The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-11 00:00:00

INCOME TAX.

In reply to Sir F. KELLT,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no intention to make any alteration in favour of
farmers who already had an extensive power of appeal.

SCOTCH SPIRITS.
In reply to Lord NAAS,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated

that there was no present intention on the part of the
Government to allow a drawback on home-made Scotch
spirits in bond.
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES,

Mr. T. CHAMBERS rose to move for leave
to bring in a bill to facilitate the recovery of per-
sonal liberty in certain cases, and having claimed the
indulgence of the house while he delivered a
maiden speech, he proceeded to state that, in making
this motion, he had no desire to wound the religious
feelings of any one. Still it would be his duty to touch
upon theological topics, because there was a class of
persons in the state who were subject to undue restraint and
hardship, and it was in respect of this class that he wished
now to legislate. There were institutions existing in
this country which were beyond the reach of all the
enactments to be found on the statute book, and which
were used for the purpose of keeping females in
restraint. His bill, in fact, would point at
monastic institutions ; and, as the Legislature had
more than once passed enactments in that spirit,
there could be nothing novel or strange in this motion.
The law as it now stood, however, was a dead letter, and
he wished to bring in a bill to render it more stringent. It
was too much the practice to describe nunneries and mo-
nastic institutions as places of calm retreat, where females
could retire to who were anxious to quit the pomps and
vanities of the world, but it frequently happened that
so far from being places of this character, they were little
better than prisons where females were detained against
their will, upon the lame pretence that such detention was
for their spiritual welfare. In tie majority of instances,
no doubt, these institutions were places of peaceful and
comfortable retreat for persons who wished to lead a se-
chided life, but the public mind believed that many
of these convents were full of those who were dis-
contented. Most of these convents wete built like
prisons with bolts and bars, and porters at the doors
watching all day and night. All these architectural
features resembled those of an ordinary prison. They
had high walls, and other guards against intrusion,
besides cells and dungeons, and the public mind
was strongly opposed to such establishments. But
his bill was not intended to be directed against
Roman Catholic convents. It would embrace alike
vows were notAgapentonies and e Ao
gnngi
sloe -de
bayt
tohl iec n
constitutionalunn ries .
law
the land ; but setting that argument aside, he would
come to something that told much stronger in
favour of his motion. It could hardly be said that
there were no discontented nuns in the country,
or why should there be so much rhetoric wasted in ex-
horting those already in nunneries to keep their vows.
If there was not a class of discontented nuns in this country
who sighed for liberty, how came it thatthe Roman Catho-
lic
orclergywhwoerweerceonatniixraioaullsytaodamboannidsohnintgheir vows.
denouncing
persons The
fact that such a class existed was a strongt_ argument
in favour of this bill, but there was another argument
which he must adduce in support of his motion.
(Hear, hear.) Almost every other country in
Europe but England provided a remedy for the
case which this bill contemplated
stance, no novice could take the
i veil In Pllisi
withoutthsae,forconsent
in-
stance,
of the civil authorities ; while n Russia no nun could
enter a convent without the permission of the Synod of
Moscow. In Bavaria vows could not be taken for a
longer period than three years,tii while the State reserved
to itself the right of visiting these ese monastic institutions,
and setting those persons a liberty who were anxious
France
;to
and thethough world. The same
mneo t
to return
he edi practicewsh
to in
followva prevailed
the example of foreign
countries, he thought these proofs
were conclusive
against all these monastic institutions
being simply places of peaceful retreat. No doubt he
should be met with the objection that the bill
was opposed
.to religious liberty, but it was no
such thing. All that it could do would be to se-
cure civil liberty to parties who wished it. The
Roman Catholic Relief Act entirely prohibited .the exist-
ence of monastic institutions for males, but a reservation
was made in favour of some half-dozen establishments that
were in existence at the time the act was passed, and which
were confined to females. According to the. Roman_
Catholic Directory and Almanac, for 1853, it alVgera nedd
that there were no less than 75 nunneries
hile of' 'those
attached to the Roman Catholic Church,c
h he believed there
belonging to the Anglo-Catholih
tauirnin somethingco like

