The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
RECOVERY OF PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,
Sir R. H. INGLIS rose to move that the bill be
read a second time, and in doing so the hon. baronet
directed the attention of the house to the fact that
scarcely any of the petitions which had been
presented to-day contained the name of the bill.
This was a bill for the recovery of personal liberty in
certain cases, and in no way applied to nunneries in par-
ticular. It was intended, of course, that it should apply
to the abuses of such institutions, but it contained
nothing that could be in any way offensive to the pro-
fessors of the Roman Catholic religion. No one
would deny the possibility of the existence of
abuse, nor would any one shrink from the per-
formance of his duty in the event of such abuses
being established. Well, then, he contended that& priori
—the existence of monastic institutions, where persons
of tender years were taken in, for the purpose of
religious training, proved that abuses prevailed, and
since the Council of Trent had decided that no one
should be forced or kept in a convent against his or
her will, he was at a loss to understand why the bill
should be resisted by Roman Catholics. A similar law
prevailed in many Roman Catholic countries on the Con-
tinent, and all that the promoters of this bill asked was,
simply, that the same protection of the law should be
extended to England. There were 300 nunneries
or monastic institutions in this country, and
who knew but what there were many persons
confined in them who were sighing for their personal
liberty. But though that was admitted, it was said the
law as it now stood was quite sufficient to meet such
isolated cases, and there was no necessity whatever for
any special legislation. The bill was not to extend only
to Roman Catholic institutions but to all religious houses
where persons were detained against their will, and he
contended that the existing law was insufficient to meet
the abuses that such institutions were liable to.
Mr. PHINN was bound to say that the bill, irre-
spective of religious questions, was as unconstitutional
as any that had ever been submitted to the house.
(Hear.) He felt it humiliating that any lawyer should
have proposed a measure which began with a false recital,
and terminated in a provision which was destructive of
the first principle of English law—that every man's
house was his castle. He challenged the hon. mover,
as well as any lawyer in the house, to point to one sin-
gle instance in which the courts of law had been baffled
in the way in which the hon. member had suggested.
He (Mr. Phinn) contended that the writ of habeas
corpus was still issued in a manner to facilitate the
liberty of the subject. (Hear.) It was impossible
to shut one's eyes to the fact that religious houses, not
only of Roman Catholics, but of Protestants who played
at Roman Catholicity, under the control of persons of
eminence in the Church of Fngland, and receiving part of
its emoluments, had very much increased of late years.
The irritation and angry feeling in the country against
them, however, was to be attributed to the practices at
the Protestant Institution at Plymouth, which was
under the patronage of an English bishop ; and the
Agapemone, or Abode of Love, at Taunton, which also
belonged to the Established Church. (Hear, hear.) The
existence of these societies had been dexterously used as
an engine of abuse against the Roman Catholics. He
considered that the bill was wholly unnecessary. Were
Roman Catholics so dead to all sense of decency, such
blind zealots, and so trodden down by their priests that,
if they had a sister or a cousin immured in a convent
against their will, they would not go to a judge and
avail themselves of the remedy which the law afforded ?
To say so would be an imposition on the common sense
of the house. Under the bill any gabbling old woman
might go before a commissioner, who, it should be
recollected, was appointed by a political officer,
and tell him that persons were confined in cer-
tain convents against their will, and he might
thereupon have the establishment inspected. If such a
practice was generally adopted, it would raise a feeling
of animosity and hostility against the Government which
it might take years to allay. He admitted the right of
Parliament to legislate on this subject, if there was any
grievance connected with conventual establishments
(hear)—and with the view of ascertaining whether legis-
lation was necessary, it was his intention to move as an
amendment that the bill should be referred to a select
committee, to ascertain what arrangements were neces-
sary for the protection of the inmates of convents, and
for the prevention of any undue influence in procuring
the alienation of their property. The provisions whioh
he thought might be wisely enacted were, first, that per-
sons should be prohibited taking vows under 21 years of
age ; that there should be a restriction with regard to
the alienation of property belonging to inmates ; and
that every one who took vows should name two persons
of their own family who should be allowed access to them
at stated periods. (Hear.) The hon. member concluded
by moving his amendment.
Mr. I. BUTT seconded the amendment, believing
that the bill was an outrageous violation of civil and re-
ligious liberty. (Hear.) He looked on the measure as
an unmanly and cowardly mode of legislation, because
while it professed to require the inspection of nunneries,
it in reality sought to abolish conventual establishments.
The bill established a Protestant inquisition of the most
offensive and dangerous character, for it gave an officer
of the Crown the power of entering any man's house,
and dragging any female inmate front her bed. If this
was a constitutional question perhaps it would be ad-
visable to consult the feelings of Protestants ; but when
it was one that only affected Roman Catholics, he con-
sidered they ought to pay some deference to the feelings
and views of the Roman Catholic laity. (Hear.) It
was because he was as opposed as any man to the ascen-
dency of Roman Catholicism that he was anxious that
Protestantism should be entirely in the right, and he
therefore thought no legislation as to the inspection of
convents should take place until after full inquiry.
