodist Society,” in England, he tells us, is some¬ thing quite different from the “ Methodist Episcopal Church,” in the United States. The former consider themselves only as a society in the Established Church, just as the religious orders, the Domi¬ nicans, Jesuits, &c., are in the Catholic communion. Certainly it is neAV to me to learn that the Methodists and the Church of England are in such close and affectionate spiritual relationship. For although the Methodists consider themsehms a society within the pale of the Establishment, the members of the Established Church are quite of a different opinion, since it Avas only the other day that I read of a Presbyter of that Church having been susjiend- ed by his Bishop, for having preached in a Methodist Meeting¬ house ! So that the affection of the Methodists for the Church of England, does not appear to be very cordially reci2)rocated. This gentleman tells us that the Methodists, Avho are only a Society ” in England, are an “ EjjiscojAal Church in America.” Yes, sir, Mr. Wesley, Avho Avas himself but a Priest, actually conse¬ crated a Bishop for the United States ! And hence the Methodist E'piscopal Church — a new order of Episcoj^acy, deriving their au¬ thority and character from Mr. John Wesley, a mere Priest. But, with or Avithout Bishops, their Avhole history proA^es how much they imbibed of the intolerance of the established Church of Eng¬ land, to which he tells us they are so intimately allied in that coun- 172 AECHBISIIOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH try, bu t which at all times spurns the connection. This same John Wesley held and wrote that no government ought to grant tolera¬ tion to Catholics ; because, forsooth, either from ignorance of Catho¬ lic doctrines or bigotry against them, he was pleased to believe and assert falsely that they held it lawful to murder heretics. When the government of Great Britain was about to mitigate the code of penal laws and persecution against the Catholics, in 1780, Avho was more fervent and fanatical in opposition to the exercise of mercy than John Wesley ? The great object of the Protestant Association, headed by Lord George Gordon, was to oppose the least mitig.ation of severity. Who was more active in the intellectual operations of that society than Mr. John Wesley? Under the leadership of Lord George Gordon they raised a rebellion in that year, and when the mob had plundered, destroyed, and burnt the houses and churches of the Catholics, spread consternation throughout the city of Lon¬ don, and caused human blood to flow in torrents, we have this same Wesley, with sanctimonious gravity, charging it all on the Catho¬ lics — the victims of its fury — and contending that it was a “ Popish jflot.” His services in that Association had been acknowledged by a unanimous vote of thanks^ dated February 17th -of that very year. This was in 1780 — when the mighty events which had occurred in this country taught the British government the expediency of relax¬ ing the penal laws against so large a portion of her subjects in England and Ireland. The rebound of those events had been felt throughout the world. They were the events created and accom¬ plished by the great fathers of this Republic, then struggling into existence; and whilst Catholics and Protestants fought bravely side by side in the ranks of independence — while a Catholic Carroll was signing its charter, and another Carroll, a Priest, and (tell it not in Gath) a Jesuit, was employed on an embassy to render the population of Canada friendly, or at least not hostile to our strug¬ gle ; whilst a Catholic Commodore, Barry, was doing the office of a founder and father to our young and gallant Uavy, what was John W esley doing ? He was creeping to the British throne to lay at the feet of His Majesty’s government the offer to raise a regiment and j)ut them at the disposal of the crowm, expressly to put down what he called the “ American Rebellion to crush the rising lib¬ erties of your infant country ! Now, sir, I think I was authorized to state that the Methodists have done as little for the sj^read of human liberty, the rights and equality of mankind, as any other denomination^ — no matter how old or how young. If they have not done extensive mischief, of which the gentleman boasts, it is to be remembered that they never possessed sujjreme civil power, and that in the order of time they have been too insignificant, and are still too juvenile to have done extensive evil. If they have done private good, as the gentleman contends, I confess it reminds me of Stephen Girard’s charity. He was exceedingly rich ; and because he was rich, people thought he was very wise. And inasmuch as he despised all external show of BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 173 religion, it was inferred he was very charitable to the poor, without, however making a display of it. If it was so, no man ever prac¬ ticed better the counsel of the Gospel, “ not to let the left hand know what the right hand doeth ” in the matter. It was so private that no one ever could find it out. So it is with the Methodist Church with regard to any public benefit ever conferred on man¬ kind ; Ave have yet to hear of it. I will noAV satisfy the gentleman on another subject which seems to trouble him, and on which he “ should like to know.” And as other gentlemen have alluded to it, I hope the same explanation will suffice in reply to them all. Before the British government released the Catholics from the penalties under which they labored, among which not the least was the exclusion of the schoolmaster, they called upon them to disavow principles which they kneiv Catholics did not entertain. But in order to reconcile the prejudices of the English people, they had an investigation of those imputed principles before the houses of Par¬ liament ; they called upon some distinguished Catholic citizens and questioned them on several points such as those the gentleman has so frequently referred to, among which was the spiritual authority of the Pope. From the testimony which they took I now quote. It is part of the testimony of Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare; ’but other bishops and public men were all examined on the same subject. Question. “ According to the principles which govern the Ro¬ man Catholic Church in Ireland, has the Pope any authority to issue commands, ordinances, or injunctions, general or special, with¬ out the consent of the King?” Answer. “ He has.” “ Question. “ If he should issue such orders, are the subjects of His Majesty, particularly the clergy, bound to obey them ?” Answer. “ The orders that he has a right to issue must regard things that are of a spiritual nature ; and when Ins commands re¬ gard such things, the clergy are bound to obey them ; but Avere he to issue commands regarding things not spiritual, the clergy are not in anyAvise bound to obey them.” Consequently, if His Holiness, as the gentleman, Mr. Ketchum, said, should forbid the reading of the Declaration of Independence, it would not be of any authority. Mr. Ketciiuai. Does the book say so ? Bishop Hughes. I am authority myself in matters of my reli¬ gion. Surely, sir, I am not here to betray it ; and I am astonished that the gentleman is not better acquainted with history on the matter. He amused us a little Avhile ago with the idea of Avhat ter¬ rible consequences might ensue if the Pope, a “foreign potentate,” should forbid us to read the Declaration of Independence ; or forbid the reading of the Bible in our Common Schools. He even apolo¬ gized for his alarm Avith singular simplicity ; “ he meant no reflec¬ tion. This matter had come out in evidence here.” It Avas then, 174 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOIfD SPEECH sir, I wondered at his not having read history, or having read it to so little advantage. Did he not know that, long before the Declaration of Indepen¬ dence, Venice rose out of the sea, a Catholic State, with all her re¬ publican glory round about her ? A.nd when the Pope, in his capa¬ city of “foreign potentate,” attempted to invade her temporal rights, her Catholic sons did what they ought to have done, they unsheathed their swords and routed his troops. Did they thereby forfeit their allegiance to him as spiritual Head of the Church on earth ? Not an iota of it. To a man who reads history, and under*, stands it, this fact alone points out the ditference, in the creed of Catholics, between the Pope and the potentate. The Venetians knew that the Pope, in his spiritual capacity, belongs to a kingdom which is not of this world. And the allegiance of Catholics to him, out of his own small dominions, is due to him only in his spiritual capacity. Whatever temporal right was acquired over independent states by the Popes in former ages, was owing to no principle of Catholic doctrine, but purely to the disorders of the times and the pusillanimity of weak rulers, who, in order to secure the Pope’s pro¬ tection, made themselves his vassals. The Popes, in such circum¬ stances, would have been more or less than men, had they refused to embrace these opportunities of aggrandizement so placed within their reach, and often pressed upon them. Now every Catholic is familiar Avith tins vieAV of the subject, and yet, except a few of larger minds and better education, it has hardly penetrated the density of Protestant prejudice. Hence you hear them giving the most ab¬ surd construction to the duties of Catholics between the supposed contiicting claims of their country and the imputed principles of their religion. Permit me here to call your attention to the true and beautiful exposition of the case as set forth in the language of a gentleman Avho, though a Catholic, is acknowledged to be a man of as high honor, as lofty and patriotic 2irinciples, and as unblemished a character, as any man the nation can boast of: I mean Judge Gaston, of North Carolina. The State has no son of whom she is, or ought to be, prouder. And yet, up till within a few years, the laws of that State disqualified a Catholic from holding any, even the office of a constable. In a s^ieech made by Judge Gaston, in the Convention for revising the State Constitution, in reference to this matter, he says : “ But it has been objected, that the Catholic religion is unfavorable to freedom ; nay, even incompatible with republican institutions. Ingenious speculations on such matters are worth little, and jwove still less. Let me ask who obtained the great charter of English freedom but the Catholic prelates and barons at Itunny- mede ? The oldest, the purest democracy on earth is the little Catholic republic of San Marino, not a day’s journey' from Rome. It has existed now for fourteen hundred years, and is so jealous of arbitrary power, that the executive authority is divided between two Governors, who are elected every three months. Was William Tell, the founder of Swiss liberty, a royalist ? Are the Catholics of the Swiss cantons in love Avitli tyranny? Are the Irish Catholics friends to passive obedience and non-resistance ? Was Lafay'ette, Pulaski, or Kosciusko, a foe to civil freedom ? Was Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, unwilling to jeopard fortune in BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 175 the caiasc of liberty ? Lei me give yoti, however, the testimony of George Wash¬ ington. On his accession to the Presidency, he was addressed by the American Catholics, who, adverting to the restrictions on their worship tlien existing in some of the States, expressed themselves thus: ‘The prospect of national prosperity is peculiarly pleasing to us on another account ; because, while our country preserves her freedom and independence, we shall have well founded title to claim from her justice the equal rights of citizenship as the price of our blood spilt under your eye, and of our common exertions for her defence, under your auspicious conduct.’ This great man, who was utterly incapable of flattery and deceit, utters, in answer, the following sentiments, which I give in his own words : ‘ As mankind becoiwr more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality; and I presume that your fellow-citizens will never forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their rev¬ olution, and the establishment of their government, or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.’ By the by, sir, I would pause for a moment to call 'the attention of this committee to some of the names svabscribed to this address. Among them are those of John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic bishop of the United States ; Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, and Thomas Fitzsimmons. For the characters of these distinguished men, if they needed vouchers, I would confidently call on the venerable President of this Convention. Bishop Carroll was one of the best men and most humble and devout of Christians. I shall never forget a tribute to his memory paid by the good and venerable Protestant Bishop Wliite, when contrasting the piety with which the C hristian Carroll met death, with the cold trifling that characterized the last moments of the skeptical David Hume. 1 know not whether the tribute was more honorable to the piety of the dead, or to the charity of the living prelate. Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, the last survivor of the signers of American Indepen¬ dence — at whose deatli both houses of the Legislature of North Carolina unan¬ imously testified their sorrow, as at a national bereavement ! Thomas Fitzsim¬ mons, one of the illustrious Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, and for several years the Representative in Congress from the city of Phila- delpliia. Were these, and such as these, foes to freedom and unfit for republican¬ ism ? Would it be dangerous to permit such men to be sheriffs and constables in the land ? Read the funeral eulogium of Charles Carroll, delivered at Rome by Bishop England — one of the greatest ornaments of the American Catholic Cliurch — a foreigner, indeed, by birth, but an American by adoption, and who becoming an American, solemn^ abjured all allegiance to every foreign king, prince, and potentate whatever — that eulogium which was so much cai’ped at by English roy¬ alists and English tories — and I think j’ou will find it democratic enough to suit the taste and find an echo in the heart of the sternest republican amongst us. Catholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all political creeds. In all they are taught that the kingdom of Christ is not of this woi-ld, and that it is their duty to render unto Caisar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” I shall now proceed with the testimony of the Irish Bishops m order, which was interrupted by the gentleman’s question. Here, sir, is the testimony of another bishop — Dr. Murray, the present Archbishop of Dublin — before a Committee of the British Parliament. “ To what extent and in what manner does a Catholic profess to obey tbe Pope ? — Solely in spiritual matters, or in such mixed matters as come under his govern¬ ment ; such as marriage, for instance, which we hold to bo a sacrament as well as a civil contract. As it is a sacrament, it is a spiritual thing, and comes under the {‘urisdiction of the Pope ; of course he has authority over that spiritual i)art of it; )ut this authority does not affect the civil rights of the individuals contracling. 176 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH “ Does tills obedience detract from wbat is due by a Catholic to the State under wiiich he lives ? — Not in the least ; the powers are wholly distinct. “ Does it justify an objection that is made to Catholics, that their allegiance is divided ? — Their allegiance in civil matters is completely undivided. “ Is the duty which the Catholic owes to the Poiie, and the duty which he owes to the King, really and substantially distinct? — Wholly distinct ! “ How far is the claim, that some Popes have set up to Temporal Authority, opposed to Scripture and Tradition ? — As far as it may have been exercised as coming from a right granted to him by God, it appears to me to be contrary to Scripture and tradition; but as far as it may have been exercised in consequence of a right conferred on bim by the different Christian powers, who looked up to him at one time as the great parent of Christendom, who appointed him as the arbitrator of their concerns, many of whom submitted their kingdoms to him, and laid them at his feet, consenting to receive them back from him as fiefs, the case is dift'erent. The power that he exercised under that authority of course passed away when those temporal princes who granted it chose to withdraw it. His spiritual jiower does not allow him to dethrone kings, or to absolve their subjects from the allegiance due to them ; and any attempt of that kind I would consider contrary to Scripture and tradition. “ Does the Pope now dispose of temporal affairs within the kingdoms of any of the princes of the Continent ? — Not that I am aware of ; I am sure he does not. “ Do the Catholic clergy admit that all the bulls of the Pope are entitled to obe¬ dience ? — They are entitled to a certain degree of reverence. If not contrary to our usages, or contrary to the law of God, of course they are entitled to obedience, as coming from a superior. We owe obedience to a parent, we owe obedience to the king, we owe it to the law; but if a parent, the king, or the law, were to order us to do anything that is wrong, we would deem it a duty to say, as the Apostles did on another occasion, ‘ We ought to obey God rather than men.’ “ Are there circumstances under which the Catholic clergy would not obey a bull of the Pope ? — Most certainly, “ What is the true meaning of the following words, in the creed of Pius IV. : ‘ I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter?’ — Canonical obedience, in the manner I have just described, within the sphere of his own authority. “ What do the principles of the Catholic religion teach, in respect to the perform¬ ance of civil duties ? — They teach that the performance of civil duties is a consci¬ entious obligation which the law of God imposes on us. “ Is the divine law then quite clear, as to the allegiance due by subjects to their prince ? — Quite clear. “ In what books are to be found the most authentic exposition of the Faith of the Catholic Church ? — In that very creed that has been mentioned, the creed of Pius IV. ; in the Catechism which was published by the direction of the Council of Trent, called ‘ The Roman Catechism,’ or ‘ The Catechism of the Council of Trent ;’ ‘ An Exposition of the Catholic Faith, by the Bishop of Meaux, Bossuet ;’ ‘ Verron’s Rule of Faith ;’ ' Holden’s Analysis of Faith’ and several others.” Such is the character and limitation of the Pope’s authority, at¬ tested under oath, by bishops and other Catholic dignitaries before the British Parliament. The Catholics of Great Bidtain and Ireland had been bowed down to the earth, by penal laws and persecution, during three hundred years — with nothing between them and the enjoyment of all their rights, but the solemnity of an oath. If their conscience had permitted them to swear what they did not believe, they might have entered on their political rights at any time, and yet as martyrs to the sacredness of conscience they resisted. I have now, sir, supplied the reverend gentleman, who presented BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 1V7 the remonstrance from the Methodist Episcopal Church, with all the information which the occasion permits on the subject of the Pope’s authority. But there is a good deal more to which, if time allowed, I might address myself. He became very logical, and insisted on the fact, that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are always the same, immutable. He says that we boast of this ; and we do so, most assuredly. From the hour when they were revealed and taught by divine authority until the present, from the rising to the setting of the sun, the Faith of the Catholic believer, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, are everlastingly and universally the same. But then he concludes, that, as Catholics in some instances in former times persecuted, so, their religion being always the same, they are still bound to persecute, or else disavow the doctrine, as Protestants do. Now, sir, we do disavow and despise the doctrine of persecu¬ tion in all its essence and forms. But does it follow that by this we disavow any doctrine of the Catholic Church ? By no means. And this proves that persecution never was any portion of the Catholic faith ; for if it had been, the denial of it would cut us olf from her communion. The Church we believe, by the promise and superin¬ tendence of Christ, her invisible liead and founder, to be infallible. She received the deposit of the doctrines revealed by our Redeemer and his Apostles ; her office is to witness, teach, and preserve them. These alone constitute the religious creed and doctrines of the Cath¬ olic Church and her members. We believe in a Trinity, the Incar¬ nation of Christ, the Redemption by his death, the Divine Institution of the Church. These and whatever the Church holds, as of Divine Revelation, are the doctrines of our Catholic unity. And the indi¬ vidual who is now addressing you, and the Catholic martyr who is at this moment perhaps bleeding for his faith in China — for the Church has her martyrs still — hold and believe identically the same doctrines. But as there is unity in faith, so there is, in the Church, freedom of opinion on matters which are not determined by any specific revelation. Hence we are republicans, or monarchists, ac¬ cording to individual preference, or the prevailing genius of -the country Ave belong to. Plence, when the Catholic divines at Rheims were appending these notes to their edition of the New Testament, the Catholic bishops of Poland, Avith her twenty-two millions, were opening the doors of the Constitution to the fugitive Protestants of Germany, fleeing from the intolerance and persecution of their fellow Protestants. The one act is as much a Catholic doctrine as the other, because in both cases the agents acted, not by the authority of the Church, but in the exercise of that individual judgment for which their account stands to God. But I must be brief. I cannot follow so many learned speakers through so much matter that is foreign to the subject ; for I agree with the medical gentleman who said that neither the Catholic nor the Protestant religion was on trial here ; it is not religious creeds that are to be tested by this Council. I have, hoAvever, gtten this explanation, and I trust it Avill be received, though it may have been 12 178 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH todions, as having its apology in the remai’ks which called, it forth. I only Avish that the gentleman who made the observation had made it one hour and a half sooner ; it would have sailed all I have said on the sniiject. But this speaker also [Doctor Reese], lectured me for attending certain meetings, as if it were a descent from my dignity to find my¬ self in an assembly of freemen. I did not consider it as a descent. But really when I came here in the simple character of a citizen, I did not think I should be vested with my otficial robes for the purpose of being attacked. Individuals as respectable as he attended those meetings, and I consider it no disgrace to have been there or here ; for even if this petition came not from Catholics, but from Metho¬ dists, or any other Protestant denomination, whose consciences ivere violated by this system, I should be found in their midst supporting their claim. Let me add, too, that I Avmuld rather be so found, than, for all the exchequer of the Public School Society, exchange places with gentlemen, and have conscience and right for my opponents. He also contended that this want of confidence in Catholics was the result of my appeals, foi'getting that the state of things which is noAV brought under public notice has existed for years, by efibrts to pro¬ vide a safe education for our children, long before those meetings Avere called, and before I attended them. And besides, I conceive it is my bounden duty, if I saw principles inculcated Avhich Avill sap the young minds of our children — and I haAm no doubt this Honora¬ ble Board will say it is my duty — to warn them and to bring them Avithin the pale of that authority which they acknowledge. I won¬ der if Presbyterian gentlemen would see Catholic books circulated amongst their children and not Avarn their people against them ? I wonder, if these books contained reading lessons about Calvin and the unhappy burning of Servetus, whether they would not warn their people. I say, if they believe in their religion, they would be in the discharge of their duty. And while on this subject, it occurs to me at this moment, that in the wide range of observation Avhich has been taken, reference has been made to national education in Ire¬ land. And we are told that after books had been agreed upon, the bishops sent the question to Rome, to be decided by the Pope. What question? Can they tell? for I am sure I cannot. To this day, I have never understood the exact nature of the reference to tlie Pope, but, sir, this is no extraordinary thing. Under the jealous eye of the British government, even in the darkest hour of her cru¬ elty to Catholics, their intercourse Avith Rome was not interrupted. But while that collection and compilation of Scripture lessons was agreed on in the more Catholic parts of the country Avhere tlie pop¬ ulation is divided betAveen Protestants and Catholic, what is the fact ? Why, in another part, the North of Ireland, where the Pres¬ byterians are more numerous, they had conscientious objections to this selection of Scripture, they asserted their objections, and the British government recognized them ; and thus while these lessons by agreement were in general use, an exception was made in favor BEFORE THE CITY COUXCIL. 179 of the Presbyterians, who had objections to the use of anything but the naked wo]-d of God ; and I say, honor to those Presbyterians. Tlie Catholics sent in no remonstrance. But if the rule applied to their case, by w’hat authority will your honorable body determine that it shall not apply to ours ? Oh ! I perceive. The gentleman, whose remarks I am reviewing, reasoned on until he arrived at the conclusion that there were no conscientious grounds for our objec- jection at all. True, we said we had ; but he could not see what conscience had to do with a matter so plain. He said, here the community had built up a beautiful system ; it was doing good ; he asked shall- tve put it aside in deference to pretended scruples? How, tell me when the despotism of intolerance ever said anything else than this ? Why, the established church of England said, “ we are doing good,” “ our doors are open to all,” “ the minister is at the desk, and the bread of life is distributed for the public good.” Wh.at then? What business have these unhappy parents to find fault for conscience sake and squeamishness? Now, sir, objections can exist to the slightest shade of violation to our conscience, and therefore, I did not expect to hear this argviment at this time of day. But the gentleman speaks of my addressing the public meetings to which he has alluded, as though my speaking there had been the cause instead of the consequence of the scruples of our people. Then it was I joined them to seek a remedy for our just complaint, but if in your wisdom this body shall think proper to deny, it we must bear it. He contended again that it would be turning the public money to private uses. That seems to me to have been fully answered. He also contended that it would be the giving of the money of the State to support religion. That I have clispiited ; for if so I shall have no objection to join those gentlemen in their remonstrance. But at the same time it does appear strange to me that the gentleman, who pretends to have read the Scriptures tvuth so much attention, should not have learned that principle — the most general, sir, and the most infallible of Christian principles for the guidance of our conduct — “Do UNTO OTHERS AS YE WOULD THAT OTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO YOU.” That is the principle ; and is it not strange that such opjRc sition should be made to us when it is known that money raised by public tax goes to the support of literature under the supervision of the Methodist Episcopal Church? And why do not Catholics object to that ? Because the tax does not belong to any particular sect ; it is thrown into a common fund and applied to such uses as the legislature in its wisdom thinks proper. We, six*, however, ask for our own and nothing else. But if you say that we shall be taxed for a system which is so organized that we cannot participate in it without detiument to the religious rights of our children, then I say that injustice is done even to our civil rights ; for taxation is the basis of even civil rights. And I was not a little struck in the course of the argument, that some gentlemen should refer with so much emphasis as to a circumstance novel and unparalleled even in social 180 AECHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH life — that a certain class of gentlemen should petition for what ? The privilege of being taxed! They deemed it ^ lirivilege^ and that was wonderful ! and merit was ascribed to them for it. Yes, sir, but did it go to the extent only of their own pockets ? Or did it not reach the pockets equally of those who did not petition ? If to themselves only, it was all fair, and proper, disinterested and patri¬ otic : but great emjjhasis was laid on this class being most “ intelli¬ gent” and “ wealthy” and “ respectable,” nobility almost, as though a question of this kind was intended for a j^articular class. But let me tell you the honest man who occupies only a bed in a garret, is also a tax payer. Why give him a vote ? Because he pays tax for the space he occupies. If he occupies a room and pays the tax, his rent is less — if the landlord pays, his rent is so much more. So, if he occupies a garret, or if he boards, it goes down to that, for the person who keeps the boarding-house pays the rent ; if that tax is paid by the boarding-house keeper the rent is so much less than if the tax was paid by the landlord. If the boarding-house keeper pays the tax, he charges more for board. So that the boarder is a tax payer, and it is so understood in our broad and excellent system of representation. The exclusive merit of this tax, then, is not to be given to any particular class, no matter how wealthy ; and I was surprised that so much emphasis should be laid on it. I did not suppose that the interests of the poor were to be sacrificed to the respectability of the rich. The poor pay too ; and it is a beautiful and admirable thing to see what a dignity this confers on human nature — what an interest this excites in the poor. I recollect pass¬ ing along a street some time since, and I observed a little house, almost a shed or hovel, some fourteen or sixteen feet square, which was too small to be divided into two compartments. It had but one window, and this had originally had four panes of glass, but one having been broken it was darkened. There had been some politi¬ cal party triumph ; the boys in the streets had their drums out and there appeared to be a popular rejoicing, and there I saw three lights burning in the window of this poor habitation. I was amused to see that a man living in so poor a hovel, and unable to buy a fourth jjane of glass, should find means to light the other three. But on further reflection I said to myself, “ there is philosophy there.” What other nation can exhibit such a spectacle ? This poor man, who must toil till the day he goes to his grave, participates in a political triumph. His bread has to be earned by daily toil never¬ theless ; though the triumph perhaps will never benefit him, he exhibits a glorious spectacle to the world. He is a man — he feels it is recognized. It is a nation’s homage oftered to human nature. He is a man and a citizen ; and on reflection I was delighted at a sjiectacle so glorious as this. But returning to the subject, they say all religion is left to volun¬ tary contribution. N ow is this true in the sense in which it is here applied ? Are not chaiilains apiiointed to public institutions which are supported by the public money ? And have you not given it to BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 181 the Protestant Oi'phan Asylum, and the Half-orphan Asylum? Have you not given it to the Catholic Benevolent Society? And do you sup¬ pose the Wesleyan Catechism is taught there? Do you suppose the Catholic Catechism is taught in the Protestant Asylums ? One gentle¬ man argued that you had not the power to do this. But if you have done it, does not that prove that you had the power ? If you had power to do that you have power equally to do this. I shall go further. I find in the Report of the Regents of the University, that the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary — Theological Seminary, as I under¬ stand — has last year received $1,395.56 of the public money. This is not exclusively literary, as I understand it — Dr. Bangs. Altogether literary. Bishop Hughes. I M'as under the impression that it was Theolo¬ gical, and that religion was admitted. But those in this city furnish evidence that a religious profession does not disqualify. I believe now, sir, I have gone through the substance at least, if not through every particular, of what has been said by the gentle¬ men who interpose their remonstrances and their arguments in opposition to our rightful claim. I Avill now read one authority, and I am the more willing because it is from the Public School Society themselves. It is from the memorial which they presented to the Legislature in the Session of 1823, in which they state, page 7, “It will not be denied ” — recollect I do not quote this to show that our petition ought to be granted ; but that, whatever opinion these gen¬ tlemen may now have ofAhe unconstitutionality of granting this claim, they saw nothing unconstitutional in the practice then, and I know of nothing so far as the constitution is concerned, neither of the State, nor of the United States — I know of no enactment which should change their opinion : “ It ■will not be denied, in this enlightened age, that the education of the poor is enjoined by our holy religion, and is therefore one of the duties of a Christian Church. Nor is there any impropriety in committing the School Fund to the hands of a religious society, so long as they are confined, in the appropriation of it, to an object not necessarily connected or intermingled with the other concerns of the church, as for instance to the payment of teachers, because the State is sure in this case, that the benefits of the fund, in the way it designed to confer them, will be reaped by the poor. But the objection to the section sought to be repealed is, that the surplus moneys after the payment of teachers, is vested in the hands of the trustees of a religious society, and mingled with its other funds, to be ap¬ propriated to the erection of buildings under the control of the trustees, which buildings may, and in aU probability will, be used for other purposes than school houses.” That is the statement of the Public School Society itself; and throughout this document — while the gentlemen here have been wielding against our petition the influence of respectable and wealtliy classes — I find that before the acquisition of their monopoly, they advocated the claims of the poor whc cannot buy education — ■ sometimes scarcely bread. This is the class to whose welfare the eye of the enlightened, the patriotic, and the benevolent should be directed — this is the class that essentially requires education. Thus 182 AECHBISHOP hughes’ SECOND SPEECH they say, “The School Fund is designed for a civil purjose, for such is the education of the poory Again, they say that the New York Free School (that was their own Society) has “ one single object, the education of the poor.