the notorious fact, as honourable to one party as it is disgraceful to the other, that the British and Irish Catholics, until 1829, and the American Catholics, until the period of the revolution, were kept under the most galling yoke of a bitter and degrading persecution, merely because they would not do what Mr. Ro. J. Breckenridge asserts Judge Gaston has done, viz., swear that they believed the Protestant religion to be true. The charge then made upon the Catholics, as a body, is utterly false, and false to the knowledge of every man who has cognizance of this fact; and to us it is most strange, if Mr. Ro. J. Breckenridge has yet to learn this portion of history. The charge, as respects the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, is utterly false, and false to the knowledge of every person who has the least information regarding those tenets; and to us it would appear very strange, that Mr. Ro. J. Breckenridge, who is in his own estimation and in that of thousands of our fellow-citizens, a teacher in Israel, should be destitute of such information.

Now we come to Mr. Gaston's case. This gentleman never took any oath in this case, save to do the duties of the office to which he was appointed by the state. He was not required to swear that he believed in the truth or falsehood of any religion. The candidate is not the judge of his own qualifications: the state committed to certain functionaries the selection of certain officers, gave them rules by which they were to be guided in the selection. It was notorious to every one concerned, in making the appointment, that Mr. Gaston was a Roman Catholic, he avowed it, he proclaimed it, he gloried in it. Mr. Gaston was no candidate for the office; it was after repeated solicitation from persons who could confer it, that he consented to accept it. It was they who were charged not to confer it upon a disqualified person; they knew that Mr. Gaston was a Roman Catholic; if he was disqualified, it was they who forced the office upon one whom they knew to be disqualified who violated their duty. If it was law that they should not give him the office, the violation of that law was on their side; they, not he, were appointed to execute it. We do not say that he would act correctly in permitting himself to be made the instrument for its violation. We merely have established this point, that if there was an unconstitutional appointment, they who violated their trust, were not Catholics. Many of them were of that sect to which Mr. Ro. J. Breckenridge belongs, and which he says would depose him if he did what they induced Mr. Gaston to do.

But the question properly is, whether there was a violation of the law on the part of those who made the appointment.

Some years ago, the general impression was upon the minds of the

few Catholics in North Carolina, that they were excluded from office, by the article in question-probably Mr. Gaston himself was of that opinion; he is known to have spoken doubtingly upon the subject, about fifteen years since, and to have then alleged as a reason for declining an office which some of his friends wished him to take, that he would prefer waiting until he could be better satisfied as to the full and precise legal effect of this very curious and discreditable 32d article.

North Carolina is not in the Diocess of Baltimore, but in that of Charleston, and the very case in question came for examination, in an ecclesiastical point of view, not before the Archbishop of Baltimore, who was not the ordinary prelate, but before Dr. England, the Bishop of Charleston, who was, and is the ordinary, not in the case of Judge Gaston, but in three other distinct cases; and a decision was had several years before Judge Gaston took that oath which Ro. J. Breckenridge has called perjury.

In Salisbury, a Roman Catholic was elected chief magistrate, and entered upon office at the request of his respectable fellow-citizens of the various Protestant denominations-whilst in office, he desired to be admitted to the sacraments; the clergyman to whom he applied, hesitated to admit him, upon the ground of his having violated the constitution of the state, in accepting an office from which Catholics were excluded by the 32d article. He said that he had been advised by good lawyers, that this was a mistake, that the article could not be so construed, and that he would keep the office to which his fellow-citizens elected him, and also insist upon his religious rights, unless it should be proved that he had been badly advised upon the subject. The priest applied to the Bishop of Charleston, for instructions how to act. The answer of the prelate was to the effect that he should in the first instance be satisfied, not by his own private views, but by the best advice that he could obtain from professional gentlemen, as to the exact meaning of the article in question-and that if by its fair construction Catholics were excluded, the person in question could not be admitted to the sacraments, if he did not resign the office. And further, that if previous to entering into office he was required to swear that he was constitutionally qualified, he had sworn rashly, amidst such doubts, and could not be excused from censure. By a very unusual coincidence, the good Protestants of Wilmington, and of Fayetteville had made similar elections, and the bishop was also consulted respecting the ecclesiastical standing of those other Catholic magistrates. He was distinctly informed that no oath requiring their declaration of constitutional qualification was administered, and the copy of the oath of office was fur

nished to him. Inquiry was made of the best jurists in the state. Mr. Gaston, not only from the legal rank which he occupied, but also from the peculiar attention which he must have paid to the subject, and from the great respect and confidence entertained for him by the bishop, was amongst others naturally called upon; and after a thorough examination, it was distinctly ascertained that the best lawyers in North Carolina were of opinion that whatever the object of the framers of that article may have been, it clearly was not drawn in such a manner as to exclude Catholics from office, and that for any Catholic to refuse office upon that ground, would be to force upon the article a construction which it did not legally bear, and thus to enact a persecution against the body to which he belonged, exactly such as would gratify the kind and courteous Ro. J. Breckenridge, who has escaped so many imaginary dangers to which he has been exposed, through the support which he gives to what he calls religion, by means which we shall not stoop to describe. Thus, it appears from the above statement, that whether erroneously or otherwise, the principal Protestant jurists of North Carolina had assured the Roman Catholics that they were not disqualified for office by the unfortunate article in question; and the Protestants of Salisbury, of Fayetteville, and of Wilmington, acted upon this view of the law, and elected them to office, and Mr. Gaston, after still further investigation and consultation, had every shadow of doubt removed from his mind, and told the writer of this article, that he did not know a respectable jurist in Carolina, who had any hesitation as to the eligibility of Catholics. Thus, after years of examination and reflection, the whole Protestant legal talent of the state gave to this very article a construction upon which the executive and legislative bodies have acted in concord in making the appointment of Judge Gaston to the bench, and because he accepts the office and takes the usual oath to discharge its duty, the Rev. Ro. J. Breckenridge dares to arraign for perjury one of the most deservedly respected men, for purity of principle, for high honour, for moral worth, for legal and political conduct, and for talent, taste, and information that his state possesses.