1,000 nuns. Now, at the present moment, the law of
England stood helpless at the porch of a nunnery
just as much as centuries ago the Emperors stood help-
less at the gate of Rome. It could not enter, and to a
party who once got within the walls of a nunnery, there
was no prospect of liberty ever being again regained
but through the instrumentality of the law. Having
narrated the instances of cruelty, imprisonment, and
total seclusion which were mentioned in the House of
Lords by the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of
Norwich on the previous evening, the hon. gentleman
added another instance which had occurred in Paris,
where the superior of a convent and six or eight nuns,
who had renounced the Roman Catholic religion, were
suddenly, and without the knowledge of their friends and
relatives, sent away from the city to some distant asylum,
where they were now suffering confinement. These in-
stances were facts, and could not be controverted ; and
it would be far more candid if hon. gentlemen would ad-
mit and justify them. To use a legal phrase, they could
no longer plead the general issue—they must " confess
and avoid." It would be urged against his motion that
it was as an invasion of religious liberty. He was at a
loss to know on what grounds that objection could be
maintained ; he was not going to compel Roman Catho-
lic ladies to abandon their vows or to break up any ar-
rangements or observances practised in these convents.
What he wanted was an inquiry into a power, a civil
-tyranny, a despotism over mind and body, against which
-there was no redress or relief. (Hear.) This was not
even interference with the ecclesiastical authority, be-
cause these convents were not part of the Church of
Rome. Everybody knew that they had been punished
at times, and at others taken into favour—at one mo-
ment anathematised, and at the next patronised by the
clerical authorities. It might be said, too, that his pro-
position would be an insult to the feelings of ladies of
high rank and station, and an unjustifiable interference
with their rights. He hoped hon. members who might
be ready to urge that argument would bear in mind that
there was no footing for it in law. It would be a frivo-
lous and absurd objection. If there was no wrong done,
there could be no reason why they should resist the ap-
pearance once in seven years of a gentleman whose
only object would be to make inquiries, and, if
wrong was done, the delicate feelings of ladies of high
rank and station were not to be placed in opposition
to the means of doing justice to helpless and unpro-
tected women in the power of irresponsible and despotic
authorities, and perhaps of saving their lives. It might
be said that the bill was a breach of the great maxim of
the British constitution, that "an Englishmen's house
was his castle," but that had been broken through over
and over again, and he hoped they would go on doing
so rather than sacrifice the substance for the shadow of
liberty. The Englishman's castle was liable to be broken
into by any Custom-house offier who might smell a box
of cigars or a pound of pigtail—(laughter)—through the
keyhole. The most sacred personal rights of the sub-
ject were liable to be invaded for the same cause and by
the same parties to save a few shillings to the Imperial
Exchequer. The merest cobler who received a parish
apprentice was not safe in his stall if the parish officers
thought fit to present themselves to inquire after his
charge. It was too late to press the argument that an
Englishman's house was his castle, and that it ought not
to be invaded, unless, indeed, they meant to say that it
was not to hold good when a trifling fraud was com-
mitted on the Excise or the Customs, and that it was to
prevail when the liberties and lives of helpless women
were concerned. (Cheers.) He had stated the evil, and
he would now state the remedy. His first anxiety was
to do as little as might be necessary to accomplish the
purpose, and to satisfy the public mind on this ques-
tion with as little sacrifice of private feeling as possible.
What he proposed was, that the Secretary of State for
the Home Department should have the power of ap-
pointing one or two persons, and that those persons,
having reasonable grounds to believe—it was the phrase
used in a great many acts of Parliament in reference to
similar objects—that improper coercion was exercised
against any women in any house or building, should have
power to go down to the county in which it was situate,
there to select a justice of the peace, and in his
company to proceed to the place, to ascertain the circum-
stances, and to see the persons with reference to whom
complaint was made. All that was wanted was, that they
should have an opportunity of ascertaining the facts.
What the public complained of was the secrecy, the im-
penetrable mystery, which prevented any certain know-
ledge being obtained, and which, undoubtedly, caused
all suspicions against these institutions to be much mag-
nified. (Hear, hear.) If any man of high character,
responsible to the Home Secretary, who was responsible
to the house, in company with a respectable magistrate
of the county, were to inquire into the facts, and if the
facts were found to be different from what had been
stated or suspected, then the utmost inconvenience that
would be inflicted would be that the ladies, unaccustomed
to see any gentleman except their priest, would be re-
quired to see these gentlemen and to answer their
questions. If these gentlemen should be of opinion that
the facts which had been brought under their notice
were well founded, they would return to town and sue
out a writ of habeas corpus, to give the party suffering
the means of obtaining freedom. In conclusion, he ap-
pealed to the house to give these persons, who were
helpless, the benefit of legal inspection. Parliament
ought to give it even for the sake of the institutions
themselves, that, they might be relieved from the odium
with which the popular impression visited them. If it
were denied that there was any ground for that popular
imprestsion, then let it be disproved by assenting to an
inspection. If they refused inspection it warranted
persons in saying that there was a foundation for the
suspicions entertained, otherwise investigation would
not be resisted. (Hear, hear.) How could these sus•
picions be negatived t It was by putting conventual
institutions within the radius of the law. .Let them not
be suspected of wrong—vindicate them, and let the
Legislature put them beyond reproach. The hon. and
learned gentleman concluded by moving for leave to
bring in a bill to facilitate the recovery of personal
liberty in certain cases.

Mr. C. BERKELEY seconded the motion. He was at
a loss to conceive why this country should stand almost
alone, with the exception of Spain and Italy, in respect to
the law upon this subject. The law remained the same in
this country as it stood at the time of the Council of
Trent. The hen, and learned gentleman had omitted to
mention that in Mexico, where the whole population was
Roman Catholic, a law was established for the frequent
visitation of nunneries. Ladies having taken the veil were
excluded from seeing their friends unless in the presence
of the Lady Abbess. (No, no.) Whatever contradiction
the hon. gentleman who cried " No" might give him, he
(Mr. Berkeley) could tell the hon. gentleman that it had
happened to him (Mr. Berkeley) to be refused an interview
with one of the nearest and dearest friends he had in the
world—(hear, itear,)—unless it were in the presence of the
lady of the convent. (Hear, hear.) A postulant was a
lady who for a year previous to taking the black veil as-
sumed the habit of the white veil ; and even a postulant
was refused permission to see her friends or anybody who
might wish to have an interview with her. If hon. gen-
tlemen knew as much as he did of the sort of education
that went on in the convents they would not resist this
motion. They were places were young, unsuspecting, and

confiding persons entered, who, if entitled to a fortune,
the moment they took tho veil, forfeited their property,
which became the possession of the convent. The poor
victims might repine and wish for liberty, but having
once taken the black veil, no matter how much they might
repine, they must remain coerced, and there was nothing
bat death to relieve them from their situation. (Hear,)