^' x\gain, the Board of Trustees is annually chosen, etc., “/or the edu¬ cation of the poor." And yet now I could point out thousands of oil}’ poor who are destitute of education, and who have no means to provide it. We do what we can, but we are too limited in means to raise, of ourselves, a sutRcient fund ; we have labored under great disadvantages ; we have taught the catechism in our schools, because, while 'we siq^ported them we had the right to do so ; but if you put them on the footing of the common schools we shall be satistied, and the State will secure the education of our children ; you will secure them an education on the basis of morality, for they had better be brought up under the morality of our religion, though gentlemen object, than none at all. They say the objection to the present schools is that there they are made Protestants. No, sir, it is be¬ cause they are made Nothingarians, for we cannot teU what they are. I have now concluded ; and if I have been obliged to trespass long upon your patience, recollect, as some extenuation, that I had a great deal to reply to in the arguments of gentlemen which were urged to overthrow the principles of our petition, but had no bear¬ ing on the petition at all. We do not ask for the elevation of the Catholics over others, but for the protection to which all are en¬ titled. The question is exceedingly plain and simple. If it has or can be shown that we are claiming this money for sectarian purposes, then I should advise you to withhold it. But if in honesty, and truth, and sincerity, it is a right belonging to us as citizens, to re¬ ceive our pro rata, then we appeal to you with confidence. From the sentiments expressed here on behalf of the Public School Society, you can judge of the chance that Catholic children have in those schools, to have their religious rights respected. It will be, as perhaps it has been, considered a great and good work to detach them from a religion which is supposed “ to teach the lawfulness of murdering heretics.” Infidelity itself will be con¬ sidered preferable to Catholicism in their regard, for one reverend gentleman has told you that if there was no alternative, he would embrace the doctrines of Voltaire rather than the religion of a Cheverus or a Fenelon. If the Catholics have been obliged to keep their children from those schools in time past, you may imagine what efiects these sentiments, this animus of the system is likely to have on their minds for the time to come. But if it is our religious ^ ^ o right to have a conscience at all, do not take pains to pervert it, for we shall not be better citizens afterwards. Do not teach us to slight the admonitions of our conscience. Reverse our case and make it your own, and then you will be able to judge. IVIake it your own case, and suppose your children were in the case of those poor children for whom I plead ; then suppose what your feelings would be if the blessings of education were provided bountifully by tfie BEFOEE THE CITY COUISrCIL. 183 State, and yon wei'e nnable to participate in those blessings, unless you were willing to submit that your conscience should be trenched upon. Here the Right Rev. Prelate sat down after having spoken for nearly three hours and a half. SPEECHES OF THE RT. REV. DR. HUGHES, IN CARROLL HALL. BEING A REVIEW AND REFUTATION OF THE REMONSTRANCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, AND OF THE ARGUMENT OF HIRAM KETCHUM, ESQ., THEIR COUNSEL, ON THE COMMON SCHOOL QUESTION. Wednesday Evening, June 16, 1841. Public notice having been given in the daily papers of the city, that Bishop Hughes would commence a Review and Refutation of the argument which was made by Hiram Ketchum, Esq., before a Committee of the Legislature, at Albany, in opposition to the Bill and Report of the Secretary of State, on the subject of Common School education in the city of New York, a very large and respectable assemblage convened in Carroll Hall, on that even¬ ing, to hear the address of the Bishop. Among the gentlemen present, we noticed the Hon. Luther Bradish, Lieutenant-Governor, and several of the Senators of the State, who were then in attendance in the city of New York, as members of the Court for the Correction of Errors. At the hour specified in the notice, the meeting was organized, by the appointment of Thomas O’Connor, Esq., Chairman, and Bernard O’Connor, Esq., Secretary. Rt. Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose and spoke as follows : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — The subject of education is one which at this time agitates, more or less, every civilized nation. If we look across the ocean, we find it the subject of discussion in France, in Priussia, in Hol¬ land, in Belgium, in Ireland, and even in Austria. It is not surprising then that this subject which has but lately attracted the attention of governments • and nations, should become one of deep and absorbing interest. But of all these nations there is, perhaps, not one which has placed education on that basis, on which it is destined successfully, in the end, to repose. In countries in which the inhabitants profess the same religion, whatever that religion may be, the subject is deprived of many of its difficulties. But in nations in which there is a variety of religious creeds, it has hitherto been found one of the most perplexing of all questions, to devise a system of edu¬ cation which should meet the approbation of all. This subject has engaged the attention of our own government. In every State of the Union it has already been acted upon more or less fully, and in all these instances, whetlier we regard Euro])e or regard this country, we find that thero is not a solitary instance in which religion, or religious instruction in a course of education, has been j)roscribed, with the exception of the city of New York. And 184 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES this proscription of religion in this city is not an act of public authority ; there is no statute authorizing such an act — it has been the result rather of an erroneous construction put upon a statute, and which has been acquiesced in, rather than approved, for the last sixteen years. In the operation of that system, Catholics felt themselves virtually excluded from the benefits of education. Very shortly after that construction of the law was adopted, they felt themselves obliged to proceed in the best way that their poverty would allow for the education of their children ; and whilst they have been taxed with the other citizens, up to the present hour they have derived no benefit from the system supported by that “taxation, but on the contrary, after having contributed what the law required, have been obliged to throw themselves back on their own resources, and provide, as well as they might, for the means of educating their children. We have, from time to time, complained of this state of things. It has frequently been brought before the notice of the public. A society — pro¬ fessedly the friend of education — having exercised supreme control over the whole question, we had no resource but to apply to that tribunal, which the law had authorized to use its discretion in distributing the money set apart for the purposes of education. We always insisted, in good faith, that the object — the benevolent object of this government wms, the education of the rising generation, and we never conceived that the question of religion, or no religion, had entered into the minds of those philanthropic public men who first established this system for the diffusion of knowledge. We applied, as I have remarked, at different times, to the tribunal to which allusion has been already made, and did so even till a very recent period, because, before we could apply to the Legislature of the State, it was requisite to comply with the forms prescribed, and that w'e should be first rejected by the Com¬ mon Council of this city, to whom the State Legislature had delegated the discretionary power to be exercised in the premises. That course was re¬ garded necessary, and we adopted it. The result was as we anticipated — denial of our request — and then it was that we applied to the Legislature of the State — submitted to them the grievances under which we labored, in the full confidence that there w'e should find a remedy. Both before the Common Council and the Senate of this State the means W'hich have been taken to defeat the proper consideration of our claims itave been such as we could not have anticipated in a country where the rights of conscience are recognized as supreme. The test has been put, not as to Mdiether we were proper subjects for education, but whether we were Catholics ! And in the course of the examination on which I am about to enter, I shall have occasion to show that, from the beginning to the end, the one object of the members of the Public School Society has been to con¬ vince the public that we were Catholics, and they, it would appear, calcu¬ late, as the consequence, that if we were Catholics, then we had no right to obtain redress, or hope for justice. In the course of my remarks, I shall be obliged to refer to distinctions in religion, the introduction of wdiich into the discussion of this question is ever to be much regretted ; I shall have to speak of Catholics and of Prot¬ estants, and when I do so, let it be understood that I do not volunteer in that ; but the course pursued by that Public School Society has imposed upon me the necessity to refer to these religious distinctions, and in doing so, I trust I shall be found to speak of those who differ from me in matters of religion with becoming respect. I am not a man of narrow feelings — I am attached sincerely and conscientiously to the faith which I profess, but I judge no man for professing another. In the whole of my intercourse with Protestants, my conduct has been such that they will be ready to acknowledge, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, that I am the last man to be SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 185 Rccnsed of bigotry. But I feel that I should be unworthy of th£.t estima¬ tion — tliat the denomination to which I belong would be unworthy of sus¬ taining that position which they are ambitious to occupy in the opinion of their fellow-citizens of other creeds, if they were to submit to the insult added to the injury inflicted on them by these men. I, for my own part, feel indignant at the recent attempt made to cast odium upon us and our cause, and it is because that turns entirely on the question of religion, that I shall be obliged to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and to refer to those distinctions which should never have been introduced. Before taking up the Keport cf the Secretary of State, I shall refer briefly to the conclusion of the discussion before the Common Council. There we had, as you will recollect, legal gentlemen, and reverend gentlemen, advo¬ cates of the Public School Society, who had studied the question in all its bearings — volunteers and associates, and colleagues, on the same side, and throughout that debate the ground taken by them was, that if our petition were granted, favors would be conferred on us as a religious denomination, tending to that, against which all the friends of liberty should guard — a union of Church and State. So long as that idea was honestly entertained by these gentlemen, I could respect their zeal in opposing us. But that idea has disappeared, and yet their oj)position has become more inveterate than ever. The very last sentence of the speech of Mr. Ketchum before the Common Council of the city of ISTewYork, was a declaration that this Society, so far from desiring a collision of this kind with us, were men of peace, to whom even the moral friction of the debate was quite a punishment ; that for them it would be a relief, if our system of education were assimilated in its external aspect to that of the State. I will read his own words ; “ Now, perhaps the gentleman may ask, if the system is to be changed, that we should resort to the same course as is pursued in the country, where the people elect their own Commissioners and Trustees. But if we do, the schools must be governed on the same principles as these, and the only difference will be in the managers. And if it is to come to that, I am sure these Trustees will be very willing, for it is to them a source of great vexation to be compelled to carry on this controversy for such a period. “ They are very unwilling to come here to meet their fellow-citizens in a somewhat hostile manner. They have nothing to gain, for the Society is no benefit to them, and they give days and weeks of their time, without recompense, to the discharge of the duties of their trust.” I shall not now praise that Society. I have more than once given my full assent to eulogiums on their zeal and assiduity ; but Mr. Ketchum praises them and they praise themselves, and at this period of the contro¬ versy, they are entitled to no praise from the thousands and thousands of the poor neglected children of New York, whom their narrow and bigoted views have excluded from the benefits and blessings of education. I shall now, before proceeding farther, take up the Report of the Secre¬ tary of State, and commence with that portion of it in which he gives a brief sketch of the origin of this Society : “ The Public School Society was originally incorporated in 1805, by chapter 103 of the laws of that session, which is entitled ‘An act to incorporate the Society instituted in the city of New York, for the establishment of a free school for the education of poor children who do not belong to or are not provided for by any religious Society.’ In 1808 its name was changed to ‘The Free School Society of New York;’ and its powers were extendM ‘ to all children who are the proper subjects of a gratuitous education.’ By chapter iio of the Laws of 1828, its name was changed to ‘ The Public School Society of New York ;’ and the Trustees were authorized to provide for the education of ail children in New York not otherwise provided for, ‘ whether such children be or be not the proper subjects of gratuitous education;’ and to require from those attending the schools a moderate compensation; but no child to be refused admission on account of inability to pay. ” 186 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. “Thus, by tbe joint operation of tbe acts amending the c'. arter of the Society, of the statutes in relation to the school moneys, and of the ordinal ce of the Common Council, designating the schools of tlie Society as the principal recijiients of those moneys, the cont rol of the public education of the city of New York, and the disbursement of nine- tentlis of the public moneys raised and apportioned for schools, were vested in this corporation. It is a perpetual corporation, and there is no power reserved by the Legis¬ lature to repeal or modify its charter. It consists of members who have contributed to the funds of the Society ; and, according to the provisions of the last act,, the payment of ten dollars constitutes the contributor a member for life. The members annually choose fifty Trustees, who may add to their number fifty more.” He goes on to describe its different acts by which its name and other attributes were changed, until from being a Society to take charge of the children that were not provided for by any religious Society, they came to have the control of the whole system of education in Hew York. The Re¬ port informs us that the meml^ers of the Public School Society are so by virtue of a subscription of ten dollars; that they elect fifty Trustees; that these fifty Trustees have a right to appoint fifty others, and then the num¬ ber is completed; that the City Council are members ex-officio, and this will, perhaps, go a great way in explaining the unwillingness of the Com¬ mon Council to grant our petition. The Society was so constituted, that when we went before the Common Council, we virtually went before a committee of the Society. In this state of things the Governor of this State, with a patriotism and benevolence that entitle his name to the respect of every man that has regard for humane feeling and sound and liberal policy, declared for a system that would aftbrd a good common education for every child. And though I have never before spoken in public the name of that distinguished officer of the State, I do now from my heart award to him my warmest thanks, and those of the community to which I belong, for the stand he has taken on this subject. An attempt has been made to victimize him because he favored Catholics — he dared to manifest a humane and liberal feeling towards foreigners. He survived that shock, however, and a recent excellent document from him, showing that he is not any longer a candidate for jjublic favor, authorizes me to say in this place, that every man who loves his country and the interests of his race, no matter what may be his politics, will cordially render the tribute of esteem and praise due to Governor Seward. [The chairman had, on taking his place, requested the meeting to refrain from interrupting the Right Rev. Speaker, or giving any demon¬ strations of applause, but here they could not restrain their feelings, and testified their concurrence in the sentiments of the Bishop in reference to Governor Seward, by a loud and enthusiastic burst of applause.] Governor Seward knew too well. Bishop Hughes continued, the deep seated prejudices of a large portion of the community, not to feel that h'e had nothing to gain by being the advocate of justice to Catholics. But whatever may be that distinguished statesman’s future history, whatever his situation, however much thwarted and opposed, and, perchance, for a moment partially defeated by those who call themselves the friends of education, it will be glory enough for him to have inscribed upon his monument, that whilst Governor of the State of New York, he wished to have every child of that noble State, endowed and adorned in mind and intellect, and morals, with the blessings of education. (Reneweel cheers.) When therefore we presented, as every oppressed portion of the com¬ munity has a right to do, our grievances to the Honorable Legislature of the State, these gentlemen, who are repi’esented by Mr. Ketchum, through a Bl)eech of nine mortal columns — as the humble almoners of the public charity— these men who are burthened with their load of official duty SPEECHES IH CAEEOLL HALL. 187 wbicli they are willing, Mr. Ketchura says, to put off, pursue us thither with unabated hostility. We su2)posed- that the Public School Society would acquiesce in the justice of the jilan of the Secretary. No, these humble men, all 7eal for the cause of education, enter the halls of legislation with a determined spirit of ojoj^osition to us, which is perhajjs unjiaralleled, considering the circumstances under which they acted. One of the most difficult j)oints in treating with these gentlemen is, to ascertain in what 2)articular situation, and under what particular circum¬ stances, their res2)onsibility may be discovered. They are, it is said, but agents, they are wealthy and 2)owerful, have every advantage in opposing humble petitioners as we are, and with all these advantages they j^resented tliemselves there, not to dispute the justice of our claims, nor the correct¬ ness of the ground on which the Honorable Secretary placed the question before the Senate, but to ajojoeal even in the minds of Senators, to whatever they might find there of prejudice against the Catholic religion, and the foreigner and the descendants of the foreigner. One of the documents of which they made use, was published in the “Journal of Commerce.” This question had been, in the Senate, made the sjoecial order of the day, for, I think, Friday, the 20th of May. In the “Journal of Commerce” of the previous day, there was jaublished a most calumnious article, full of all those traditions against our religion, which the minds of some of these denominations inherit ; and the Agent of the Public School Society, sent, as we should understand, to represent justice and truth between citizens of the same country, is found distributing this paper all over the desks of the senators ! On that very day it was supjiosed that the vote on this very question would be taken, and the agent of the Public School Society is found sujjplying the senators — for I have a copy of the pajjers thus furnished, with the member’s name written at the top, and the article referred to, marked with black lines, so that there could be no over looking it — with an article containing a mock excommunication, a burlesque invented by Sterne, and inserted in his Tristram Shandy, but quoted by the Public School Society, (for I hold it to be their act till they disclaim it,) as a part of our creed, and made the ground of a sneer at the Secretary : “ Tliese are precious princijjles to be 2)reserved in the con¬ sciences of your petitioners !” Pieligious j^rejudice will have its reign in the world. But it is a low feeling, especially is it a low feeling in a country, in the fundamental princif)les of whose government and laws the great fathers of our liberties insisted that conscience and religion should be ever free, and be regarded as above all law. There was to be no toleration, for that imjjlied the ^iower not to tolerate ; the word w'as therefore excluded from the language of American jurisjjrudence. And that being the case, it was painful to find an honorable body of men, as the members of the Public School Society are regarded to be, employing such a means of ap^rroaching the Senate of New York — that Senate, to which Justice, if she found not a resting place uj)ou the globe, like the dove to the ark, might return, and expect every hand to be stretched out to receive her. (Loud api^lause.) If they deny that they apjjroached that Senate with that document — too vile and filthy to be read in this audience ; but if any gentleman has the curiosity to see it, here (holding up a volume of Tristram Shandy) he may read it word for word — let them call their agent to account. We will not let them rob us of our reputation. We stand ambitious to be con¬ sidered worthy of membership in the great American family — let them not, after dejn’iving us of the benefit of our taxes, destroy our reputation. I will now, after this introduction, take up the “Remonstrance” of tie Society It is inqiossible for me not to feel indignant, when I think how 188 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. these high-minded men have treated us, when I recollect that this same gentleman, who acted as their agent and distributed that calumnious paper, was once a candidate for office, and gladly received the signatures of Catholics. And this was the recompense he offered. I know not by whom this “ Remonstrance” was drawn up, I know not whether all the members of the Board of Trustees approved of it, but if they did, I trust there were no Catholics present. In page 3 of this “ Remonstrance,” which is signed by the President, “ Robert C. Cornell,” we find the following declaration introductory to the subject : “ The Legislature therefore in 1813, when the first distribution was made, very naturally appropriated the amount apportioned to this city to these schools in the ratio of the number of children taught in each. This mode of distribution continued until 1824, when the subject was again brought before the legislature by the jealousies, disputes, and difficulties which had arisen among the recipients, and the conflicting parties presented themselves at Albany for the purpose of sustaining their respective claims.” Now in all tbe foregoing applications, in all tbe reports made by com¬ mittees of tbe Common Council, you will find there has not been one in which the subject of religion was not referred to as the ground of the refusal of our claims ; in which it was not assumed that the laws were opposed to giving education money, the Public School Fund or any portion of it, to any religious denomination. This principle, it has been pretended, and the disputes among the sects, led to the alteration of the law in 1824. But if we refer back to the memorial proceeding from this Society itself, we will find that no such thing existed at the time. We find, that Mr. Leonard Bleecker sent a memorial at that very jferiod, 1824, in which he says : “ It will not be denied, in this enlightened age, that the education of the poor is enjoined by our holy religion, and is therefore, one of the duties of a Christian church. Nor is there .any impropriety in committing the school fund to the hands of a religious society, so long as they are confined in the appropriation of it, to an object no-Vueces- sarily connected, or intermingled with the other concerns of the church, as for instance to the payment of teachers, because the state is sure in this case, that the benefits of the fund, in the way it designed to confer them, will be reaped by the poor. But the objection to the section sought to be repealed is, that the surplus moneys, after the payment of teachers, is vested in the hands of the Trustees of a religious society, and mingled with its other funds, to be appropriated to the erection of buildings under the control of the trustees, which buildings may, and in all probability will, be used for other purposes than school houses.” Here was the ground taken, and yet we hear these gentlemen before the Common Council say it was on account of constitutional difficulties, and religious differences ; whereas it was simply because the money had been used for an improper purpose. In page 5 of this “ Remonstrance,” this Society t.akes the ground, in opposition to the view of its being a monopoly, and a close corporation, which it in fact is — that the same objection might be used against hos- Ijitals, asylums for the blind, the ins.ane and the mute, dispensaries, and houses of refuge, and they institute a comparison between these institutions and the Public Schools. Now, as to the fact, that the Public School Society is a close coi^Doration, they themselves do not deny that all citizens are excluded except those who can afford to pay $10 for membership. They do not deny that, but justify it on the ground that inasmuch as there .are corporations for the management of such institutions as I have named, the same reason exists for the constitution of a corporation for the direction of the Public Schools. And where then, pray, are the rights with which nature and nature’s God have invested th« parents of these children ? Pray, are they, who are SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 189 held competent to decide on the gravest questions affecting :he interests of the nation, unworthy to have a voice in the education of their own children ? And must they resign that to a corporation resijonsible neither to them nor to the public in any formal way ? And pray, are the people of New York lunatics, that they must have a corporation of keepers apjjointed over them ? If the doctrine of this “memorial” be correct, they are to be so considered. But there is this difference, they pay taxes for education, and they have a right to a voice and a vote in the manner in which their money is to be expended. If the people are to be treated as lunatics, mutes, or inmates of the house of refuge, then the argument of the Public School Society is a good one. I think the comparison instituted in the “ Kemonstrance” utterly fails. I cannot chvell longer upon it. I now' come to a charge made against the petitioners : “ At one time it was declared ‘ the Public School system of the city of New York ia entirely favorable to the sectarianism of Infidelity, and opposed only to that of positive Christianity,’ that ‘ it leaves the will of the pupil to riot in the fierceness of unrestrained lusts,’ and is ‘ calculated to make bad and dangerous citizens.’ ” Now it is true, that we did view the Society as being opposed to religion. There can be no doubt of that. But if that be true, it is equally true that the evidence on wdiich we built that conclusion was furnished by them¬ selves. And how ? In every report of their’s, it appears that if any thing like a religious society presented itself, that character wms enough to decide them in resisting its application. You will find this evidenced in their vindication and defence, both by Mr. Sedgw’ick and Mr. Ketchum. They contended that what they meant by religious instruction, was not religious instruction — and so it may be proper for me to enter a little into the exa¬ mination of the meaning of these words. When the Trustees make the religious character of a society the ground of denying them a portion of their funds, what is it that constitutes the objection? They do not decide against the infidel ; for it seems if the ap¬ plicants had d-ivested themselves of a religious character — if men of no religious profession — of no belief in a God or a future state, had presented themselves, no objection would be made, and on their owm premises the Trustees w'ould be obliged to concede to their request. What then was the reason of the refusal, except the religious character of the appli¬ cants ? And had we not fair ground here for inferring that they are op¬ posed to religion ? Examine their reports. Here is one ; A Report of the Committee on Arts, Sciences, and Schools of the Board of Assistants, on appropriating a portion of the school money to religious societies for the support of schools. This is document No. 80, and at page 380 w'C read as follows : “The amount of one hundred and seven thousand dollars and upwards, as hereto¬ fore stated, has been raised by annual tax in the city for purposes of a purely civil and secular character.” Well, if the education is to be purely “civil and secular,” is religion mingled wfith it at all ? And if religion is not to be mingled with it at all, then had we not a right to infer from their owm docunrent that they were op¬ posed to religion, and brought up the children without any knowledge of their responsibility to God, or of a future life, or of any of those great princij)les of religion on which the rery security of society depends ? Were we not justified in the inference? They refused our apjfiication because w'C professed religion ; and had we not a right to keep our children from the influence of a system of education that attempted to make a divorce between literature — that is, such literature as is suited for the infant mind — and religion; and to give instruction of a civil and secular 190 Ar.CIIBISIIOP HUGHES. character,” for which we are told $107,000 had been expended ? How, I ask, can Mr. Cornell stand up and deny our charge, when such indisputable evidence of its truth is presented by their oion documents ? Did jVlr. Cornell, when they defeated us, find fault with the committee of the Assistants’ Board, because they charged the Society with excluding religion from education? No! No! Enough it was that religious socie¬ ties should be defeated, and that they should continue to wield their com¬ plex monopoly. No matter that they w'ere charged with having no reli¬ gion. No matter at all that their education was then described as “laurely civil and secular !” This document goes on — “The appropriation of any part of that sum to the supjmrt of schools in which the religious tenets of any sect are taught to any extent.'" Well, if you excluded the tenets of all sects, you excluded all religion, because there is no religion except what is included in the tenets of sects. I defy you to teach the first principles of religion without teaching the tenets of sectarianism ! Then it was on the faith of their own documents that we charged on them the character which they had assumed, on the strength of which they had successfully opposed, one after another, all the denominations who reverence religion. The document proceeds ; — “ would be a legal establishment of one denomination of religion over another, would conflict with all the principles and purposes of our free institutions, and would violate the very letter of that part of our constitution which so emphatically declares, that ‘ The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without d'hscrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this State to all mankind.’ By granting a portion of the School Fund to one sect to the exclusion of others, a ‘ prefer¬ ence ’ is at once created, a ‘ discrimination ’ made, and the object of the great eonstitu- tional guarantee is defeated ; taxes are imposed for the support of religion, and freedom of conscience if not directly trammelled and confined, is not left in the perfect and un¬ shackled state which our systems of government were intended to establish and perpe¬ tuate. No difference can be perceived in principle between the taxing of the people of England for the support of a church establishment there, and the taxing of the people of New York for the support of schools in which the doctrines of religious denomina¬ tions are taught.” And what are w'e to infer from this, except that they do not teach reli¬ gion at all ? But they have changed their tactics. For they have, be it remembered, two strings to their Idow — one for tlmse who have religion, and one for those who have not, and so w'e actually find that whilst before the Common Council of New Y^ork they are destitute of religion, and give a purely “ civil and secular education,” at Albany they can be in favor of religion ! But there is still further evidence on this point. In page 18 of the Ee- port of the deljate before the Common Council, we have the explanation of ilr. Ketchum, and it was one of the nicest managed points imaginable. Indeed, I could not but admire the sagacity of that gentleman and his as¬ sociate, Mr. Sedgwick, in steering so adroitly between the teaching of reli¬ gion and the not teaching of it, so that they taught it, but yet must not call it religion ! We put the gentlemen between the horns of a dilemma — we said if you do not teach religion, then you are chargeable with making our common schools seminaries of infidelity — if you do teach it, then you do exactly what excludes religious societies from a right to participate in the fund ! But these gentlemen, with great skill and critical acumen, and a little sophistry, were alfie to steer by a line, invisible to my mind, be¬ tween the horns of the dilemma In describing the difierent kinds of instruction, Mr. Sedgwick says : “Blit, beyond that, there is still another branch of instru-ction which i.s properly called and it is because two phrases— ‘ religious ’ and ‘moral ’ — have been UBcd ovcasionally without as accurate apprehension of their significati on, that the docu- SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 191 ments of the frtstees have been misconstrued. But when the term ‘moral ’ education is used, it only means that education which instructs the children in those fundamental tenets of duty which are the basis of all religion.” That is to say you build the roof before you lay the foundation. For whence, I ask, will men get their knowledge of duty, if not based on a sulistratum of religion ? But here morality so called is made the basis of religion. Well, let us apply this to the schools, and see whether any Christian parent would submit to have his children placed under such a system. There is a child at one of these schools~they tell him not to lie, but children are inquisitive, and he asks, “Why should I not lie ?” You must answer, because God abominates a lie — there you teach religion ! You ex¬ plain the reason why the child should not lie, that religion requires, and affoi'ds the reason of the performance of the duty — not that the duty is the basis of religion. It is not enough to tell the child you are to S2)eak the truth, and when you know and fulfil your duty then you may learn that hhese is a God to whom you are responsible. Washington himself in his Farewell Address, cautioned the nation against the man who would at¬ tempt to teach morality without religion. (Cheers.) lie says ; “ Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human hajtpiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, where is the secu¬ rity for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations dksekt the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with cmdion indulge the supfositlon, th&t morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may,be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Had we not then, I would ask very respectfully, a right, when every pe¬ tition had been rejected on the ground that the petitioners had a religious belief to infer that religion formed no joart of their system of education, and that the consequence which we charged uijon them, and that Mr. Cornell rejjudiated with so much horror, inevitably and justly followed— namely, that the Public School Society was favorable to the sectarianism of infidelity ? I now go on to show what the Public School Society boast of having done in our regard. They had offered in reply to our objections to passages in their books, as, for instance, where it was stated that “John Huss was a zealous Ee- former, but trusting to the deceitful Catholics^ he was taken by them and burned at the stake ” — to expunge such objectionable passages when they were pointed out. They, said, “ Bishop, w'e submit our books to you, and if you will have the goodness to point out any objectionable passages we will expunge them.” Well, certainly there was something very 2)lausible and apparently very liberal in this offer. But when the matter was pressed, it was found that all this w\as merely the expression of individuals — there was no guarantee that the hooks would be amended. Weeks and months might be sjient in examin¬ ing the books, and then the approbation of the Board was necessary in order to cfl'ect the alteration. Did they say that it should be given ? Never. I pass now to another point, for observe, I do not at all think myself called on to say one word in vindication of the able and eloquent and satisfactory re¬ port of the Secretary of State. (Cheers.) That is not necessary. The language of that document will be its owm vindication, when the petty sophistries raised against it shall have been long forgotten ; for, be assured, gentlemen, that what¬ ever may be the temporary opposition to any public measure, from the moment that there is discovered to be inherent in it — of its essence — a principle of jus- 192 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. tice and equality, its ultimate triumph is certain, and all the opposition which it encounters will have no more effect on it, than that of the breeze which passes over the ocean, ruffling its surface, but destroying nothing of the mighty and majestic element which it seems to fret and disturb. (Cheers.) I. take up this, then, not to vindicate the report, but rather in reference to the insulting attempt, as I will call it, to deprive Catholics of the free exercise of their own consciences, and the respect and esteem of their fellow-citizens. In reasoning on the subject, observe the course that is taken by Mr. Cornell — he enters into a comparison between the schools of the Public School Society, and ours — ours supported in poverty, the humblest that may be, but still sup¬ ported in a way sufficient to show our determination not to give up our rights, or relinquish the maintenance and defence of a sound and patriotic principle. But this gentleman compares these, our schools, with theirs on which more than a million of the public money has been erpendef whilst we have been virtually shut out from all benefit from the public funds, not by any law of the State, but by a vicious interpretation of the law. He requires us to furnish as perfect a system as they do, with the expenditure of a million of dollars ! He is reasoning with the Secretary, telling him in effect that we are troublesome and designing people, and he says : “ But having in view the striugency with which the same party insisted on the ne¬ cessity of religion in juxtaposition with secular education, and the warmth with which they denounced the Public School system when they saw fit to charge it with exclud¬ ing religion, and particularly when reference is had to their acotoed dogma, that there is no hope of salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic Church— which dogma is now taught in their schools.” I thank God, that the Catholics — the long-oppressed of three hundred years, during which the ear of the world was poisoned with calumnies against them — have now liberty of speech, and ability to exercise it, and I cafi Mr. Cornell to account for what he has here written, and to which he has affixed his name, lie says : “ When reference is had to their avowed dogma, that there is no hope of salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic Church — which dogma is now taught in theinjschools.” The Catholics avow every “ dogma ” of their religion ; but the two state¬ ments emjjloyed by Mr. Cornell are hot\\ false. It never w'as and never can be a dogma of ours, that there is “ No hope of salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic Church.” Neither is that dogma taught in our schools. This false statement must be accounted for by Mr. Cornell’s ignorance of our doctrine on the one hand, and on the other his disposition to injure us. I call upon him, I arraign him before the people of New York and the Senate, whose confidence he has attempted to abuse, to prove his statement, or else to retract it. And here it may be proper for me to explain something of this matter, for I know that in the minds of Protestants almost universally there is that idea, and that in the theological language of the Catholic Cburch there is a])parent ground for entertaining it. But at the same time I do know that that language, properly understood and fairly interpreted, does not imply the dogma imputed to us by Mr. Cornell. It is very true that we believe that out of the true Church of Christ there is no salvation — first proposition. It is true that we believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ — second proposition. It is very true that notwithstanding these propositions, there is no dogma of our creed which teaches that a Pi’otestant may not hope to be saved, or may not go to heaven. Now, how is this explained ? In this wmy. When we speak of the Church we mean the Church as Christ, and his apostles did —in the sense, that tlie ordinary means for the salvation of mankind are the SPEECHES IN CAEROLL HALL. 193 doctrines and institutions which Jesus left on earth, which have all descended in the Church with our history and our name. This we believe, but we do not believe that God has deprived Himself, because He instituted these things, of the means of saving whom He will. We do not believe that on this ac¬ count the power of the Almighty is abridged. Hence it is consistent with our dogmas to believe, that God, who is a just Judge, as well as a merciful Father, will not condemn any one for involuntary error. Their judgment will be individual ; they were externally out of the Church, but was it by their own will or the accident of their birth and education in a false relig¬ ion ? Did they believe that religion to be true, in good faith, and in the sim¬ plicity of their hearts? Were they ready to receive the light and grace of truth as God might offer it to them ? Then, in that case, though not belong¬ ing to the Catholic Church by external profession, they belonged to it by their internal disposition. Consequently we are not authorised to deny hope of salvation to those not of the Catholic Church, unless so far as the errors in which they have been involved, have been voluntary and culpable on their part. And this is no new doctrine, as our opponents would have seen had they consulted the writings of the highest authorities in our Church. St. Thomas Aquinas — one of the greatest minds that ever contributed to enlighten the human race, as Protestants themselves acknowledge — writing in the 11th or 12th century, s]>eaks of a man who is not even a Protestant but a Pagan — a man who has never heard of Christ or of Christianity, and he, supposing that man to be moral — sincere — acting according to the best lights God has given him — tells us, God would sooner send an angel to guide him to the way of salvation, than that such an one should perish. Such is the sentiment of St. Thomas Aquinas expressed in his works, and his works are approved of by our Church.— How then can Mr. Cornell or any other individual say that we enter into judgment respecting those who die out of the pale of the Church ? I publicly call upon Mr. Cornell to retract or qualify his official statement. Sentiments according with those I have quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas I have myself pu'eached in the Cathedral of Mew York, and similar ones have been abundantly proclaimed by others, and amongst them I would inention a very distinguished French Bishop — then the Abbe Fressinous. In the third volume of his Conferences, he has one special sermon on the sub¬ ject of Exclusive Salvation, and he shows that of all Christian denomina¬ tions there is no one more abounding in charity on this point than the Cath¬ olic Church. Tlie same explanations are to be found in the writings of Bos- snet, St. Francis of Sales, and St. Augustine.* With these facts well known, * Salvation out of the Chuech.— In concluding this simple and brief view of the Catholic doctrine, it may be well to state here what is to be correctly understood of that Catholic sentiment, “ Out op the Church there is no salvation.” “ We do not pretend to deny, (says Mr. Bergier,) that there are numbers of men born in heresy who by reason of their little light, are in imincille ignorance, and con¬ sequently excusable before God : these, in the opinion of all judicious Divines, ought not to be ranked with heretics.” This is the very doctrine of St. Augustine, (Epis. 4.3, ad gloriam et alias, n. 1 .) St. Paul tells us, in his Epistle to Titus, c. 3, ‘ A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid ; knowing that he that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.’ As to those who defend an opinion, either false or perverse, without obstinacy, and who have not invented it from a daring presumption, but received it from their parents after they were seduced and had fallen into error, if they diligently and industriously seek for the truth, and if they hold themselves ready to embrace it as soon as they shall have found it, such as these also are not to be classed with heretics.” L. 1, de Bapt. contra Donat, c. 4, n. 5. “ Those who fall with heretics, without knowing it, believing it to be the Church of Jesus Christ, are in a difi'erent case from those who know that the Catholic Church is spread over the whole world.” — L. 4, c. 1, n. 1. “ The Church of Jesus Christ may have through the power of her spouse, children 13 194 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. how did those gentlemen venture to take advantage of their and onr rela¬ tive situations, and calumniate us when we had no opportunity of repelling tlie unfair attack ? Besides, Mr. Cornell says — “Which is now taught in their, schools.” I deny the truth of that statement, and demand his authority. But now, would it, think you, be impro])er on my part, considering that Mr. Cornell is not present, to intimate some of the liberties which he has taken with us in our absence ? Througliout this document, lie has labored to prove that we are Catholics, and not only that, but to show what our religion is, though I am ratlier at a loss to imagine where he studied Catholic theology, in which if he should persevere, I would suggest to him to consult better authoiities than the “Journal of Commerce ” and “Tristram Shandy.” (Laugliter and cheers.) Now it never occurred to us to ask of what religion is Mr. Cornell and the Public School Society. The whole ground assumed by them is, that they are not a “ religious society ” — well what are they ? Are they an irre¬ ligious society? Not at all. They are members of churches, aud I have taken the pains to ascertain that Mr. Cornell is a member of Dr. Spring's Church, and if he lectures the Catholics, would it be very wrong in ine to speak of the doctrines of his creed? Let us look at the Westminster Con¬ fession of Faith, the rule of Presbyterian dogmas, and see whether Mr. Cor¬ nell opens the gates of Heaven to all religious denominations. I quote from the Westminster Confession, as adopted and amended in the United States, and published by Towar and Hogan, Philadelphia. In page 111 it is said : “ The visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion.” So to be a member of the visible church, you must “ profess ” the true fiiith — “ together with their children ” — happy children ! (a laugh) — “ and this is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the house ancl family of God, OUT OP WHICH there is no ordinary possibility qf salvation.” Here is another statement of Mr. Cornell : “ They are not merely the in¬ cidental remarks of the historian, or extracts from the Holy Scrijitures, ‘ without note or comment,’ to which such strong exception has been taken in relation to the Public Schools, but they are such as ever have, and in the opinion of your remonstrants, must ever tend, if sustained by tax wiposed upon the anathematized portion of the community, to destroy public har¬ mony ; and such as would prove anything rather than a social ‘ benefit.’ ” No-w, by using the word “anathematized” he conveys the impression that all out of the pale of ourChurch are under our anathema. I demand the proof. I have studied our holy religion many a day, but never yet have I discovered any such anathema, and I defy Mr. Cornell to point it out. Mr. Cornell goes on to say : “ Your remonstrants had supposed that the fact of the Public School Society being composed of men professing every variety of religious faith, would neutralize sectarian tendencies and secure it acjainst abuse." Now, there is something exceedingly specious in this, but it is indeed a very spurious position. They refuse our application on the ground that we are a religious society, and when w’e charge them with not being a religious society, they re]iudiate it as a stigma on their character. And what is their remedy ? That they “ will neutralize sectarian tenden¬ cies by the variety of the religions that they introduce.” How is this ? They are all members of churches — and that does them honor — but when- and servants ; if they grow not proud, they shall have part in His inheritance ; but if they are proud, they shall remain without.” Ibid. c. 16, n. 23. SPEECHES IN CAPvROLL HALL. 195 ever they come within the magical circle of their official character, then, like negative and positive brought together in just proj^ortions, they neu¬ tralize each other ! ! Is this really the position that these gentlemen as¬ sume ? How are the Trustees chosen ? In the most beautiful manner ! One or two Catholics are taken — a Universalist — perchance, and so of other de¬ nominations, and then they say, “We are of all religions !” You will find that the mass of the Society belongs to one sect, of which little or nothing is said, and that an odd one is taken from each of the other sects, to sanc¬ tify their acts ! There is a sufficient majority of one denomination. There is a tendency and aim which I am not unwdlling to proclaim — a secret un¬ derstanding — not so very secret either — to the effect that “as there is a large foreign po23ulation in New York, and mostly Catholic, our liberties would not be safe unless the interests of Catholics were neutralized in their eelucation.” We reject that idea with scorn, that Catholics have to learn the princijrles of liberty from them. At a period when Protestantism was as little dreamt of as steam navigation. Catholics were the schoolmasters of liberty to the nations of the world, in the principles of liberty. They were Catholics who wwung the great charter of English liberty from • the hands of the tyrant. And was that their first effort in the cause of freedom ? No. That was only the written recognition of their rights, which the encroach¬ ments of his jrredecessors had diminished, and having thus secured their rights, they maintained them down to the jieriod of the Reformation, when their high and honorable notions of liberty were tramjjled in the dust, and were never restored till the Revolution, and when that so boasted event in the history of England took place, it only recognized the rights lost at the period of the Reformation, which Catholics for centuries before had known and enjoyed. Let them not say, then, that our religion is inimical to lib¬ erty — that is a rejrroach which we spurn — which vre aljojninate and abhor ! We have nothing to learn from them of human liberty. Their part is to imitate us, not ours to imitate them 1 (Loud air{)lause.) If that is the jorinciple referred to, we understand it irerfectly wmll, and it is of no use for those gentlemen to moot it for the i)urpose of showing that our claim should be denied. Was that indeed their object? Not at all. But their object was, with hands that should have been better employed, to rake ujj that wretched remnant of prejudice against us, and jiander to the vitiated taste that could relish it, We see, then, that so far as this “ Remonstrance” is concerned, there is not one solitary pro2)osition which should for one moment have arrested the minds of the Legislature. The bill proposed by the honorable Secretary of State contemplated no sirecial favor. Much as I honor that distinguished individual, I would not esteem him, as I do, if he had in his bill proposed anything which should have raised us above our fellow-citizens of other denominations. But the bill only places us on an equality with others— with that we are satisfied— with nothing less will we ever be satisfied. (Loud cheers.) But, hitherto, these gentlemen have assumed various shapes. They have viewed with self-comjrlacency the beauty of their system, and as for their few schools — few in comparison with the number of destitute and unjjro- vided children— I have nothing to say against them. I projjosed to place our schools under their direction, so far as regarded their jiolice and man¬ agement. But I would not permit them to teach our children that Catho¬ lics were deceitful — that Galileo was put into the Inquisition and punished for the heresy that the earth revolved on its own axis around the sun. Galileo’s crime was not teaching sound jffiilosophy, but bad theology — wishing the Church to declare that his theory was in accordance with the Scriptures. For reasons like these I would not allow them to mislead our 196 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. children, but I was willing to allow the gentlemen the external manage ment of our schools. They, however, would have universal mile, or none at all. What has been their panacea for all complaints ? To invite the City Council to visit the schools ! And certainly, I presume, it would be impos¬ sible to visit their schools, without being satisfied with thei” appearance. But had I been able to have made my voice heard in the Senate of the State, when they made the proposition to visit their schools, I should have proposed something like an amendment. I would have prayed these sen¬ ators, in the name of humanity and their country, and of all the benevo¬ lence that beats in the human breast, to visit — not the schools, but the lanes and alleys and obscure resorts of the poor neglected children of New York, and there see, not how much is done, but how much is left undone. These are the portions of the city that should be visited. It is utterly im- 2)ossible, owing to their scattered condition, to learn the numbers of chil- di'en in this city who are deprived by these gentlemen of the blessings of education. We, who mingle with the people, and have the opiDortunity of learning the dislike of this system— that they would no more trust their children to it, than to that tyrannical system of British misgovernment which their fathers knew so well, and from which they derived that sad legacy of ignorance and poverty. I refer to the laws which made educa¬ tion a crime in Ireland, and which have left the inhabitants of that coimtry the degraded but unbroken people that they are to this day, after a perse¬ cution of three hundred years. (Cheers.) It is for these poor, neglected, uneducated children, that I jdead. Their parents will not send them to the Public School whilst constituted as at present, and I ajiprove of their resolution. I trust they never will send their children to schools managed by men vdio can send to the Senate of this State a burlesque upon our creed, and represent it as a genuine exhibition of our faith and principles. Bather will we trust to the kind and merciful Providence of God, than voluntarily relinquish a i?riucii>le by which we maintain the right imjilanted in the breast of every jiarent, and secured by the laws, to have a voice in the education of his child. It is these children that should be visited. Then would these Honorable Sen¬ ators, whom I know to be above all those petty jirejudices which have been apiiealed to, do justice, and apply a remedy so far as the law would au¬ thorize them. I must now soon conclude my remarks for this evening. I will merely refer to the objection of the Society to the bill of Mr. Spencer — its tendency to introduce party politics. Everything is held in this country to be in the hands of the jieoiile; yet these gentlemen, after enjoying a monopoly for sixteen years, think it a great misfortune if the tax-jiayers should be allowed a voice at all in the selection of the teachers in the schools which they supjjort, or any share whatever in their management. The next objection to the bill is, its want of uniformity. Because they hapjjen to have school-houses exactly one like the other, and have a uni¬ form style of books, the large, and liberal, and statesmanlike j)lan of the Honorable Secretary should be given up, because, forsooth, these “humble almoners” jDrouounce it void of uniformity ! “ Humble almoners,” who, after coiling their roots around the Common Council, and making them judges in the cause, go to Albany to defeat our claims. Well, they may call themselves “ humble almoners” if they ifiease, but they remind me very much of the beggar in Gil Bias, who, when he asked alms, always took good care to have his musket ready ! I have now gone briefly through this part of the subject, and I ask you whether we can have any confidence in men who can stoop to such artifices SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 197 as I have exposed ? I call upon them to vindicate themselves from the dishonor of having circulated that document from Tristram Shandy. It was done by one of their colleagues and their official agent, who when charged with it, rej)lied that he had done so under instructions? What instructions ? Did they instruct him ? If not, let them say so by a public act. Until they do so, we justly charge them with being the traducers of our reputation — I charge them on the ground that they are responsible for the act of their agent, and they should have known better. Gentlemen claiming to be ex¬ clusively the judges of what is a proper system of education — who hold that you are unworthy of having anything to do with the schools of ISIew York — should have known that that document was from Tristram Shandy, MU'itten, I presume, for his amusement by Mr. Sterne — who, though numbered amongst the clergy of the Church of England, was believed to be an infidel — a man, who secretly scoffed at every thing sacred — and the working of whose rank imagination is too offensive for the eye of delicacy. Surely, then, these gentlemen should not have drawn weapons from such a source, for the purpose of destroying the reputation of any class of their fellow-citizens. This is not the first occasion on which we have been misrepresented, and religious gentlemen, wffiose avowed purpose it is to j)reach the gospel of peace, have taken up the habit of abusing us, and have rung the changes on this topic, till in some instances some of their audiences — more liberal than they — have left the place disgusted. They remind me of a saying of this same Sterne, who when quizzing the credulity of the peojile of Eng¬ land — for he w’as a great wag — said that occasionally he was straitened for the jH'ice of a dinner, but he could always manage to make a good meal of Cheshire cheese ; but it also happened, that oftentimes he was in a similar strait in his official capacity, and was called on to jn’each when he had not a w'ord of a sermon prepared, and then he took “ a fling at Popery.” The people w'ent away edifiecl and delighted. For this reason he says, “ I call Popery my Cheshire cheese !’ (Loud laughter.) It seems to me that the occupants of half the pulpits of New York, are nearly in the same predica¬ ment, and would die of inanition, w'ere it not that their stock of “Cheshire cheese ” is still unexhausted. (Renewed laughter and applause.) 