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

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,

and this point of itself justified its nomination. They
had besides ample proof in decisions in the courts
of law that there were abuses in those institutions;
and then came the question, would they not resort to
an inquiry with a view to their remedy? The Roman
Catholics should, he thought, not resist this inquiry.
as, if the surmises against these institutions were
false, its result would be to remove the prejudices
now existing with respect to them.
Mr. P. O'Beizx resisted the motion, which he be-
lieved to be designed for party purposes.
Mr. J. O'Cosiszu. vindicated the loyalty of the Ro-
man Catholics, which would endure even the affront
of the proposed committee, but submitted that they
did not deserve such a gratuitous insult.
Some explanations touching the proceedings of the
Scotch Conference (to which Mr. B. Osborne had
alluded) were offered by Mr. DUNLOP, to whose
statements Mr. FITZGERALD briefly rejoined, and
then passed on to remark upon the general question,
supporting the amendment.
Mr. BLAND, as a Protestant and an Irishman, de-
clared that the Irish Protestants had not joined in
the agitation for inquiry. They knew the working of
the conventual system too well to wish to interfere
with it.
Mr. GooLD added his testimony to the excellent
management and beneficial influences of the convents
in Ireland.
A change was now given to the direction of the
debate by Mr. COGAN, who moved its adjournment.
This proposal was seized upon by the general body
of Irish and Roman Catholic members, who urged it
in various forms, and under the pretence that the sub-
ject was of the last importance, on which many re-
presentatives wished to give their own opinions as
well as to hear those of the leaders both of the
Ministry and the Opposition, and should not be de-
cided in a single night's debate. Two successive
motions for adjourning the house or the debate were
negatived by large majorities amidst a confused dis-
cussion. At length a proposal made by the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and seconded by Mr.
CHAMBERS, was adopted, that the house should dis-
pose of the amendment for discharging the order.
while the motion for nominating the committee should
stand over for debate on a future occasion. Accord•
ingly a division was taken on that point, and Mr.
Bowyer's amendment was negatived by 177 votes
against 120-57. The original motion then re-
mained untouched, and was ordered, after some dis-
pute about the day, to be proceeded with on Thurs-
day.
The debate being resumed on that day, the nomi-
nation of the committee was proceeded with. Upon
the first name, that of Mr. Chambers himself, being
proposed,
Mr. Goozn moved its omission from the list of
members. He objected to the hon. gentleman be-
cause his views were extreme and his language
offensive. The composition of the whole committee
was, he urged, partial and one-sided, comprising
men of only one way of thinking, who had already
prejudged the question.
The motion was seconded by Sir J. FITZGERALD.
A division was taken on the question that the
name of Mr. Chambers should be retained. There
appeared—
Ayes
Noes

Mr. Chambers's name was then ordered to stand
upon the list of the committee.
The second name, that of Mr. Walpole, was then
put.
Mr. LUCAS moved, as an amendment, that the
further nomination should be proceeded with that
day six months.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. D. O'CoN-

NELL.
The personal qualifications of various proposed
members of the committee, and the general character
of the body, were remarked upon by Mr. Massey,
Mr. Spooner, Mr. J. Ball, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Goold,
Mr. V. Scully, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and other mem-
bers. Many speeches, especially those of Mr. V.
Scully and Sergeant Shee, were of considerable
length, the hon. members entering once more into
the general question, and dilating upon the insult
offered to Ireland and the Roman Catholics.
When the discussion had lasted several hours the
house manifested some impatience, which was met
by the supporters of the amendment with a motion
for adjournment, more than once renewed, and as
often negatived upon division. Ultimately their
perseverance triumphed, and the debate stood again
adjourned.

kh,