The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-04 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the continuance
of the duty on fire insurance.
Col. SYKES presented a petition from different officers in
the Indian army, praying for the redress of the grievances
of which they complained by the breach of the Government
guarantee.
Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from the editor of the
Gloucester Gazette, praying the introduction of a bill for the
amendment of the law of

Luther. The hon. member next adverted to the cases of
Miss MTermott and Miss Ryan, and quoted different nar-
ratives as to mat-practices in monasteries and convents
which were current in this country, and he appealed
earnestly to accede to his motion for the inquiry he sug-

gested.
Mr. HENNESSY said that in his concluding sentence
the hon. gentleman told them he did not ask for a remedy
for the grievances of which he complained. That was not
surprising, because all the stories which the hon. member
had repeated to the house, however marvellous in their
nature, presented this common feature, that the laws of the
land, as they now stood, provided an ample remedy for
every grievance they disclosed. (Hear, hear.) Take the
last case on which the hon. gentleman dwelt, and which he
told them was the most important ever brought before the
house. What were the facts? A young lady, the hon.
gentleman said, was confined against her will in a convent.
Some persons, whose names they did not know, went to Mr.
Justice Wightman and applied for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Judge said to them, "If you lay before me an affidavit
that you have endeavoured to see this young lady and have
failed to do so, I will grant the writ at once, and you will be
able to see her." They accordingly proceeded to the convent,
asked to see her, saw her, and had a long conversation with
her, part of which had been read by the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member said these persons were commissioned by
Mr. Justice Wightman. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Justice

Wightman told these anonymous gentlemen that their first

duty was to prove to him, in the ordinary process of law,
that they had sought for and been refused admission to the
_ _

convent—that they had wished to see the young lady, but
that the authorities of the convent would not allow them

to do so. Well, they went ; and even from the story
which the hon. member had told the house, taking the
one-sided version of it which these anonymous persons

gave, it was perfectly evident that the law of the land
was quite strong enough to remedy the grievance of
which he complained. But the hon. member had pur-
sued a course that night identical with the one he fol-

lowed last year and the year before. He had adduced
cases which, on his own confession, were still before the

courts of law or were to be brought before those courts,
and he had gone into certain portions of them, discussing
them, and giving one-sided accounts of that which he

admitted was to be taken for adjudication elsewhere.

Why, what occurred last year ? Then the hon. gentle-
man brought before the house the case of Mr. Smee and
Father Hutchinson of the Oratory. Mr. Smee, whose peti-
tion the hon. member presented, complained that Father
Hutchinson made a will on his deathbed, being of unsound

mind, by which he gave his property in charity ; and the
hon. member endorsed these statements, told the house
that Father Hutchinson was not of sound mind, that he had
been unduly influenced by the priests of the Oratory, and

at the same time stated that the case of Mr. Smee and the

priests of the Oratory was pending in a court of justice ;
notwithstanding which he gave his own version of the case
to the house, and leading articles appeared in some of the
papers taking the hon. gentleman's view of the matter.
But what happened? The case was tried in the Probate
Court, it was there ably argued, the most complete evi-
dence was given on each side, and what was the result ? A
jury, composed of 12 Englishmen, 12 Protestants, unani-
mously came to the opinion that the case had not been
and Mr.
made out, that Mr. Smee's statements were false,

Smee himself was condemnedin costs. Well, the hon. mem.

ber had told them of Miss M‘Dermott's case, which he said
was also to be brought before a court of law. Why, it had
been before a court of law. Mr. Selfe and another magi-

strate had inquired into it, and it had been inquired into,
not in public court only, but also privately ; and what was
the result ? The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr.