1 think I can safely say, that in none of our churches wall you hear such abuse. We never touch upon secular affairs — you will not' even hear from our puljnts, harangues about abolition. We explain and defend our creed, and I trust, preach charity, and peace, and order. But it is not so with those who assail us as I have described, as I will have occasion to show, wdien treating of Mr. Ketchum’s speech, which I intend to do on to-mor¬ row evening. The Bishop then concluded, after speaking nearly two hours, and a vote of thanks having been passed to the Chairman, the large and attentive meeting adjourned. THURSDAY EVENING, June 17th. The audience on this occasion was still more numerous than on the pre¬ vious evening. Several distinguished senators, and influential gentlemen of other denominations, were present. The meeting was organized by the appoiittment of the same Chairman who presided at the former meeting — and at eight o’clock The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes resumed his remarks as follows ; The 198 A.ECHBISHOP HUGHES. question, Gentlemen, which has called ns together, has had two stages oi progress which must be kept distinct, in order to comprehend its present position. We have from time to time apidicd to the Common Council of this city for relief, which we knew they had the power to grant, and wo had applied as it were in an isolated, and, if you jdease, in a someAvhat sectarian character. The reason of this will be easily understood, when you reflect that we had no intention to disturb the system of education so generally approved by our fellow-citizens. Our object was not to destroy that which was good for others, if they thought so, but to find something that might be ecpially good for ourselves. Accordingly, we ap]jlicd as Catholics, because it apiieared that there were no other denominations whose consciences suffered under the operation of that system. And we did suppose that these considerations would have had some weight with the Honorable Council. We might — as we are rej^roached with not having done — we might have interfered with the regulations of these schools — asked for a different order of books — required the erasure of such and such passages, and the insertion of others. They reproach us with not doing so. But if we had done so, it would, in the first place, have been pains thrown away, and in the second place, we might thereby have disobliged many of our fellow-citizens of other denominations. Without at all jjressing the question upon them, farther than observing that even the reading of the Holy Scriptures according to the Protestant version, was looked upon by us as an invasion of our conscientious rights, they took it up as an objec¬ tion against the reading of the Scriptures at all ; as if the presence of a Bible within the walls of a school was a thing we could not bear. It is needless to say how wrong that inference was. But we did not at all wish to disturb the Protestant’s approbation of Im version of the sacred volume, nor the order that seemed so generally ajjjjroved, and that was the reason of the mode of our application. In the course of my speech, therefore, you ■will understand, that we did not so apply for reliof, because we wished to \be apart, separate from the rest of the community — that it w^as not because we were exclusive or intolerant, as they have charged upon us ; but because we supposed that they would not wish to have their children hear the Catholic version of the Bible read, and therefore they have no right to im¬ pose on our children the hearing of the Protestant version. If that be sectarianism, then we jAead guilty to the charge ; but without feeling and acting so, we could not have our consciences simple,’and in their integrity upright towards God. when, however, after having gone through the ceremony — for it was nothing else — of appearing before the Common Council, and having been heard and denied, as a matter of course, wdien we had gone through the ceremony required by the formulary of the law, then, indeed, we threw our¬ selves on our general rights as citizens, and appealed to that tribunal, to which w’e must ahvays look Avith confidence for the redress of every griev¬ ance that i^resses on us in our social condition. Nevertheless our opponents followed us there, and fastened upon us the character, in wdiich it had been the duty imposed on us by necessity to appear before the Common Council. We have had occasion already to point out some evidences of the use made of that in the “ Remonstrance.” You read with what recklessness of truth — I am sorry to say — it was charged In that document, that we were in¬ tolerant — that we taught there was no salvation out of the Catholic Church, and so forth. There are in that document of the Public School Society, many other passages requiring examination, but as the substance of them is contained in the speech of the learned gentleman who was their official «rgan before the Senate, I suppose that the refutation of the one, v.'ill be the refutation of both ; and, therefore, I deem it unnecessary to refer further SPEECHES IN CAEROLL HALL. 199 to that memorial. They — that gentleman jrarticularly — referred in the course of the debate, to a projiosition for accommodation on the part of the Society previous to the last decision of tlie Public Council. They alleged that nothing could be fairer, but when we had examined that, we found that of not a solitary grievance of which we had complained did it take notice. Not the slightest notice. The whole projiosal was that they should correct the books, so far as their guardianship of the rights of con¬ science — for they are conscience keepers for the different sects in this com¬ munity ! — would allow. They would accommodate us by striking out passages insulting and offensive to our minds, and injurious to our children. That was all the amount of the concessions. Then the second proposition was, that they would iDurchase from us — they can afford to do so — the only school-house which our humble means have enabled us to erect during the sixteen years of privation from the benefits of Common School Education. These were the only two features that distinguished that offer of accommo¬ dation. But Mr. Ketchum did not find it convenient to read the proposi¬ tions that we submitted at the same time, and wdiich, candor should have acknowledged, removed from us every imputation of being actuated by sectarian motives, or having in view the appropriation of the public money to the propagation of our religion. I will now commence with reading but a small portion of that, sufficient, however, to show you that on this ground, so far as information was con¬ cerned, they had it ; and if, with that in their possession, they conceal the truth, and suppressed it, on their heads be the responsibility that attaches to such conduct. What is the great difficulty — the legal difficulty ? That public money can not be apjilied to sectarian uses'. Very well. We met that ; we said here are propositions that cover our whole ground : “ That there shall be reserved to the Managers or Trustees of these schools respec¬ tively, the designation of the teachers to be appointed, who shall be subjected to the examination of a Committee of the Public School Society, shall be fully qualified for the duties of their appointment, and of unexceptionable moral character; or in the event of the Trustees or Managers failing to present individuals for these situations of that description, then, individuals having like qualifications of unexceptionable character, to be selected and appointed by the Public School Society, who shall be acceptable to the Managers or Trustees of the Schools to which they shall be appointed ; but no person to be continued as a teacher in either of the schools referred to against the wishes of the Managers or Trustees thereof.” Tliat was the first proposition, showing them that so far as the teachers were concerned, all we wanted were men in whom we could place conli- dcnce. The second proposition was : “ 2d. That the school shall be open at all times to the inspection of any authorized agent or officer of the city or State government, with liberty to visit the same, and ex¬ amine the books used therein, or the teachers, touching the course and system of in¬ struction pursued in the schools, or in relation to any matter connected therewith.” So that there was no concealment there, they themselves should be the inspectors, and I will say it boldly, that if they had been actuated by that deep feeling of humanity for which they claim credit, they would have ac¬ cepted that jirojiosal to take our children under their care affording to them the same means of gaining future happiness as they did to others. The document goes on : “ The undersigned are willing that, in the superintendence of their schools, every specifiqd requirement of any and every law passed by the Legislature of the State, or the ordinances of the Common Council, to guard against abuse in the matter of common school education, shall be rigidly enforced and exacted by the competent public authori¬ ties. “ They believe that the benevolent object of every such law is to bring the means of education within the reach of the child of every poor rn.m, without damaging their re¬ ligion, whatever it may be, or the religious rights of any such child or parent. 200 ARCHBISIIOr HUGHES. “ It is in consequence of what they consider the damaging of their religion and their religious rights, in the schools of the Public School Society, that they have been obliged to withdraw their children from them. The facts which they have already submitted, and which have been more than sustained by the sentiments uttered on behalf of the Society, in the late discussion, prove that they were not mistaken. ‘‘ As regards the organization of their schools, they are willing that they should be under the same police and regulations as those of the Public School Society. The same hours, the skme order, the same exercises, even the same inspection. “ But the books to be used for exercises in learning to read or spell, in history, geo¬ graphy, and all such elementary knowledge, as could have a tendency to operate on their liearts and minds, in reference to their religion, must be, so far as Catholic chil¬ dren are concerned, and no farther, such as they shall judge proper to put in their hands. But none of their dogmas, nothing against the creed of any other denomina¬ tion shall be introduced.” Reference is here made to the sentiments uttered by the advocates of the Public School Society in their opposition to our claim before the Common Council. Many of my present audience were perhaps there, and they can remember what an array of individuals otherwise distinguished by their character — what an array of bigotry and of prejudice, and we must say, of profound ignorance, was presented against us. One reverend gentleman came there and said, in reference to our objection to tlie Protestant reTsion of the Bible, that one of our comments taught “ the lawfulness of murder¬ ing heretics.” Before the Common Council, I brought that gentleman to account, and I assure you, that considering his grey hairs, and the respect that is due to age and the sacred character of a minister of peace, I felt humbled at beholding the degraded position in wdiich he found himself be¬ fore I had done. He had how'ever obtained a copy of an old version of the Scriptures, published by the Catholic refugees iu the time of Queen Eliza¬ beth, who wishing to prepare the way for an invasion by the Spanish, wrote a series of notes on the Scriptures which they thought would tend to effect that end. So soon, however, as these notes became known in England and Ireland, they were scouted with liorror by all professing the Catholic name. A few copies of that version, however, remained, lost and forgotten ; and an ignorant publisher iu Cork, thinking to make a profitable speculation, ob¬ tained one of them, and not knowing, as was afterwards proved, the differ¬ ence between it and the authorized version, he undertook to publish another edition of it. In the process of publication, however, the character of the work became known, and the Archbishop of Dublin forbade the publica¬ tion. TJie publisher was ruined, and he commenced a suit for damages. The matter was referred to in Committees of the House of Commons, and of the House of Lords, and all the particulars of the case were, of course, thus given the greatest possible publicity. Well, the publisher being de¬ prived of his anticipated sale in Ireland, where the Catholics would not pur¬ chase such a book, thought that by sending some to this country, people as ignorant as himself might purchase them, and thus the work might not prove a dead loss. In this way a copy fell into the hands of one of these gentlemen, and what do they do t Why about the same period that “ Maria Monk ” was published — and I know not, but from the same press — they emitted an edition of this Bible, in ordef to excite public odium against their Catholic fellow-citizens ! It was then, with a copy of that in his hand, that that clergyman came forward to prove, by means of that forgery, tliat we taught the lawfulness of murdering heretics. Then, besides that, there was another gentleman, and he, in speaking on the subject of those very schools, and offering reasons why we should be denied the benefits of education, in¬ stituted a comparison — all the othefs had, with great professions of respect, and benevolent feelings for us, said “ it was not because we were Catholics, that they opposed us,” oh ! no, they always qualified it — but he instituted a comparison between the religion of Fenelon and Voltaire, and with marvel- ✓ SPEECHES IN CAEROLL HALL. 201 Ions candor, forgetting the preface, admitted that he opposed ns because we were (Jatholics ! This gentleman said, that if he had no alternative, he would, sooner be of the religion of Voltaire, than that of Fenelou. These are the sentiments to which I allude, and to which reference is here made, when we say that such sentiments are only calculated to strengthen the con¬ viction, that our Catholic children from the prejudice*^ against their parent¬ age and religion, had no chance of justice in those schools. The committee to whom was referred an examination of the schools, make a report, and in that, after quoting the two propositions for accommodation, they take occasion to say : — “ Your Committee deem it proper to remark, in vindication of the School Society, that they were only one of the num¬ erous remonstrants against the prayer of the petitioners. Their views were represented at the late discussion before the Board only by their legal ad¬ visers, Messrs. Sedgwick and Ketchum. The other gentlemen who partici¬ pated in the discussion represented other bodies, which are not in any man¬ ner connected with them. Sentiments were uttered by them which the School Society do not entertain, and for which they are not justly accountable.’ So they say, hut by whom ? . It would go abroad that this was a declara¬ tion from the whole body of the Public School Society. I do not believe that was the fact, and I have no reason to believe it. Because I do know that these gentlemen used, or at least admitted, this sentiment — this bad sen¬ timent of their associates — for the purpose of defeating us, and they were ])erfectly satisfied with the victory, without at all disclaiming the dishonoi’- able means they had employed to secure it. But as easily could the English efface the stigma that rests upon them from their employment of the Indian’s tomahawk, during their warfare with America. And I ask them is there on their records, a disapproval of the declaration of Dr. Spring, or of Di-. Bond ? — ^tlie one, that we would murder heretics, and the other, that tlie religion of Voltaire was to be preferred to that of Fenelon? Have they in any one official document disowned that ? We challenge them to show, that the question of a disclaimer has ever been mooted? On the contrary, we have reason to believe, that they approved of these statements made by Drs. Spring and Bond, and that from their own document too, signed by the president and secretary, which goes nearly as far. And yet these are the men to whom we are required to give the management of the education of our children! They have hedged education around with an impenetrable wall, beyond which no applicant from our body can be admitted, except on terms that violate our civil and religious rights. A state of ignorance and degradation is the destiny assigned to those who will not submit to their Procrustean system, to the dimensions of which all must submit to be adapted. The Society acknowledge that Messrs. Ketchum and Sedgwick are their official organs. Well, we find Mr. Sedgwick in the speech referred to on last evening, absolutely disclaiming the teaching of religion. He said it was a mistake to suppose that what was called religious instruction, meant anything more than simple morality, which he stated to be the basis of all religion. And do these gentlemen intend to reverse the order of the Almighty, and by giving this [)recedence to morality, to say that men must be good without a motive, and then they may learn religion ? How then can they quarrel with us for saying, that they attempted, what Mr. Spencer says well, is impossible, to divorce religion from education ? It was on that ground that they appeared before the Common Council and defeated our claims : for you saw yesterday and to-day, the crime charged upon us, the disqualifying circumstance, was, that we belonged to a religious society, and the public money was not to be appropriated in any way except in the promotion of “ purely secular educa¬ tion.” AVTien we told them, that we supposed they were sincere in their declaration, and that by divorcing religion from education, thus leaving the 202 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. cliildren without t.ie necessary motive to virtue and morality, and wholly des titute of any principle to curb their rising passions, they seemed to exclaim, “ Oh ! what an impious set of raeu you suppose us to be. Atheists ! ” No not exactly, but I accuse you of being what yourselves a^ume. You defeat all applications made by applicants professing religion. You contend that religion mast not be any part of state education. Well then how can you be dissatisfied if we call you anti-religious, according to the principles you have yourselves assumed ? The fact is, that in order to conciliate those whose minds are haunted by a certain spectre, of a union between Church and State, and in order to bring them to the support of the Society, they pretended to meet their views exactly, then again, on the other hand, attempted to satisfy the scruples of conscientious parents, by playing the several sects one against the other, and with so much adroitness, that the whole community came to the desired conclusion, that the interests of education and morality were perfectly safe in the hands of the Society, and could not be safe in the hands of any other. In taking up the speech of Mr. Ketchum, I must premise that he has divided it into two parts, and that of the many columns by which it is sup- pjorted, the first two or three are occupied with a detailed history of the legislation, so called, of the Common Council on this question. Now, I understand the part of this gentleman — who has perhaps as deep a knowl¬ edge of the mystery of political wire-drawing as any other gentleman of his profession in the State — I understand his introduction of this matter, entirely foreign to the subject. His object was to impress the minds of the Senators with the idea that in New York, the question had been decided — that Boards of Aldermen had been changed — the position of parties changed — applica¬ tions had been made, from time to time, for sixteen years, and that after the gravest reflection, under all possible variety of circumstances, the answer uniformly was, that it would be a violation of something that he calls ‘‘ a great principle ” — which, however, he does not think proper to define— if our claims were admitted. Tie wished to convey the idea that if there had been any thing just, or proper, or true in our claims, it could not have escaped the notice of public officers in New York — the immediate representatives of the people, and that consequently, the Senators should approach the subject with minds already biased and prejudiced against us. The gentleman wished to lead the honorable legislators to say, “ What ! shall we on the examination of one hour — at this distance from the city of New York — undertake to reverse the jTidgment sustained by the uniform concurrence of the various Boards that have constituted the public Councils of that city for sixteen years! ” There was great generalship in all that, on the part of the learned gentleman. But I dispute the principle, in toto, which the gentleman assumes, and before that Honorable Senate, I would maintain that the gentleman has no foundation whatever, for his assumption ; and that this question should be viewed by them as if approached for the first time. And what is my reason for assuming this position? You will mark that the learned gentleman frequently styles the Common Council “ the repre¬ sentatives of the people;” my argument in reply, then is, that so far as regards this School Question, they never were the “representatives of the people,” for that question never was made one that could aftect their election in the most remote degree. At least, so we thought. So far as we are con¬ cerned, we are right. True, whilst we were meeting to study this subject and bring it under public notice, these gentlemen of the Society were ever and anon charging vs with political designs, and I recollect something of an amusing nature connected with that. It was my duty on the day succeeding the Debate before the Common Council, to proceed to Albany, for the pur- SPEECHES IN CAKEOLL HALL. 203 pose of giving confirmation; I went — preached three times next day, Sunday ■ — on Monday, a very stormy day, I drove to Troy, for the purpose of visiting tlie churclies there, and on Tuesday, I returned to this city. Well, what was the story ? — of course, I do not say got up by these gentlemen, nor by the Public Scliool Society — but it was said, that I, having taken tea with tlie Aldermen, a bargain was struck between us, and I was to go to Albany, to get the Catholics to vote against the Governor, and then all would be right! (Laughter.) Tliat was a specimen of the stories that were circulated ; but while we were thus charged, they who brought the accusation were them¬ selves not idle in that very department. The subject was introduced to their pulpits, and their congregations were lectured on it, and from that may be traced the attempt to defeat Governor Seward. But we never made this a political question, and the Common Council never acted on it “as the representatives of the people,” because it never was applied as a test ; but if the question were put between the Secretary’s plan and the Public School Society, the latter would soon break down any Board that would undertake to support them. We were denied, it is true, by the Common Council, but vm never looked on them as acting in tliat matter as the representatives of the people. We regarded them as indepen¬ dent judges. And really there is little ground for surprise at their decisions in the premises. Now I will suppose a case. Let us take that of a bank, for it is, perhaps, as good an illustration as I can furnish at the moment. A citizen has a con¬ troversy with the bank, and that controversy comes to a trial. The citizen complains that he is injured by the directors of the bank, he makes out his case, but in the end, he finds, contrary to all his just anticipations, and all his views of justice, that he is defeated, and judgment given against him. Well, he thinks this very hard. But he happens to learn that the judge, before whom the case was tried, and the jury who rendered the verdict, are all directors of the bank, and his wonder at the result of the trial ceases. Do you see the application ? These gentlemen after having excluded all religious societies, made the word religion a kind of disqualification in a Christian community in the year 1824 — after that, with the subtlety which proves that they are v/ise in their generation, they get an act passed, by which the Com¬ mon Council are made ex-officio members of the Public School Society, and thus constituted them parties and judges in the cause. Let me not be mis¬ understood. I do not suppose for a moment, that any gentleman of that Common Council would, at any time, knowingly deviate from the path of justice and duty, on account of his official connection with that Society. But at the same time, I do know, that there is a powerful influence in asso¬ ciation, against which the laws with great wisdom have guarded the judicial bench, when they declare that a judge should be of a single mind — elevated far above all selfish considerations — and whose interests could never be affected by the result of any official act which he might be called on to exe¬ cute, or any sentence which it might be his duty to pronounce. Here, tlien, were aldermen of dififerent parties, elected from time to time, and so made members — part and parcel — of this Society, and, I ask, would it have been a gracious thing in them, after liavihg been so honored with a place in it, to become adverse to the interests of that body? Let us bear in mind, too, that there is with most people a regard for consequences, and no alderman could imagine he would greatly benefit his interests by opposing a corpo¬ ration that has acquired nearly the whole control of all the public money appropriated for purposes of education in New York, and having its de[)en- dents spread from one end of tlje city to the other. I think it would require a strong and elevated mind, an unusual amount of moral courage, to enable any man, so situated, to oppose such a corporation. 204 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. I do not, then, admit the reasoning of Mr. Ketchum, for I deny hig premises, that the Common Council ever were ‘‘ the representatives of the people” on this subject. I will now commence my review of this speech. I read it carefully from beginning to end, and I was myself impressed with the idea that it scarcely re(|uired an answer. I was cpiite convinced of that, so far as the honorable Senators were concerned, because I knew that to the minds of men accus¬ tomed to reasoning and to detect at a glance "where the strength of a posi¬ tion rested, that speech must have appeared a thing altogether out of place. Nevertheless, it was hinted to me that the speech was not intended for Senators alone, and the readiness with which Mr. Ketchum could fur¬ nish the report went considerably to strengthen that opinion. It was said that though to me the speech might seem weak, yet to the generality of readers, particularly those unacquainted with the subject, it might seem very specious, and produce in their minds the very conclusions opposite to those which we would w'ish established. On that ground I have taken it up, and I must say that with regard to Mr. Ketchum himself, I have the kindest possible feeling ; and i^ in the course of my remarks, I should happen to speak in a manner seemingly disrespectful, I beg it may not be considei’ed as having been so intended. Of the gentleman himself, I can¬ not say anything disrespectful — of his speech I hope I may be permitted to say whatever the evidence may authorize. I mention his name with per¬ fect freedom, because his name is attached to the speed), and because prin¬ cipally he is the official organ of that Society, and what he says is already endorsed by them. After his introduction, Mr. Ketchum says : “ This probably may account very sensibly for the fact, that in the city of New York the portion of the school fund allotted to her, was to be distributed by these almoners of her charity whom her representatives thought proper to designate. Now, I ask, was there anything inconsistent with sound principles in this? Is there anything in it which violates the principle of the largest liberty, and the purest democracy, of which we hear something in this Report ?” StojJ, Mr. Ketchum ! I tell you there is not one word in that whole Re¬ port against such a state of things as that you represent to the minds of the Senators by making a wrong application. What is represented as con¬ trary to the principles of our Constitution was the monopoly — the exclusive system that has succeeded the former — and Mr. Ketchum is kind enough to make an anterior reference to the period when all enjoyed the appro¬ priation for the purposes of education. I stop him there, and say, that he makes a wrong application. He ought not to prejudice the minds of Sen¬ ators or the community, by pretending that the Secretary’s Report charges on that state of things any trenching on the enjoyment of the largest liberty. ^Ir. Ketchum goes on : “In the city of New York, as I shall have occa¬ sion to show by and by — and more or less I suppose it is so in all the States of Christendom — there are voluntary associations — charitable associations — associations composed of men incorporated or otherwise, who are willing to proffer their services to feed the hungry; to clothe the naked ; to visit the destitute, and to see to the api)lication of funds set apart for their relief Such men are always to be found in large cities ; men of fortune, men of leisure, men of benevolence, who are willing to associate together for be¬ nevolent objects, and who are usually made the almoners of the charity of others.” Now, Mr. Ketchum, in the whole of this, is gliding imperceptibly to the point he wishes to reach. And what is that point ? It is to fix on the minds of the Senators that as religious societies formerly took care of their poor, and SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 205 as other associations take care of other objects of benevolence, so they were to look upon the Public School Society as taking care of education. In endeavor¬ ing to effect this conclusion, his reasoning glides imperceptibly as on a colored surface which is black at one extremity and white at the other, but in which the various shades are so nicely mingled that you cannot ascertain the point where the change of color begins, so does the progress of his sophistry elude observation. “ Charitable Associations.” Now, I will examine Mr. Ketchum’s philosophy here. I consider that there is here what may be called a rhetorical fiction. He personifies the city of New York and calls it “ she ” — then he takes her and places her one side, and places all the religious societies, and benevolent societies — the Public School Society amongst the rest, and that being done, he says, the city of New York made them her “almoners.” But when we take these societies away where is “ she ” ? what becomes of her ? (laughter and cheers.) This is what I call a rhetorical fiction. ]\Ir. Ketchum need not pretend to say that the city of New York made “ almoners.” They were self- created. When you take the religious societies, each having its charity school, and this society, which we must not call irreligious, although it has always de¬ feated its opponents by saying that they profess religion — these constitute the people of New York, and they received the money set apart for that specific purpose, and in their sovereign power and wisdom they applied it as they thought proper. They managed it with perfect harmony, for I never heard of the occurrence of a dispute when each section of the community assumed the management of their own schools, and it was on account of a charge against one society of misappropriating the public money that the controversy arose. Afterwards referring to the Legislature by which that state of things was changed to the present, he says : — “ Hence, after many discussions in the As¬ sembly chamber, discussions at which all the members were invited to attend — and almost all of them did attend — for we had generally a quorum^ although it was before a committee night after night — the Committee of the Assembly at length made a report favorable to the prayer of the memorial ; but suggesting in that very report whether even so much as was granted in the proposition re- feiTed to was not a violation of sound principle ; whether, in fact, religious societies ought to participate in the enjoyment of the fund at all, because, by such participation, the Jew might be made to support the doctrine of the Christian, and vice versa, the Christian that of the Jew, the Catholic of the Protestant, the Protestant of the Catholic, and so on.” What a splendid discovery ! The people hitherto living in perfect harmony, all enjoying that appropriation of public money — not, perhaps, expending it in the wisest manner, but at all events without disturbance or dispute. But all at once it is discovered that because they are religious societies, it would be a violation of sound principle to allow them the public money I And why ? Be¬ cause in that case the money paid by a Protestant might pass to the support of a Catholic school — or, if you please, to the school of a Jew — and that involved a violation of conscience. I confess, however, I cannot see that, nor do I think anj' reflecting man can see it. But what is the fiict respecting the turn of the legislation in relation to the Public School Society, called, at that time, the “Free School Society?” Simply that because at that Bethel Baptist Church money had been improperly appropriated, occasion was taken not to punish the guilty party, if there was guilt, but those who had memorialized against the abuse of public money, and to disfranchise every man professing religion, because the'members of one particular church had abused their trust ! And it is suspected that all this was not done without the secret instrumentality of that very Free School Society itself, which then, as at the present day, pro¬ fessed to have no religion at all. So that in this very Legislature — though I know that another view of it is perfectly lawful — we see that the reasoning ap¬ proved by Mr. Ketchum, would go to brand a stigma on the sacredness of re 206 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. ligion — it would lead to the inference that because the adherents of one religious sect have abused their trust in the employment of the public money, therefore, all profession of religion should be an everlasting disqualification ! But I pro¬ nounce such an inference unworthy the citizens of a land in whose Constitu¬ tion Christianity is recognized. And I ask, where was the usual penetration of Mr. Ketchum when he employed such reasoning ? By the laws of this State, church property is exempted from taxation, and I am surprised that gentle¬ men of such tender apprehensions can rest quietly at night, when they re¬ flect that possibly Protestant money is going to make up the deficiency in the revenue of the State, caused by the exemiJtion from taxation granted to Catholic churches ! But I see no harm at all in the state of things by which money is thus transferred. All the churches are represented by all the people, and it matters not an iota, if churches