as the object of the Reformatory Schools. This might not have committed the magistrates, but Mr. Pownall, their chairman, went out of his way to adopt it; writing to the Editor-'I cannot sufficiently thank you for it,' and promising the opposition of the magistrates, and predicting, truly as soon appeared, its rejection by the Lords. He ended: I will not fail to give your Magazine to the magistrates, for which they as well as myself return you our sincere thanks.' We do not then exaggerate, when we say that a large body of the most respectable Protestants, among whom are the great majority of the Middlesex Magistrates, avowedly desire Reformatory Schools expressly because the greater part of their involuntary inmates will be Catholics, and because they will have the opportunity of educating them as Protestants. We do not suspect Mr. Pownall of intentional falsehood, when he indignantly disavowed any intention of proselytising. He was thinking, no doubt, only of Protestant sects; he meant that the school would not be employed to make converts from one Protestant sect to another; that every possible exertion would be made to bring up Papists' to Protestantism, he probably took for granted, and thought it unnecessary to express anything so obvious. Members of Parliament no doubt there are who are of the same mind. However, this party would hardly have been strong enough to obtain a law to compel all Catholic children convicted of any trifling offence to be educated as Protestants if Parliament had been aware what they were about. The truth is, Protestants have no belief that it is possible for the very poor and suffering classes to have any religion at all. They sincerely believe, and the experience as far as it goes no doubt justifies the belief, that not only the beggars in our streets, but the numerous classes which carry on different trades in them, as costermongers, street-sweepers, &c., have no religion at all. Indeed, they would extend this almost without an exception to the labouring class of London and other great towns. This manner of regarding the poor strikes a Catholic with inexpressible force in reading Protestant writings upon almost any subject connected with them. A Protestant poet complains:- Times are altered now, and Englishmen begin to class the beggar with the knave, and poverty with sin.' He does not exaggerate. Father Hutchinson, of the Oratory, says:— Thus when Mr. Hill, the Recorder of Birmingham, who was examined before the committee on Juvenile Offenders in 1852, was asked whether, if all the children in reformatory schools were to be committed to the care of a Protestant Chaplain, some difficulty might not arise on the ground of differences of religion. He answered that he did not apprehend it, for that the criminals had no religious differences; they have no religion at all; they are not divisible into Roman Catholics and Protestants; they are practically heathens.' The same argument has been used again and again by different members of the House of Commons. When it was urged upon them that the religious opinions of these children ought to be respected, and that provision ought to be afforded them for being instructed in their own creed, and for practising their own religion, the answer has always been the same, that it was idle to speak of their religious opinions, for that they had none, but were practically heathens.' And he beautifully adds :— "In these very places thus spoken of I know of my own know. ledge that there are numbers of poor, hard-working, inoffensive Catholics, and hundreds of pure, innocent, Irish boys and girls, crossing-sweepers and street sellers, who, ragged and bare-footed as they may be, are regular in the observance of their religious duties, and are leading good Christian lives in the midst of the temptations and dangers that surround them.-Yet not a word is said of them by these Protestant writers; but all are most cruelly included in one general charge of ignorance and vice." In this state of public opinion and feeling, and just after the clauses inserted for the protection of Catholic children in the Middlesex Act had been cast out by the influence of the very magistrates who had to enforce it, it was more than we could have expected, that in the general Act for the establishment of Reformatory Schools, a clause should be inserted, which to a considerable degree places those of different religions, the Catholics included, upon equal terms. Indeed, we are inclined with Father Hutchinson, to believe that this is far better than if the clauses intended to protect Catholics had been left in the Middlesex Act. For beyond a doubt, under the administration of magistrates like Mr. Pownall, those clauses would have been evaded, and while by standing in the Statute-book they would have given the appearance of fairness and impartiality, they would in fact have done little or nothing for our poor Catholic children. Catholic Reformatory Schools, we well know, are the only schools that really deserve the name, for