In England in 1880, the Roman Catholic father of a child born of a Baptist mother would probably have been legally allowed to do all of the following EXCEPT: A. ignore the child's religious education. B. bring up the child as a Roman Catholic. C. bring up the child as a Baptist. D. make sure that the child was brought up very religiously. E. abrogate his authority without reason.

The question asks for the one thing a Roman Catholic father in 1880s England would NOT have been legally allowed to do regarding his child. We're given five options, one of which is false.

Now, let's analyze each option. (A) Ignore the child's religious education: There was no such legal mandate that parents must provide religious education. (B) Bring up the child as a Roman Catholic: As the father is of the same religion, there shouldn't be any legal issue here. (C) Bring up the child as a Baptist: This might seem questionable as this is not the father's religion, but there was no legal hindrance for a parent to raise their child in a different denomination. (D) Make sure that the child was brought up very religiously: Again, there's no legal obligation to raise a child 'very religiously', just like in (A). (E) Abrogate his authority without reason: This is indicating giving up parental rights or responsibilities without valid reason, something that wouldn't be legal or acceptable.

Based on historical context and the analysis of each option, the correct answer is (E) Abrogate his authority without reason. All the other options were acceptable and within the legal bounds.