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

had been the gainers by the mail service being performed
as it was now, by contract, instead of as it used to be by
the Government ; and it must be borne in 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. BOWYER moved that the order for its appoint-
ment be discharged. He 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 a
bitter insult. He characterised the object of the committee as
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 not to embark
on an inquiry which would light the torch of religious dis-
cord throu4bout 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 oppose its appointment, but there
would be only an inquiry 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 those 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 coin_
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. Let 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
no 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
benefit on 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
conk see ? Was the right lion. gentleman prepared to drive
monks out of the country ?—a harsh measure, not called
for either by public policy or necessity. (Hear, hear.)
Me noble lord said that Roman Catholics were always say-
ing that the house must not do anything to affect the Ro-
man Co.thelic religion. He did not think that that sus-
ceptibility—if the feeling could he 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 he
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 ad 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—the laws of the country—the liberty it enjoyed?
(Hear.) Was it a case iu 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 he 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—would the right hon. gentleman un-
dertake to bring in a bill for 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-cl.-
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 he voted at all, vote in favour of the amendment
of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. (Cheers )