The Press.
London, England, 1854-03-04 00:00:00

INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES.

Mr. T. CHAMBEUS on Tuesday reintroduced a sub-
ject which has for some sessions been presented in
various forms to the House of Commons, namely,
the inspection of nunneries. The proposition this
time took the form of a motion for the appointment
of a select committee to inquire into the number and
rate of increase of the conventual and monastic es-
tablishments in the United Kingdom, the relation in
which they stand to the existing laws, and the expe-
diency of further legislation with regard to them.
In bringing forward this motion Mr. Chambers dis-
claimed all intention of appealing to religious preju-
dices upon a question which he mooted solely upon
social, civil, and political grounds. He then proceeded
to show that the establishments referred to had
largely increased during the last ten years, and were
still rapidly increasing. The number of convents in
England and Ireland was now 220, of which 203
were Roman Catholic, showing an increase of forty
per cent. per annum since 1843, when they numbered
only 50. Of monasteries (which had not been in-
cluded in his motion last session on the subject)
there were only 00 in Ireland ten years ago, but now
72. With regard to the legal status of these insti-
tutions, it appeared from the Catholic Relief Act
that monasteries were altogether prohibited, and nun
neries simply permitted without being recognised.
Practically, therefore, the very existence of both
of the establishments was absolutely ignored by the
law; and Mr. Chambers went on to argue, at much
length and upon a variety of considerations, that it
was inexpedient and dangerous to allow such a state
of things to continue.
Mr. NAPIEIt, who seconded the motion, noticed that
in Roman Catholic countries a jealous supervision
TM maintained by the state over all conventual
establishments. He contended that in England a
similar surveillance should be kept over them, both to
prevent their infringing the rights of individual
liberty and absorbing an undue proportion of private
property. He maintained that such bodies were not
consonant to the spirit of our laws and institutions.
Mr. M‘Cssig opposed the motion, denying also the
correctness of some statistics cited by Mr. Chant.
bers.

Mr. J. BALL urged that the conventual establish•
mente in the United Kingdom consisted of associa-
tions of members devoted solely to charitable and
religious objects, who neither enjoyed nor sought pe-
culiar legal privileges, and whom it was, therefore,
inexpedient and unjust to subject to a parliamentary
surveillance. The hon. member had given notice of
an amendment embodying those opinions, but con
eluded his speech by moving a direct negative to the
motion for a committee.

Mr. POTTER found thattlizi moti on, if tot (Isom:-
raged by the Government, would have a most mis-
chievous effect in Ireland. _ _

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE contended that, es nothing
more was asked for that the means of inquiry, the
state of the law had been shown to be sufficiently
anomalous to justify that demand. He could not
see what reason the Roman Catholics had to dread
the investigation.
Mr. FAGAN controverted some statements adduced
by Mr. Chambers respecting the convent at Taunton.
Mr. B. Roam condemned the proposition for a
committee of inquiry, which he considered had been
introduced in a bitter and disingenuous spirit.
Mr. KENNEDY also opposed the motion, and Lord
C. HAMILTON supported it.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE denounced the proposition
as infringing the great principles of toleration. It
sought to direct legislative interference upon subjects
which no legislation could touch.
Mr. MAOUIRE declared that the Irish convents had
no secrets which required investigation.
Mr. F. W. RUSSELL argued that the motion in-
ferred a suspicion which was false and ridiculous, and
called upon the house to discountenance the calumny
by rejecting it.
Mr. MALL could not find one trustworthy fact
among the statements made which warranted their
appointing a committee of inquiry. He looked upon
the motion as decidedly mischievous.
Mr. Cowm4 wished for an inquiry at once, in
order to stop the continued reproduction of a topic
which invariably led to acrimonious discussions.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed that there was no just
ground shown for the appointment of the committee.
The inquiry which they were asked to institute must
prove either useless or offensive, according to the
nature of the investigation to be prosecuted in it.
There might he nothing insulting to the religion of
the Roman Catholics in the proposition, but it was a
serious disparagement to their common sense. Not
fearing that the members of that faith were unable
to protect their own children and property from any

SATURDAY,

danger which they might incur in the monastic es-
tablishments, he saw no reason for invoking the
special aid of the Legislature for that purpose.
Mr. WALPOLE announced his intention of voting
for the motion, admitting that a much wider inquiry
should have been long since initiated, involving the
whole status of the Roman Catholic body in this
country in respect to their relationship with the
Crown and Constitution. It was the intention a
the Relief Act to prohibit all monastic institutions in
the United Kingdom. That provision in the statute
had been allowed to slumber, and it was perhaps too
late to revive it. But, if not suppressed, the estab-
lishments in question ought to be watched and con-
trolled. The convents stood upon a different foot-
ing, being inferentially sanctioned by the law. It
was, however, right to afford the inmates t! e same
protection accorded by the Legislature to minors,
and provide, if possible, that every nun who entered
the establishment in her nonage should have the
opportunity of revising her choice upon attaining
legal years of discretion. With regard to property,
he urged that individuals who had resigned their
free will should not be entrusted with any other
possession.
Mr. FITZGERALD denied that any proofs had been
shown of the exercise of undue spiritual influence
over the inmates in convents. If any such existed,
as Roman Catholics would be the sufferers, how
came it that none complained, but left the case in
the hands of Protestants ? He was convinced that
the law as it stood was sufficient for all purposes,
and required no invigoiation to enable it either to
protect persons or property.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the motion, Which Mr.
PALE, the new member for South Devonshire, also
defended in a maiden speech. The hon. member
insisted on the expediency of the proposed inquiry,
and pointed out that many conventual establishments
existed, some of them in the county which he repre-
sented, not belonging to the Roman Catholics, but
where investigation was most desirable.
Lord E. HOWARD commented upon the exagge-
rated apprehensions and highly-coloured statements
on which he considered the present motion to have
been founded. _ _

After a brief reply from Mr. CHAMBERS, the house
divided, and the motion for the committee of inquiry
was carried, against the Government, by a majority
of 180 to 119-67.