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

the Government inspectors sty in reference to those insti-

tutions in Ireland ? On the question of the moral training
given in those establishments, and that was the only point
to which he would at present allude, the Protestant and
Presbyterian officials of the Government—and he would
quote from their evidence alone—distinctly said that the
moral training in the nuns' was greatly better than that in
the lay schools. The Sisters of Mercy had a school in New-
town, in Galway, and Mr. Simpson, the inspector, who was
a. Presbyterian, spoke of the moral training there as being
superior to that of other schools, as a natural consequence
of the children associating with the sisters. Another Pres-
byterian made the same statement with respect to another
school in the county of Galway, while similar evidence
was given by the Protestant inspector of National Schools
in the King's County, as well as by others in the north of
Ireland. Mr. Kennedy, referring to a school in Sligo, said,
" there are eight nuns employed here, and I consider there
is no school in the district in which the moral training is so
effective or so good." Such testimony was, he thought, suffi-
cient to show that the hon. member for North Warwick-
shire and his hon. friend the member for Peterborough
really only represented their own views on the present oc-
casion, and not the sentiments of anybody who was ac-
quainted with the facts of the case, or who had such ample
opportunities of arriving at a sound judgment as the Go-
vernment inspectors. The hon. gentleman in the frequent
allusions which he made to the fathers at the Oratory
last year repeatedly asserted that they had acted in vio-
lation of the Emancipation Act of 1829. (Mr. Newdegate
was understood to say that he stated they might be
technically within the law.) Well, then, the hon. gen-
tleman must have changed his opinions on the point since
last year. The decisions in opposition to his views which
had been given by Sir .T. Wilde in the Probate Court, had,
perhaps, opened his eyes, because that learned Judge had
clearly shown that the statements which had been made by
the hon. gentleman in that house had no foundation what-
ever in law, and the jury immediately found a verdict in
favour of the fathers of the Oratory. All he could say was
that he was not surprised the hon. gentleman had again come
cobemmpelertely baffled and beaten,
to that house, because in the courts of justice he had been
and his statements found to
gentlemaneationsll eencohuilsdhn.ott,aearth.ee.al mightresearaded,h. coHmis-
plimenet dthele fhon.fabrications.
Chesterfield to his son when he told him that-ice givenc by Lord
historic anecdotes reraindedla* of thtes
aenmsttooribees
were so extraordinary that even if he believedertf
true he would advise him not to repeat theoT,hiosrvif he did
)wloiueldshbeougildn
tthoereenftrteapinassdoouvberts
the anecdotes of
(soA Pelauopglhe.
the hon. gentleman, as the invention of those anonymous
gentlemen who supplied him with his information,
n' and as
to some extent, no doubt, the result of those long
consul-
tations which he held with the hon. member for Peter-
borough, for some time past they were to be seen in every
hole and corner, putting their heads together and comparing
notes for their present great campaign. (A laugh.) And
what was near being the upshot of those deliberations. Why,
that when the motion was put from the chair it would ap-
pear as if it was to be lost for want of a seconder, until
the hon. member for Peterborough rushed to his seat. But,
be that as it might, the molion was one for inquiry, in the
first place, into the number of conventual establishments;
and why was it, he should like to know, that the hon. gen-
tleman asked for information on that point? He told the
house he had got all the statistics on the subject. Where
did he get them
? As a matter of fact, the number of
those institutions was elaborately set forth in the Catholic
Directory, while their character could be ascertained from
any person acquam • ted with them—and they were many
—of whom he might choose to make inquiry. What
the motion of the hon. gentleman meant, so far as it re-
lated to inquiry into the " existence" of conventual estab-
lishments he could not understand. That they existed was
a well known fact, and there could be as little doubt that
their existence was in accordance with law. But the truth
was that what the hon. gentleman was aiming at was to
raise the popular indignation of which he spoke against
those
ladies who passed their lives in educating the poor,
attendingerd
the sick, and performing acts of charity, who had
never done the hon. gentleman or anybody else the slightest
injury, and in making out a case against whom he had, so
far as the feeling of the House was concerned, signally
failed, as he would also, he had no doubt, fail in the country.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEATE observed, that in France the Government
had a certain control Over convents which the English

