"And I am to inform you that as the Board require the personal attendance of the godfathers and godmothers who object to the instruction of children in the Limehouse Establishment, in the Established Religion, they are anxious to save you the trouble of making such written applications in future."

There can be, of course, no difference between the manner in which the parents or sponsors, respectively are to make application that the priest may visit and instruct children. As far as the parents are concerned, the PoorLaw Board have expressed their opinion very clearly, and hence we may deduce what they would say if this proceeding were to be brought before them; but a Board of Guardians which, like Stepney, has disregarded the General Order of August last, is not at all likely to be overawed by a letter of the same authority addressed to other parties. But as this letter may be of some weight in the eyes of other Boards, we think that we may be doing good service in placing it on record in this place. It is addressed to J. T. Rowsell, Esq., Clerk to the Board of Management of the Central London District School, under date of 23 July, 1853.

"The Board direct me to state to the Managers of the District School, that it appears to them inconsistent with the provisions of the 43rd section of the 7th and 8th Vict. c. 101, to refuse admission, at any reasonable time of the day, to a Roman Catholic Priest, whom the parents of any child have requested to visit such child for the purpose of affording to it religious instruction, provided that a written request by the parents be produced to the managers or to the superintendent of the school, and that there be no reasonable ground for doubting that it expresses the wish of the parents that the child should receive religious instruction accordingly. Upon the facts of the present case, as stated by Mr. Rayner, the Board are of opinion, so far as they are at present informed, that the circumstance that the request of the parents was addressed, not to the managers, but to the Roman Catholic Priest himself, by whom it has been produced to the superintendent, cannot be deemed to take the case out of the operation of this general principle; and they think therefore that if the managers be satisfied that it is the parent's wish, no impediment should be offered to the religious instruction, at reasonable times, of the children in question by the Roman Catholic priest."

We are glad of this opportunity to be able to speak of the Poor-Law Board as it deserves. Whichever political party be in power, we have no fear but that a case carried

on appeal to the Poor-Law Board, will be judged with fairness and equity. The only fault that we have to find is, that they are too timid in enforcing their own judgments upon unwilling Boards of Guardians. Whether this is owing to a want of sufficient jurisdictional power, or what its cause may be, we cannot say; but so it is, and we suffer seriously from it. What comfort is it in the Coles' case to feel that the Poor-Law Board is of opinion that the Stepney Union is acting unjustly? What consolation is it to Mr. Gibson, whose 300 children are taught in their history lesson, to hate the Church, that the Poor-Law Board" regret" such a state of things? What use was it to Mrs. Gorman to receive a letter from the Poor-Law Board, enclosing "for her information,' a resolution of the Chelsea Guardians who had so long treated her, and the children entrusted to her, with contempt? What must we all feel to see the Order of August become a dead letter, when the very existence of the Order is an acknowledgment on the part of the PoorLaw Board that we have a serious grievance that needs redress? We are quite willing, as the Board asks us to do in its letter to Mr. Langdale of the 21st of April, to regard that Order as a proof that "the Board are most desirous upon all occasions to give practical effect to the provisions of the section which is intended to secure religious freedom and independence to the inmates of all Workhouses;" but how comes it that all this good will is so very inefficacious? Their last Report, now before us, gives an amusing proof of their willingness in our behalf, for while in the year 1859, they issued 1,450 other Orders of which they despatched altogether 21,432 copies, of the August Order alone they sent out no less than 17,273 copies, or nearly as many as all the other orders put together. And now Mr. Villiers tells us in the House of Commons, that doubts have arisen as to its legality. Counsel's opinion has been taken on the subject; why does not this opinion appear in the appendix of the last Report? Is it possible that powers so ample as theirs, which to the unlearned reader seem limited only in the matter of administration of relief in individual cases, are yet not ample enough to empower them legally to make this Order? If it be so, let Parliament at once take the matter in hand, and either give us what the Poor-Law Board have thus publicly acknowledged they consider

most fair and just, or let the powers of the Poor-Law Board be enlarged so as to enable them to do us justice. Mr. Villiers must excuse us if we do him any wrong; but we are obliged to confess that in his reply to Mr. Kinnaird, his attempt to throw the responsibility of the Order on his predecessors in office, looked as if he were withdrawing the obligatory character of the Order, not through any doubt of its legality, but from intimidation. How comes it that in writing to Mr. Langdale the Order is a subject of boast and self-gratulation; while in reply to Mr. Kinnaird, its authorship is disclaimed? We cannot help remembering that the Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M. P., the Treasurer of the Protestant Alliance, and that that body have proclaimed a crusade against the Order. The following paragraph is extracted from one of their circulars.

is

"The Committee have also prosecuted most actively the opposition to the New Order of the Poor-Law Board for the religious instruction of orphan children in work houses. It is apparently based on the most liberal principles, but it is in reality destructive to religious freedom, and would, if continued, be productive of serious evil. This attempt, however, was only the preliminary move to procure the appointment of Romish priests as chaplains to the parish unions, endowed with all the rights and facilities in respect of Roman Catholics which the Protestant chaplain is endowed with.' But from the decided and persistent opposition offered by the Guardians, who have been informed through the Alliance of the bearing of the case, the obnoxious Order will, it is hoped, be cancelled by the Government."

