The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-29 00:00:00

amo,P.
had been the gainers by the mail service being perforreea
as it was now, by contract, instead of as it used to be by
the Government; and it must be borne iu mind that the
Government had never contemplated entering into con-
tracts for the conveyance or comforts of passengers,
their functions being limited to the safe and rapid con-
veyance of the mails.
Lord NAAS said he, for one, would not support this
motion if it was merely a question of the luxury of
passengers, which it was not ; but in fact they did not
ask for a grant of 120,0001. or 150,0001. a year ; all
they asked for was to insure punctuality, which was
not insured at present.
After some further discussion the house divided, when
the motion was negatived by 208 to 152 ; majority
against it, 56.

CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.
Upon Mr. T. CHAMBERS moving the nomination of
the Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions,
Mr. BO WYER moved that the order for its appoint-
ment be discharged. lie suggested the impolicy of bring-
ing forward on the eve of a war any measure that would
sow dissension in the nation, or produce discontent in any
class. This committee was calculated, he said, to exaspe-
rate the feelings of Roman Catholics, who considered it as
bitterinsnit. He characterised the object of the committee us
incompatible with the principles of the law, and, in re-
spect to convents, and as repugnant to the feelings of
Englishmen. He again implored the house net to embark
on an inquiry which would light the torch of religious dis-
cord throughout the country.
Mr. ESMONDE seconded the motion, objecting to the
inquiry, because the circumstances under which it was
voted no longer existed, and also on constitutional grounds.
Lord LOVAINE protested against such a plea as that
there was more danger in meddling with Roman Catholics
than any other class of her Majesty's subjects. This was
not more a Roman Catholic than a Protestant question. The
constitution laid it down that no person should be confined
in any Place whatever, except by due course of law. All
he asked was that the regulations to which Roman Catho-
lics were subject abroad should be adopted in England.
He denied that there would be any intrusion on the pri-
vacy of ladies, for if such were to be the proceedings of the
committee he -would op wo e its appointment, but there
would be only an inquirys into the circumstances under
which those establishments were conducted.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not know whether the question
which had already been decided by a considerable majority
of that house, ought to be brought forward again, but it
appeared to him that it was well worth the consideration
of the house whether they Would persist in the motion for
the appointment of this committee. (Hear.) But, then, as
the noble lord (Lord Lovaine)said, this was a constitutional
question, the house ought to take care not to appoint a
committee on vague supposition. Some case ought to be
made out of persons detained in these convents against
their will. But for persons to come forward and make
statements that convents were bad places, and that per-
sons were confined in them against their will, without
offering any evidence in support of thoso allegations,
seemed to him not a proper ground for going on with the
question. He said again that there was too much vague-
ness and uncertainty with respect to the sort of inquiry
that was to take place. The noble lord did not wish to in-
quire into what took place in the private matters in these
houses. Did the noble lord mean that the committee
were not to send for persons to examine them ? If so that
would make a great alteration in the case. If the cont.
mittee were empowered to send for papers but not persons,
the inquiry would be of a totally different character. But,
if they were to send for persons, it was no satisfaction to
be told by the noble lord that he did not wish private
matters to be inquired into. When he looked at the
names of the committee he could not not help feeling
it was not very impartially chosen—(hear, hear)—and,
that names would be found on it connected with
strong prejudices and extreme opinions, and this
hardly afforded a sufficient guarantee against inquiries
not being pushed into, private matters. (Hear.) If there
was really any case made out—if the liberty of the subject
had been infringed—if against the law of the land persons
were prevented from leaving these conventual houses—
then, he said, there ought to be no delicacy about having
an inquiry ; the allegations ought to be inquired into
thoroughly and promptly. But if no such case was made
out, why should they inquire ? Those who wished to alter
the law should look into the existing law, and propose such
regulations as they thought fit. Lot them look into the
laws of foreign countries—let them acquaint themselves
with the rules and regulations on taking vows—let them
consider all these things, and then propose a new law to
that house. These foreign laws could easily be obtained,
and when they were looked into a bill could be brought
into that house. (Hear, hear.) There was another part of
the inquiry which had relation to monastic institutions
against the letter of the law, and contrary to law. The
hon. gentleman said he wished to have inquiry with re-
spect to monastic institutions. He (Lord J. Russell) had
ao wish for any such inquiry. (Hear, hear, and oh.) He
knew there were many laws existing on the statute book
which had fallen into disuetude, and no evil had been felt.
He knew that in time such laws became practically
extinct. If any particular grievance, if any infraction of
the law could be proved in the case of monastic institu-
tions, he said let there be an inquiry; but he confessed he
did not see to what purpose they were to have an inquiry.
When he had the honour to fill the office of Home Secre-
tary he found it necessary to write to Lord Normanby to
ascertain if it was necessary to make an inquiry into a
particular monastery in Ireland. Lord Normanby replied
that the monastery was the. cause of a great deal of good—
that it promoted agriculture, and otherwise conferred much
benefitnn the district. With that answer he was satisfied,
and he consequently gave no public directions for an in-
inquiry. But if they were to have an inquiry, as the right
hon, gentleman urged, then the house must come to one
conclusion or other, either to take further measures—
which were not difficult to take—to suppress monasteries
—to establish an effectual machinery by which, if monas-
teries were found to exist in any place, an officer of the
law would be empowered to drive the occupants out, and
to prevent them from occupying the building. They must
either have that, or they must have a law repealing the ex-
isting law, and allowing monasteries to exist. Was the
right hon. gentleman prepared to take either of those
courses? Was the right hon. gentleman prepared to drive
monks out of the country ?—a harsh measure, not called
for either by public policy or necessity. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord said that Roman Catholics were always say-
ing that the house must not do anything to affect the Ro-
man Catholic religion. He did not think that that sus-
ceptibility—if the feeling could be so called—was confined
to Roman Catholics. He should like the noble lord to
make the attempt to bring in a bill which would affect the
Toleration Act. Let the noble lord try to do so, and ho
would soon see whether the dissenters would allow him to
touch their religious privileges, or whether the would not
denounce the attempt to deprive them of the religious liber-
ties which they enjoyed. (Hear.) It was not a question
affecting Roman Catholics, but it was a question affecting
religion. When he thought that the Roman Catholics were
at ail trenching on the privileges which the people of this
country enjoyed, and interfering with the prerogative and
temporal rights of the Crown, he had certainly, at the
hazard of incurring the odium of Roman Catholics, thought
it his duty to interfere. (Hear.) But the question was,
did the present case at all affect the prerogatives of the
Crown—t2.lo laws of the country—the liberty it enjoyed ?
(Hear.) Nira,s it a case in which the house should inter-
fere ? For his part, he did not think it was. He might
take the other alternative which the right hon. gentleman
had put. He must refer to the right hon. gentleman, be-
cause he was the member who had taken the most leading
part in supporting the appointment of the committee. If
the committee should be appointed ho trusted that the
right hon. gentleman would take a leading part in it, and
would prevent such scandal as might occur from the in-
quiries being pushed to the extent of inquisition and per-
secution ; and that he, at least, would make himself respon-
sible for the right conduct of the committee. But suppose
he came to the conclusion that those monasteries should
be permitted by law to exist, and that the prohibitions
now existing in the .statute book with respect to them
should be repealed—wonld the right hon. gentleman un-
dertake to bring in a bill fin' that purpose ? If the Roman
Catholic mind was susceptible on this subject, did the right
hon. gentleman think that the Protestant mind would not
become susceptible if a proposal were made for an abso-
lute change in the law, and for confirming the privileges
of those monasteries now tolerated in this country ?
(Hear, hear.) He must confess that he could see no benefit
likely to arise from meddling with this question at all.
(Hear.) He could not see what was to be gained by it.
If he could be convinced that any ladies in this country did
not enjoy the benefits of the liberty allowed by the laws,
he certainly should have an inquiry, with the view of
applying a vigorous remedy. (Hear, hear.) But not be-
lieving a word of the stories that had been told on the sub-
ject of nunneries—stories which generally came under the
denomination of what were called cock-and-a-bull stories
—or rather of what the French called histoires de coq-d-