Mr. BOWYER said he understood the condition im-
possd in the case mentioned by the last speaker had been
so at the request of the hon. gentleman's relative herself.
In some countries there was legal authority to detain nuns
in their convents, and there inspection, though perhaps
not necessary, was at least reasonable ; but in Eng-
land there was no such authority. The arguments ad-
duced were merely founded on popular suspicion, and car-
ried no weight. The machinery proposed by the bill was
not satisfactory, as there was no guarantee for the character
or opinions of the inspectors to be appointed. The fact
was that the interior of convents was better known than
that of any private houses, so that the strange stories
brought up by the advocates of legislative interference
were utterly incredible.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY denied emphatically that
ladies who were inmates of religious houses wanted
say liberty. He took pride in saying that three of
his own nearest relatives were members of such com-
munities, and that he had at all times the readiest ac-
cess to see them, whether with or without notice.
As the law stood at present, the bill was clearly unneces-
sary, because such persons were exactly in the same posi-
tion as any other subjects of the Crown ; and if a system
of meddling espionage were to be adopted, the inevit-
able consequence must be to banish them from the
cottntry. The Roman Catholics of the lower and middle
classes, both in Ireland and England, derived most mate-
rial benefits from the monastic bodies ; and if they were
put to flight, the consequence would be that the amount of
spiritual destitution would be fearfully increased.
Mr. FREWEN stated some facts which had come to his
knowledge, which made it appear to him that it was not
only desirable, but essential, that these establishments
should be from time to time inspected.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, that the arguments of those
who opposed this measure appeared to resolve themselves
into a flat denial of every fact adduced in its support, and a
broad assertion of the precise reverse of that fact. It was
simply preposterous to say that no young women were kept
in these institutions against their will, and that no compul-
sion was practised upon them, seeing that established facts
proved that compulsion was practised upon both the bodies
and minds of many of these nuns. With such of them
as wished to remain shut up, and were satisfied with their '
condition, no one desired to interfere, but it was the duty
of Englishmen to see that none of them were shut up
againSt their will or otherwise subject to ill-treatment in
these places. The hon. and learned member for Cork coolly
asserted that no sufferings were endured in these places.
The Case of the Misses Macarthy, which had been brought
before the Privy Council, proved, on the contrary,
that there was in these places not only suffer-
ing, physical and mental, inflicted on the inmates,
but that there was isolation from their friends en-
forced,en and _ alienation of their property effected, for the
of the establishment or of the superior, a circum-
stance explaining how great were the pecuniary interests
concerned in the maintenance of these e stablishm ents It
appeared to him that if these nunneries were such
imma-
culate establishments as they
they admitted inspection the betterPilr theirfordto be,the sooner
character,
for
at present the most unfavourable ideasonr.evailed with re-
spect to them. This was the case nt here,as but in the
United States, where not long since so evil was aacter
which a particular convent acquired in thew opinion,putbleh
that a body of 200 men, masked, broke open the doors b
night, and, after compelling the a bbess and the nuns to
quit the convent, burnt it to the ground. These places
required to be brought within the reach of the law and the
supervision of the State. At present, they seemed quite
independent of the law, so much so in one important par-
ticular, that although, no doubt, sudden deaths must from
them, the 3 deaths wore never
the coroner, it being
assured by a coroner,
c walls upon any such
tholic members of that
ni the bill, lest they
anathema denounced
to exercise of his pri-
should lend himself
ler convent. In con-
tpon this subject, how-
4411011glit 00110 thei

had good grounds for action. They did it from no wish
to annoy Roman Catholics, but from a sense of duty which
they owed to those who were helpless without their assist-
ance, and because they were determined to have the Con-
stitution of England extended to nuns and every ne else.

