The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

APRIL 1, 1854, duties, he insisted that the Government must have then foreseen war, but had rashly repealed those im posts for the sake of a little temporary popularity, and were now supplying the deficiency by an attack upon property. He had no amendment to propose, and his pasty would offer no opposition to the Mini.e try so long as they carried on the war with vigour ; but they felt entitled to demand that the resources of the country should not be wasted by unskilful hus bandry. Mr. CARDWELL submitted that the negotiations in April last exhibited only a difficulty, by no means warranting the expectation of war. Briefly noticing the critici-w, upon the financial policy of the Govern ment, he maintained that the income tax was not more unjust in its operation than other taxes, and that the reductions on tea and soap were beneficial in them selves, and not inexpedient under the circumstances in which they were proposed. The result of the Ministerial policy had been to inaugurate a period of unexampled prosperity, and to give the country the pride of knowing that all the war expenses which the house had hitherto found it necessary to sanction would be defrayed without adding to the burdens of the great masses of the people or to the amount of the national debt. Mr. MALINS believed that the finance system of the Government was most burdensome and oppressive. They had taken off taxes which no one felt, and im posed taxes which every one could not help feeling. The principle of direct taxation was thoroughly vicious If persisted in the Ministry would first exhaust the resources of the country, and then, should the war continue, be forced to require a loan. Mr. LAND denied that the income tax was un popular, or would make the war unpopular. He saw no reason why the calamity of war should be rendered doubly calamitous by our retracing the steps we had advanced towards freeing industry and removing burdens upon the necessaries of life. Mr. VANSITTART remarked upon the injustice and im policy of raising all the war supplies by direct taxation, and followed the operation of that system into various consequences seriously affecting the comfort of indi viduals or the stability of commerce. Mr. GREAVES commented upon and blamed the Stock Exchange operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The motion was then agreed to, and the bill read a third time and passed. SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL BILL. The adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill stood for Monday evening. Before the order of the day was read, however, Mr. WALPOLE, referring to what had passed on the previous Friday with regard to the bill, inquired how the Government meant to treat the question of Scotch and Irish paupers, and whether, under the circumstances, they would not postpone the second reading until the house had had time to learn and consider their proposition upon that branch of the subject? Lord J. RUSSELL promised, on behalf of Lord Pal merston, an early announcement of the Ministerial intentions with respect to Scotland and Ireland, but submitted that there was no reason to delay the pre sent stage of the measure, as there would be sufficient opportunity for discussing the subsidiary questions before the bill was brought up for committal. The motion that the bill be read a second time having been put, Mr. PACER briefly remarked upon the unsatisfactory conditions under which the question must be discussed, so long as the promised bills affecting Ireland and Scotland still remained in uncertainty. He moved the further adjournment of the debate until after Easter. A division was called without any reply being offered from the Ministerial bench; but Mr.W.teror.e. interposed, deprecating a hasty decision, and entreat ing the house not to pledge themselves to the bill until they had ascertained not merely the nature but the probable fate of the Scotch and Irish bills which were to be engrafted upon it. Mr. BAINES contended that the bill stood on its own merits, embodying the great principle thatdestitution and not residence constituted a claim to relief, and offering a solution to a very serious difficulty. There was no just cause for delaying its progress ; but, if they intended to throw it out, he called on its op ponents to propose a direct vote to that effect, and not attempt to accomplish that end by circuitous means. Mr. R. PALMER considered that the interests of the three sections of the United Kingdom were so com pletely intermingled in the question that it was im possible to legislate with regard to one only. Mr. H. HERBERT remarked upon the injustice which Irish paupers would suffer under the con tingency of the present bill becoming law, and any accident happening to the promised measure for Ireland. Sir J. PesnoTos believed that in all attempts to reform the law of settlement the Irish part of the question presented inva r i a bly the greatest difficulty. He argued that the Government, by pressing forward an English