While we see and are glad to acknowledge that the Poor-Law Board judges us fairly, and would not strain the words of an Act of Parliament against us as the Local Boards too often do, we cannot help also feeling and bitterly lamenting the weakness of the Central Board. Whether it be really a want of authority, and that another Act of Parliament is wanted to express their powers in if possible more ample words, or whether it be fear of their turbulent subjects, the guardians, we are not sufficiently in their confidence to be able to pronounce.

We have now given our readers some insight into the causes of the startling fact that, in London, of the two thousand three hundred children in the District Schools, only nine children are instructed in the Catholic religion; and that of the whole number of 6,268 pauper school children, not 100 are taught their catechism by a priest.

The trouble that the clergy have had to go through in order to obtain access to this small number, has been very great indeed. And when they have succeeded in getting all the requisite formalities accomplished, what good can they hope to do under the present system? In very few cases are the children permitted to have catechisms or religious books except while actually in the priest's presence. In the great majority of instances, the children never assist at mass, hear a sermon, or enter the doors of a Catholic Church. Their secular instruction is taken from books written by Protestants, and taught to them by Protestants. They live in a thoroughly Protestant atmosphere. If they fear those with whom they are, they fear Protestants. If they are treated kindly, as at least in the District Schools they certainly are, and they come to love those about them, the objects of their love are Protestants. Whether they are influenced by fear, or whether they are influenced by love, the influence over them is ever exercised by Protestants. And the strongest influence of all to which children can be subjected, the influence of the public opinion of the children amongst whom they are, is Protestant. Two or three exceptions amongst a large mass of children must have very unusual firmness not to give way under the ridicule and opposition of their companions. Many have so given way, not necessarily through any unfair interference on the part of the authorities of the workhouse or school, but from the natural, and all but inevitable effects of the present system. Nobody but the Protestant Alliance will oppose us if we ask that Catholic children may be given into Catholic hands, and that the guardians should pay towards their maintenance what they now cost the rates. When justice can be done without any expense, there are very few amongst us who would not be glad to do it. A word to his representative in Parliament from each one who would be glad to see this justice done, would be a benefit to the poor "that will in no wise lose its reward. Forasmuch as you have done it to the least of these My little ones, you have done it unto Me."

P.S.-As the intention of the Legislature in passing the 19th section of the Poor Law Act is of the greatest importance, we subjoin the reasons in favour of the section given by the House of Commons in conference with the

Lords, who had rejected it, as quoted by the Hon. C. Langdale, and reported in the "Tablet" of July 2, 1859., "The Commons disagree to the said amendment.

"I. Because it is essentially requisite for the preservation of religious freedom that the provisions contained in this clause should be, and should be known and acknowledged to be, the law of the land; and such declaration is more especially necessary in a measure so deeply interesting to the bulk of the community, and affecting every class of Her Majesty's subjects, whatever may be their religious persuasion.

"II. Because though it may be true that no new law or change of the law, is introduced by this clause, yet it relates to some matters which have not hitherto been specifically defined by any Act of Parliament, or recognized as law by any series of decisions, and therefore it is highly expedient that the legality of the provisions contained in the said clause should be made manifest beyond the possibility of doubt by express declaration.

"III. Because even supposing such clause not to be necessary, less evil would arise from a superfluous declaratory enactment than from the possible existence of doubt on a subject so nearly connected with the religious feelings and consciences of the people."

The House of Commons, therefore, regarded the clause as strongly in favour of religious freedom, and as only explicitly affirming what was previously the law of the land. But the sense which has been given to the clause is, that "the orphan child of deceased Catholic parents shall be educated in the Established religion, unless the Godfather or Godmother shall object," and this is a violent invasion of religious freedom, and such an enactment would have been a "new law or change of the law" in a most important matter. An Act of Parliament should always be interpreted in accordance with the Common Law, unless it bears on the face of it its intention to derogate from the Common Law. And in this case the interpretation given, which is against the Common Law, is contrary to the simple grammatical construction of the words. A negative precept is broken by the infringement of either portion, though linked by a conjunction. "Do not visit John and James" is broken though you visit John only and not James. "Do not educate the child in any religion_other than that of its parents, and to which they or the Sponsors shall object" is broken whether you educate it in a religion other than that of its parents, or in a religion, to which its parents or Sponsors object. The