Lord J. RUSSELL said,—l greatly regret that this
question has been brought before the house. (Hear, hear.)
A bill on this same subject was introduced about two years
ago, or more, I think, and the house, having then consi-
dered the subject, thought proper to reject the bill. It
appears to me that there ought to be very strong grounds
indeed for introducing a new bill on the same subject—
(hear, hear)—for, in the first place, we must consider that
this is a country in which we boast of our personal liberty
—in which we believe that we have provisions by law by
which that personal liberty is secured—and secured, not
only against the Government, not only against those who by
means of authority would attempt to confine persons illegally,
but secured against those who by any means of force would
detain a British subject against his will. Well, then, the
question is whether there is a certain class of persons with
respect to whom we should say that these securities of per-
sonal liberty are not sufficient—that the law of habeas
corpus and the other acts which have been passed in order
into stackhectalslaest wlaewoueffgheetttouaihrethsetpansayntienlaedgeiscilliaatith and
their that
special benefit. I own I should be sorry to come to that
conclusion, because I cannot but think that if such is the
case our laws must be generally insufficient, and that we
should be obliged to provide, not only for such cases as
those which have been referred to, but, in other respects,
greater securities for personal liberty than we at present
enjoy. We should be obliged to admit that our boasted
laws, upon which depends the liberty of the British subject,
are insufficient for the purpose for which they were framed.
(Hear.) Well, then, let us see the special case which the
hon. gentleman has made out for the introduction of his
bill. We are told that there are certain ladies of the
Roman Catholic persuasion who have taken vows upon
them, and who live in communities incertain private houses
both in Great Britain and Ireland. It is confessed that
there are no special laws in order to enforce their residence
there; that there is no special protection given to the rules
and canons of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to
those establishments. Many of these ladies I believe
have entered these houses from a spirit of sincere and deep
devotion. They pass their lives in devout contemplation,
soothing to them, and in performing what they believe to
be their duty to God—if not in a way which we think
wisely chosen, yet with great purity of intention, and with
a spirit which no man ought to speak of without respect.
And let me here say that it is more natural to females than
to our sex to entertain deep feelings of devotion, and to
believe that by retirement and contemplation, by prayer
and self-denial, they are doing what is grateful to the Al-
mighty. There are others of those ladies who devote them-
selves to more active duties, and if we respect the pious
intentions of the one class, we cannot but regard with ap-
probation the practical services performed to the human
race by the other. I mean those ladies, ene part of whom
devote themselves to the work of education, as has been
stated by the hon. member for Cork, who preside over large
institutions of young girls, and who take care to teach them
not only their religious duties, but to instruct them in use-
ful arts, by which they become valuable members of society.
I say that ladies who devote themselves to such a task can-
not but deserve approbation, and I should be sorry to think
that there were any members of this house who would not
express approbation of such conduct. (Hear.) There are
other ladies who take vows, perhaps of a special nature, and
who devote themselves to the most painful and sometimes
to the most disgusting duties of attendance upon the sick,
who watch night and day for the purpose of alleviating the
pains of disease. Well, such being the case, I am asked, not
whether I approve of these institutions, because upon that
subject I should certainly exercise my Protestant judgment,
but I am asked whether we should interfere by law in order
to put special restrictions on and submit to special examina-
tion the houses in which those ladies have chosen to live.
The hon. gentleman who last spoke has pointed out one
great defect, and I, as a Protestant, agree with him—a de-
fect which not only attaches to, but which I say is inseparable
from, institutions of this kind. It cannot but happen that
young women who, in the enthusiasm of youth, from
their own ardent and devotional dispositions, or perhaps
the persuasions of their near relations (in other countries, I
know, such persuasions have been used)—it cannot but
happen, I say, that young women who have embraced a
life of monastic retirement, should sometimes find that
their dispositions are but ill suited to that life of monotony
and restriction, and who have, consequently, many regrets
after the world which they have left—who are discontented
with the vocation which they have chosen, and who often
wish that they had not bound themselves by the solemn
vows which they have taken. We would wish, of course,
that such persons had not taken such vows, and had not so'
bound themselves, or that they did not remain dissatisfied
with themselves and with all around them in the houses to
which they belong. But when the hon. gentleman says
that we ought not to permit, in a free country, such things
to take place, he goes far beyond the remedy which is pro-
posed by the hon. gentleman who brings forward this bill,
and, as I will presently show him, the remedy which he
proposes is of a totally different nature ; because when he
quotes from the writings of Alphonse Liguori, and from
other works, the exhortations—almost the threats, which
are used towards nuns who repent of their vocation, it is
evident that such arguments are used, not for the purpose)
of confining them by fetters and manacles, or by the dun-
geons to which he has alluded, under ground, but that they
are addressed to the sensitive minds and feelings of those
nuns, who are told that, having bound themselves by such
solemn engagements, they have no right lightly to violate
those engagements. (Hoar, hear.) I certainly agree with
the hon. gentleman that those arguments aro hardly likely
o reconcile such persons as he has described to the life with
which they have become discontented, that the pangs of
conscience and the mental struggles which are undergone
in such cases must often be painful in the extreme and if
he were to argue, as a general question, that these institu-
tions are often very injurious in their consequences, as a
Protestant I could not but agree with him—(hear, hear) ;
but when I am asked to assent to a new law upon this sub-
ject, and when he tells me that in a free country we ought
not to permit such things existing, I must toll him
that the only law which would prevent such things
existing is a law forbidding the existence of con-
vents altogether— (hear, hear) because the chances
are, that the persons who go to those convents are per-
sons who would, in the first place, refuse to give the
inspectors any explanation ; that a lady having those feel-
ings to which I have referred would probably object to
state her feelings and the struggles of her conscience to the
inspector; and that if she was told, "The doors of the
convent are thrown open to you; you may go into the
world if you think proper; yoti may go to-morrow and
live in the metropolis of England if you please ;" the pro-
bability is, she would answer, " You are mistaken in my
case. It is not the doors of the convent ; it is not the
bolts and the bars and the locks which confine me ; it is
my sense of obligation ; it is the thought that I have taken
a vow which I must keep, and that I will commit a great
sin if I violate that vow. (Hear.) How would the hon.
gentleman's bill apply to such a case as that ? In what
way would it meet it ? (Hear, hear.) It must be evident
that it would be utterly inefficient. (Hear, hear.) And
it must be evident, further, that unless you cease to per-
mit the existence of convents altogether in this country,
you cannot reach the evils which the hon. gentleman has
pointed out. But we have hitherto agreed to allow of
convents existing in this country; hitherto, the law has
not forbidden the consolations which convents afford to
one class of females, or the practical uses to which they are
• applied in other cases, and I confess I am disposed to leave
the question to the opinions and sense of the Roman Catho-
lics themselves, and not to forbid the existence of those
institutions. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, we come to the
more intelligible evil which the hon. gentleman who
brought forward the motion has stated to the house, and
that is the evil of persons being actually confined in con-
vents against their own will, and forced by physical means
•to remain in convents. I must say, in the first place, that
with respect to evidence of such cases we have none. The
hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion stated
some cases, and others have stated three or four, but these
are all cases without positive names attached to them—
without particulars being given—without those cross-exa-
minations without which cases of this kind are very little
worth, and without those positive proofs which I think
this house ought to require before they have any legislation
on the subject. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman the member
for Cheltenham (Mr. C. Berkeley) has stated that he was
not allowed to see a near relation of his except in the pre-
sence of the superintendent. Now, as far as I can make
out, that was not a ease depending on any general law with
respect to those communities. That case, it seems to me,
was entirely of a private and domestic nature ; and it
might have happened that a young lady, being a Protest-
ant, had gone to her aunt or other friend, and that one of
her nearest relations was not allowed to see her except in
the presence of the lady in whose house she lived. It does
not appear to me that that is a case which is inseparably
connected with the institution of convents. But there is
a further reason—and it appears to me an unanswerable
one—why we ought not to come to the conclusion to which
the hon. gentleman asks us to come. The hon. gentleman
says that the ladies are confined by force—that their per-
sonal liberty is denied them—and that the whole power of
the British Parliament is required in order to set them free
from the bonds by which they are detained. Now, if it is
true that we live in a free country, don't tell me that the
Roman Catholic gentry of Great Britain and Ireland are
utterly dead to those feelings of political freedom which
animates the subjects of this kingdom in general. (Hear,
hear.) Don't tell me, above all, that they are so destitute
of the common affections of humanity that they would
willingly see the laws of freedom set at nought, and the
doctrine of slavery acted on towards their nearest rela-
tions, and that they have not the heart to stand up in this
house and denounce that tyranny, and ask our assistance
to take off their fetters. (Hear, hear.) I cannot believe
that if the evil referred to had existed to any extent that
the Roman Catholic gentlemen of this country would not
themselves have come to this house and asked us to pass a
law in order tcibestablish the freedom of their own near
relations. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons I should be
sorry to consent to the introduction of a bill on this sub-
ject. But, is that all the objection? Does the objection
end with that statement ? No - I think the objection goes
a great
deal further than this. It is not only that the
persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion do not come and
ask us to interfere on behalf of their female relatives,
said to be detained in prison, but it is evident that they
would feel it as a serious injury, and somewhat of an
insult, if we were to attempt the passing of such a
law. (Hear, hear.) If we are to have any law on the
uremedy is required, let it be a remedy
that wilif anyapply to the whole nation. (Hear.) Let the
Habeas Corpus Act be made more complete—let there be
fitter means for all persons, whether 'Roman Catholic or
Protestant, who are confined against their will, obtaining
the interposition of a court of justice • but such is not the
remedy which this bill proposes. When such a remedy
is proposed it will be time enough for the House of Com-
mons to consider its necessity. But it is proposed that
application should be made to the executive Government
of the country—that the authority of the Secretary of State
should be interposed, and that he should be asked to send
down to those houses containing nuns an inspector, armed
with the power of investigation, if required. Well, I say
that a remedy like this, differing from the ordinary laws of
the land, and put in force by a Secretary of State, who
may be called upon by the House to interfere in any case
which may be got up by a popular gust of passion in the
country—such Secretary of State belonging to a party who
may possibly be favourable to Roman Catholics, but who,
on the other hand, may possibly be hostile to them—l say,
that such a power could hardly be used without exciting
feelings of great indignation on the part of Roman Catho-
lics that their religious institutions were unduly interfered
with, and that not for any purpose of public policy, still
tzs:_l_f';r any purpose of public necessity. (Hear, hear.) You
in-
spection were authorised byP
t• have heard some symptoms of those feelings in the declare,-
ion made by two hon. members t - • ht that if such in-
country and Ireland, and wo
to those institutions would ai
emngt, those who belonged
countries where they would not be liable tthoe
taretnzaet.?.tely quit both this
selyes in other
cleciyanne
the
conceivelien ansitilaie that inspection.
az retitentit9n4haPPetking—l cannot con-
e/ the Roman Catholic