are exempted, the tax is paid by the members in another form. So with the Public School money. Although in the manipulation of the money, it might happen that the identical dollar paid by a Protestant might pass into the treasury of a Catholic School, the Catholic dollar would go back to replace it in the Protestant School, it would be in the end, all the same, for the question is not at all about the identity of the money. If the taxes could be kept separate, and the money paid by the Protestant go into the Protestant box, and the money paid by the Catholic go into the Catholic box, sui-e enough they would get their own money, but it would be all the same if no such care had been taken. Here I would refer to the case of chaplains in our prisons, etc., not one of whom is a Catholic, but who have often received the contributions ot Catholics, — have they ever complained that that was a violation of the constitution? Certainly not, and that prac¬ tical view of the matter should have taught the gentleman the futilityiof his reasoning— that if the money of the one sect went into the hands of another it was all the same — it was the money of peofle received from them in one form, and returned to them in anothei’, allowing them in its employment the noble and giand privilege — of which I trust they will not allow them¬ selves to be deprived, no matter how they exercise it — of obeying the dic¬ tates of their own free consciences (cheers). In the course of his speech the gentleman makes a grand display of all the sects that were set aside by the society. Then he asks the Senate “will this honorable body grant to Catliolics what was denied to all these ?” But there is a difference here, and what is it ? There is not on record an in¬ stance of a complaint on the part of any of these sects that their rights of conscience icere invaded. Episcopalians never made any such complaint — nor did Presbyterians — nor did Methodists — nor did any of the other sects, — but it happened that they had charity schools attached to their churches, and they tliouglit giving such education as the state required, they were en¬ titled to their share of state bounty. But very different was the case of the Catliolics. And now suppose tlie circumstances of the case were reversed, and Oatholics had the majority on Avhich the society depends, and would em¬ ploy the power conferred by it, in forcing on the whole community Catholic books — and Catholic versions of the Bible — and give the children lessons about the burning of Servetus, and the ignorance of a whole nation in sup¬ posing the machine for winnowing corn, to be an impious invention, and de¬ nouncing these employing it as guilty of a crime against God who supplies the zephyrs and the breeze — suppose that case, and that the aggtieved mi¬ nority complained and applied for redress, I trust that on the face of the earth there would not be found a Common Council of Catholics who would refuse to listen to so just a prayer ? IMr. Ketchum says further when speaking of the action of the Common Council on this application, that it had been referred to a law committee, and SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 207 he quotes the decision of that committee. We, knowing the manner in wliich our former applications were disposed of, need not, of course he sur¬ prised at the manner in which this Report was expressed. To our last ap¬ plication made in the spring of 1830, — when I was absent from this country — to the Board of Assistant Aldermen, the usual negative was given ; but tlien it is to be observed that that Board was surrounded by the advocates of the Society, and these things which we have stated, and which they have since acknowledged, were denied by them — and on that denial was grounded the refusal of our application. The advocates of the society denied that there were any passages in their books with which he could lind fault- averred that they contain nothing disrespectful to our religion. But since then, they have been obliged to retract that, and to acknowledge repeatedly that in making these assertions they were not sustained by trutli — that there were passages in those books reflecting upon our faith — that these passages had been taught to the children for years, and would have been retained till this very day, had it not been for our detection and exposure. But it was not at all surprising that under the influence of a society, stretching its gi¬ gantic branches over eveiy quarter of the city, and hearing such assertions from its advocates, the Board sliould deny our claim. — But let us glance at the conclusion which Mr. Ketchum draws from such denial — he says “ That conclusion was ratified by their constituents ; and I believe J;hat every one of the religious societies, or nearly so, excepting the Roman Cath¬ olics, acquiesced in that decision. But that society, year after year, has come before the Common Council and renewed their request for a separate portion of the school fund. With the best feelings for the applicants, in a spirit of kindness ; with every disposition to do whatever could be done for them, year after year, and without respect to politics, whether the one party was in the ascendant, or the other party was in the ascendant, the Common Council have, with almost entire unanimity, disallowed that request ; and I believe that never in either Board, since the division of that body into two Boards, has there been but one dissenting voice r.aised against the ratifica¬ tion of that decision. Row, if the committee please — who have complained? The Roman Catholics.” I repeat that I deny the philosophy of this reasoning. I deny that in any case that portion, at least, of the community that has petitioned for a reform of this system, ever looked to the Common Council as their representatives on this question. And another argument against Mr. Ketchum’s position is that this public council were partizans in the case in which they were called to deliver judgment. And I think that it would be well for that Public School Society and the Common Council, if the latter by their election to office are to be engrafted into the former, that the duty of judging between them and the community were delegated to disinterested parties. Mr. Ketchum goes on to say : “ No disrespect was intended them. The Common Council, and every person engaged in the discussion of the ques¬ tion on behalf of the Common School Society, took great care to say, ‘ we do not reject you because you are Roman Catholics and as evidence of this truth, we give you the fact that wm have rejected similar applications from powerful protestants— but we reject your request because we believe that a sound general principle will not allow us to grant it.” So there was always a precaution observed. Indeed I myself remarked that before the Common Council. They uniformly — with one exception — said that they did not oppose us because we were Catholics. But Dr. Spring Avith great magnanimity and candor neglected to take the hint, but declared that he was apprehensive of our faith gaining ground. He would oppose us and preserve the society as it was, even though the rights of the Catholics should be damaged ; and that for his part he preferred the 208 ARJHBISHOP hughes. religion of Voltaire to that of Fenelon ! The sentiment was indeed a black one, and it was rendered blacker by the brightness of the candour with which it -was uttered. Here again Mr. Ketchum states what is incori’ect. He says : “We have rejected similar applications from powerful Protestants.” I deny that. I refer liim to the records of the Common Council, and I will venture to affirm that he wall not find there one “ similar application.” And wdiy ? Simply because there w'as no ground for any such application. For although one denomination of Protestants may differ from another and may carry their attachments to their respective dogmas to great length yet there is one common ground on which they all, so far as I know, wdthout exception, meet. What is it ? That the Bible alone, as understood by each individual, is their rule of faith. They could therefore unite on their pxiblic school question so far as the Bible was concerned. But then they require that Catholic children whose creed never admitted that principle should be taught that doctrine. They had not the same reason that Ave had to go before the Common Council. We felt that we might as wmll at once give iqi to them our children and allow them to educate them as they pleased, as send them to their schools. I deny then the state¬ ment “that similar applications were made.” He proceeds ; “ I say that the Corporation has been desirous, so far as that body possibly could, so far as they felt themselves at liberty, consist¬ ently with the maintenance of a sound general principle, to accommodate these parties. They have granted a privilege out of this fund to the Roman Catholic denomination, which has not been granted to any other. The Sisters of Charity, so called, under direction of the Roman Catholic Church, and connected with it, (I believe I am right — if not I should be happy to be corrected,) established a most benevolent institution in the city of New A^ork, called the Orphan’s Asylum — the Roman Catholic Orphan’s Asylum. They took into this institution jAoor and destitute orphans. They fed and clothed them most meritoriously — and they thus relieved the city of New A"ork of the maintenance of many Afho wmuld otherwise, irrobably, have been a charge uj)on it. After long discussion, and w’ith some hesitancy, yet overcome by the desire to oblige, and aware of the limitation arising from the very nature of that institution, the Corporation did permit the Catholic Orphan Asylum to receive money from this fund ; and during the last year it received some $1,4G2 for the educa¬ tion of about one hundred and sixty-five children — in common wdth the institution for the blind, and the deaf and the dumb, and those other bene¬ volent and Christian institutions whieh are altogether of a Catholic char¬ acter in the most comprehensive acceptation of that term — as they are under no sectarian influence or government.” And pray what sort of an institution is the Protestant Orphan Asylum ? Is religion not taught there ? And yet Mr. Ketchum singles out the Catho¬ lic Orphan Asylum and speaks of the favor conferred on it, in order to show the liberality of the Common Council. We are, indeed, grateful to that body for having placed ours on the same footing with other institutions of a kindred character. But the Common Council have granted money to the Protestant Half-Orphan Asylum, and denied an application uiron a similar grant to the Catholic. How can Mr. Ketchum assert that a “ privilege ” has been granted to us exclusively ? In reference to our last application Mr. Ketchum proceeds : — “ The subject, I repeat, underwent a very full and free discussion ; and, after that had terminated, the Board of Aldermen gravely considered and discussed the subject; and, at length, after some delay, came to the conclusion that they would go and visit the schools. Some of the members of the Board of Public Schools, feeling sensibly SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 209 alire on the subject, expressed to me an apprehension that this was a mere evasion, and they feared that the question had now become mingled with politics. But I said, wait, fentlemen ; let them go and see your schools — it is a natural desire — they ought to go. t is a great and delicate question, and they ought to be acquainted with it in all its de¬ tails. They went and visited the Public Schools, and the Roman Catholic Schools, and they incorporated the result of their deliberations in a report which I have before me, and from which I shall quote by and by. It is drawn up with great ability, and the de¬ cision was, with but one dissenting voice, that the prayer of the petition should be re¬ jected ; and it was rejected.” On this I remark in reference to what I have, I believe, already referred to, that there has been always a panacea for every evil — the aijpointment of a committee to visit the schools. Why this is one of the easiest things in the world ? A little training — a little arrangement — a judicious wink to the teachers — will prepare every thing so that it will be very hard if a pleasing exhibition could not be got up in any one of those schools for one hour, on ipiy day out of the three hundred and sixty-five in the year. But this has been the invariable remedy — no looking at the wounds which the system w'as from year to year, and from day to day, inflicting on less favored portions of the community — no visit to the back streets and miser¬ able lanes of this city, in which so large a proportion of its future inhabit¬ ants are grovelling in exposure to vice and degradation. Nothing of that was thought of. But the schools enriched by the expenditure of more than a million of money W'ere inspected, and the gratified and ajiproving visiters returned to the Common Council to make their report that it was an excel¬ lent system, perfect in its details, and admirable in its working, and it w'as only the absurd bigotry and extreme ignorance of the Catholics that pre¬ vented them- from reaping its benefits ! When he compares wfitli all this, the state of our humble schools. Well, I w’ill not pretend to say that the Catholic schools were in the best order. But here I remark that whilst at every stage and step of the progress of this question, I have been obliged to controvert false statements, I can challenge them to point to a single instance in which they could dispute the truth of any of our documents. And now I will give a passing notice to that visit to the Catholic schools. Hear this statement. This committee say : — “ We also visited three of the schools established by the petitioners, and we found them as represented, lamentably deficient in accommodations, and supplies of books and teachers ; the rooms were excessively crowded, and poorly ventilated, the books much worn, as W'ell as deficient in numbers, and the teachers not sufficiently numerous ; yet, with all these disadvantages, though not able to compete successfully with the Public Schools, they exhibited a progress which was truly creditable ; and with tne same means at their disposal, they would doubttfess soon be able, under suitable direc¬ tion, greatly to improve their condition.” Such is their testimony. And now shall I pass over tliis opportunity of making a comparison ? Wiien questioned before the Senate, the Society stated that they could not get the children to come, and here are our schools crowded to excess? I can show you in a room not much larger than the square of the distance between two of the columns supporting the gallery of this building in which we are now assembled, upwards of two hundred children crowded together ! Yet the Public School Society are obliged to pay $1,000 a year of public money to visitors for the purpose of gathering children to their schools. For the fact came out in the course of the investigation that they paid that sum yearly to tract distributors for the purpose I have stated, wdiilst we in our poverty could not find room or books or teachers for the multitudes of chil¬ dren that thronged upon us, and whom this exclusive system consigns to degradation and ignorance and vice unless something be done for them by others ! (Cheers.) 14 AKCnBISHOP nUGHKS 2ia Snell is the testimony of that very committee. And yet the decision ta wliich they came is quoted by Mr. Ketchiirn as proof that “ a great princi¬ ple,” — of which no definition however is given from the beginning to the eiui of his speech, — prevented tiiem h-om granting our petition. Well, I liave called yonr attention already and would do so again to a paint that shows as clear as noon-day that this denial was not benevolent towards us, nor in accordance with equal-handed justice. They had opposed us as a sect — as being Catholics. The Secretary of State, however — a man whose integ¬ rity of character — legal knowledge — and profound and statesmanlike views, have elevated him to the highest rank in the community, — placed the ques¬ tion on entirely diflhrent grounds. Mr. Ketchum in the last sentence of his speech before the Common Council declared that to the Public School So¬ ciety the discharge of their duties were rather a burthen, which nothing but the extreme benevolence of their nature had prompted them to assume, and unless they were saved from this continued agitation they would throw it off. Well, Mr. Spencer excludes all those objectionahle features and places the question on a broad basis, entirely removed from all sectarianism, and then wliere are those benevolent gentlemen who were burthened with their charge — these “humble almoners” of the public bounty? At Albany, ready for a new fight ! Not for their schools, but to oppose the Secretary, for Mr. Spencer only wishes to make education like the air we breathe, the land we live in ; like other departments of human industry and enterprise, free 1 He would not hold the balance so as to afford the least advantage to any party, but would make all equal, and secure to them the enjoyment of the rights established by the constitution of the country, and who opposed him? The Public School Society. Their interests were not invaded, but they could not admit the principle that we were to receive education con¬ sistently with the laws of the State? Why? You will find that in the course of Mr. Ketchum's speech, he says the Public School Society could not stand one day if education were made free ! If the monopoly which they have wielded for sixteen years should be touched by the little finger of free trade they would perish. “They cannot live a day.” And, gentlemen, if they cannot live one day on the principles of justice and freedom, then I say that half-a-day’s existence is quite enough for their exclusive system. We have seen that Mr. Ketchum has introduced the committee to the schools, and now he comes to the point. “ Who, then, complain of the operations of this system ? Our fellow-citizens, the Koman Catholics. Failing to get from the hands of a body thus constituted, the redress for the grievance which they complained of, they come here and ask it of you. I say they come here, 4>ecause I wdll presently show you from their memo¬ rials, that none hut they come here.” He has brought it round to that, and he thinks if that be established the same prejudices — the same means that were employed to defeat us in New York would be equally efficacious at Albany. He says; “ Failing to ac- comijlish their purpose through the Common Council of the City of New York, they come and ask it here. Failing in their application to a body of representatives, to whom they have applied year after year, and who repre¬ sent a population in which is intermingled a greater mass of Roman Catho¬ lic voters than in any other district of the State of Nevr York.”' See the advantage he takes of our knowm forbearance, and their activity Because we, with honorable motives that should have been better appre¬ ciated, abstain from making this a political one. But they did make it such a question, and endeavored to deter all public men from rendering Justice to the oppressed Catholics. Now^ I am no politician — I belong to no ])arty — and I can also, perhaps, speak with the greater freedom, btmause we have highminded friends and opponents too, amongst both political SPEECHES IN CAEROLL HALL. 211 parties, and I can, perhaps, give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Ketclium’s allusion to “ voters.” After the election of the Governor, the papers in the views of this society referred to it as a warning, and not only so, but indi¬ viduals here wrote to the Governor in terms of reproach against the Cath¬ olics and the Irish for not having been more grateful to him. They taunted him with it. And how is that to be answered ? I should be sorry that ever the Irish should be ungrateful, under any circumstances, or ever forget a friend; and especially at a time when the high and noble principles of justice and equality laid down by the fathers of this country seem to be passing into rapid oblivion, if a public man stands up for the rights of even the humblest portion of the community, he is entitled to the gratitude and esteem of every man who loves his country. Not that the Governor con¬ ferred on us any peculiar favor — I disclaim that — he never asked any thing for us but what we conceived our right. But still he was taunted with references to the ingratitude of the Irish, it was said “ There is what you got by advocating the cause of the Irish.” That shows whether we made our question a political one — and I am glad, in one sense, that the Irish did not vary from the principles in politics to which they had been in the habit of attaching themselves, because that demonstrates that whatever may be the ojhnion of calculating politicians respecting the Irish, that portion of the community have perhaps, after all an integrity of char¬ acter and 23tirity of i)rincif)le which is not unfrequently found wanting amongst more elevated classes of both 2)olitical parties. It was discovered then that the Irish would not abandon their princijdes through selfish motives. But now let me ask what was the case on the other side ? Many of them turned directly round, abandoning all their old ijolitical associa¬ tions and friends, in order to let* Governor Seward know how much he had dared when he declared for justice and equal rights to all (cheers). Such was the case, and our oj^ponents cannot deny it. Mr. Ketchum then is unfortunate in his allusions. He ought not — if he had what I shall not now mention — if he had ju’esence of mind, I will say, he ought not to have alluded to that matter at all, because it has brought up the proofs of what was done by his own clients, while our vindication is triumidiantly effected. We have thus been enabled to refute all the charges urged against us from the pulpits and religious presses at the disiiositinn of the Society, that Ave made a political question of it, and so forth. They did ; — but we did not. Gentlemen, I have dwelt longer on some topics than I intended, and have made less progress in my review of this speech than I anticqaatecl. On to¬ morrow evening I will jiroceed with my remarks. [Loud and long-con¬ tinued applause.] [On Friday evening the Bishop attended according to his intimation at Carroll Hall, where, notwithstanding the extreme inclemency of the wea ther, a very considerable audience was assembled. It was, however, deem ed expedient to adjourn the meeting till the folloAving Monday.] MONDAY EVENING, June 21st. On Monday evening an immense number of persons assembled to hear the conclusion of the Bight Rev. Prelate’s Sjieech. The aisles and galleries of the large hall in which the audience congregated, were densely crowded, and in the body of the house it was imjiossible to obtain a seat for a con¬ siderable time before the meeting was organized. Amongst those present 212 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. we noticed the Lieutenant Governor of the State, and many distinguished Senators. Shortly before 8 o’clock, Thomas O’Connor, Esq., was called to the chaii amid the acclamations of the meeting, and after the minutes of the fonner meetings had been read by B. O’Connor, Esq., the Secretary, the Eight Rev. Bishop Hughes rose and was received with deafening applause. On its subsidence he proceeded as follows : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — I have had occasion already to observe that the question which we are now discussing, has passed, or at least is now passing through the second stage of its progress. In the first stage we had to apjoly to the city authorities, and we were obliged by the circum¬ stances of the case, and for reasons that I have already mentioned, to apply in a character which we did not desire, but which was forced upon us by circumstances, over which we had no control. The issue of that applica¬ tion is known. Then we laid our grievances before the Legislature of the State, and the Secretary of State to whom the question had been referred, placed it upon grounds, altogether different from those on which it had hitherto been considered. Consequently it was necessary for me in review¬ ing Mr. Ketchum’s speech, to consider it under two heads. And hitherto my remarks on it have applied to the question under the circumstances in which it was, previous to its reference to the Legislature of the State. We have now however to consider it on the ground on which it has been placed, in the able, and eloquent, and liberal report of the Honorable Mr. Spencer. And I cannot avoid observing in the first place, that taking into account, the principles of equality and of justice that pervade that docu¬ ment, I did conceive that the Public School Society could not have found any objections againstifc. For you will recollect that Mr. Spencer removes entirely the objections urged before the Common Council against the recognition of our claims. These objections were grounded on the principle that no sect or religious denomination had anything to do with the money appropriated for the purpose of education. The Secretary has completely obviated that objection. He has regarded the petitioners in their civil capacity. He has exhibited the broad and general grounds on which every public institution in this country is conducted, but we find these gentlemen, nevertheless, as zealous, and their advocates as eloquent against Mr. Secretary Spencer, as they had been against us. There can be no charge now that a recognition of our claims would favor sectarianism — a union of Church and State. All that has disappeared, and with it we had hoped would have disappeared the 02)position to our claims. I will now follow Mr. Ketchum in his arguments before the Senate. And first of all I would direct your attention to the number of times in which he repeats that the petitioners are Catholics. He twists and turns that in a variety of ways, in order to convince the Senators that though we aiiplied in the character of citizens, that advantage Avas to be taken away irom us, and w^o were to be clothed before that honorable body with our religious character by the hand of Mr. Ketchum ! I should have less confidence in the stability of this government — less affection for its constituted author¬ ities, if I thought that such a circumstance could militate against us in the minds of those gentlemen, who have been elevated by the suffrages of the people to the guardianshiji of equal rights. (Cheers.) I conceive, therefore, that Mr. Ketchum has mistaken the character of that assembly — that he has exerted himself in vain to fix on us the epithet of Roman Catholics, when we appeared in the character of citizens, and when our light to worship) God according to the dictates of our conscience had been already SPEECHES IN CAREOLL HALL. 213 a 'priori recognized by the constitution of the country. A.nd I ask, is there any crime in being a Roman Catholic ? Is there any advantage to be gained in bringing that against us ? Is there anything in the history of the country which could justify the hope of prejudicing the minds of senators by such an allusion ! No. In the days when men stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder, and blood touched blood in the battle strife, and with their brave swords they won the freedom of their country, was it asked who is a Catholic or who is a Protestant ? (Loud Cheers.) Ilad Mr. Ketchum forgotten the names and deeds of Kosciusko, of Pulaski, or La Fayette, and the Catholic Soldiers of Catholic France ? Was there any¬ thing said against that religion by the fathers of our country when they laid the foundation of the liberties we now enjoy ? Was thei’e any such charge against Charles Carroll when he came and signed that glorious declaration, risking more than all the other signers together ? No. Nor have we any cause to be ashamed of our religion, and God forbid we ever should! I throw back, then, that maneuvre of Mr. Ketchum, and I tell him this is not the country whose constitution makes apparent to the world, that to be a Roman Catholic involves a deprivation of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Last year a petition was presented to the Senate, signed by Catholics alone — this year the petition had other signatures. True, the petitioners tvere generally Catholics, but others signed it too, and I hope and believe that they thought they asked but for justice. However, Mi'. Ketchum, in order to accomplish his purpose, takes up the petition presented last year, and taunts the Secretary as if he were guilty of artifice in making it appear that the members of other religious denominations had joined in oui petition. He says : “ Probably, (continued Mr. Ketchum,) that circum¬ stance was discovered by the Secretary’s sagacity, between 1840 and 1841.” What does he mean by that allusion, except to remind the Secretary that it was by prejudicing the public mincl, by misrepresentations, that certain partizans succeeded in diminishing the vote for his Excellency the Gov¬ ernor ? If Mr. Ketchum does not intend that by this delicate hint, I should like to know what he does mean. He then affects to take up the objections : “ One of the complaints is that the people are not represented in this Public School Society ; that here is an agency used for a great public purpose which the people do not directly choose ; and they complain of the Public School Society being a close corporation.” Certainly all these are grounds of complaint, and all these are so clearly set forth in the Report of the Secretary, that you have but to read that document to see that Mr. Ketchum cannot shake one solitary position ot that honorable gentleman. Is not the Public School Society a close cor¬ poration ? And is not Mr. Secretary Spencer’s Report calculated to place it on the same basis on which all our free public institutions are founded ? Is the Secretary not a Reformer, then, in reference to that Society ? He does here preeisely what Lord John Russell attempts to do in England, when he endeavors to break down the monopoly of the corn laws and to make bread cheap. Mr. SiJencer wishes to break down the monopoly of education, and to make voting and education, the bread of knowledge, cheap. That is to say, that the same people who are supposed to be capa¬ ble of choosing a Sheriff, or a Governor, or a President, without paying for the privilege, should also have the right of choosing the teachers of their children, without paying $10 for it. (Cheers.) Mr. Ketchum passes over that very lightly. That is a point not to be seriously dwelt upon, and he glides into the old charge pre^oared before the Common Council, and takes up the old objections, although not one of them was presented in the peti¬ tion before the Senate. Keeping always before the mind of the Senators 214 AECHBISHOP HUGHES. that we are Catholics, he affects to take up these objections, and says : “ Now, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact now to be stated. There is no complaint in these memorials, nor will you hear any from any source, that the Public School Society does not furnish to all the children who attend their schools a good literary education.” Let me caution Mr. Ketchum not to be so fast, and I will give him my reasons. Prom the manner in which the examinations are conducted, it is the easiest thing in the world to have all ready pre2)ared for the day of visitation ; when the examiners i)resent themselves, pet classes are arranged, and in them pet ptu^nls^ who will irerform their jjart admirably well. It is easy to have all this array, and so it is to be regarded rather as an exhibi¬ tion than an examination. But, if they desire their examinations to create universal confidence, let them have them as they are conducted in Eurojjean Universities, where the jDupils stand forward, and any person who chooses examines them, when not the choice and prepared i3Uj)ils are taken, but the subjects of examination are selected indiscriminately from the classes. Let such a method be adojDted here, and I will venture to say that Mr. Ketchum will not have anything to boast of over other schools. (Cheers.) I do not, however, blame the visitors for not finding fault with the external manage¬ ment of these schools. I think it excellent ; and the best loroof of the sin¬ cerity of that ojjinion was afforded in our willingness to adojDt, and jfface the suj)erintendence of our schools in the hands of these very gentlemen*. But Mr. Ketchum goes on : “ The Roman Catholics complain, in the first place, that they cannot conscientiously send their children to the Public Schools, because we do not a;ive religious instruction in a definite form, and of a decided and definite character. They complain, in the sec¬ ond place, that the school books in common use in the Society, contain passages reflect¬ ing upon the Roman Catholic Church. And they complain, in the third place, that we use the Bible without note or comment — that the school is opened in the morning by calling the children to order and reading a chapter in the Bible, — our common version. These are the three grounds on which they base their conscientious scruples.” Now it is a fact that we do not com^ffain of any one of these things in our petition to the Senate. One of these complaints was expressed in tlie peti¬ tion to the Common Council, and I have already explained the reasons of that presentation. But in the petition to the Senate, we said in general terms, that the conscientious scruples of a large portion of our fellow-citizens were violated by the system pursued in these schools. I will, however, take up these objections in order. Mr. Ketchum says that we complain, in the first place, that we cannot send our children to the schools of the Public School Society ‘‘because religion is not there taught of a decided and definite character.” Mr. Ketchum certainly has not stated that objection correctly, for I defy him to find such words in our i)etition. We complained in general against these schools, that by divorcing religion and literature, they endangered the best interests of children who wmre to grow up to be men, and who, to be useful members of the community, should have their minds imbued with correct principles, and could not be so wdthout being made acquainted with some religious ]n-inci- ples. But we never complained that tliey did not give “ definite religious instruction.” Far from it, and when Mr. Ketchum asserted that we did, I am sorry to say that he asserted what lie must or might have known to be untrue. And how do I prove it? In our propositions to the Committee of the Common Council, when they had gone through with their ceremony of visiting the schools, and the Society had offered their propositions, the very last .article of our proposal was in these words: — But nothing of their ‘1. e. Catholic) dogmas^ nothing against the creed of any other religious denomina~ tion shall he introduced^ Mr. Ketchum saw that, and I ask him, how could SPEECHES IX CARROLL HALL. 215 he undiirtake to make an argument by substituting language entirely differ¬ ent from ours, and presenting it as our objection? How could be say that we found fault with the Public School Society for not teacliing religion in a “definite form,” when they always disclaimed the' right to teach it at all, and considered it a crime for any denomination to ask for it? This is what I call substitution — invention- — a course unworthy of Mr. Ketchum, — of his profession, and of that society of which he was the organ. 