bill before deciding how they were to THE PRESS. legislate for Ireland, were beginning at the wrong end. . _ Lord Penreasro•sr admitted the necessity of grappling with the Irish difficulty. With respect to the intended bills for Ireland and Scotland he en tered into no pledge as to their details, but set forth the principle that, if an Irish labourer gave to England the benefit of his strength and skill, he should enjoy all the privileges accorded the English labourer if he fell into sickness or poverty. The fact that the Scotch and Irish bills were not before them afforded, he thought, no plea against the second reading of the English bill, provided the future stages were post poned until the whole series of measures were fairly considered. He entreated the house not to delay affirming their opinion that the compulsory removal of paupers should henceforth cease. Sir J. TROLLOPE and the Marquis of GRANBY briefly urged that the question could not be disentangled from its relationship with the three divisions of the kingdom, and must be settled at once and simulta neously with regard to all of them. Sir G. GREY saw no objection to deal with the questions separately, and had heard no good reason assigned for postponing the bill. Colonel DUNNE expressed some apprehension that Ireland would be neglected in the end if the English portion of the measure were once fairly passed. Mr. B. DENrsoN feared that the bill would never be fairly discussed so long as the question was sur • rounded by suspicion and uncertainty on the score of Ireland and Scotland. Mr. PHILIPPE approved of the principle on which the bill was based, but thought an adjournment ad visable under present circumstances. Mr. MAGUIRE recapitulated the terms of the com munications which had passed on Friday between the Irish members and the Government, and inferred that a pledge had been given by the latter not to proceed with the measure until the mode of treating Ireland was determined on and announced. He called upon the Irish members not to allow them selves to be cajoled into voting for the bill before that pledge was fulfilled, reminding them that every advance of the measure brought it nearer to that stage where they would cease to exercise any screw upon the Government. Lord J. RUSSELL vindicated the course which Ministers had taken, contending that they had infringed no agreement with the Irish representa tives, nor proposed anything which placed Ireland at a disadvantage. He repeated many of the arguments already offered from the Ministerial benches, advo cating the expediency of proceeding with the pill without further delay. The house divided, and the motion for adjourn ment was carried by 209 votes against 183, thus de feating the Government by a majority of 26. April 28 was then fixed for resuming the debate. INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES. The resolution that a committee should be ap pointed to inquire into the regulations of conventual establishments and the state of the law relating to monastic institutions in the United Kingdom had passed the Commons, after a prolonged debate, on the 28th of February, by a majority of 87. On Tues day Mr. T. CIAAMBERS moved the nomination of the committee in pursuance of that resolution. Various amendments had been entered to the motion, some of which were proposed by Roman Catholic repre sentatives, for the purpose of placing a greater num ber of members of that faith upon the committee. The amendment, however, that came on first for discussion was designed to prevent the inquiry alto gether, and was presented in the shape of a motion that the order for appointing a committee should be discharged. This was brought forward by Mr. BOWYER, who enlarged on the insult which the sug gestion of inquiry inflicted on the Catholics of Ire land, and the sense of injury and wrong which it would implant among them, at a moment when it was most important that aIl classes of the community should be satisfied and united. The amendment was seconded by Mr. FANONDE. Lord LOVAINE viewed the question as relating not only to religious faith, but to the liberty of the sub ject. So long as it was possible for persons to be forcibly incarcerated in any establishment, investiga tion was indispensable. The wit eof a Protestant, if she turned Catholic, might go i nto a convent, and he would then see her no mote. Ile would vote against the amendment, but without any intention of intruding on the privacy of any of the ladies in these establishments. Lord J. Russem doubted whether any sufficient parliamentary ground had been laid for the appoint ment of the committee. Such a machinery should not be set in motion merely upon vague suppositions. But at present vagueness prevailed on every point. The evils it was sought to suppress were vague, the mode in which the inquiry should be prosecuted was vague, and the remedy that could be provided was vague. Looking at the names of the committee, he also thought that they had not been impartially chosen, but were selected rather on account of their extreme 