gentry of these two countries leaving this country without
exciting the strongest feelings of resentment on the part
of the gentry and middle orders both of this country
and of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) And I cannot conceive
those who have conducted the education—those who have
attended the hospitals and institutions for the sick—all at
once going out as exiles from this country, without pro-
ducing in the minds of the lower classes who have received
the benefit of their ministration the strongest feeling that
they are suffering a
grievance from the Parliament of this
country. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe that our interfer-
ence on this subject is likely to produce bad effects. I can
see no sufficient reason for saying that the general law of
this country is not ample for the protection of the, personal
liberty of all the subjects of this country. I see no reason
to think so ill of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen
as to believe that they would behold without complaint
their near relations immured against their will, or confined
in contravention of the law, and to the destruction of their
health and comfort. (Hear, hear.) So feeling, sir, upon
this subject, having had before in this house a bill upon
this subject, seeing no likelihood that the present bill
would be at all more satisfactory to me than the bill against
which I voted two years ago, I must refuse my assent
to the introduction of this bill. (Cheers from the Irish
members.)
Lord E. HOWARD doubted if any, except those who
were in the secret, could have imagined, from the terms of
the notice upon the paper, that a bill of this nature was to
have been introduced. He was led into this discussion,
however, in consequence of an allusion which had been
made by several hon. gentlemen. One said it was a case
of a near and dear relation of his. " Sir," said the noble
lord, " a far nearer and dearer relation of my own."
(Loud cheers.) Upon this subject he should meet the first
the satement of the hon. member for Cheltenham. He had
had no time to ask, and he did not know that he should
have asked the lady in question if he had had time,
whether she had been prevented seeing the hon. gentleman
alone when she was a member of the convent ; but this he
could say, that she would have had no wish to see him
alone. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friends the members for
Cork and Dundalk had adverted very kindly to this. The
hon. member for North Warwickshire, however, had taken
upon himself to say that the person to whom he alluded
had been confined against her will, and he spoke first as if
he had her own authority for saying so,—
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, he had merely stated that he
relied upOn the testimony of the hon. member for Chelten-
ham, and he then quoted the correspondence which had
appeared in the newspapers.
Lord E. HOWARD was not aware that any such state-
ment had been made in the newspapers. He could only
say, the lady had since told him that during the time she
was in the convent she had been completely happy. He
considered it disgraceful to bring forward his private affairs
before the house. With regard to the other cases which
had been metioned, hon. members should take care to in-
vestigate the truth of what was told them. The hon.
member for North Warwickshire began his speech by a
conversation very much resembling one of Landor's. With
regard to the iron bars, it was just possible that they might
be for the purpose of keeping people out as well as in.
(Laughter.) He must thank the noble lord the member
for the city of London, for the speech which he had made,
which was free from the bigotry of which the house had
that night heard so much. With respect to the confine-
ment of ladies in these establishments, he would ask the
hon. member if he had never seen the sisters of charity
walking about in the performance of their duties ? He con-
fessed that he felt warmly on the subject, but he thought
that the efforts to bring the question into false lights might
to some extent be his excuse. He had spoken without
preparation, and should regret it if he had uttered a word
that might be unnecessarily offensive ; at the same time,
he did not retract the sense of what he bad said—it was
only the manner of it for which he could offer any apology.
Mr. DRUMMOND said that he disliked the former bill
which had been introduced upon this subject, and he had
great difficulties with respect to the present, because he
thought it would be utterly inefficacious. He did not be-
lieve it was within the power of the legislation of the
house to separate that which was good from that which
was bad in monastic institutions. He never went the length
that some gentlemen did in blaming them, for he had seen
the advantages of sisters of charity abroad, and knew how
much the recovery of the sick and wounded in foreign hos-
pitals was owing to them. The case was full of difficulty.
For instance, they had passed bills as strong as they could
against Jesuits and monasteries ; yet there they were, in-
creasing every hour, and laughing in their face. By what
means could they possibly insure the efficiency of this bill?
His objection to these institutions applied as much to Pro-
testants as to Roman Catholics; for he laid down this ab-
stract doctrine, that it never could be right or lawful, under
any circumstances to lock up a number of women in a house
with bolts and bars, and give the key of it to any one man.
He didn't care whether he were a Protestant or a Papist,
or whether he were a layman or a priest, that was the thing
he objected to. It was said there were no bolts or bars in
this country, but that was simply because here they had
not their own way. Cases took place abroad daily, which
would occur in this country if the priesthood were predo-
minant. He could state things which had come under his
own eyes, but if he did, they would straightway be denied,
for the power of denial possessed by hon. gentlemen was
perfectly wonderful. (Hear.) He did not think it right
that there should be anywhere a number of the Queen's
subjects who could not appeal to her for protection through
the ordinary means of the police, constables, magistrates,
and judges of the country. (Hear.) That which he had seen.
abroad might occur here. He had seen abroad parents
force their daughters into convents in order that other fa-
vourite daughters might have larger jointures ; and he
believed there were many such instances. He objected
very much to ladies who had taken vows being encouraged
to break them ; but he must tell the house some few things
that had happened, notwithstanding the vigilance of Pro-
testant eyes. This was a statement which had been made
to him by a priest who had left the Roman Catholic faith.
(Oh, oh !) He had been a curate officiating at --.
His niece was a boarder and pensioner at the school of a
nunnery at so and so, with boarders from the ages of 4 to
18. It then became his duty as her guardian to consult
her wishes relative to entering the nunnery. "Nunneries"
she replied, " are not such good places as you imagine. I
would not pass my life among them for anything you could
offer. As to the nuns, they are in a state of continual
, strife among each other, and the crimes committed among
the ladies who are boarders are too shocking to mention."
(Oh, oh, and cries of " Name the nunnery.") These
convents were, in fact, one of the means by which the
Popish treasury was filled, and that was one great reason
why they were patronised. It was not a bit that ladies

malt pa-ss theirs time their in private devotion—not a bit
of it. There was no grist behind that mill. Here was
another case :