If they passed the bill, they would place in the hands of
the Government a power which they had never possessed
since the first days of English freedom. Whether he
regarded the measure as exclusively directed to the in-
spection of convents, or as a general measure, it was, in
his opinion, equally objectionable.
Mr. FAGAN was astonished that, in a country like
this, containing seven millions of Roman Catholics, who
enjoyed all, or nearly all, the rights and privileges of the
constitution, two propositions so offensive to that body as
those made by Sir R. H. Inglis and Mr. Phinn should
have been submitted to Parliament. He could only at-
tribute such a circumstance to that morbid feeling of the
people of England against the Roman Catholic reli-
gion, which had been excited by the doctrine lately
promulgated and adopted by high authority in that
house, that that religion was a mere political system.
He objected to the amendment as well as to the second
reading of the bill. There could be no doubt that the
real object of the bill was to put the Roman Catho-
lic convents on the same footing as lunatic asylums,
workhouses, and lodginghouses. He believed that neither
this bill would have been brought in, nor that the Eccle-
siastical Titles Bill would have passed into law, if it had
not been for the divisions existing in the Protestant
Church. He hoped that Irish members would give
their united support in favour of the rejection of the bill,
which, he said, was looked on by Roman Catholics as a
species of persecution.
[Mr. BAGSHAW, the member for Harwich, here took
the oaths and his seat.]
Mr. NAPIER should support the amendment of the
hon. member, but could not agree that the bill was
cowardly and unmanly. His chief objection to it was,
that it was inadequate to meet the evils it intended to
remedy, but he had also serious objections to its details.
He did not consider that the writ of habeas corpus was
a sufficient protection to inmates in convents. As to
their disposition of property, these inmates could not
avail themselves of that protection which all British sub-
jects had a right to receive from the constitution. There-
fore the present was not a question of invading religious
liberty, but a question of invading civil freedom. If these
institutions came in contact with the constitution,he would,
using the words of Lord John Russell on the Ecclesias-
tical Titles Bill, say they must choose between them,
because they could not both exist. He could not recon-
cile the vows of poverty and obedience with the liberty
of the person. It was a principal of the constitution
that no person in this country could be a slave, or assent
to his own imprisonment ; but in convents the female
inmates were bound to surrender their liberty and pro-
perty, and yet there was no redress. His Roman Ca-
tholic constituents, though opposed to inspection, were
of opinion that it was absolutely necessary that some-
thing should be done in regard to disposition of property.
He thought they were bound to supply a remedy, but
one with every regard to the feelings of Roman Catho-
lics. He considered, however, that the inspection of
nunneries would not secure personal liberty. It would,
in his opinion, produce a degree of irritation which would
not compensate for any possible advantages that it might
secure.
Lord J. RUSSELL entirely agreed with the arguments
used against the bill by the hon. members who moved
and seconded the amendment. He denied what had
been asserted by Sir R. H. Inglis that the habeas corpus
act, which had been a security for personal liberty for
170 years, was totally inefficient for that purpose, and
that there would be no liberty of the subject unless the
present bill was passed. The preamble of the bill was
wholly destititte of truth ; and as to the remedy which
was proposed, he should be. much astonished if it re-
ceived the assent of the house. A commissioner, named
by the Lord-Chancellor was empowered and required to
enter and even break into any house he chose—
not on affidavits or on testimony on oath, but on his own
belief that some female was detained in it against her
own will, If such a bill passed, where would be
the Safety of their houses. (Hear, hear.) He had
no doubt there were some private establishments
where persons were confined against their will ; but
at no time had the Legislature set aside that general
rule of law—that sacred part of the constitution—that
every Englishman's house was his castle. (Hear.)
Ile had no hesitation in voting against the second
reading of the bill.
habeas corpus (Hear )He was satisfied that the
act, which *was framed by the skill of
one of the truest men that ever took part in the admi-
nistration of the law or in thel legislation of the country,
and sanctioned by the Parliament
subject.
11., was an
effectual protection of the liberty of theh
also opposed to the amendment, because jietetiliseedwthaies
whole question in the bill. He could not agree to the
appointment of a select committee to inquire into the
matters suggested by the honourable and learnedmenl
ber for Bath, unless some stronger case was
made out.
than had yet been shown to the
house. (Hear, hear.)
that
There could be no doubt conventual establishments
were recognised by the Emancipation Act ; but nuns
could leave them if they liked, and go back into the
no power
require them topower or authority
world, and there was
in the country which co
return or bind
the them to the vows
_which
btehreyfohr
adßatathkheana
Be was 'lorry hon. and learned mem