1 am well aware that to a hasty reader Mr. Ketchum’s speech will appear very logical indeed. But I have at the same time to observe, that while he reasons logically, by drawing correct inferences from his premises, he has taken care previously to change the premises, and instead of taking our principle as submitted by us, he gradually shifts it — preserving, how¬ ever, enough to deceive a cursory reader — until he substitutes one entirely different, from which he reasons very logically, of course. Let us sup¬ pose Mr. Ketchum a professor of law in some university— for I have no doubt he could fill such a chair, and adorn it too, if he would — and im¬ agine him addressing a class of students. He says, “Gentlemen, one of the most important things in our profession is to know how to conduct an argu¬ ment, which you must always do with logical precision. And to effect this you are to follow this excellent rule : — if your facts sustain your conclusions, well ; if not, you must find other facts that will ! ” (Laughter and loud cheers.) “ The principle of this rule I call the principle of substitution, and an admirable principle it is, but you must be cautious how you use it, espe¬ cially before a judge and jury. But if it is before a public, which reads fast — for there is a great deal to be read — you will find it work very well. Recollect then, gentlemen, this great principle — ‘substitute ’ in your reason¬ ing!” (Loud laughter.) In such a way we might imagine Mr. Ketchum addressing his students And you will find that few reason illogically. Even the inmates of a Lunatic Asylum reason very logically. One of them perhaps, imagines himself a clock, he says, “stand off, don’t shake me — I am obliged to keep time.” That is logical reasoning. The only mistake is that he “substitutes” a clock for a living creature — and reasoning from this substitution he draws the con¬ clusions admirably. So it is with Mr. Ketchum. (Laughter and cheers.) We did not, I tell Mr. Ketchum, ask the Public School Society to teach religion in any definite form. We never complained of their not teaching it. We never did ask such an unreasonable thing from men who made it a crime for religious societies to have any thing to do with the public money. He then states another objection ; — “ that the books used in the schools contain passages reflecting on the Catholic Church.” That is true; and he says in the third place that we object that “ the Protestant version of the Bible is used, that the schools are opened by calling the children to order, and reading a passage from that Bible.” Not a word of that in our petition. That is “ substitution” again — removing the objections presented by us, and substituting others, which might, as he supposed, lead to the denial of our claims on the ground that we object unreasonably. Mr. Ketchum takes up the objection, and in order to show how unreason¬ able that was, he submits the proposition of the Public School Society — passing altogether over ours, which common justice required should have also been presented, as it would have discovered on our part a similar dispo¬ sition, and have entirely undeceived the Senators as to any alleged claim to have religion taught in a definite form. There was no official declaration guarding against the possibility that, next year, another Board might not alter all tliese books to a worse state than ever — and consequently their offer to expunge their books was altogether nugatory. Mr. Ketchum says, however, “This portion of the report, as 216 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. will be seen, lias reference to these offensive passages. New, every borly will say, that it is a fair offer — w'e will strike them out. But, gentlemen of the committee, I submit wffiether here, in this country, we must not in mat¬ ters of conflicting opinions, give and take.” Well, I do not find the Public Siihool Society, although very good at “ at all disposed to any thing. (Laughter.) “ I have no doubt that I can find something in any public school book, of much length, and containing much variety of matter, refiecting upon the Methodists — upon the heated zeal, probably of John Wesley and his followers — reflecting upon the Epis¬ copalians, the Baptists, and Presbyterians. Occasional sentences will find their way into public discourses, which, if viewed critically, and regarded in a captious spirit, rather reflect upon the doctrines of all those churches.” In this way he gets over these passages most insulting to us and our religion, which I pointed out to those gentlemen after their having inculcated them in the minds of the children for sixteen years past! We have to add, however, that in examining these books, we found no passages reflecting on those denominations. Now I will call your attention to Mr. Ketch urn’s views respecting conscience and conscientious scruples. TFi? supposed that w'hen a man could not do a thing in conscience, the reason was that he thought by doing it he would offend God. This is what we supposed to he a conscientious difficulty ; and therefore it was that we did not object — as he says, and as I shall have occa¬ sion to treat of presently — to the Protestants reading their version of the Bible; because believing it right, they could use it with a good conscience. But we Catholics did not approve of the version, many other denominations do not approve of it — the Baptists and Unitarians for instance, — and one objection wms that Mr. Ketchurn and the Public School Society would force on us the reading of that version against w'hich we had conscientious objec¬ tions. We believe that to yield to that, would damage the faith which we hold to be most pleasing to God. Suppose us to be in error, if you please ; but certainly the Public School Society have no right to rule tliat wm are. They are not infallible, and consequently should recognize our right of con¬ science, as we recognize theirs. But Mr. Ketchurn has battled bravely against these principles, and think¬ ing it would be better for us to agree to offend God, and coincide with the Public School Society, wishes to beat down these scruples. And now would you have his idea of a conscientious scruple? He institutes a com¬ parison in order to show how trifling such things are, and he says : — “ On the other hand, there are many passages from the speeches of Mr. Webster, which have found their way into school books ; and a democrat may say, I cannot go Mr. Webster; m3- children shall not be taught to admire him. And thus, if we are captious, we can find conscientious scruples enough.” So that Mr. Webster’s writings are placed, as it were, on a parallel with the w-ord of God himself; — and a difficulty of which he is the subject is spoken of in the same way as if it were a difficulty in reference to God ! And what is Mr. Ketchnm’s conclusion ? That whilst he would trample tm our conscientious scruples about the Deity, to bow with great deference to the scruples about Mr. Webster, and of this he goes on : — “However, if it is iona fide a conscientions scruple, there is the end of it ; we cannot reason with it. But, in the judgment of the Common Council, and as I think must be the case in the judgment of every man, the difliculty is got over by the proposition which has been made.” Well now just let him extend a little of that indulgence to us in the case in which our account to our Creator and eternal Judge is involved. But not so. He next says -.“The next complaint is, that we do not give religious edu- SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 217 cfifion enough.” Where did Mr. Ketchum find that? Tlut is “substitution” again. He has not found that in any thing from us. He proceeds : “ The memorials, all of which are public — and the speeches and documents which have been employed, and which, if necessary, can be furnished to the committee — all go conclusively to demonstrate that, in the judgment of those who spoke for the Roman Catholic Church, we ought to teach religion in our public schools — not generally — not vaguely — not the general truths of religion; but that specific religious instruction must be given. Now, I hardly suppose that this deficiency can be made the subject of conscientious objection.” But that is a false issue. On none of these points has he stated our objec¬ tion. We never objected, as far as Catholic children were concerned, that they did not teach religion. We complained of a system from which religion was (according to them) excluded by law. But that on the contrary they did attempt, surreptitiously, to introduce such teaching, in a form that we did not recognize. What does he say then ? “ The third and last complaint is, that our Catholic brethren can not consent to have this Bible read in the hearing of their children. Now, on every one of these points, the Trustees have been disposed to go as far as they possibly could in the way of accommodation ; but they never yet consented to give up the use of the Bible to the extent to which it is used in the schools. I say the Trustees have never yet consented to this surrender. But if they can have good authority for doing it, they will do it. If this Legislature, by its own act, will direct that the Bible shall be excluded, I will guarantee that it shall be excluded.” Now perhaps, one of the rarest talents of an orator, is that which enables him to accommodate his discourse to the character of the audience whom he addresses. But like all rare talents, it should be exercised with discretion. That the learned gentleman possesses it, however, is proved by the fact, that the very declarations made by him before the Senate are contradicted by his statements before the Common Council, and vice versa. Before the Common Council, in the presence of a number of the clergy, he eloquently denounced the exclusion of the Bible from the schools. If a compromise depended on this, he must say “No compromise.” Before the Senate, however, he is all obsequeousness, “ Gentlemen, if you give us authority to exclude the Bible, I guarantee that it shall be so !” I recollect the beautiful period with which the gentleman wound up his sen¬ timent before the Common Council, I remember him saying that “ it would be hard to part with that translated Bible — hard indeed, for it had been the con¬ solation of many in death — the spring of hope in life— and wherever it had gone there was liberty and there was freedom, and where it had not gone there was darkness and there was despotism.” But I must apologize for attempting to re¬ peat, as I spoil the poetry of his eloquent language. At the time, however, I thought what a beautiful piece of declamation for a Bible Society Meeting ; for, on such occasions, owing to the enthusiasm — the sincere enthusiasm — of the auditors, and the oftentimes artificial enthusiasm of the speakers, alt history, philosophy, and common sense, occasionally, are rendered quite superfluous. The most beautiful phrases, resting on no basis but fancy, may be strung to¬ gether, and will produce the deepest impression. But I doubt much when we come to examine the sober reality of the matter whether the poetical beauties of Mr. Ketchum’s fiction will not be seen vanishing into thin air. I doubt much, indeed, whether the liberty, whose origin and progress history has recorded, will be found to have sprung from “that translated Bible,” in any sense, and especially in the sense of Mr. Ketchum. I, of course, yield to no man in pro¬ found veneration for the book of God, but there is a point of exaggeration which does no credit, but injury to that Holy Book. Let us look at these translations of the Bible. The first was Tyndall’s, then Coverdale’s, and then the Bishop’s Bible. These remained till the time of James the First, and during all that time — a period of about a century — if 218 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. ever (here was a period of degrading and slavish submission to tyiannical power in England, it was then beyond all comparison. At the close of this period a new translation was made and dedicated to the king. It was dis¬ covered that the “ only rule of Faith and Practice ” during all this time was full of errors and corruption. Every one knows that James was one of the poorest scions of the poor race from whom he was descended. Yet in their dedication, the translators appointed to amend the rule of faith by a new trans¬ lation, call him the “ Sun in his strength,” and that from his many and extra- ordinaiy graces, he might be called the “ wonder of the world ! ” Now, during the succeeding sixty or eighty years what were the doctrines of liberty in England ? It was then that the schoolmen of Oxford and Cambridge taught from “that translated Bible” the dogma of “ non-resistance to the royal AUTHORITY ” — that “ PASSIVE OBEDIENCE ” was the duty of subjects — that no crime nor possible tyranny of the prince could authorize a subject to rebel. How could Mr. Ketchum forget all that ? Let us examine the facts of the case and ascertain how coiTect Mr. Ketchum was when he said that liberty had always followed the progress of that trans¬ lated Bible. You will find that from the period of the Reformation down to the Revolution, England was sunk to the lowest degree of slavish submission to tyrannical authority. I’he spirit of old English freedom had disappeared at the Reformation, and it was only at the Revolution that, like a ship recovering its equilibrium after having been long capsized by the storm, that old spirit righted itself again. But do I speak poetry like ]\Ir. Ketchum ? let me appeal to facts (loud cheers.) We find the fundamental principles of liberty as well understood by our Catholic ancestors, centuries before the Reformation, as they are at the present day. They well understood the principle, that all civil authority is derived from the people, and that those elected to exercise it, are res¬ ponsible to those fi'om whom they derive their power. “ By one of the laws of Edward the Confessor, confirmed by the Conqueror, the duties of the king are defined; and it is provided that, unless he should properly discharge them, he should not even be allowed the name of king as a title of courtesy, and this on the authority of a pope. The coronation of Henry I. was based on as regular a con¬ tract as ever yet took place in market-overt. By the coronation oaths of the several inonarchs between him and John a similar contract was implied. By Magna Charta, and its articles for keeping the peace between the king and the kingdom, this implied contract was reduced to writing, and ‘ signed, sealed, and delivered by the parties thereto.’ In the reign of Henry III. Bracton, one of his judges, tells us, that since the king ‘ is God’s minister and deputy, he can do nothing else on earth, but that only which he can do of right . Therefore, while he -does justice he is the deputy of the Eternal King; but the minister of the devil when he turns to injustice. For he is called king from governing well, and not from reigning ; because he is king while he reigns well, but a tyrant when he violently oppresses the people entrusted to him. . . . . Let the king, therefore, allow to the law what the law allows to him — dominion and power — for he is not a king with whom his will, and not the law, rules.” — Dublin Review. There was the language of a judge in the times before either the Refor¬ mation or James’ translation of the Bible were dreamed ofl I pass to ano¬ ther historical event — the crowning of John, on which occasion Hubert, the Archbishop of Canterbury, fearing that the monarch, from supposing that his royal blood alone entitled him to receive the kingly office, should throw the kingdom into confusion, reminded him that no one had such a right to succeed another in the government unless chosen by the people. “ That no one had a right by any precedent reason to succeed another in the sover¬ eignty, unless he were unanimously cliosen by the entire kingdom, and pre-elected according to the eminency of his morals, after the example of tSaul, the first anointed king whom God had set over his people, though not a king’s son, or sprung of a royal rate, that thus he who excelled all in ability, should preside over all with power and uuihority. But if any of a deceased king’s family excelled the rest of the nation, to his SPEECHES IN CAEROLL HALL. 219 flection they should more readily assent. For these reasons they had chosen Count John, the brother of their deceased king, on account as well of his merits as of his royal blood. To this declaration John and the Assembly assented.” I wonder whether an Archbishop of Canterbury, now, with this translat¬ ed Bible in his hand, would dare to utter such language in the presenee of the monarch when he was about to officiate at a coronation ! Let us now turn to what occurred after this translation of the Bible. At the execution of the Earl of Monmouth, there were a number of Protestant divines who exhorted him to die like a “ good Christian,” and the great i)oint on which they insisted was that the subject was bound to obey the prince with “ passive obedience.” But the noble Earl, in whose breast there still burn¬ ed something of the principles of the olden times of England, w'ould not agree to that dogma, and then the divines under the influence of this trans¬ lated Bible refused to pray for him. Their last words were, “ Then, my lord, we can only recommend you to the mercy of God, but we cannot pray with that cheerfulness and encouragement as we should if you had made a particular acknowdedgmeut.” The same doctrine was prevalent at the time of Tillotson, and he speaks of it not only as his own ojjinion, but as that of those for whom Mr. Ketch- urn claims the honor of being considered the apostles of English liberty ! I quote from the Dublin Review : “ Among those who importuned the unfortunate Lord Russell to make a similar ac¬ knowledgment was Tillotston, who, by letter, told him that this doctrine of non-resist¬ ance ‘ was the declared doctrine of all Protestant Churches, though some particular persons had thought otherwise,’ and expressed his concern ‘ that you do not leave the world in a delusion and false hope to the hinderance of your eternal happiness,' by doubting the saving article of faith. Within the same period. Bishop Sanderson deliv¬ ered the doctrine in the following clear and explicit language. He declares that, ‘ to blaspheme the holy name of God, to sacrifice to idols,’ &c., &c., ‘ to take up arms against a lawful sovereign, none of these, and sundry other things of the like nature, being all of them simple and de toto genere, unlawful, may be done on any color or pretence whatsoever, the express command of God only excepted, as in the case of Abraham sacrificing his son, not for the avoiding of scandal, not at the instance of any friend, or command of any power on earth — not for the maintenance of the lives and liberties of ourselves or others, nor for the defence of religion, nor for the preservation of the Church and State ; no, nor yet, if that could be imagined possible, for the salva¬ tion of a soul, no — not for the redemption of the whole world.’ This was considered a very orthodox effusion.” — Dublin, Review. An article of faith that you dare not under any circumstances resist the kingly power. Compare, then, the language of Protestant divines having this translated Bible before them, with that of Catholic divines at a former pei’iod, and see the ground which Mr. Ketchum has found in England for his poetical as¬ sertion. But, perhaps, if we turn our attention to the Protestant govern ¬ ment of Europe, we may find his dream realized. Perhajis he may find his dream realized in Prussia ? In that country there are two jirincipal com¬ munions of Protestants, the Lutheran and the Calvinist. Now, the king calls his ofiicers together, and tells them to draw up a liturgy : decrees th/it both and and must believe or practice this liturgy ? (Laughter and cheers.) Or he may go to Sweden, or to Norway, or Denmark, and the dark despotism of the North, perchance there he may find that liberty, of which he speaks, jirogressing with this translation. What kind of free¬ dom, let me ask Mr. Ketchum, followed this “translated Bible” to Ireland — that everlasting monument to Catholic fidelity and Protestant shame ! (Ti’emendous applause.) But to come to this country — perhaps it was in New England among the Puritans, that Mr. Ketchum’s dreajn was realized — ask the Quaker! (Laughter.) Perhaps it was in Virginia — ask the Presbyterian ! Where was 220 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. it ? Let me tell you. It was in Maryland, among tlie Catholics. They knew enough of the rights of conscience to raise tlie flist standard of re* ligious liberty that ever floated on the breeze in America. (Cheers.) You (nay be told that Roger Williams and his associates in Rhode Island de¬ clared equal rights. Not at all — he excluded Roman Catholics from exer¬ cising the elective franchise. But the Catholics did not exclude him. They may refer to Pennsylvania — the reference is equally unfortunate, for Penn wrote from England remonstrating with the Governor, Logan, I be¬ lieve, for permitting the scandal of Catholic worship in Philadelphia. Turn, now, look at the constellation of Catholic Republics, before Prot¬ estantism was dreamed of as a future contingency. Look at Venice, Genoa, Florence, and that little republic — not larger than a pin’s head on the map — San Marino — which has preserved its independence for such a long course of centuries, lest the science of republicanism should be lost to the world ! Look at Poland — when the Protestants were persecuting one another to the death in Germany, Poland opened her gates to the refugees and made them equal with her own subjects, and in the Diet of Poland, at which the law was passed, there were eight Catholic Bishops, and they must have sanctioned the law, for the liberalism veto gave each the power to prevent it. I challenge Mr. Ketchum to point out, in the whole history of the globe, one instance of similar liberality on the part of Protestants to¬ wards Catholics. Now, what becomes of that beautiful declaration of Mr. Ketchum, that wherever that translation had gone liberty followed ? I know, indeed, that in this country we all enjoy equal civil rights, but I know also that it was not Protestant liberality that secured them. They grew out of necessity, and in the declaration of them there is no difference made between one religion and another. Catholics contended as valiantly as any other, in the first ranks of the contest for liberty. And I fervently hope that it is too late in the day for any one to pretend that Catholics have been so blinded by their religion as to be unable to know what is liberty and what is not. (Cheers.) Be it understood, then, that not one of the objections which Mr. Ketchum has put into our mouths respecting the Bible, was ever presented to the Senate by us. Mr. Ketchum having thus disposed of our pretended objections, goes on to speak of the Secretary’s Report. “ They will be satisfied with it, it will give them what they ask. Now, let us see how ? There is no proposition contained in this report that religious societies, as such, shall participate in this fund — none.” Then, Sir, I ask what is your objection ? In New York before the Com¬ mon Council all your opposition was directed against “ religious societies.” Mr. Spencer has removed every ground for that, and I therefore ask what is your object ? Your object is to preserve the Public School Society in the monopoly, not only of the funds contributed by the citizens for the support of education, but also of the children. He says : “ The trustees of districts shall indicate what religion shall be taught in those schools ; that is to say, that you shall have small masses ; that these small masses shall elect their trustees; and as the majority of the people in those small masses may direct, so shall be the character of the religious instruction imparted.” IVIr. Spencer wishes to take from the Society that very feature which ia objected to — that is to say, he wishes that religion shall neither be exclud¬ ed nor enforced hy law. And yet, Mr. Ketchum, by his old jirinciple of substitution, makes out quite a different proposition from the Report, and infers that the Trustees shall have the power to prescribe what religion sliall be taught. I do not S3e that in the Report at all. On the contrary, SPEECHES IE CAEEOLL HALL, 221 the Secretary leaves parents at liberty to act on that subject as they see proper. Mr. Ketchum supposes a case to illustrate his view of the matter, which I must say does not do him much credit. He says : “ But when a school is formed in the sixth ward of the city of New York, in which ward (for the sake of the argument we will assume) the Roman Catholics have a ma¬ jority in the district; they choose their trustees, and these trustees indicate that a specific form of religion, to wit, the Roman Catholic, shall be taught in that school — ■ that mass shall be said there, and that the children shall cross themselves with holy water in the school, having the right to do so according to this report, the Catholics being in a majority there. Then, and not till then, can these Roman Catholics conscientiously send their children to school — that is to say, their objections to this system are to be overcome by having a school to which they conscientiously send their children ; and that school must be one in which religion is to be taught according to their particular views.” That is drawing an inference without the facts, for we never said so, nor ever furnished him authority to say so, and although Mr. Ketchum has the authority of the Public School Society to speak^ yet that does not enable him, when he states what is not the fact, to make it true. But I wish to know why he brought up that picture at all— why the sixth ward should have peculiar charms in his imagination, or why he should have introduced all that about the children crossing themselves with holy water And pray is it for Mr. Ketchum to find fault with what he supposes to be reli¬ gious error, and for which he is not at all accountable ? Pie has not shown, nor has any man shown that such consequences would follow — it is impos¬ sible that the Trustees could act so ridiculously as to permit such a thing — it was incredible that they, being responsible to the officers appointed by the State, and under the eye of such vigilant gentlemen as Mr. Ketchum and the Public School Society, could permit Mass to be celebrated in the schoois ? Yet such is the picture presented by Mr. Ketchum, quite in ac¬ cordance with his old course, and in order to excite popular prejudices, for which this speech seems to have been so studiously prepared. For he well knew that amongst a large portion of the Protestants there is a vast amount of traditional prejudice against Catholics, which has, from being repeated incessantly and seldom contradicted, become fixed, occupying the place of truth and knowledge. Their case reminds me of w'hat is related of Baron Munchausen. It is said that when this celebrated traveler was old he had a kind of consciousness that there was some former j^eriod of his life when he knew that all his stories were untrue, but he had repeated them so often that now he actually believed them to be true ! (Loud laugh¬ ter and cheers.) It is to such persons as are under the influence of these prejudices and bigotries that Mr. Ketchum addresses his speech, and if he utter the sentiments of the Public School Society, how, I ask, can we confide to their hands the training of the tender minds of our children. But one of the most remarkable things in this speech is, that after having beaten off in succession the different religious denominations, because, as he said, they would teach religion — having, in fact, played one sect against the other — Mr. Ketchum turns round and affirms fJiat the Society itself does teach religion. He says : “ No, sir. I affiim that the religion taught in the public schools is precisely that quantity of religion which we have a right to teach ; it would be inconsistent with pub¬ lic sentiment to teach less ; it would be illegal to teach more.” The “exact quantity!” Apothecary’s weight! (Great laughter.) Nothing about the quality except that Mr. Ketchum having made it an objection that we wished religion in a definite form, he will give it in an indefinite form — a fine religion — but at all events there is to be the “ legal quantity.” Well, now let us see something about the quality of this religion, and I wish to consider 222 AECIIETSnOP HUGHES. the subject seriously. A-nd here let me refer to a beautiful sentiment expressed by the Secretary in his report — He says that religion and literature have be come so blended, that the separation of the one from the other is impossible A more true or appropriate declaration could not proceed from the lips of any man wishing the welfare of his country and his kind! (Cheers.) Now, whenever we made objections to that society for pretending that re¬ ligious subjects were excluded by law, it was on these grounds. We said, we refer you to the experience of public men — to that of the most celebrated states men in Europe, even to the infidels of France — who have uniformly declared that society cannot exist except on the basis of religion. All of them, whether believing in religion or not, have admitted the necessity of having some kind of religion as the basis of the social edifice. But these gentlemen, in all their debates, have contended that the education to be given should be “purely civil and secular.” That is their official language. And now for the first time Mr. Ketchum before the Senate, declares that the society does teach religion, and exactly the proper quantity I (Cheers.) Let me now call your attention to a passage in one of their reading books, in order that we may see a specimen of this religion. I wall now make a few comments on the passage, but I do con¬ ceive that there are persons of all those denominations who recognize the doc¬ trine of the Trinity, who could not be induced to have the minds of their children inocula,ted with such sentiments as it contains. Keferring to our blessed Redeemer one of the school-books says : “ His answers to the many insidious questions that were put to him, showed uncom¬ mon quickness of conception, soundness of judgment and presence of mind ; completely baffled all the artifices and malice of his enemies; and enabled him to elude all the snares that were laid for him.” Are these the ideas of the divine attributes of the Redeemer which the Christian portion of the community wish impressed on the minds of their children ? That such have been the sentiments taught by the society for the last sixteen years, they cannot