Introduction. Archbishop Paul Cullen was one of the most formidable churchmen in Irish history. He quickly came to dominate the Irish Catholic church. His views on education made him an important political figure. He resolutely opposed non-denominational education at all levels. He played a critical role in getting the Synod of Thurles to condemn the Queen's Colleges. The following extract is from a comprehensive submission on Irish education sent to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on 18 March 1860, by Cullen and his fellow bishops. It expresses the strong views Cullen had on a variety of questions. This extract shows his considerable skill in argument. Here he uses past statements by senior British politicians to convince the Chief Secretary, of the importance of providing for only denominational education in Ireland.

Source. Paul Cullen et al., A letter to the Right Hon. E. Cardwell, M.P., Chief Secretary for Ireland, on National Education (Dublin 1860) 3-5.

… Several most eminent British statesmen have expressed their views on this subject [education] with great force and authority. We make some few extracts from their speeches, not with a view of proving what is admitted, or that any doubt can be entertained as to their sentiments, but in order to show what they understood by religious education. We shall see whether they pretend that all secular knowledge, history, moral philosophy, the sciences, as far as they enter into an elementary course, should be taught independently of religion; and whether they would be satisfied with a system of exempting children from religious control whilst attending to the lessons of secular knowledge. … Lord Sandon, in 1847, referring to a speech of Lord John Russell, said that he ‘was glad to hear the admission that religion was an essential part of everything worthy of the name of education. … The State admitted that education, in order to be effectual, must be religious. … He thought that religion ought to be interwoven with every part of their education: he meant that the man who taught should be a religious man, and that in his moral teaching he should always keep in view the principles of religion.’ Lord Morpeth, now Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, explaining the reason why separate grants were to be made in England to the schools of each religious society, says: ‘We might have taken a uniform scheme, in which we might have prescribed the same course to all alike, without advertising to the existing methods, and without adopting any special method of religious teaching; but I believe in my conscience that such a plan would not have met with the consent of either Parliament or of the people.’ Lord Mahon said: ‘The second question was, whether they would have a scheme of secular education solely, or of secular and religious education combined? For his own part, he considered that if the State should confine itself to secular education, without associating it with religion, it would be doing so absolutely worse than nothing.’ Lord John Russell, refuting the project of Mr Roebuck to separate religion from education, said: ‘I do not think that the future minister, contemplated by Mr. Roebuck, is likely to have a very long tenure of power, if “vote for education without religion” should be placed on his banner, and that schools entirely secular should be established by the State.’ Sir Robert Peel, said: ‘I am for religious as opposed to a secular education. I do not think that a secular education would be acceptable to the people of this country. I believe, as the noble Lord [John Russell] has said, that such an education is only half an education, but with the most important half neglected.’ From these passages, it clearly results that those distinguished statesmen understood by religious education a system of general instruction have religion for its basis, having religion interwoven with it, and imparted by a master who should instruct by word and example. This is what those statesmen understood by religious education, and not a system excluding the teaching of religion, or restricting it to one hour, prohibiting during the remainder of the day any reference to it and its practices. In accordance with such opinions, a denominational or separate system, blending religion with every sort of instruction, has been sanctioned in England.

Tomás O’Riordan