Whalley), who in all these proceedings was associated with
the hon. member for North Warwickshire, attended at the
police office and himself heard the magistrate dismiss the
case. The fact was that the more these cases wore inves-
gated by a competent tribunal and with the full power
which the law of England gave the better. But he asked
the attention of the house to the motion which the hon.
gentleman had put on the paper. It was now 10 or 11
years since a similar motion was made in that house by Mr

Mr. Moon. presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Victoria and other parts of Australia against the transpor-
tation of criminals to the colony.
SALARIES TO THE POST-OFFICE MASTERS IN

Government had not in this country, and that it was de-
sirable to ascertain at what age young girls were allowed
to take vows, for what period they bound themselves to
lead a life of seclusion, and other matters of which the

public generally appeared to be ignorant.
Mr. WHALLEY supported the motion in a speech that
excited frequent bursts of laughter and ironical cheering.

Sir G. GREY—I can assure the hon. member for Peter-
borough that I had no desire to stand in the way of his

addressing the House. The hon. gentleman began by saying
that there was an impassable gulf lletween himself and the

hon. member for North Warwickshire, who brought for-

ward the motion ; and I believe the House must feel that
there was certainly a wide distinction between the mode in

which the latter handled the question and the tone adopted

byjthe hon. gentleman who spoke last. The hon. member for

Peterborough recommends calm and dispassionate inquiry,

but his speech was hardly an illustration of the temper of
mind in which the question ought to be discussed. (Hear,
hear.) Before dealing with the general subject, I will reply
to the questions which the hon. member has addressed to

me. He says he holds me responsible for every act of every
police magistrate within the metropolitan boundary even
for what was said and done by Mr. Paynter in 1859, when I

had not the honour to be Home Secretary. I need scarcely
say I cannot accept such responsibility. The hon. member

asks me to condemn the conduct of Mr. Arnold. I cannot do
so. The case in question did not come before me in any
shape. I saw the reports in the newspaper, as everybody

else did, but I had no reason to suppose that Mr. Arnold did
not on that, as on every other occasion, discharge his duty
in the most conscientious manner. (Hear, hear.) Again,

;he hon. member asks whether in the M'Dermott case Mr.

Selfe communicated with me. He did not—there was no

occasion for his doing so. It was a case in which he could
not interfere as a magistrate, but in an extra-judicial man-
ner, as might be inferred from his having consulted Mrs.
Selfe (a laugh), and from humane motives he endeavoured
to ascertain for Mrs.M‘Dermott where her daughter was,and
whether the girl was under any restraint. But no communi-
cation took place on the subject between Mr. Selfe and the
Home-Office. The hon. member further says I am respon-

these ladies leave them absolutely at the mercy of those who
have the control of these establishments, that they never
visit them, that they are: so dead to the natural affections
which are implanted in our hearts, and to the obligation of
those duties which are imposed upon us as members of

society, as not at any time to inquire into the condition of
their relatives who have taken the veil, and that they would

sible for the omission to enforce the law requiring the regis-
tration of the Brompton Oratory. lam not aware of the

existence of any such Act. By the Catholic Emancipation
Act all members of any religious order bound by vows or
oaths, are required to register themselves within sixmonths
after coming to this country. There is no law, however,
that such a place as the Brompton Oratory should be regis-

tered. I have been informed, on what I believe to be reli

not be the first to seek for the investigation of any such

disgraceful proceedings as are now complained of ? (Hear.)
The real fact is that the evil—for as a Protestant I cannot

deny that it is an evil—arises not from physical, material
restraint, but from that moral restraint, from that obliga-

tion which is felt to bind the consciences of those ladies,
and even though they may have taken the veil at
an early period of life, and may afterwards repent of their
vows, prevents them from leaving these establishments.
These feelings are very much those which were expressed in
touching terms by the lady at Staplehurst to whom the
hon. gentleman referred, and who said she had taken the
veil with an earnest desire to devote herself to the service of
God, adding that all her relatives were Catholics, and that
she knew nothing of life, and asking where she should go if
she left the asylum of the convent. (Hear, hear.) Does the
hon. gentleman believe that any action of Parliament can

able authority, -that the members of the Oratory aro not
bound by any religious vows, and therefore do not come
within the scope of the statute I have mentioned. If the
hon. gentleman knows that these persons are under vows he
should have brought the matter under notice of myself or

reach motives of that kind—motives which, however much

we may regret their existence, must still be respected ? I
do regret that any young person should take vows which
are to last for the whole of her life. (Hear.) At the same
time I am bound to say that there are many of these esta-