We have heard some persons charge Ro. J. Breckenridge with having taken his peculiar mode of polemics for the purpose of attracting more attention, and getting better supported by his party, whilst others excused him on the plea of a peculiarity of head. To us, it matters nothing whther he acts from calculation, from insanity, or from delusion. We leave him and his vile and vulgar productions, to their admirers, whilst we deeply regret the connexion, even as a calumniator, of the name of Ro. J. Breckenridge, with that of Will. Gaston.

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

[The first of the three short articles that follow, which may have an interest for some, as a reminiscence of "Bishop England's School," is extracted from the United States Catholic Miscellany, No. 9 of Vol. I., for 1822. The second, though a mere jeu d'esprit, apparently thrown off to amuse an idle moment, and to fill a vacant column, alludes to a subject which furnishes matter for deep and philosophical reflection, and, as it were, in one or two broken hints, points out one most especial way in which the Catholic religion is a blessing, and Protestantism a curse to the human race; the first, by producing and preserving mental health-the latter, by causing and perpetuating mental disease. This article is taken from the United States Catholic Miscellany, No. 6 of Vol. XVIII., for 1838. The third, valuable, as the only article, so far as is known to the editors, written by Bishop England, upon a topic which, at the time, was one of absorbing interest, was published in the Catholic Miscellany, No. 34 of Vol. XX., for 1841.]

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS

PROTEUS, A WRITER WITH FOUR NAMES

Just before the publication of our last number, and too late for insertion therein, we received a letter with the signature "Candor," written at full length, an imperfect attempt at a signature commencing with "H.," and another commencing with "Fair"-the two last imperfectly blotted; so that the writer forgot his own name. It reminded us of the story of an old gentleman of the Society of Friends, who was sometimes rather absent, and calling at the post-office to inquire, "Hast thou any letters for me?" "Your name, sir," the clerk not being a Friend. "My name-my name-verily I have forgotten." Having walked off a few paces, an acquaintance met him, and saluted "Friend Grub;" upon which, returning, he immediately told the clerk, "Now, friend, I recollect my name is Grub." But he was more happy than "H., Fair," or "Candor," or "An Observer"-for truly, instead of two, our friend has four names. Between addressing to us his letter of three signatures, and to the Southern Intelligencer that of one signature, he evidently forgot his name; we hope he may keep this as a memorandum, to recollect his name in future.

As the substance of both letters is the same, though their diction is quite dissimilar, the publication of one will suffice. We, therefore, to save ourselves, and our printer trouble, give that which appeared in

the Southern Intelligencer of Saturday; another motive for our doing so is, that Mr. Proteus, because we think a man who changes his name, deserves the appellation equally with him who changes his shape, may be tempted to write another letter to his friend Ithuriel, to know why we published his letter instead of our own; and we should like to see Proteus frequently exhibited, if we were only to admire his chameleon facilities. The following, then, is the letter from the Intelligencer:

"From an editorial headed "France," in the Catholic Miscellany, of July 17, 1822, I extract these remarks:

"There are schools of infidelity and schools of religion, and there are schools of mere human learning. The first, are, indeed, schools of perdition, and such schools, the philantrophists wish for; the second, the missionaries would support, and exert themselves, nay, sacrifice themselves to maintain and uphold; the third they approve of, but look upon to be imperfect, because they believe man is made for the next world, not for this; but establish a school upon the two last principles, and those missionaries will endure a martyrdom to uphold it.'

"Let the reader mark these words which I have italicized. Permit me to inquire, is the Catholic school in our city, an imperfect one? or according to the sentiments here expressed, is it one of those which the missionaries would exert themselves to maintain and uphold—is it a school for religion, and not merely for human learning? If it be not an 'imperfect school,' why are not the public informed? and then Protestants would know how they ought to act. They would have a view of the whole ground.

"Again: Are not all the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church considered as missionaries? The French missionaries support schools of religion, and do not the American missionaries do the same? Are the latter less zealous than the former? If an American missionary of Rome sets up a school, will he set up an imperfect one, or the contrary? will he not 'support,' exert 'himself, nay, sacrifice himself,' and 'endure a martyrdom' 'to uphold' a school for religion? Finally, is it not candid in the French missionaries to say that they prefer to the Lancasterian school, a school of religion-and that their schools are not intended merely to inculcate human learning?

"AN OBSERVER.

"P. S. Will not the Catholic schools in America, in due season, be improved to the French standard, if they are not already formed on the perfect plan which is only known at present to the initiated? Have they not a common object with the Miscellany and the Cathedral?"

Now, to answer these fourteen questions would be very trouble