deny. And they may account for it as they please, but it has attracted the attention of many, that for the last six¬ teen years the progress of that young and daring blasphemy that trifles with all that is sacred has increased tenfold in this city. How do I account for it ? In two ways — first, because a large ijortion of the young are debarred from the benefits of education, and, on the other hand, there is the attempt which has been made to divorce religion from literature. When such causes exist you need not be surprised to find that infidelity thickens its ranks and raises on every side its bold and impious front. I have presented you with a specimen of the quality of that religion which Mr. Ketchum says is dealt out with exact and legal measure. Mr. Ketchum contends that it is a religion of a decided character that we want. And pray what are we to understand by religion that is not decided? A religion which is vague — a general religion? What is the meaning of these terms? I desire to have a definition of them. If there is to be estab¬ lished by law a Public School Society-Religion, I should like to have its con¬ fession of faith, and be informed of the number of articles, and the naturo of tlie doctrines contained in them. But it seems to me that Mr. Ketchum and this Public School Society resemble a body of men who are opposed to all physicians because they understand medicine, and who, althougii them¬ selves opposed to all practice of medicine, are yet disposed to administer to the i)atients of the regular practitioners. And the comparison holds good — for, after all, children are born with a natural moral disease — want of knowl¬ edge, and evil propensities — and education and religion are the remedial agents to counteract these evil tendencies and remove the natural infirmity. Tlien we have the practitioners, as they may be termed, coming to see the [latient, the wliole community supplying the medicine-chest; and we have SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 223 these men snrronnclicg this chest and exclaiming to the physiciai s, “ Cleat oft"! you are a Thomsonian, and you are a Broussaist, you are a Iloinoeopatliic, and yon are a regular practitioner, and you wish to prescribe remedies of a decided and definite character, which is contrary to “a great principle.” And having thus banished all the physicians they turn doctors tliemselves and mix up their drugs into what they call a “general medicine,” of wliich they administer what they call the legal quantity. (Laughter and cheers.) But the gentlemen forget that neither the patient nor the medicine are theirs. Those who furnish the patient and supply the medicine-chest should have a voice in the selection of the doctors. What do the gentlemen really intend? They object to religious societies, but after they had got them pushed out of the house, they begin to teach religion themselves! Mr. Ketchum acknowledges that. He an’d Mr. Sedg¬ wick, his associate, however, do not appear to have studied theology in the same school. One says that religion is the basis of all morality, the other that morality is the basis of religion. And, after all, do men agree any more iu their views of morality than religion? Certainly not. And yet you must give to the children — especially those of that class attending these schools, for it should be borne in mind that they, for the most part, do not enjoy the opportunity of parental or pastoral instruction — some supply of religious education. They are the offspring of parents, who unfortunately cannot •supply that deficiency; and if they are brought up in this way with a kind of contempt for religion — or with the most vague idea of it, the most lament¬ able results must necessarily follow. I now come to another point, the non-attendance of the children at the schools. Whilst our humble scliool-rooms are crowded to excess, the Societj’- have been obliged to give $1,000 a year for recruiting for children. In Grand street they have erected a sjdendid building, almost sufficient to accommo¬ date the Senate of the State, and besides all that, we find they are able to lavish public money in payment of agents to collect children. Mr. Seton, who has been a faithful agent of the Society, made that fact known, and stated that by this means 800 children were collected. And to whom was this money given? To tract distributors — a very good occupation theirs I have no doubt; but at the same time that was rather a singular appropria¬ tion by men so extremely scrupulous lest any portion of the public money should go to the support of any sect. But I suppose that was on the prin¬ ciple of what Mr. Ketchum calls “giving and taking” — that is you give a tract and take a child. (Laughter and cheers.) Then we have quite an effort on the part of Mr. Ketchum to prove that the trustees discharge their onerous duties much better than officers elected by the people. I will quote his remarks on that point; “This Public School Society receives its daily sustenance from the representatives of the people — and the moment that sustenance is withdrawn, it dies, — it cannot carry on its operations for a day.” A most beautiful subversion of the actual order ! For so far from the Common Council patronizing the Society, it is the Society that patronizes f he Common Council — taking them into partnership the moment they are elected, and so far from being dependent on the Council, as was well re¬ marked by a greater authority than I am on this subject, the Council were dependent on the Society. The schools belong to the Society, just as much as the Harlem Bridge does to the Company who built it. What remedy is there then ? The Society, self-constituted, a close corporation, takes into piartnership the Common Council, which then becomes part and parcel — bone of the bone, and flesh of the flesh — -of the Society, and if any differ¬ ence arises between the citizens and the Society, a committee of that very Society adjudicates in the cause ! Thus we have found that the Common 224 A.RCHBISHOP HUGHES. Council, after having denied our claim, and even ■when about to retire and give place to their successors, followed us to Albany, and their last act — like that of the retreating Parthian who flung his clart behind him — was to lay their remonstrance on the table of the tribunal to which we had appealed. Mr. Ketchum says : “ Here are agents of the people — men who, having a desire to serve mankind, associate together; they offer to take the superin¬ tendence of particular works, they offer themselves to the public as agents to carry out certain benevolent purposes ; and, instead of jjaying men for the labor, they v»lunteer to do it for you, ‘ without money and without price,’ under your directions — to do it as your servants — and to give an account to you and an account to the Legislature. Voluntary public ser¬ vice is always more etficient than labor done by servants chosen in any other way.” So that because they serve gratuitously, they discharge their duties much better than if elected by the peo2)le ! Well, let us imiKOve ujjon the hint. Perhaps some of them may be kind enough to discharge the more important functions of the government for nothing ! But if volunteers be more efficient than officers chosen by the votes of the peojAe, let us abol¬ ish the farce of elections altogether. Not satisfied with this, Mr. Ketchum also would seem to contend, that the volunteers are not to be held respon¬ sible ! To establish his 'views on this point, Mr. Ketchum refers to charitable and benevolent institutions. But where is the justice of the comparison ? The sick are incompetent to secure their own i^rotection and recovery. The inmates of houses of refuge, on which Mr. Ketchum has a beautiful aposti’ophe, referring to his own share in the erection of that one estab¬ lished in this city, are likewise unable to take care of themselves. And here let me say, in all sincerity, to Mr. Ketchum, that if he and the Public School Society determine to i^erpetuate their system, if they continue to exclude religion from education, and at the same time to deprive four- fifths of the children, as now, of any education at all — then he had better stretch his lines, and lay the foundation of houses of refuge, as the appro- jiriate suj)plement to the system. Neither does the comijarison hold, as I have before shown, in reference to lunatic asylums, &c. Then Mr. Ketchum goes on to illustrate further, and says : “ But it is said, and said too in the report of the Secretary, that he iDroj^oses to retain these Public Schools. How retain them ? One of the features of the pro¬ posed nesv law is, that all school moneys shall be paid to the teachers. Under such a law we cannot live a day — not a day.” What an acknowledgment is that ! That a law which would make education free — giving equal rights to all — would be the death-warrant of the Public School Society. There is another jjoint on which Mr. Ketchum does not now dwell so emphatically. He says, that there were a large number of tax-payers who, wonderful to relate, asked for the jjrivilege of being taxed, asked for that privilege, for the jiurpose of sujjplying the Public School Society with money to carry out their benev¬ olent iJiuq^oses. Mr. Ketchum seems to consider that at that time there was a kind of covenant made between the jjetitioners to be taxed, and the State authori¬ ties, that when they petitioned and were taxed, the authorities of the State bound themselves to keej) up the system in perpetuum. But did these jter- sons ask to be taxed, exclusively, out of their own pockets, or did they ask for a system of taxation which should reach all the tax-j^aying citizens of New York. There is a fallacy in Mr. Ketchum’s argument here. He sup¬ poses that beeause these persons are large property holders, that they are SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 225 therefore, jSrtr excellence^ the payers of taxes. He forgets that it is a fact well understood in the science of political economy, that the consumer is, after all, the tax-payer — that it is the tenants occupying the property of those rich men, and returning them their large rents, who are actually the tax¬ payers. And what peculiar merit, then, can Mr. Ketchum claim for these owners of pro2:)erty, and petitioners to have all the rest of the citizens taxed as well as themselves ? But he insists that there was an agreement, a cor'enant entered into between them and the State authorities, and if you interfere with its iirovisions, you must release these tax-payers from their obligations as such. With all my heart — I have no objection ! All we want is, that there should be no unjust interference — no exclusive system — no extraneous authority interptosed between the tax-jiayer and the purpose for which the tax is collected. But the fact that others besides these pe¬ titioners are equally involved in the burthen, demolishes this argument of Mr. Ketchum. In his conclusion, the learned gentleman insists, that unless the Society remain as it is, it cannot exist. And then he goes on further, for it would be impossible for him to close his speech without again reminding the Sen¬ ate that we are Homan Catholics. lie SflVs : “ The preople in New York understand the subject, and' the Roman Catholics cannot say that they will not be heard as well there as here. Why not leave the matter to us, the peoprle of the city of New York ?’■ Thus, Mr. Ketchum, after having first endeavored to imjrress the minds of the Senate that we had had all imaginable fair-jjlay, that other denom¬ inations had made app)lications similar to ours, which is not the fact, that our jjetition had uniformly been denied in the several boards rejjresenting the jieople of New York; whereas he knew that on this question, the pieo- IJlc of New York were never represented by the Common Council ; he goes on to say, at last, “ Why not leave the matter to us — the people of the city of New York?” I trust not, if a committee of the Public School Society, called the Common Council, are to be at once parties aud judges, I hope that the question will not be referred back ; although, for Mr. Ketchum’s satisfaction, I may state, that if it were so referred, the Common Council would not, I will venture to say, now decide upon it by such a vote as they did before ; when one man alone had the courage, whether he was right or wrong, to say nay, when all said yes ! (Loud and long-continued cheering.) In consequence of that vote, as they have since taken care to tell us, this gentleman lost his election, but, what is of infinitely more imprortance, he jrreserved his honor. (Renewed app^lause.) Were the matter now before the Common Council, they would see a thousand-and-one reasons for hesitation l)efoi’e deciding as before. For when jmblic men see that any measure is likely to be poj)ular, they can find abundant reasons for taking a favorable view of the question. I null refer Mr. Ketchum to a sign from which he may learn what he pleases. Since the Common Council, that denied our claims, went out of office, their successors have had the matter before them, and when in the Board of Assistants it was propiosed to pass a resolution requesting the Legislature to defer the consideration of the question, the motion was negatived by a tie vote. Still Mr. Ketchum will have the end of this speech something like the end of the last. Then he said this was a most distressing topic to the gentlemen of the Public School Society — that they were men of peace — that I do not controvert, but certainly I must say that in the course of this contest they appear to have exhibited a spirit contrary to their natures ! — but so peaceful were they, Mr. Ketchum said, that if any longer annoyed they would throw up their office and retire ! (Cheers and laughter.) But, 15 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. .22G after all, they could send their agents to Albany to oppose us there — the one, Dr. Rockwell, to disseminate a burlesque on our faith from 'Tristram Shandy — the other, Mr. I^etchum, to plead as zealously, but I think not as successfully, as ever against the recognition of our claims. Mr. Ivetchum says : “ Now the contest is renewed, and the trustees engage in it with extreme reluctance ; they have no personal interests to advance, and they are very unwilling to be put in hostile array against any of their fellow-citizens.” Mr. Chairman, the lateness of the hour admonishes me that I have tres¬ passed too much upon your patience ; I have but one observation to make in conclusion. These gentlemen have spoken much and laid great emphasis on the importance of morality, but as I have already remarked, morality is not always judged of by the same criterion. Let me illustrate this. Accord¬ ing to the morality which mj/ religion teaches, if I rob a man, or injure him in his property, and desire to be reconciled to God, I must of all, if it be in my power, make rejiaration to the man whom I have injured. Again, if I should unfortunately rob my neighbor of his good name — of his repu¬ tation — either by accident or through malice, before I can hope for recon¬ ciliation with an offended God, I must repair the injury and restore my neighbor’s good name. If I belie him I must acknowledge thft lie as puldicly as it was uttered — that is Catholic morality. Well, now, these gentlemen have belied us — they have put forward and circulated a document which existed only in the imagination of Sterne — a foul document — and repi'esented it as a part of our creed. I do not say that they directly required this to be done ; but their Agent did it, and he cannot deny it. I wonder now, then, if they will have such a sense of morality as will impel them to endeavor to repair the injury thus done to our reputation, by any official declaration that that is a spurious document ? I wonder if the consci¬ entious morality that presides over the “ Journal of Commerce ” will prompt its editors to such a course ? If it do not, then it is a monality different from ours. I apprehend that no such reparation will be offered for the injury we have sustained by the everlasting harangue of abuse and vituperation that has been poured out against us for these few' years past. Have we not been assailed with a foul and infamous fiction in the pages of a work called “Maria ]\Ionk?” and have its Reverend authors ever stood forward to do us justice and acknowl¬ edge the untruth ■which, knowing it to be so, they published? Have they ever attempted to counteract that obscene poison which they disseminated, corrupt¬ ing the morals of youth throughout every hamlet in the land ? Whilst de¬ nouncing in their ecclesiastical assemblies the works of Byron and Bulwer, did they include in their denunciation the filthy and enormous lie, published under their auspices — the writings of “ Maria Monk ?” What idea, then, must we form of their morality and religion ? And, here, it would be unjust to omit mentioning that many Protestants, not under the influence of blinded bigotry, have done us justice on this point. In particular I refer to the conduct of one distinguished Protestant writer, who cannot be accused of great partiality for us, but who exposed and refuted the authors and abettors of this filthy libel, to which I have referred. I know that it would be incorrect and unjust to say that thousands of others, sincere Protestants, but high-minded, honorable men, have not taken the same view of the subject. But I speak particularly of the morality of the authors and publishers of these abominable slanders, and I regret that the Public School Society, by their recent proceedings, should have allowed themselves to sink to a kindred degradation ! [The Right Rev. Prelate here resumed his seat, amid thunders of appla .ise, which lasted several minutes.] ME. KETCHUM’s EEJOINDER. 227 REVIEW OE MR. KETCHUM’S REJOINDER, so FAR AS HE HAS GONE, BY BISHOP HUGHES. [Mr. Ivetchnm having attempted a reply, through the columns of one of the city papers, to Bishop Hughes’ great speech in Carroll Hall, on the evenings of June 16th, 17th and 21st, 1841, the following review of Mr. Ketchum’s “ rejoinder ” ap¬ peared in the Freeman's Journal of August 7th, 1841.] I DO not deem it necessary to wait for the conclusion of tlte re> joinder, inasmuch as the American in which it is published, tells us that “ every part is complete in itself.” When Mr. Ketchum pub¬ lished his speech before a Committee of the Senate, I announced that I should review and refute it. The word refute is printed in capitals by Mr. Ketchum, I know not for what purpose. If I had any doubt as to the fulfillment of my promised refutation, the Re¬ joinder, so far, at least, has completely removed it. Indeed I am at loss to know what meamim the gentleman attaches to the word Re- joinder, but in my judgment, the truest title he could have given to ins last production would have been, if he had called it, “A eepeti- Tioisr OF WHAT I HAVE SAID BEFORE - PARTLY IN THE SAME WORDS, AND PARTLY IN OTHER WORDS.” He seems to find fault with me for having seen fit to review his speech in a Public Assembly ; but I had explained the reason of this. It was to save me the time and trouble of Avriting it down. I knew his many fallacies could be most easily exposed ; and yet I had but little leisure for the work of their exposition. In fact, it is only because he is the official organ of the Public School Society, that I would undertake it at all. Nor would this have been neces¬ sary of either of the legal gentlemen who met him at Albany, had been fortunate enough to have had his speech reported. It seems, moreover, that the “ laughter and cheers,” introduced by the reporter, have given ofience to Mr. Ketchum. N o w, to this I have to reply that I requested the chairman of the meeting to for¬ bid eA'ery manifestation of feeling. This he did in my own hearing, but it appears he was not strictly attended to in the matter, and the reporter, as custom is, put down the “ cheers ” and “ laughter ” as faithfully as anything that was said by me. I am not accountable for this, neither do I think that Mr. Ketchum should acquit his oivn speech of having contributed as much to produce laughter as any other cause. At all events, I thought it a very innocent way of giv¬ ing vent to the exuberance of indign.ation, which the course of the 228 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ REVIEW learned gentleman, and the society of which he is the official organ, was calculated to excite. They compel the people to pay taxes for the purposes of education, and then wish to compel them to receive such kind of education as it may please a Close Corporation, having absolute and irresponsible power over the money, over the books, over the Teachers and over the children, to impart. For six¬ teen years has that portion of this people represented by the meeting at Carroll Hall, been deprived of the benefit of this taxation, and that by the efforts of this society, in the indulgence of its grasping ambition, and when they assemble in a peaceful and ordinary man¬ ner, to think and speak of their wrongs and to seek a remedy, Mr. Ketchum would grudge them even the privilege of laughing, Mr. Ketchum commenced his Rejoinder, so called, with a history of his going to Albany, and of what occurred there. This requires no remark from me. He tells us that the matter was “ discussed between himself and Messrs. McKeon and Hawkes in good temper, and with that courtesy which well-bred gentlemen of the Bar uni¬ formly extend to each other.” This is always to be supposed among “ well-bred gentlemen,” whether they belong to the Bar or not. It is a matter of course, and hence my astonishment, when in the discussion before the Com¬ mon Council, where I presented myself as a plain citizen, I found that one gentleman of the Bar, and only one, brought up my mitre and seemed incapable of making a speech until he had jilaced and re¬ placed it several times. It is not for me to say whether this was courteous, and besides, not being of the legal profession, perhaps I had no right to expect that courtesy which Mr. Ketchum says the members “ uniformly extend to each other,” and further saith not. I shall now proceed to notice whatever appears to wear even the semblance of argument in this rejoinder. 1. A large number of petitioners, deeply interested in the sub¬ ject of education, and deeply sutfering by the present system, appeal for relief to the Legislature of the S^tate. They are there met by the Public School Society, and their petition is opposed by an official remonstrance, and by an official living organ. In my review of the remonstrance I proved that the Public School Society had attempted to mislead the judgment of the Senate by submitting in evidence false statements. I proved further that their legal advocate in his speech before a Committee of the Senate, had done the same. I did not say that either knew the statements to be false, but my speech established the fact of their being false in themselves and slanderous in their falsehood. When Mr, Ketchum’s Rejoinder was announced, I thought he would attempt a vindication of the society and of himself in refer¬ ence to this unworthy course. I can see none, however, except that he says with great nonchalance that it was a “ natural desire of the Trustees to preserve their schools,” and that “to oppose the recom¬ mendations of the Secretary, was therefore their duty.” He then asks, but how should this be done ? I answer, it should be done « *• OF MR, KETCIIUM’s REJOINDER. 229. by truth and argument on the merits of the question. It should noi be done by special pleading — not by pushing aside the true facts of the case and “ substituting ” others — not by charging extracts from Tristam Shandy on the Petitioners as dogmas of their religious faith — not by bearing false Avitness against their neighbors in any way, otherwise it will appear as if they hold the end to justify the means. 2d. Mr. Ketchum then goes over the old ground about excluding religious societies. This requires no answer, because it has been disposed of in the speech to which this professes to be a rejoinder. He says “the children in this State do not go to school to be in¬ structed in religion,” Certainly not. Then, I ask him why do the Public School Society impart religious instruction. For we have Mr. Ketch urn’s own authority for the fact that they do so imp.art it, except that they impart it in an “ indefinite form,” and iu the “ legal quantity.” At one time they say it is to be left to the i)arents and the pastors, as if the Public Schools were required to be atheisti¬ cal ; at another they exercise the children in singing hymns, saying prayers and reading the Protestant version of the Scripture. 3. There is nothing so well shows the weakness of the cause ad¬ vocated by Mr. Ketchum, as his directing his argument, such as it is, to the prejudices of Protestants. For this purpose “Roman Catholics” “Church Schools,” “Roman Catholics” “Sectarian Schools,” “ Church Schools,” figure through the first paragraph of his Rejoinder in great variety ; and with endless repetition. I am not sorry to see this. It proves that he feels that he has no A-erdict to expect from Reason and Justice ; and that, therefore, his reli¬ ance must be on his efforts to excite the religious hatred of one class of citizens against another. If those feelings grew out of any pretensions on our part, they would be excusable. But they do not ; they cannot. We ask no privilege ; taxed, like our felloAV citi¬ zens of other creeds, for purposes of education, we have been de¬ prived of all benefit. The schools supported in part by our money, haA’e been conducted in a manner of Avhich infidels did not complain, because the society professed to exclude religion, of which Protest¬ ants did not complain, because, contrary to their own professions, they did teach religion, and that altogether Protestant as to quality, and in Avhat Mr. Ketchum calls the “ legal quantity.” In order to be “ legal ” the legislature must have acted upon the question. I would beg leave to ask Mr. Ketchum in what part of the Revised Statutes the quantity has been specified and enacted. At all events, to require of those who have the misfortune to be neither infidel nor Protestants, to S(ind their children to schools thus constituted Avould be a violation of the rights of conscience. And does Mr. Ketchum think that even his Protestant -countrymen will support him in such an attempt. Does he think that the votaries of bigotry are more numerous than the friends of the American Constitution, which secures the religious as Avell as the civil rights of every man, whether he be a Jew, or Christian, or a Universalist, or a Calvinist, ARCHBISHOP HCOHES’ REVIEW 230 a Catholic or Protestant. But while he contends that the Public School Society teach the “legal quantity” of religion, he defends the same society on the ground that it leaves religion to the teaching of the parents o^ the children and their ministers. Which of these propositions shall M^e believe ? The one contradicts the other, and the legal gentleman in contempt of all logic maintains both. His harping on church schools, then, is a poor subterfuge ; in the only sense in which it could be of service to his argument, the charge that we Avish to have “ Church Schools,” “ Sectarian Schools,” “ Catholic Schools,” is utterly false. We say give us such schools as we can frequent without violation to our conscience, or if you will not, give us the quota of taxes which you collect from us, and apply it yourselves for the purposes of educating the children whom your system drives from the Public Schools. The evidence that our demand extends thus far and no further was before Mr. Ketchum. He has our Avritten and official testimony on the subject before him, and with that testimony, his insinuation that we want the benefit of education money for “ Catholic Schools f as such, is more than “ sub¬ stitution,” it is a sheer gratuitous invention against evidence of the contrary. These may seem strong expressions. But if the official organ of the Public School Society, either impelled by his OA\m prejudices or Avith a vieAv of acting on the prejudices of others, alloAvs himself to employ unfounded statements as the basis of his reasonings to de¬ feat our just claims, then it becomes me to contradict them in lan¬ guage which cannot be misunderstood. WheneAmr he ventures to make a statement Avhich is incorrect and injurious, I must be alloAved the privilege of contradicting it with proper emphasis. 4. In my speech I disputed Mr. Ketchum’s right to set forth the decision of the Common Council, in the city of NeAV York, on the School Question, as representing the Avill of their constituents. I gave my reasons, 1st, because their connection Avith the Public School Society never, to my knoAvledge, Avas made a consideration at the ballot-box ; 2d, because in their decisions they Avere invari¬ ably acted upon by the influences Avhich naturally belong to this society ; 3d, because, as Ave shall prove by and by from Mr. Ketchum himself, they Avere led to decide, in some instances, on the authority of false statements. 4th, because it required an uncommon share of moral courage to withstand all those influences. Noav Mr. Ketchum, in his Rejoinder, passes silently over all these, and represents me as saying that the decisions of the Board of Aldermen Avere not to be regarded as important, inasmuch as the members had a direct jier- sonal interest in sustaining the Public School Society. I said no such thing. I said, and for the reasons already given, that as things have been managed they could not expect to promote their interest by opposing that society. He goes on to tell us that it was intended that these officers of the city should “ spy,” if they thought pro})er, into the most secret actions of the Board and of the Society. But they never, he adds, availed themselves of the privilege. If then, OF ME. KETCHUM’s EEJOINDEE. 231 as lie elsewhere says, they are to he regarded as the representatives of the ])eople, in this connection they were sadly indillerent to the trust contided to them hy their constituents. 5. But the recorder, he tells us, is, ex-officio, a member of the Manhattan Bank, and it is asked whether on that account it is im- liroper for him to sit in judgment on the concerns of the bank ? If he is the exclusive judge to decide in cases affecting the bank, and if he is made a director through the contrivance of the Board of Directors, then the cases would be parallel, and then the party hav¬ ing a suit with the bank would and should think it highly improper that any director of the bank should be the judge on the case. I believe, farther, that tlie people would not tolerate such a case, and in constitutional law Mr. Ketchum himself will be puzzled to find a precedent. He tells us farther, that the Aldermen are members of the Public School Society, not in their private, but in their “ official capacity.” That is, as soon as they acquire the power to distribute the school money, and to drive off some oppressed portion of the community, they are taken into membership by the society ; and as soon as they are unfortunate enough to lose that power, then the society cuts the connection— the partnership is dissolved ! Really this is a singular circumstance for Mr. Ketchum to bring forward. He has just stated that these public officers, “ never, in a single instance,” examined into the affairs of the society, and now he goes on to tell us that “ if they act, it is as a committee on the part of the people,” etc. N o, most assuredly, the people never elected them for that purpose. It is the work of the society, without consulting the people, or rather in disregard of them. 6. In my review of Mr. Ketchum^s speech, I stated in substance that there was no violation of a sound principle, in allowing the dif¬ ferent denominations to receive each a pro rata portion of the school fund. The reason is, that the people whose contributions make up that fund are no other than the different religious denominations. I proved this by the exemption of churches from taxation. Now Mr. Ketchum does not dispute the facts. But he turns aside from the question of constitutional principle, and enters into a calculation which is surely too small for a great miud like his. He says that one denomination might be more prolific in children and less in taxes than another. He would infer, that unless the per centum of taxes and the per centum of children be equal, and unless the per centum of both be equal in one denomination to what it is in another, there will be a violation of his “ great principle.” But he seems to forget that the pro rata principle makes even this ai’gu- ment which, at best, is only fit for a microscope, good for nothing. Besides, Mr. Ketchum seems to hold that the owner of pro])erty and not the occupant is the tax payer. I believe the doctrines laid down in standard works on Political Economy will support me in main¬ taining the contrary proposition. It is the occupant, the consumer, whether he be the oivner in fee, or merely the tenant, who pays the taxes in reality, although in the forms and technicalities of law it 232 AECUBISHOP hughes’ REVIEW would seem to be the owner alone. In this case, also, his reasoning is deceptive and unfounded. 