blishments in which the persons who enter devote them-

the Attorney-General, in order that proceedings migh

selves to a life, not of asceticism, but of active virtue and
benevolence, employing their whole time in the education
of the young, the reform cif criminals, or other works in
which Protestants may well desire to imitate them. (Hear.)
This committee is asked for, not to inquire into the exist-

ende of convents, not into their increase, because the hon•
gentleman has given us exact statistics upon that head, and
I believe that an accurate list of all such establishments is

to be found in the Catholic Directory—(hear, hear)—but into
their character. DO you mean that it is to enter the con-
vents, examine into their regulations, and ascertain what
practices prevail in those institutions ? Is the committee to
travel about the country, or is it to call before it the in-
mates and superintendents of convents ? And if you adopt
the latter course, do you think that you will find any one
who will appeal to this committee to deliver her from the
bondage in which the hon. gentleman seems to think that
all these ladies are kept? The only thing that you can do
to effect the object which the hon. member seems to have
in view is absolutely to prohibit the existence of any con-
.

ventual establishments in this country. (Hear, hear.) And
I believe this is what the hon. gentleman desires to do. Now
I ask, would that be either just or desirable? With regard
tc convents of men, they are so far prohibited by the act 10,

be instituted, if there be any ground for them. The case
of Mary Ryan has really nothing to do with:the subject of
this motion. (Hear, hear.) The illegality committed in
that instance is not connected with any conventual esta-
blishment—it was a forcible abduction of the person, and
amounted to anassault, for which the offenders were crimi-

Geo. IV., that it is provided that persons in this country

nally responsible. The papers on the subject have been laid
on the table, and it is only fair to say that Mr. Wilkes, one
of the medical members of the Board of Lunacy Commis-
sioners, who saw the girl and examined her condition, re-

who had taken vows of this nature were bound to register
themselves within six months after the passing of the act,
and persons coming to this country and who had taken the
vows were bound to register themselves within six months
after they came here. With regard to the future establish-
ments of such convents, they were declared to be absolutely
illegal. There is, then, an absolute prohibition existing
with respect to the future establishment of convents in
which religious vows are taken by men. But the hon.
gentleman says, in spite of all this, they have increased, and
are increasing. Well, then, if that be so, is there any en-
couragement to us to go on imposing restrictions and pro-
hibitions which it is impossible to enforce ? (Hear, hear.)
If the hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that in violation
of the law persons have been admitted or are being admitted
members of communities bound by religious vows or oaths,
let him lay the evidence upon which he founds that belief

before the Attorney-General, and then the Attorney-Genera]
will decide whether that evidence is sufficient or not. Bui

rHE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENiNG, MARCH 4, 186.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-MARCH 3.

-___. +-

the subject, had come to the conclusion that the Govern-
ment had no alternative but to introduce this scheme or
abandon the territory altogether.
Mr. CARDWELL remarked that for the defence of the
Cape colony, and the suppression of the Kaffir disturbance
on the frontier, there was no doubt we should be in a
much better position after the passing of the bill than we
were at present.
The bill was then passed through committee.

The select committee on Africa Western Coast was
nominated on the motion of Mr. ADDERLEY. The select
committee on commons and open spaces in the neigh-
bourhood of the metropolis was also nominated on the
motion of Mr. DOULTON ; and the house adjourned at a
quarter to ten o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION,

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL SOCIETIES.

Order for commitee of supply read. Motion made and
question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the
chair." Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word
" That" to the end of the question, in order to add the
words "a select committee be appointed to inquire into the
existence, character, and increase of monastic or conventual
societies or establishments in Great Britain," instead
thereof. Question put, " That the words proposed to be
left out stand part of the question." The house divided—
Ayes, 106 ; Noes, 79.

