The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-20 00:00:00

moted the religious welfare of the Roman Catholics.
Those who opposed, or wished to pry into them,
did not do so for the sake of securing the interest of so-
ciety generally, but with the view of spreading religious
discord and exciting unholy animosities amongst the
people. That was the great object of the Protestant
Association, the Evangelical Alliance, and similar socie-
ties, and they sought to accomplish it by resorting to
scandalous libels, which they published, upon the Roman
Catholic Church. Now, he wanted to know if the house
was ready to assist such a movement by passing a mo-
tion like this ? He hoped not ; and therefore he called
upon them to reject the motion.
Mr. E. BALL believed that the essence of religion
was charity, and, although a Dissenter, he was yet in
favour of maintaining the Established Church. (Hear,
hear.) Through life he had been the advocate
of religious liberty, and often had he been persecuted for
the views which he entertained. He was consequently
not disposed to join in the persecution of others, and as
he had not yet heard anything in support of this motion
he should resist it. He might be looked upon as the
very antipodes of a Roman Catholic, but he never hoped
to convert others to his views by persecution. No ; it
must be done rather by charitable and Christian persua-
sion, and not by a recourse to violence. He strongly
deprecated these efforts to increase religious animosities,
they produced no good ; but above all he deprecated the
vile and unchristian manner in which the institutions of
the Roman Catholic Church had been assailed. He
had visited some of them, and he found instead of a pri-
son, a charitable asylum where children were educated,
who would otherwise have been left to the lanes and
streets—where poor women were employed or re-
claimed from an ill course of life. He had visited
the convent in Blandford-square, the asylum of
the Holy Shepherd at Hammersmith, as well
as the nunnery at Roehampton ; and instead of finding
dungeons in them, he discovered places where charity,
good will, and religion prevailed. While, therefore, he
had the strongest faith in his own Protestant principles,
which could thrive without the assistance of legislative
enactments, he had no fear of their being undermined
by institutions like these ; and his course was clearly to
vote against the motion.
Mr. WHITESIDE treated this as a legal ques-
tion, and contended that the house had no alter-
native but to appoint a committee of inquiry
with a view to the amendment of the law relat-
ing to the inmates of conventual establishments.
He wished to have no disagreeable or painful inspection
of conventual establishments, but he desired to protect
their inmates from having their property taken away
from them against their will. He was surprised to find
great unanimity among Roman Catholics in favour of
throwing some protection around ladies in convents in
regard to the execution of deeds and wills. He could
not see any reason why the Roman Catholic members of
the house should object to inquiry if they were so satis-
fied it would redound to their honour, or that the cases
of oppression which had been cited were without foun-
dation. He denied the assertion of the hon. member for
Carlow that the object of this measure was to assail the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, and to deprive them
of their rights of property. There could be no
doubt that the opposition for inquiry came from
the ultramontane party of the Romish Church. In
making that assertion, he did not stand alone. Mr.
Berwick, the principal of the college at Galway, had
said it was impossible for that institution to withstand
the machinations of this priestly party.
Mr. DRUMMOND said the real question was the
secular power assumed, without ever being abandoned,
mitigated, or modified, by Rome and all its clergy ; and
he should never, whether in or out of Parliament, cease
to expose the means by which they had boldly avowed
their intention to carry out the system into effect. He
considered that the motion was a very injudicious one,
because it would not secure the object intended. Hon.
members had alluded to the abuses connected with these
establishments in England, but nothing was done here
equal to what took place on the continent. The state
of Europe justified all that had been asserted of them in
the course of the debate. Wherever- in France did they
hear of the beloved priests or hierarchy ? Where, but
for the standing army in Rome, would the priests
be? (Hear, hear.) He would recommend no one to
withdraw those troops if they had any mercy for the
Pope. He had no hesitation in saying that convents
were abodes of cruelty, and he did not think the bill
would hit at the real evil. A writer on Portugal, Gen.
Dumorier, stated that 400,000 out of the 2,000,000
of the population in that country were confined
in conventual establishments ; one of them was the
seraglio of the king, and he described the whole of them
as of the most infamous character. The conduct of
priests was subversive of morals, because it was impossible
for them to be loyal in a Protestant country. He be-
lieved with the late Duke of Wellington, that it would be
seen that it was impossible for slaves to the priesthood
to he sharers with Protestant freemen in the conducting
the affairs of this country. (Hear.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN opposed the motion on the ground
that it was an unjust interference with the liberties of
the Roman Catholics.
.Mr..E. B. ROCHE contended that it was the essential
principle of the religion of the Roman Catholics to be
loyal to this Protestant state. In discussing the ques-
tion, they would, without coining to any satisfactory
conclusion, steep themselves to their necks in theology,
exasperate the Catholics, and confute the Protestant
people of the country. Nothing could be more un-
statesmanlike than bringing forward a measure of this
kind without any good grounds, when it was shown that
in every case of hardship which had been referred to
the law bad been vindicated. It was like stepping in
where angels feared to tread.
Sir J. T YRREL attributed the opinions of the hon.
member for Cambridgeshire to his innocence in regard to
the system adopted in convents. He protested against
Wednesday afternoons being fritted away by gentlemen
who seemed speaking against time, and he expressed his
astonishment that no member of the Government had
risen to interfere.
Mr. FITZGERALD contended that the arm of the
law was strong enough to protect the inmates of con-
vents both in regard to their own personal liberty and to
the disposal of their property. Wherever moral coercion
had been proved, deeds making away property to the
Church had been set aside. But where there was
one case of coercion in these convents there
were fifty in private life by the parent over the child.
In Ireland convents had existed openly and notoriously
for centuries, and was it not extraordinary, if such abuses
had existed in them, that there should be only four cases
in the books in which assignments of the property had
been obtained by undue means, in all of which the law
had set them aside. He protested against inquiry as
unnecessary, and also because it would raise sectarian
animosity, and be most mischievous in its effects.
Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the debate
should be adjourned, in order that some reports might
be received. The noble lord concluded by moving the
adjournment.
After a few words from Mr. C. BERKELEY and Mr.
NEWDEGATE, the motion for adjournment was put, and
agreed to.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the debate be re-
sumed this day fortnight.
The motion was agreed to and the debate was ad.
journed accordingly.
After the reception of some reports the house rose al
a few minutes to 6 o'clock.