our schools can bring to bear upon their inmates powers supernatural and Divine, while Protestants, having at their command merely a human system, have always found the real reformation of offenders a hopeless task. We subjoin the notice issued by the Committee, and cannot doubt its success. Two acts were passed in the last session of Parliament, empowering magistrates to send, at their discretion, any children who may be convicted before them of contraventions of the law, and sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, to a reformatory school, for any period from two to five years. It is obvious that, by the operation of these powers, great numbers of poor and destitute Catholic children, so numerous especially in London, may be placed at once in Protestant reformatory schools, under legal sentence, without possibility of release. One only means of averting this great and imminent danger exists, namely, the prompt establishment of a Catholic reformatory school. Such an institution may be recognized, according to the provision of the Act, so as to afford an asylum to which magistrates will be empowered, and in justice constrained, to send our poor children. With this view, certain persons were appointed to take the steps necessary for the commencement of such a school, by his eminence the Cardinal, who placed at once the sum of £1,000 at their disposal. After some difficulty in finding a house in any way sufficient or suitable for such an establishment, a house and garden were taken at Brook Green, in which it is proposed that the Reformatory school shall be at once begun with the hope of transferring it to a more capacious and adequate site hereafter. A Committee has been named by His Eminence to carry out the undertaking. Lord Peter, Lord Edward Howard. the Hon. Charles Langdale, and Charles Townley Esq., have kindly consented to become trustees, and to allow their names to be inserted in the lease of the house. The Committee proceeded to invite the assistance of the Very Rev. M. Scheppers, Canon of Malines, and Founder of the Congregation of the Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy, whose labours in Belgium, at Vilvorde and St. Hubert are well known; as well as the confidence lately_manifested towards them by the special commission of the Holy Father, to establish the Reformatory Prison, which is now in operation at Santa Balbina, in Rome. Four of the Brothers, of whom one is English by birth, have already commenced the establishment of the Reformatory School. They are engaged in preparing the house for their future work. It only remains, then, for us to obtain from the charity of the Catholic body, the funds necessary for this most important work, for which purpose the following plan has been suggested, to which your kind co-operation is solicited. It is proposed: 1. To invest the sum of £1,000, contributed by His Eminence as a security for the liability the trustees have kindly undertaken. 2. To solicit a certain number of persons to engage for three years to contribute in the following proportions : 1. Five or more at 2. Ten or more at ..... £20 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 3. To open a general account for donations and subscriptions of any amount. 4. To endeavour, in the course of the next three years, to form a suitable fund for purchasing a site, and for erecting a suitable building, to which the Reformatory School may then be transferred; and to request some five or more of those who are zealous in this work to undertake the office of making it known, and of obtaining contributions to this Special Building Fund. 5. To request a collection in some of the churches in London, in which this work of charity may be most fittingly recommended once in each of the three next years. His Eminence has already signified his lively interest in the undertaking, and his willingness to recommend it, by a Pastoral Letter, without collection; or otherwise to the alms of the Faithful. CATHOLIC REFORMATORY SCHOOL. The Committee named by his Eminence the Cardinal to carry out this most urgent and necessary work, earnestly request the kind support and contribution of Catholics. Contributions will be thankfully received by the Rev. Dr. Whitty, B V.G. St. Mary's, Moorfields; Rev. Dr. Manning, 78, South Audley street, London; Pedro de Zulueta, esq., 21, Devonshire-place; Hon. Charles Clifford; also by the London Joint Stock Bank, Pall Mall; the Commercial Bank of London, 6, Lothbury, City, and 6, Henrietta street, Covent Garden. Hitherto received: Donations:-His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop, £1000; Lord Bishop of Southwark, £86 14s.; Lord Kenmare, £5; The Chevalier Pedro de Zulueta, £25; C.D.M. £5; Total, £1121 14s. Subscriptions for three years :-Lord Petre, £20; P. de Zulueta, Esq., £20; Charles Townley, Esq., £60; Lady Petre, £10; Lord Edward Howard, £10; Sir John Simeon, Bart., £10; William Monsell, Esq., M.P. £10; C. J. Laprimaudaye, Esq. £10; Hon. Charles Langdale, £10; Charles