7. Mr. Ketchum reverses the circumstances of the case. He lays the scene of illustration in Ireland — he invests the Green Isle with all the attributes of freedom and equality which belong to this country ; this is the land of oppression from which the Protestants tly away, to seek a refuge in the Irish Republic. There are schools established there in which the Catholic version of the Scripures is used — books containing passages against Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc., are in the hands of the children. These “ Protestant strangers ” remonstrate. They are told that the offensive passages will be stricken out ; but as to the Catholic version of the Scriptures, they must submit to have it imposed on their children, otherwise they are told, with polite circumlocution, to go about their business. Mr. Ketchum justifies the supposed Catholic Republic of Ireland in holding this language to his Protestant countrymen. I do not. I would hold them to be cunning hypocritical tyrants over conscience, if they acted in^ the manner which Mr. Ketchum approves and justifies. And why? First, Because they had boasted that the stranger had but to touch their soil, and that from that moment his conscience should be free, and when, trusting to this, he lands on their shore, they meet him with a cunningly devised system to entangle his con¬ science and violate their chartered pledge. Second, Because they tax those “ Protestant strangers ” for the supiiort of a system, and give them 710 return for their money. Third, Because in doing all this they have the hypocrisy to pretend that they have the kindest feelings for those “ Protestant strangers,” and have no wish but to educate their children. Mr. ketchum may justify them, but I should be ashamed of their hypocritical duplicity.. They would bring a disgrace by it both on their religion and on their country. BuL after ail, we do not admit that the Public School Society is yet possessed of national power such as Mr. Ketchum supposes in the Irish Republic. Neither do we admit that a decision of the Common Council in favor of that society is equal to an act of sov¬ ereign legislation, nor yet that Catholics are necessarily strangers, nor yet that this is a Protestant Republic. In all these points his reversion of circumstances fails ; although if his reversed picture could have any value, it would be from these sly touches of false coloring, which being false, I beg leave most respectfully to rub out. That the great majority of the inhabitants of this country are 7\ot Catholic, I admit ; but that it is a Protestant country, or a Catholic country, or a Jewish country, or a Christian country in a sense that would give any sect or couibinaton of sects the right to oppress any other sect, I utterly deny. How then can Hr. Ketchum call it a Protestant country ? England is a Protestant country, because it has a Protestant Church establishment. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate the same of this country ? Again, in his picture, the Catholics are strangers and foreigners. Many of them are, but OF ME. KETCHUM'S EEJOINDEE. 233 there is no denomination, perhaps, which does not include foreign ers, but let me tell Mr. Ketchum that the Avhole population of the United States is derived from foreign origin. The country, too, was discovered by Catholics ; they have taken their places among its earliest settlements ; they have borne their part in its history, con¬ tributed to its improvement, stood by its defence, fought and bled for its independence. With what propriety, therefore, can Mr. Ketchum assume that Catholics, as such, are strangers and foreign¬ ers, more than any other denomination ? Among the neglected children whom he labors to deprive of education, except on terms such as it would become only the high Protestant tories of England, or Ireland rather, to urge — there are those, I have no doubt, wdio can trace as long a line of American ancestors as the gentleman himself. It is too much the habit of Mr. Ketchum, and of the school to which he belongs, to regard Catholics and foreigners as synonymous. 8. The next division of the Rejoinder is a labored effort to create a conclusion favorable to the Public School Society from a crowded and rather confused assemblage of facts, not real, but “ substituted ” according to a great “ principle.” From what he says it may be inferred, that if we were merely citizens, he would recognize our claim to justice. Men of ordinary vision would see merely “ Peti¬ tioners ” in those who sign or present or advocate a “ Petition.” But Mr. Ketchum can see a little farther into the mill-stone. His deeper penetration enables him to discover only “ Roman Catholics,” “ Trustees,” and “ mitred gentlemen.” These attributes or acci¬ dents would seem, in his estimation, to extinguish our rights as citizens. We deny his conclusion. If his appeal be to the law, we challenge him to show any act abridging us of our rights on such grounds. If his appeal be, as it is, not to the law of the land, but to sectarian Protestant prejudices, we thank him for so well showing forth the spirit of the Society which he represents, whilst we taunt him at the same time for such apostacy from the better spirit of the American Constitution. At all events, in this connection we find “ Roman Catholics,” “ Church Schools,” “ Catholic Trustees,” re¬ peated ill almost every line. One word on what Mr. Ketchum calls “ Church Schools.” When our children were required to sacrifice their religious rights at the doors of the Public Schools, a condition sine qua non of their admis¬ sion, we tried to provide education for them at home. Teachers were engaged, and they Avere instructed in the rudiments of educa¬ tion, either in a building erected for the piiiq^ose, or more generally in the basement stories of the churches. This was enough for Mr. Ketchum. He props up nearly a column of his Rejoinder Avith repe¬ titions of the Avords ‘‘ Church Schools.” Indeed, this, with the other denominational epithets Avhich he clusters and harps on, may be regarded as the single string of his eloquence. But Paganini himself could not extract a greater variety of sounds from it. Koav let us see the difference betAveen the Public Schools and 234 ARCHBISHOP HUGHRS’ REVIEW ours on this ground. We have Mr. Ketch urn’s own authority for the fact tliat they do teach religion in the Public Schools, but in “ the legal quantity,” whilst in ours it was taught according to a constitutional measurement. Where is the diflerence ? The only difierence is, that theirs was taught at the expense of the public funds, to which v^e are contributors, whilst ours was taught at the expense of our private purse. 9. He begins his next paragraph in this wise. “ Let us suppose that the Bishop receives the funds.” . . He knows very well that the Bishop does not want to receive the funds. But in truth, “ supivosition ” is the safest region for him to dwell in — for when he supposes, there is much less risk of his being refuted, than when he asserts. There he may give eight hundred or a thousand dollars a year to “priests,” “brothers” and “sisters” of charity, just as his fancy directs. But even if such a thing were to happen, it would not be a greater violation of public right, than for the P ublic School Society to give a thousand dollars a year of jmblic money, to tract distributors, for gathering children into their schools — which is not a “ supposition,” but a fact. He tells us that “ the policy of the law is, that as we have one Country and one Constitution, so we ought to be one people. Union ^ and not separation, is the American Motto.” Granted. But is the policy of the Public School Society the platform on which all this is to be accomplished ? Is it Union consistent with free¬ dom ; or union that violates liberty, that the law has in view ? Is it the policy of the law to deprive the citizen of his rights, if he cannot “ unite ” with that society in the semi-infidel, semi-protestant lirinciples, by which their schools are governed? If this be the kind of Union that is sought (and no other would be of any use for the object of the gentleman’s argument) a more certain way of destroying Union and producing separation could not well be de¬ vised. 10. Mr. Ketchum said before the Committee of the Senate, that one of the grounds of objection to the Public School Society, on our part, was “ because they (the Public School Society) did not give religious instruction in a definite form., and of a decided and DEFINITE character.^'' This statement he made to Senators, and reasoned from, as if it were a fact. And yet, as I proved in my review, it was no fact at all, but a “ substitution ” of his own, instead of the fact. Men who allege that the various creeds, represented in their Board, “neutralize” each other, are about the last from whom we should expe'ct, or whom we should permit to give, “ reli¬ gious instruction in a definite form., and of a decided and definite character.” This was a legitimate subject for a “ Rejoinder but the gentleman meets it so submissively that I forbear to press it. He says his statement was founded on a “ distinction upon which candid men will set little value.” Little or much, I give him the benefit of it, so long as he falls back from the statement which he advanced before the Committee of the Senate of Albany. 4 OF MR. KETCHUM’s REJOINDER. 235 11. But I should have supposed that Mr. Ketch um would have been more cautious in his statements, from his having been mistaken in regard to the one just pointed out. His next position, however, is as follows. He says : “ thus far, if I have been able to excuse my own intentions, it has been shown, in opposition to the argu¬ ments of Bishop Hughes, that Church Schools are not Common Schools ; that money raised by taxes imposed on the people cannot be used to advance the doctrines of any religious denomination ; and that religious societies, as such, cannot participate in the school fund.” Kow I assure the gentleman that if these were his inten¬ tions, he has not been able to execute them. The three propositions which he has stated are truisms wdiich I hold as well as he does — and in oiiposition to which I am not con¬ scious of having ever framed an argument. We have ever declared against the misrepresentations which the gentleman and his col¬ leagues multiplied around us, that “ we would scorn to advance our religion at the expense of any money but our own.” 1 never used any argument inconsistent with that declaration. W e proposed to place our schools under the management of the Public School Society, and that the books to be used should contain nothing of our dogmas, nothing against the creed or character of other denom¬ inations. And as to participating in the school fund, it is as citizens we wmuld be considered, if Mr. Ketchum ivould allow us. But the merit of his ingenuity consists in elevating, or depressing us, just as you may please to call it, into a religious society, and then battling us “ as such,” to use his own favorite phrase. 12. Mr. Ketchum next makes his comments on the Secretary’s report, and passes on to an exhibition of the consequences that must follow, in the expulsion and expurgation of school books, if the re¬ commendations of the Secretary or the claim of the petitioners be granted. He contends that the Bible and a great many English classical works must be banished from the schools, before the peti¬ tioners, “ the Roman Catholics,” will be satisfied. According to him, the district system will bring them no relief which they may not find in the public schools. Then follows an episode on the mutilation of an eloquent burst of the Earl of Chatham, the hiatus being supplied by melancholy black lines. When I first saw these lines, knowing that in Gernuany music is a part of common school education, I thought Mr. Ketchum was about to introduce the system here, and that these lines exhibited the stave already prepared, on which it would be so easy to write the notes, and mark off the bars. But on closer inspection, I found it was only the mourning dress, for the absence of a passage from the noble Earl’s speech, about the “ tyranny of Rome,” “■ Popish cruelties,” and “ inquisitorial practices.” The editor of the American, too, in a special article, mourns with Mr. Ketchum over the grave of these eloquent phrases, of which the black lines may stand as the silent epitaph ; and the good editor seems to say -to his readers, “ ye who have tears to weep, prepare to shed them now.” This is all 236 ARCHBISHOP hughes’ REVIEW fair. But when he arraigns us for the cruelty that has been exer cised on these eloquent passages, we must be allowed the ordinary privilege of pleading, and we say “ not guilty.” The learned gentleman himself, and his colleagues of the Public School Society, are our witnesses, that we never asked them to mu¬ tilate books on our account. This havoc in English literature is en¬ tirely the gratuitous work of the society itself; and when the American makes “Romish priests” the object of its courtly repri¬ mand, for this cause, it reminds one strongly of the situation of Gil Bias, who was sure to get a flogging whenever his young master missed the lesson. But when I found that Mr. Ketchum has exhibited these black lines, not for the purpose of having music set on them, but to show what luxuries of literature have been sacrificed to the conscientious scruples of his Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, as he sometimes calls us, I thought of the terrible retributions with which patient Truth often vindicates her own righteousness. Can this be the same Mr. Ketchum who, in the spring of 1840, averred before the Committee of the Board of Assistants, that there was nothing in the books of the Public School Society which reflected injuriously on the religion of Catholics ? This averment could not but have its effect on their decision. That decision has been quoted, among others, before the Committee of the Senate, as evidence of what was always the judgment of the public authorities of Kew York. And now, in July, 1841, we have this same gentleman supplying the evi¬ dence in black and white, with his own pen, that the statement made by him and his colleagues in 1840 was not true, and therefore was calculated to mislead the honest judgment of the Committee and of the public, who naturally believed it. But so it is. 1 3. Mr. Ketchum next turns to the bill introduced in the Senate, and to his great amazement he discovers that it would remove the grievances of which the petitioners complained ! Why, certainly. What would be the use of a bankrupt law, if it did not bring relief to the bankrupts ? He finds that the present system ought to be preferred. And his reasoning on that point is curious. The rich as well as the poor, in the present system, can have their children educated at the public expense. But in the proposed system, if there should not be enough for both, the poor children who cannot pay, are to be educated without expense, and if any are to be re¬ quired to pay, it will be those who have the means to do so. The education of the poor is one of the noblest works of philanthro])y ; one of the wisest measures of policy on the part especially of all free governments. To make war on that principle, as Mr. Ketchum does, is not in harmony with the spirit of the age — neither is it in harmony with the indignation which he manifests at the idea of hav¬ ing the “names of the children of poverty put on the public records.” This phrase, with the help of capital letters, Mr. Ketchum may regard as a grand popular hit. But does he forget that, in the present system, according to himself, the Public School Society are OF MR. KETCHUM’S REJOIJifDER. 237 “ Almo^^ees ?” and if so, he has already decided tha t both rich and poor, who receive education in tlieir schools, are “ paupers.” He has placed all who receive the bounty of these “ Almoners ” on a level with the inmates of the Alms-house and Lunatic Asylum — from which comparisons he has remorselessly borrowed arguments for the guidance of honorable Senators. And this is the same gen¬ tleman who is, or affects to be, indignant at the idea of a prospect which secures the advantages of education to the poor man’s chil¬ dren on his declaring (no disgrace, assuredly) that he is unable to ■pay for it. He asks whether the author of this project “ can have an American heart !” If an American heart means a large, liberal, republican heart, that loves justice and equality, then his heart is evidently far more “ American ” than that of his assailant. “But,” says Mr. Ketchum, “will not the Roman Catholics greatly gain by this mode of distributing the funds?” No. The commu¬ nity will gain by it — the State will gain by it. The thousands and thousands of poor children, now outcasts from education, will be brought within her temple, and qualified to benefit their country in after life, instead of being left in ignorance, a prey to vice, and a scourge to society. Their being Catholics or Calvinists is a matter of chance or choice, with which a right-minded American Legislator can have nothing to do. 14. The third section of the Rejoinder, published in the American of 24th July, is so much weaker than even the weakest portions of his previous chapters, that it scarcely needs a reply. Indeed, if I had, at any time, thought that Mr. Ketchum had looked beyond the considerations which usually operate on the mind of an ad¬ vocate professionally engaged — if I had thought that, at any time, he regarded this question on high public grounds, apart from very strong religious prejudices which manifestly operate on his feelings, I should have respected his opposition; and, considering the symptoms of misgiving exhibited in his last section of the Re¬ joinder, flattered myself with the hope that in the progress of the disciission, new views and better light were breaking on his mind. But the ground of that hope is destroyed by the course which he has pursued from the commencement. Does he argue the question on its merits, as a public man should ? Does he appeal to truth and justice? or rather, does he not appeal to religious prejudice, and to what, under the clouded light of that prejudice, he considers “ ex¬ pediency?” Now I can tell him that this mode is not calculated to ])rocure any advantage to the State, or the community, or his own reput.ation. States and communities, as well as individuals, should remember that “honesty is the best policy,” and he who recom¬ mends any other policy will never be ranked among either the bene¬ factors or ornaments of mankind. 15. Mr. Ketchum here introduces a retrospective synopsis of his labors, at the termination of which he closes the circle of his argu¬ ments for the last eighteen months, by telling us that “ we are at the very point from which we started, and the question is now as it 238 ARCHBISHOP HHGHEs’ REVIEW was th«n: Shall the School Fund be applied to religious or sectarian purposes?” No, sir; not in the sense in which you unfairly employ these terms. You know that this is not the question. But the true question is ; Shall the Legislature of the State abandon to ignorance the children of this metropolis, who cannot consent to be given over to the irresponsible training, sectarian or anti-sectarian, just as you may please to call it, of the Public School Society ? 16. He next takes an extract from the Catholic Expositor to show “farther,” that the object of the Roman Catholics is to “establish such schools for the advancement of their doctrines.” The value of this argument depends on whether it is set forth in the extract, that public money is sought for that purpose. It is not so as¬ serted, but Mr. Ketchum disingenuously conveys that idea to the mind of his reader ; he says, “ But not at the expense of the State, my friends.” Who said it was to be at the expense of the State ? No one. Yet the learned gentleman suggests and insinuates this. The insinuation, however, is utterly false. Again, he says the sentiments of the extract are “admirable when said to excite volun¬ tary contributions — but quite the contrary when said to get hold of the School Fund.” But it is not said. Mr. Ketchum insinuates it for effect. The observations were made to show the havoc which ignorance and vice had produced among Catholic children, under the present system. I think the gentleman does himself great in¬ justice in continuing to advocate a cause which requires of him to have recourse to such expedients for its support. We want a sys¬ tem of education in which the managers shall not claim or exercise the dangerous power of i^erverting or destroying the religious sen¬ timent which they do not happen to approve. You have no right to require that Catholic children shall learn your Protestant pi'ayers, Protestant hymns, and Protestant Scriptures. Now Mr. Ketchum maintains all this, the Society practice all this ; and yet he and they contend most absurdly that there is nothing sectarian in all this ! If all were Protestants there would not be. But this is not the case. But how does Mr. Ketchum justify this? By the will of the “ma¬ jority.” The same argument by which “ Church and State ” es¬ tablishments are defended all over the world! He says that the object of the Legislature in establishing Common Schools was to bring the children of the community together so as to blend and harmonize the advocates of different religions, and political opin¬ ions, into one great national family. He then refers to New Eng¬ land as a happy illustration. New England has indeed much to be proud of — but within her limits stands her monument of shame as well as glory. From the base of her proud pillar on Bunker Hill, can be seen the black ruins, the burned convent. This does not say much for the effect of her Common Schools. So far, at least, I think the gentleman will agree that New England is not a fit model for the imitation of New York. 17. He next introduces the discontent of a minority of the Legis¬ lature at a decision of the majority on the School Question, as a par- OF ME. KETCHUM’s EEJOUiTDEE. 233 alle] to the case of the petitioners. He is at fault in the comparison. The reason is that a minority, according to his text, are actuated by a caprice. They say, “We do not approve of one or all these books.” But let him suppose the majority were to say, “ Be it enacted that the books of Common Schools shall contain lessons laudatory of Catholic ages of Christianity, laudatory of men and principles of that creed ; and further, that the Catholic Scriptures shall be publicly read;” would, or could not, the minority have a right to say ’.“We disapprove of these books ?” Yet, according to Mr. Ketchum, they should have to submit. I dilfer with him again — I tell him boldly — and he will not deny it to sxipport his sophistry — that there are things which the majority have a right to decide, and to which the minority are bound to submit ; but there are other things in which it would be tyrannical for any majority to decide, and this is one of them — the relation between a man’s conscience and his God. Mr. Ketchum employs arguments which are better suited to the defence of Church establishments in Spain, Italy or England, than to the republican doctrines of this hemisphere. Pie gives another illustration, which is equally fallacious. The Society of Friends do not allow their poor to go to the Alms-house, and yet the majority has decided that this shall not exempt them from paying taxes to support that insti¬ tution. The gentleman contends that they would have, on this ac¬ count, the same right to claim back their portion of those taxes, for the support of their poor, that the petitioners have to claim their share of the School Fund. Kow, if the same reasons existed, in the one case as in the other, they would. Suppose, for instance, that in the Alms-house the managers should require of all the inmates to conform to what they might call the “ legal quantity ” of religion ; and on the refusal to do so, turned the recusant out to die in the streets — then the case would be parallel between them and the Public School Society, and the indignant community would soon hurl such managers into private life. But the Public School Society under its close-corporation privileges can play the part, in reference to the minds of the children, and yet bid defiance to the community whose money they expend as to them seemeth good. 18. Such are the foundations of Mr. Ketchum’s arguments, and when building on these, he comes to speak of what “ he has shown conclusively, he thinks.” It is ludicrous. He next tells us there are hundreds of Catholic children attending these schools. I do not believe it — and Mr. Ketchum does not profess to speak from his own knowledge. But if there are, it is against their conscience. Do Protestants approve of this ? I believe the better portion of them would blush to have it supposed that their religion would sanction such refined coercion of conscience, or required it. He next adduces my testimony in favor of the system of Public Schools. This would have been to other minds an evidence of mv candor and sincerity. He then takes a passage of my speech out of its connection about examinations in the schools, with a view, I suppose, to show me as 240 AECHBISnOP hughes’ REVIEW inconsistent, and as finding fault with what I had first praised. I was reviewing that part of his speech in which he had taken it for granted, that, for giving a good education, there were no schools in the world to be compared, or at least to excel, those of this society. What was the proof? The examinations — visiting the schools. This was the panacea. Whenever there was a doubt, his remedy had always been to say to Aldermen and Senators, “ Gentlemen, come and visit our schools.” I did not deny the excellence of the schools, but I denied that this proof (and he never gave any other) was suffi¬ cient evidence. Why ? Because “ pet classes,” “ pet pupils,” a “little training,” a “judicious wink of the teachers,” etc., can pre¬ pare enough for a satisfactory examination, even in an indifferent school. Now it happens that this was a true picture to a greater extent than I had supposed. The helpless dependency of the teach¬ ers on the will of the trustees, without power of redress, or any right of appeal, qualifies them for the fullest subserviency to the wishes of their absolute employers. Their bread depends perhaps on their ability to get up a good examination (i. e. an exhibition of acquirements) whenever an important occasion makes it necessary. This is no reproach, it is human nature. But just admire the ingen¬ uity of Mr. Ketchum! Pie extracts from this charge as if I accuse the “ trustees ” of being the authors, instigators, or accomplices in this proceeding, and calls it “ slander.” It is his own invention ; he may call it what he pleases. Again^ I said the “ external manage¬ ment of the schools "was excellent.” Mr. Ketchum represents me as saying in effect the “ management outside of the school house !” No, no! By •“ external,” as opposed to “internal,” I meant what re¬ lates to the body as distinguished from what relates to the mind : hours of attendance, decorum of behavior, respect to the teachers, puntu- ality, order and discipline of the schools, etc. All this was external management which I thought excellent. Internal management in education would relate to the character of the ideas to be fixed in the young minds of the puiiils. For instance, we have seen, among other things, the public money employed to teach the children “ that the Catholics are deceitful.” This I could not call excellent — it was abominable ; but it was some¬ thing internal, i. e. impressing itself upon the minds of the children. I trust that this explanation will show Mr. Ketchum that ivhen edu¬ cation is divided into internal and external the latter does not mean “ outside of the schools,” but simply outside of mind and heart of the pupil. 19. lie says, “I’he Bishop knows how to describe the process of blinding the eyes of the visitors very well.” I thank him for the compliment. But I have been reviewing for some time his speeches on the School Question, and they are such admirable specimens of the “ blinding process,” that I have but little merit in being able to des¬ cribe it now. Religious prejudices, unfair and unfounded state¬ ments, false reasoning, sophistry and special pleading have all been put in requisition to make up a false issue, and this for no higher OF ME. KETCHUM’s EEJOINDEE. 241 end than to secure one or other of two results, viz. : to wound the consciences of Catholic children by making them attend public schools constructed entirely on Protestant principles, or else con¬ sign those children to ignorance by denying all other means of edu¬ cation. How much more worthy of Mr. Ketchum’s professional rank, if he were found pleading for those he opposes, if he were found shedding the light of a superior mind, and the glow of a warmer and larger heart into the dark and chill region of anti-Catholic bigotry and pre¬ judices, instead of ministering new elements to increase their density and murkiness. Why does he not leave the propagation of reli¬ gious hatred to the pulpit, if they must be perpetuated, and preserve at least the legal profession untainted by them foul, contaminating breath ? Why does he not forewarn the community that they must expect less virtue hereafter from the children whom he now labors to cut olF from the hope of education, than from their equals in age, who may look forward to a more fortunate and partial future? Why does he not tell the Legislature and the Judge that the punish¬ ment of crime should be according to a mitigated standard for those against whom he shuts the door of knowledge unless they sacrifice that for which great men in all ages sacrificed everything besides — conscience ? They, surely, are not to be judged by laws made for an educated community. I have now replied to Mr. Ketchum’s rejoinder so far as pub¬ lished ; neither have I any idea that in what is yet to come he can produce other or better arguments than those he has already given. 16 242 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. Meeting 'in "Washington Hall, February 11th, 1841. The largest meeting which has ever been convened in this city on the subject of the Public School System of Education "was held at Washington Hall, on Thursday evening, February 11, pursuant to requisition. The spacious Hall — the largest in the city — was filled to overflowing. The greatest enthusiasm prevailed, several interest¬ ing and eloquent speeches were delivered, and measures were adopted for bringing the question immediately before the Legislature. A central executive committee was appointed to prepare a memorial to be presented to that body ; and meetings in the several wards and the appointment of a committee in each one were recommended. This meeting was called in consequence of the Board of Aldermen having reported adversely to the Petition of the Catholics for a por¬ tion of the School Fund. The meeting was organized by appointing Thomas O’Connor, president ; Francis Cooper and Gregory Dillon, vice-presidents ; and B. O’Connor and Edward Shortill, secretaries. Thomas O’Connor, Esq., on taking the chair, remarked, that it was not for the promotion of party or sectarian views that they were assembled, but simply to express their determination to persevere in maintaining their just rights. The Catholics of New York had been unjustly attacked, and they merely claimed the exercise of the right to defend themselves. The Very Rev. Dr. Power then rose and said that in the absence of Bishop Hughes, whose presence was momentarily expected, he would briefly address the meeting. When he had concluded. Bishop Hughes rose, and was received with loud cheering, on the subsidence of which he spoke as follows : My friends, take care of your cheering, for if the advocate of the school society be passing by, he will say this is a meeting of Whigs or Democrats. He, you know, is not obliged to reason like other men, and if he should pass by and reason so, the fault will be yours for cheering, and not his for foolish reasoning. [Laughter and cheers.] My friends, it is not necessary to go over the ground with which you all arc familiar, and I will not, therefore, enter into the detail of our past proceedings in this matter. We come here denied of our rights, but not conquered ; and we tell these honorable gentle¬ men of the public council that we asked of them only our rights. We presented a case that required the attention of the body to whom are entrusted the rights of the citizens of this great city. We said, here are our grievances — here are our complaints — if we are right, redress our grievances ; if we are wrong, point out our error. They did not point out the error, because they could not find one; and they did not redress the grievances, although it was in their power. [Cheers.] They certainly received us with great politeness ; and for myself, I must say, that I am indebted to them for their personal courtesy. Nevertheless, I was not so dark- sighted as not to perceive from the very beginning that