The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-22 00:00:00

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 which
ho 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. Burr 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 from her bed. lf 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. FAG-AN 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, andlodginghouses. 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 argument
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 destitute 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.)
He had no hesitation in voting against the second
reading of the bill. (Hear.) He was satisfied that the
habeas corpus 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 the legislation of the country,
and sanctioned by the Parliament of Charles IL, was an
effectual protection of the liberty of the subject.. He was
also opposed to the amendment, because it raised the
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 learned mem-
ber for Bath, unless some stronger case was made out
than had yet been shown to the house. (Hear, hear.)
There could be no doubt that conventual establishments
were recognised by the Emancipation Act ; but nuns
could leave them if they Eked, and go back into the
world, and there was no power or authority
in the country which could require them to
return or bind them to the vows which they had taken.
He was sorry the hon. and learned member for Bath had
mixed up the question as to the disposition of property with
the inspection of nunneries to which the bill alone referr-
ed, because it was a totally different question, and involved
considerations of a legal and complicated character. In
several of the cases that had been mentioned, where un-
due influence had been used in obtaining the conveyance
of property for a nun, that conveyance had been set aside ;
and if the present law was not sufficient in that respect, it
was unnecessary to disturb it ; but if any further restriction
was required, let a specific bill be brought in on the
subject, and let the whole question be fairly discussed.
(Hear, hear.) He therefore came to the conclusion
that it would be fairest and most wise on the
part of the house to decide the question on
the second reading of the bill. He should cheerfully
vote in favour of the second reading being postponed for
six months, considering that while the bill intended
and pretended to suit the particular case of
nuns, it was not founded on any crude cir-
cumstances—that it began with a preamble which was
not justified by facts, and that so far from being favour-
able to the Roman Catholic religion it was hostile to it—
that while it was also hostile to the liberty of Protestants
as well as Roman Catholics, it would, in its effect,
be most offensive to the latter—and that while it would
give no sufficient remedy for existing evils, if evils there
be, it woul I be found to exasperate the feelings of those
who were in these religious houses, and who devoted
themselves to a life of seclusion from motives of religion
and piety. (Cheers.)
Mr. G. H. MOORE, in addressing himself to the
subject before the house, took exception to the sincerity,
of those who proposed the bill, for its title was a pre-
varication, while its first reading was carried by a petti-
fogging rnanceuvre. A clamour had been got up out of
doors in favour of the bill, but no faith could be placed
in religious priests, nor could any weight be attached
to anything which fell from Englishmen against
the Roman Catholic Church, because they were ever
ready to say anything and everything against that
Church without inquiring into the truth of what they
asserted. This feeling did not confineitself to out of doors :
hon. members while acting under a species of Protestant
madness, also gave vent to assertions which were as de-
void of truth as they were recklessly made, and they had
seen in one instance a jury return a verdict at variance
with the evidence for the sake of upholding the supremacy
of Protestantism. The blackest spots in our history
were attributable to these periodical outbursts of Protes-
tant infatuation and intolerance, and he regretted to find
in this, the 19th century, they were called upon to legis-
late towards the Roman Catholics, in a spirit which
would have done no discredit to the age in which Queen
Mary fell. So objectionable and tyrannical were the pro-
visions ofthis bill, that he did not believe that any man could
be found who would be willing to carry them out ; cer-
tainly none would be found in Ireland, not even amongst
the most rampant Orangemen, for even an Orangeman
was not so great a coward as to be ever found raising
his hand against defenceless women. The bill, in fact, might be characterised as the Jack Retch of bigotry,
and the house would best consult its own dignity and the
interest of the country by throwing it out. As for the
assertion that ladies were confined in nunneries against
their will, he believed that ladies in convents were
much
freer than many hon, members, who were subject to the
whims of whips and angry constituents ; and it would
be better to pass a bill for their relief than that of the
nuns, who did not want it. (Hear.)
Mr. WARNER would much rather vo t
ahe su of
ef all conventual eetablielunente than bill of