J. Manning, Esq. £10; Stanley Carey, Esq. £10; J. R. Hope Scott, Esq. £10; W. C. Maxwell, Esq. £10; Rev. W. Waterworth, £5; F. R. We Vegg_Prosser, Esq. £5; Mrs. Roberts, £5; Rev. Dr. Manning, £5; P. H. Howard, Esq. £5; Lord Southwell, £5; C. £5; Henry Bowden, Esq. £5; Colonel Sheil, £5; Hon. Charles Clifford, £1; Hon. F. Petre, £1; Total, £247. We regret very much that the Reverend gentleman, whose address is here quoted, did not remember how new the subject was to him, and how old, and well known to Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill was referring to peculiar circumstances, and to the effects springing from certain causes. But the speaker at this meeting argues from particulars to generals, and is not alone unjust to Mr. Hill, but he, unintentionally we hope, endeavours to excite disagreements between the various communions who support the Reformatory Principle. This is not the spirit of the old, proved advocates of the cause, who think always of the whole heart, self-devotion of the school manager, and never of his religious creed: thus Robert Hall writes to us-"If there is a saint on earth that saint is Demetz :" thus Mr. Hill-" Demetz is a wonderful man, heart, soul, and energy bound up with his school, and all for God's love." Thus Mary Carpenter-"Sometimes the Priests take the Roman Catholic children from my school: I don't blame them for this, but I do blame them for not opening a school themselves for those of their own faith." These are sentiments, showing more the spirit of the Christian, and of him who applauded the Samaritan, than of the theologian who, in his "pin point of a soul" sees nothing good save that which springs from his own creed. Let us hope that the Reformatory Movement will not become a seed-plot of sectarian bickering, but that each communion will work earnestly and thoroughly, and throughly for the common object. Since our last Record, two very important documents, bearing upon the Reformatory School question, in its practical phases, have appeared. The first is a letter addressed to Mr. J. Symons, by Mr. Bengough, the able and activecomanager, with Mr. Baker, of the now famous Hardwicke School. The letter is as follows: "Exeter, May 11th. MY DEAR MR. SYMONS,-I have been so much interested in the report of the paper which you read last week before the Society of Arts on the subject of juvenile crime, at which I was unfortunately unable to be present, that I should like to offer you a few remarks upon it. The discussion was, I think, well confined, under the advice of the chairman, to the root question, so to speak, of the whole subject a child's responsibility, and consequent criminality and liability to punishment. I cannot think of anything more important than a reconciliation, if it be possible, of the conflicting views upon this subject; and one remark which fell from Mr. Power, Recorder of Ipswich, holds out the hope that in the direction to which it points a common ground may at last be obtained. I allude to Mr. Power's reply to Lord Lyttelton's observations, which in the report of the discussion in the Society's Journal stands thus 'I beg to say that I have no objection to any amount of punishment, so long as it is directed to the reformation of the offender. What I oppose is vindictive punishment, which has not reference to the reformation of the offender, but merely as some atonement to society, which he has offended.' I think Mr. Power himself must admit that the tenor of the objections which he himself raised to that part of your paper which touched the question of punishment, appears to go very considerably further than the interpretation which he puts upon them in the words I have just quoted, and it is, therefore, a matter of great importance to have gained a declaration so explicit from one who is sometimes supposed to be the great advocate for not punishing children at all. In this admission, then, and the distinction between vindictive and reformatory punishment which all will allow to exist, I think will be found the elements of agreement between opinions seemingly so discordant as are those of Mr. Power and others who think with him and those represented by yourself. Vindictive punishment, by its very nature, can never be of a reformatory kind; but there is a kind of punishment which is inflicted, not with any notion of making the offender atone to society for the injuries it has received at his hands, but as an absolutely necessary consequence to himself for the fault he has committed, as it is a sin. Against such a kind of punishment, to which alone, in strictness, the terin ought to be applied, I conceive that, with one proviso, namely, that it should at least not be of a kind to hinder if it did not actually promote reformation in the subject of it-the opponents of a vindictive punishment could not with any consistency object. I need scarcely remind you how we have inspired authority to state that the infliction of this punishment is the province to which the Divine appointment of rulers has inmedi |