rdne—not believing the many inventions that had been
throughout the world ventilated on this question—seeing
no benefit whatever in the inquiry proposed—thinking that
the house would act much more wisely in not meddling at
all with the subject, and that the proposal would be a
piece of very peddling and useless legislation, he certainly
should, if ho voted at all, vote in favour of tho amendment
of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. (Cheers )
Colonel NORTH stated a case which had occurred at
Banbury, in Oxfordshire, in which a Miss Fitzallen sought
to be relased from a nunnery in vain, as a writ of habeas
corpus would not apply. She however, subsequently con-
trived to effect her escape.

Mr. H. DE UMMOND had not liked the terms of the
motion, nor the speeches for it, nor the speeches against it.
The latter had evinced misconception, or wilful perversion
of meaning, as there had never been any intention
to interfere with the internal management of these
establishments, and no gentleman had ever thought of
summoning any lady before the committee. But the same
reasons now existed for this inquiry as when the Ecclesi-
astical Titles Bill was passed. The Roman Catholics had
not retracted a word of the aggression then made, and
were equally determined on bringing the country under
the spiritual and temporal dominion of the Pope of Rome.
Members avowed that they were sent hero by the priests
to advocate the claims of the Pope. The object of the
priests was to enveiglo girls with money into the convenes,
and force them to leave their money away from their re-
latives. Let priests have the power they sou,ht, and where
would be our liberties ? These institution had
been per-
verted to infamous purposes, according to the power en-
joyed by the priests. lie
pledged himself to prove his
case against these establishments, if permitted.
Captain BELLEW supported' the amendment,
Mr. CROSSLEY defended the appointment of the coin.
mittee.

Xlie country Mr.
Eco
lordship's WDtEG &TB assailed Lord John Russell, and
said
Y Would quite understand the value of his
p's Protestant zeal. The fact of the existence of
these very institutions, in violation of the law, had chiefly
induced the Pope to beieve that the time had come for his
aggression ; and no speech could have been better calm-
lated to invite further- aggression than that of Lord John
Russell.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE hoped that the house would
rescind its former resolution. Even admitting that there
had been grounds for it, which ho would not do, he would,
as a Protestant, ask Protestants to consider whether the
evils which would arise from this inquiry would not coun-
terbalance any possible good it could effect. This inquiry
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 Roman Catholics of Eng•
land and Ireland, that the Protestants of England should
be legislating for them, not merely without their consent,
but absolutely against it.
Mr. SPOONER said the real question upon which the
inquiry was founded was that a moral and undue influence
was exercised upon young girls to induce them to entet
into nunneries, and that by a continuance of that in-
fluence they were induced to leave their property to these
convents away from their relations. The inquiry was car-
ried by a large majority on a former evening against the
strength of the Government, and no grounds had beau
brought forward to warrant the house in retracing its
_steps and discharging the committee, The tact was, that