" Some time after the death of our young friend in Mar-
tinique, we received a. letter from our old and esteemed cor-
respondent there, informing us that be had received a letter
from the lady in the convent, expressing her gratitude to
him for all that he had done for her and various members of
his deceased partner's family, and further stating that there
was a sum of 300/. due by that gentleman, her departed rela-
tive, to a family in Cork, who had suffered a great reverse of cir-
cumstances; adding, that she was sure if he had lived it would
not have been allowed to remain unpaid; that if she had not dis-
posed herself of all her property, she would gladly discharge the
debt, and entreating him, as an act of the greatest charity, to
pay the amount. Our friend reminded us of the many
sums he had previously paid, and of the fact of his having
no assets of his late partner's applicable to the purpose ; but
he added, that such was his respect for the family and for
the lady in the convent, that provided we felt satisfied, after
an interview with her, that the facts were as she supposed,
he would authorise our paying the money. On receipt of
this letter my brother wcat to the convent and saw the lady.
He stated that our friend had requested us to make inquiries
touching the family she had named to him. She expressed
her great surprise, and declared she knew nothing whatever
of any such family. My brother then told her all the cir-
cumstances mentioned in our friends letter, when she seemed
confused, but still declared she knew nothing of the family
nor of the circumstances. My brother, on his return to our
counting-house, told all this with very great surprise to us,
and we wrote off at once to our friend, supposing that for-
gery and fraud had been practised upon him. In a few days
after, or it may be the next day, we received a note from the
convent in the same handwriting as usual, requesting that Mr.
C- would call upon the writer, which my brother did,
and found the lady alone, waiting to receive him, in a state
of considerable agitation. The first question was, Mr. C-,
did you write to Martinique ?' My brother replied, I did.'
The lady then said in almost an agony, which astonished my
brother, What shall Ido ? Pray write off at once and say
that the facts are all true, and that it was a silly mistake on
my part.' My brother replied, How can this be, Miss ? Is
it true that you wrote the letter you told me you did not
write ; or is it possible that you knew the family of whom you
told me you knew nothing 7' This seemed to throw her into
almost a state of frenzy, and she replied, I suppose I must
tell you all ; the fact is, I have never put pen to paper since
I entered this convent ; one of our sisters manages all corres-
pondence, who is appointed for that purpose. She knows
all the facts, and that is quite the same as my knowing
them ; so do pray write and tell our friend that it is all
true.' It was in vain that my brother told her thy*
such an explanation would never satisfy our friends.
She only repeated, It is all true, and pray write to tell
him so.' My brother left her in this state, and on his
return repeated the conversation in utter astonishment to us,
and we wrote the whole as it occurred to our friend, who, in
_ _

reply, thanked us for the course we had taken to protect him
from the fraud intended, and stated, that as he was then be-
coming an old man, it had been his intention to give up all
his business affairs, and to return to his native country to end
his days there, but that he was so shocked at what he had
thus discovered, that he resolved to return to Europe and eud
his days without returning to Ireland, which ho accordingly
.did, and we corresponded with him in Paris until his death."
Now, this was the sort of instruction given in these insti-
tutions, and these were not the things that were looked into
as they ought to be. Ho thought the country was not pre-
pared.for the only course that was proper and necessary,
and that was for the suppression of monastic institutions
altogether. (Hear, hear.) Those who maintained this
system were determined, if they could, to establish the
canon law, with all its consequences ; and there was just as
strong a determination that they should not do so. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to this bill, he confessed that he did
not think it would effect the object with which it was
brought forward.
Mr. LUCAS wished to express his acknowledgments to
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) for the extremely generous
and able speech which he had made, and which must have
perfectly settled the question in the mind of every impartial
and rational member of the house. The case had com-
pletely fallen through. The house had been asked to legis-
late, 'but no groutid had been laid for legislation. The hon.
and learned gentleman who had brought forward the mo-
tion had admitted that he was destitute of proof ; and
therefore he wished commissioners to be appointed to visit
convents, and obtain evidence. The hon. member for Sus-
sex, it was trae, had mentioned the case of a lady who had
been placed in a convent-school by her father, and who ran
away. Well, such circumstances sometimes happened
when young ladies were placed at school by their fathers—
(a laugh)—and he was not aware that they required any
special legislation. (Hear, hear.) Other cases had been
mentioned. One was the case of a boy ; another that of a
young lady living in the world ; and a third case referred
to by the Bishop of Norwich, which, he thought, had no
relation whatever to this bill. As to the extraordinary
statements read by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr.
Drummond), every one must feel that they required no
notice. He (Mr. Lucas's) feelings on this subject was
exactly what it would be if he were a Protestant. If they
made out a case—if they showed him that abuses existed,
that tyranny was practised, that breaches of the law were
committed, Catholic as he was, he would join them in ap-
plying any national remedy they chose to adopt ; but if
there was no better groundwork for exceptional and insult-
ing legislation than the cock-and-bull stories they had
heard, he must declare himself entirely opposed to such
measures as that of the hon. and learned member for
Hertford. For 12 ozl4 years past he had watched the
course which had been pursued with regard to these
Catholic institutions. Not a year had passed without
some case of alleged cruelty, mismanagement, or hardship
being dragged before the world ; but the moment it was
investigated it was found there was nothing in it, that it
was a tissue of falsehood, and that the parties to the nar-
rative WOO degraded and climatal° uapoutors. (Hear,