293 prejudices. He feared they would use the power oonferred upon them by sending for persons, papers, and records, and in other ways prosecuting investi gations of a nature calculated to interfere very ma terially with the just privacy of the ladies who resided in the conventual establishments. The question was not a Roman Cathohc so much as a religious one. When the Roman Catholics attempted to trench upon the temporal power of the Crown he interfered, at the cost of bringing down upon him the odium of the Roman Catholics ; but this was a totally dif ferent question. As for the secondary object of the committee—the discovery, namely, of some means to bring monastic institutions within the scope of our legislation—be objected to any endeavour in that direction. The alternative from that proceeding must be to suppress monasteries or to legalise them. Setting before the house the disadvantages attending either course, the noble lord urged them not to med dle at all with the matter, believing that the narra tives which bad been related by the supporters of the motion belonged to the category of " cock and-bull stories." - Colonel NORTff questioned the justice of this de finition, and Mated a case which had occurred at Banbury, in Oxfordshire, in which a Miss Fit7allen sought to be released from a nunnery in vain, ax a writ of habeas corpus would not apply. Mr. H. Dar xxown contended that there wag as much reason for inquiry now as there was when the noble lord called upon himself and others to support the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He believed that Popish aggression was still rampant in the country, and that the conventual system was used as mos of its instruments. The object was to inveigle girls who had got money into these establishments, and when they got them there to make them leave their pro perty away from their relatives. The amendment was supported by Captain Bitrz.sw and opposed by Mr. Caosstsv. Mr. hissrnsoAzz contended that it was the spread of monastic institutions which had encouraged the Pope to make the aggression he had done upon this country. Mr. FORTESCrE was convinced that the evils which must follow the inquiries of the committee would far overbalance any advantages that could accrue from them. The investigation was uncalled for by the Roman Catholics, who were the only parties concerned in its operation ; and it did not present a seemly spectacle to the Catholics of England and Ireland that the Protestants of England should be legislating for them, not merely without their consent, but absolutely against it. Mr. SPOONER expressed his surprise that the Roman Catholic representatives did not eagerly embrace the opportunity now offered them of disproving, by inquiry, the serious charges brought against the institutions of their Church. The allegation upon which the inquiry was founded was that undue influence was exercised upon young girls to induce them to enter nunneries, and by a continuance of that influence they were induced to leave their property to these convents away from their relations. The necessity for inquiry wan affirmed by a large majority on a former evening against the strength of the Government, and no grounds had been brought forward to warrant the house in retracing its steps. The fact was, that practices wen, carried on in these monastic institutions which dared not face the light, and hence the opposition to inquiry. Colonel BLAIR, as a Scotch member, declared that the prevalent opinion m that country was that there was something to conceal or the proposition for inquiry would not have been so fiercely resisted. Mr. PArKE also insisted upon the expediency of investigation. Mr. T. CHAMBERS reminded the house that the appointment of the committee had been once voted after a long debate, and by a large majority. The proposal to rescind that vote he characterised as alto gether unprecedented, and recapitnlated some of the arguments by which ho had originally supported his motion. Mr. B.Osnortirr. suspected that the motion, though apparently limited to inquiry, really veiled an attack on Roman Catholicism, of which Mr. Chambers was the nnconscions instrument. The parties by whom his proposal was supported, both within and with out the walls of Parliament, were inspired by deeper motives, which he called upon the house to frus trate, as the trustee of religions liberty throughout the country. The honourable member proceeded to amuse the house by citing instances of the de vices with which, he contended, sectarian animosities were kept alive in England. This was not the mo ment when such feelings could prudently be allowed to come into play, and he supported the amendment in the name of expediency, as well as from a sense of justice. Mr. WATTFRTDE addressed his reply principally to the member for Middlesex, whom he accused of treating lightly a solemn snbject, and meeting argu ment with ridicule. He remarked that the question of property formed an important element of the in quiry which the committee would have to undertake, L: M= -1511L1.