AYES —lO3.
Baines, E. Forster, C. O'Brien, Sir P.
Baring, T. G. Fortescue, C. 5, O'Ferrall, M.
Beamish, F. B. Gavin, Major 0' i:eilly, M. W.
Beaumont, W. B. Gibson, T. M. Padmore, R.
Beaumont, S. Greene, J. Palmer, Sir R.
Beecroft, G. S. Gregory, W. H. Palmerston, Visct.
Bellew, R. M. Greville, Col. F. Peel, F.
Blake, J. Grey, Sir G. Pilkington, J.
Blencowe, J. G. Grosvenor, Earl Pollard Urquhart W
Bouverie, P. P. Hadfield, G. Potter, E.
Bowyer, Sir G. Handiey, J. Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Boyle, G. F. Hartington,Marquis Ricardo, 0.
Brady, Dr Herve}, Lord A. Rogers, J. J.
Bright, J. Headlam, T. E. Russell, A.
Bruce, H. A. Henderson, J. Russell, F. W.
Bury, Viscount Hennessy, J. P. Schneider, H. W.
Buxton, C. Howard, C. W. G. Scholefleid, W.
Cardwell, E. Howard, Lord E. G. Scourfielo„ J. H.
Castlerosse, Vist. Hutt, W. Scully, V.
Cheetham, J. Ingham, R. Shafto, R. D.
Clay, J. Johnstone, Sir J. Sidney, T.
Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Jolliffe, Sir W. Smith, J. A.
Collier, Sir R. P. Kekewich, S. T. Smith, J. B.
Collins, T. Kinglake, Serj. J. Stanley, Lord
Colthurst, Sir G. Lawson, W. Taylor, P. A.
Cowper, W. F. Leader, N. P. Tollemache, J.
Crawford, R. W. Leatham, E. A. Villiers, C. P.
Dering, Sir E. Lennox, Lord G. G. Watkins, Col. L.
Dillwyn, L. L. Locke, J. Weg-uelin, T. M.
Douglas, Sir C. Longfield, R. Williamson, Sir H,
Duff, M. E. MacEvoy, E. Wood, Sir C.
Enfield, Viscount Maguire, J. F. Woods, H.
Ewart, J. C. Malins, R.
Fenwick, H. Marjoribanks, D. C.
Fergusson. Sir J. Morris, W.
Fitzgerald, W. S. Moffitt, W.
Fitzroy, Lord F. Murphy, N. D.

TELLERS.

Brand, H.
White, L.

NOES —79.
Anstruther, Sir R. Ewing, H. E. C. Ogilvy, Sir J.
Archdall, Capt.M E. Fleming, T. W. O'Neill, E.
Ayrton, A. S. Foley, H. W. Papillon, P. 0.
Aytoun, R. S. Gard, R. S. Ponsonby, A.
Barrow, W. H. Getty, S. G. Re ton, G. W. J.
Baxter, W. E. Gore, J. R. 0. Robartes, T. J. A.
Beach, Sir M. Greenall. G. Rose, W. A.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Gurney, S. Russell, Sir W.
Beresford, W. Hamilton, Lord C. Selwyn, C. J.
Bovill, W. Hanbury, R. Smith, Abel
Bremridge, R. Henley, Lord Smith, Augustus
Bridges, Sir B. W. Holmesdale, Lord Somes, J.
Brooks, R. • lica slat, T. B. Surtees, H. E.
Bromley, W. D. Kinnaird, A. F. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Butler, C. S. Knox, Major W. S. Tollemache, F. J.
Caird, J. Langton, W. H. G. Torrens, R.
Cargill, W. W. Letevre' G. J. S. Vance, J.
Carnegie, C. Lefroy, A. Vansittart, W.
Cave, S. Long, R. P. Verney, Sir H.
Churchill, Lord A. Lysley, W. J. Wala egrave-Leslie
Clive, Capt. G. W. Mackie, J. Whalley, G. IL
Cole, H. Malcolm, J. W. White, J.
Cole, J. L. Martin, P. W. Wyndham, P.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Merry, J.
Doulton, F. Miller, T. J.
Du Cane, C. Miller, W.
Dunlop, A. M. Mills, J. It. Newdegate, C.
Ewart, W. Neate, C. Stuart, Lt.-Col. W

TELLERS.

Metropolitan Board of Works.