hear.) A crop of these facts came up every year. (A laugh.)
Persons of degraded and debased imaginations lived upon
the filthy and abominable suspicions which formed the
stock in trade of a certain class of so-called religious agita-
tors, who made up a kind of spurious public opinion,
which endeavoured to thrust itself upon that house. He
had great respect for anything in the shape of English pub-
lic opinion; but for that monstrous, and unnatural, and
debased opinion which was represented out of doors by
the motions made on these subjects in the house, he had
no respect whatever, but he regarded it with the greatest
contempt. (Hear, hear) The hon. member for War-
wickshire had expressed his wish to protect the Roman
Catholics from Lynch-law, but he (Mr. Lucas) would meet
any proposal to protect them against Lynch-law by legisla-
tion of this kind with the regard which its obvious serious-
ness demanded. (A laugh.) He was sure that candid,
rational, calm judging members on both sides would unite
in putting an extinguisher upon an attempt at legislation
which, if it were successful, would do no credit to the cha-
racter of that assembly.
Mr. WHITESIDE objected to this bill, because it
treated a very large subject in a very narrow way. Two
questions must be considered with reference to what took
place in conventual establishments,—one was a question
of property, and the other was a question of personal
liberty. He admitted with the hon. member for Meath
(Mr. Lucas) that no strong case of abuse within the walls
of conventual establishments had been made out ; but it
might be in the recollection of hon. gentlemen that some
time ago the predecessor of the hon. and learned member
for Cork in the representation of that city brought before
the Court of Chancery in Ireland the whole history of the
interior of a convent in Cork. In that case a deed was
obtained from Miss Trlacarthy against her will and for the
advantage of the convent, although she wished to bestow
a portion of her property upon her brother and sister ; and
he (Mr. Whiteside) must say he conceived that a greater
act of tyranny than was exposed in that case could not be
practised upon a young and innocent woman. Four or five
cases were reported in the records of the Irish courts in
which influence of this kind had been brought to bear upon
persons possessed of property. He admitted, however, that
the presont bill did not affect this very important point.
He (Mr. Whiteside) must say that when ho heard the
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) refer to the law of other
European countries on this subject, he had felt some sur-
prise. He (Mr. Whiteside) would not quote the law of
Russia, and he would not act upon the laws of Austria,
of Spain, or of Portugal, because he believed that in
those countries bigotry and tyranny prevailed ; but he
might state with regard to Italy, that Leopold of Tuscany
—who, before the name of Hominy was known, or the
Code Napoleon was adopted, enacted the most merciful
code of criminal law that existed in Europe—had ordained
that no girls within his dominions should be placed in pub-
lic schools until they were ten years of age ; that they
should not be clothed in the dress of a convent until they
were 20 ; and that they should not be professed until they
had been liberated from convents for six months, and even
then not until after a strict examination with the view of
ascertaining their real intentions. Leopold further pro-
vided that a female was not thenceforward to be allowed
to take the veil until she had reached 30 years of age.
Now, that was a fair age in Italy for a lady to take the
veil. (Laughter.) Provision was further made by Leopold
for subjecting the conventual establishments of Tuscany to
inspection. He (Mr. Whiteside) admitted that there was
a difference between appointing Roman Catholic inspectors
to make investigations with regard to institutions of that
kind and appointing Protestant inspectors to perform the
duty. He did not think the bill now before the house
would be effectual ; but, although he would be averse to
the enactment of any law which might be offensive to the
feelings of Roman Cathollcs, he was satisfied that the en-
tire subject of the relations of these conventual establish-
ments to the State must, with due respect to the feelings
and rights of the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland and
England, be seriously and comprehensively regarded by the
Legislature of this country.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the hon. and learned gentleman
was mistaken in supposing that he had referred to the laws
of other European countries With regard to conventual
establishments.
Mr. FAGAN alluded to the Macarthy case, with which
he had been intimately acquainted, and denied that there
had been any coercion used towards the daughters of Mr.
Macarthy to compel them to take measures to obtain their
share of their father's property. The transaction had given
great pain to the ladies in question, who intended to have
employed the money which they thought they had a right
to in charitable and religious purposes. He regretted that
the hon. member of Hertford should have commenced his
career in that house by bringing forward a motion insult-
ing to communities of ladies who were respected by all
who knew them ; but he was gratified to find that the
noble lord had shown so determined a spirit of opposition
to the bill which he considered an encroachment on civil
liberty. The only argument which had been brought for-
ward t was
dl
ir e a in-
spectionwno
of what were really private houses. He should
the h memberthe i n
people,
support
wohf the bill
demanded
give the bill his most decided opposition.
fromwa r d
tbhye h
prejudiceson of
Lord C. HAMILTON regretted that the noble lord at
the head of the Government did not feel it his duty to al-
low the bill to pass even its earliest stage, because it dealt
with a subject which had taken a deep hold on the public
mind, and had created an impression which would not be
removed until it had been shown to be unfounded. It was
said that monastic institutions were without the pale of
the law ; that statement might be a libel, but it was no an-
swer to the public to tell them so. The noble lord had
told the house that it would be better to imitate the pa-
triotism and self-denial of their Roman Catholic fellow-
countrymen ; but the noble lord would excuse him if he
declined to put faith in their aspirations for civil and reli-
gious liberty, more especially when they were under the
guidance of a master spirit like that of the hon. member
for Meath (Mr. Lucas). With regard to the proposed bill,
ho would remind the house that its mover did not ask that
Protestant inspectors should be appointed for the purpose
of visiting the convents, but proposed to leave the appoint-
ments to the judgment and responsibility of tho Home
Secretary. He hoped the house would give the hon. mem-
ber the opportunity to explain the details of the measure.
(" Divide, divide.")
Sir It. INGLIS complimented the hon. member for Hert-
ford on the tact, ability, and judgment displayed in his
speech, and expressed his opinion that as powers were given
by the law in Catholic countries to the civil authorities to
visit institutions analogous to those in England, there was
no measure which the house ought to find less difficulty in
supporting. It was a question of the civil liberty of the
subject of the realm, and ought not to be dealt with as a
religious question. The hon. and learned member for En-
niskillen had argued that the bill ought not to be adopted
because it would not meet all emergencies. Ho should have
preferred a bolder and more comprehensive measure ; but
when a measure which was before them was good, they
ought not to say " No" to it because it did not go far
enough, and he was prepared to accept it as a means of
getting more hereafter. He hoped the house would agree
to the measure of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS replied, and complained of the
manner in which the purport and contents of his speech
had been evaded. The noble lord had omitted to speak on
the main question at all, and had confined his remarks
chiefly to compliments on the devout nuns, who spent the
greater part of their time in prayer and contemplation,
and on the active nuns who spent their time in walking
the Government should see his bill, but the noble lord had.
about the streets. (Laughter.) He was very anxious that
refused to give him tho opportunity of explaining its de-
tails, and he trusted the house would therefore assist him
in bringing it forward. (Hear.)
Sir J. 'T YRELL, who spoke amid general impatience
for a division, commented on the inflated panegyric pro-
nounced by the noble lord at the head of the Government
on the Roman Catholic ministers in general, and intimated
his opinion that it was perhaps intended as a set-off to the
conduct of the Government on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Perhaps, too, in the present
critical
state of the house, the noble lord desired to take
steps for working well with those hon. members on that
side of the house who had been dealt hardly with by the
budget, and thus to make things square. (Laughter.)
The house divided. The numbers were : -
For the motion 138
Against it ... 115