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 othor 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 between 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
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
se. 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,
the 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-
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-
able authority, that the members of the Oratory are 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
the Attorney-General, in order that proceedings might
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-
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-
ports as follows :
" In my opinion, Mary Ryan is still of unsound mind,
labouring under a very common form of melancholia, with
a suicidal tendency. I also think that she is not in a state
to be safely taken care of out of an asylum."
It also appears that every person actuated by benevolent
motives, or sent by the Government, received every facility
in visiting the girl, and that she is treated with kindness
and consideration. The only reason why she was not
brought back to this country—a course which both the
Belgian Government and the managers of the institution
would gladly have pursued—was that her state of health
was such as to render it probable that her removal would
have exposed her to a renewed attack of mania. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the general question, I cannot help
expressing my regret that after the interval which has
elapsed since this subject was last before the house it should
have been revived by the hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) 1
implicitly believe the hon. gentleman's assertion that he
is not actuated by any religious bigotry, but is only acting
in what he regards as the honest discharge of his duty, and
I also believe that he represents the opinions of a very
large number of persons in this country—(hear)—but with
the recollection of what has before taken place in this
house I do not think that it is judicious to press such a
question upon its attention. In 1853 Mr. Thomas
Chambers brought in a Bill which led to very long
discussions. It was founded upon, I think, the same as-
gumption as the present motion—viz., that many per-
sons are subject to the undue and improper exercise
of coercion and restraint in conventual establishments,
and that the existing law does not afford adequate means
for their relief. The bill was lost on the second read-
ing, and its place was taken by an amendment, meved by
an hon. and learned gentleman not now a member of
this house, to the effect that a committee should be ap-
pointed to inquire " whether any and what regulations are
necessary for the protection of the inmates of establishments
of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the
exercise of undue influence in procuring the alienation of
their property." The object of that motion was much more
restricted than is that of the resolution now before the
house, but it ledto a.very protracted debate, and ultimately,
owing to the advanced period of the session, it became a
dropped order or was discharged without any decision be-
ing come to. In the next session Mr. Chambers, deferring
to what appeared to be the opinion of the majority of this
house, moved for a committee of inquiry. The motion was
carried by a considerable majority, but what followed? We
were led into eternal debates night after night upon the
question of ;the nomination of that committee or upon mo-
tions for the discharge of the order. There were many acri-
monious debates ; much valuable time was lost ; ultimately
it was found impossible to nominate the committee, and no
practical result was derived from those discussions. (Hear,
hear.) That is rather a warning to us not to enter upon the
course to which we are invited by the hon. gentleman than
an encouragement to expect from it any useful result.
With what view is the inquiry proposed? I was in hopes
that the hon. gentleman would, according to the ordinary
practice of Parliament, have shown that he asked for in-
quiry with a view to legislation. We do not appoint com-
mittees merely to gratify curiosity, or to obtain informa-
tion which the person seeking it says he does not desire to
make the basis of Parliamentary action.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said he stated that he desired to lay
the facts before the house, and would leave it to the wisdom
of the house to apply the remedy.
Sir G. GREY—I think an hon. gentleman ought to trust
a little to his own wisdom, and, when he brings a subject
before the house and asks for the inquiry of a committee,
ought to show that some practical result is likely to be at-
tained, and state that, after inquiry has taken place, he will
be prepared to recommend the house to take some legisla-
tive action. ' The hon. gentleman does not do that ; he
merely wishes to obtain the information and lay it before
the house, without takingany ulterior proceedings upon it.
I should like to know what the hon. gentleman's object is.
Is it the inspection of these institutions, or is it, as I rather
gathered from his speech, their absolute suppression ? On
what ground does he think that Parliament ought to inter-
fere in this matter? Does he believe that there are many

P
rsons a state of absolute physical coercion and restraint,
ande that the law is unable to provide a remedy ? I know
that such a belief prevails very extensively, and is held by
many people much more strongly than by the hon. gentle-
man himself. There was sent to me a few days ago a copy
of the Bulwark, or Reformation Journal, dated the Ist of
March, containing a paragraph headed, "Protestant Action
in Parliament," in which it is stated that •
" On the 9th of February a special meeting of the Gene-
ral Committee of the Protestant Alliance was held in Lon-

don, when the following resolutions were unanimously

adopted That there has been a large and sudden increase
in the number of conventual establishments in Britain, and
at the present time there are 201 of these institutions in
England and Scotland for females, containing, it is believed,
many thousand inmates, most of whom are under a consider-
able amount of constraint, and are deprived of the liberty

of quitting these establishments. That it is desirable that
Parliament should institute inquiry upon this subject, and
that the following petition on conventional establishments
be adopted.' "
The petition repeats this statement in substance, and con-
cludes :
" Your petitioners therefore pray your honourable House
to institute an inquiry into the existence and condition of
monastic and conventual establishments, and to take such
means as shall secure the due observance of the law and
the liberty of the subject."
Now, sir, what proof has been given of the inadequacy of
the existing law to meet any of these supposed cases of phy-
sical coercion ? The hon. gentleman has cited several in-
stances, but they seemed to me to show that the law is power-
ful enough to deal with these cases when they occur. He
must know that if there is reasonable ground to suspect that
any person is confined and kept in restraint against his
will, an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made
on his behalf, and if it were supported by affidavits the
court would at once grant the writ. I was not acquainted
with the particulars of the case with respect to which the
enoughdeg a te
and—Nine I
aaffiragtinass uovtarib
etses
tt]aoh
ma
the
ineinfeeilanlaffite,ffigsdacidal
hon. gentleman said that he had 27 affidavits. [Mr. New-
cinf
uavi
tveiytsi
stt
ioowr n
wereo, usr
mdomwi
aednliegqt
ytudhii
saot
wclhosicinhgthperreoccoeeudildn
there were in any conventual establishment dungeons into
which women were forced, and from which they were not
allowed to come out alive—circumstances which would
justify a magistrate in ordering the police to enter the
establishment and make a thorough examination—the hon.
gentleman would be the last man to put such affidavits into
his pocket until he had an opportunity of bringing them
.before the House of Commons. He must have known that
judicial proceedings could be taken to ascertain the truth of
the affidavits, to stop the proceedings complained of, and to
bring the parties concerned to justice. In this country such
proceedings would meet with universal censure, and
ants to strengthen the
Catholics would unite with Protest
be
found,
and
hands of any one who was engaged in their exposure.
(Hear, hear.) In these conventual establishments and
colleges ladies of rank and education areh t
ot
the
friends
of
does the hon. gentleman really suppose t a