Majority in favour of the motion... 23
TRANSFER OF LAND IN IRELAND.

Mr. V. SCULLY obtained leave to bring in a bill to
facilitate the transfer of land in Ireland.

BALLOT.

Mr. C. BERKELEY, in consequence of the lateness of
the hour (half-past ten), postponed his motion with refe-
rence to the ballot. We did not collect to what day.

CHICORY AND COFFEE.

Mr. GREGSON moved for a return, up to the present
time, of the number of seizures or prosecutions made or
authorised by the Commissioners of Excise for the adulte-
ration of tea, tobacco, pepper, and coffee ; distinguishing
the seizures or prosecutions for adulteration of coffee under
the Treasury order of the 3d day of August, 1852 ; and any
seizures or prosecutions under the Treasury order of the
25th day of February, 1853, for sales of mixtures of chicory
and coffee without the required labels (in continuation of
Parliamentary paper No. 647, of session 1851).
Mr. WILSON, in expressing his readiness to give the
returns, said that it seemed in some quarters to be sup-
posed that the Government had had no intention of put-
ting the order into effect, whereas, in the two months since
the order was issued there had been 1,684 inspections by
the officers of various stocks, attended by 94 convictions
and fines, by 135 punishments of a minor description. The
Excise, he would add, had hitherto confined the fines to
Si. and 61., but notice had now been given that for future
offences the extreme penalty would be inflicted. It had
been suggested that since the order the consumption of
coffee had decreased, whereas, in point of fact, it had
largely increased, the amount of coffee which paid duty in
the two months since the order was issued having been
6,221,0001b5., whereas the quantity in the two correspond-
ing months of last year was only 5,540,000 lbs., and in the
two months of the preceding year 3,850,0001b5. (Hear.'
The motion was then agreed to.

BOROUGH OF BARNSTAPLE.
Mr. 0. STANLEY moved an address to her Majesty,
praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
issue a commission to inquire into corrupt practices
which took place at the late election for the borough of
Barnstaple :—Commissioners' names—Michael Prender-
gast, Escl:, Q.C., Sir John Eardley Eardley Wilmot,
Bart., and Leofric Temple, Esq.—Agreed to.
DURHAM ELECTION.
Mr. BENTINCK moved the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the circumstances under which
the petitions against the return of William Atherton, Esq.,
and Thomas Colpitts Granger, Esq., for the city of Dur-
ham, have been withdrawn, and that the petition
to this
house on the 20th day of April, be referred to the said
committee. At the last general election, in July 1852,
Mr. Granger and Mr. Atherton were returned for the
borough of Durham, Lord A. Vane being the unsuccessful
candidate. Upon the sth of August following Mr.
Granger died. On the 23d of November, two electors, in
the interest of Lord A. Vane, presented a petition com-
plaining of the return of Mr. Atherton, and praying a void
election against him. At a late hour, upon the 25th olia-
f
November, which was the last day for presenting Par
mentary petitions, one was presented from two electors of
Durham, resident in: London, named Lumley and Grlnst
well, who who had voted for Granger and Atherton, agai
the return of Mr. Granger, then dead. Upon the 26th,
Mr. Coppock, the agent for the petitioners, gave notice
that. it was not intended to proceed. From these circum-
stances it was clear that the petition was not of a bona.ficle
nature, but was intended to attain some tortuous obrct,
which was in fact, the withdrawal of the petition against
Mr. Atherton. He looked upon the withdrawal of the pe-
tition of the 25th of December as an unjuhtifiable abuse of
the right of petitioning, and, as such, a breach of the pri-
vile of that house. He begged, therefore, to submit
the motion which he had read.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS opposed the motion. Nothing had
been done between the 26th of November and the 2d of
December, when the new election at which Lord A. Vane
was returned, took place ; and now that it was found that
thePetitiosa that 11010 lord Wttgi to prmoded

with, and on the very eve of the appointment of the select '
committee to inquire into the merits of that petition, this
motion was made for the very purpose of inducing a com-
promise between the pai Lies, and the withdrawal of the
petition against the noble lord. If the house assented to
this course. they would be lending themselves to the com-
mission of a great breach of their own privileges.
Mr. MILES said that the conduct of the agents on both
sides required to be looked into. Petitions had been pre-
sented without the slightest grounds by agents, and then
withdrawn and paired in a shameful manner. This was
mere playing and trifling with the house. The whole
system was wrong and wanted revision.
• Sir J. TROLLOPE had seen with pain the privilege of
petitioning abused in the present session in a grosser man-
ner than he ever remembered before. The committee over
which he had presided had been made a complete stalking
horse for every kind of abuse. (Hear, hear.) Petitions
had been withdrawn or paired off, and the labours of the
committee of selection had been set completely at naught.
It would only be becoming the dignity of the house to take
some notice of these transactions ; but he questioned
whether the present was a very fitting opportunity, inas•
much as a petition in it was now pending. He thought,
however, that the house should take the first opportunity
of marking its displeasure at these practices. (Hear.)
Mr. HEADLAM said, if they appointed a select com-
mittee to inquire into the withdrawal of this petition, they
must do so in every case in which a petition had been
withdrawn.

Mr. MALINS had no doubt that Parliamentary agents
were a very necessary body of men. Mr. Brown and Mr.
Coppock were equally indifferent to him ; but this he said,
that these persons should be taught that the House of
Commons was to be treated with respect and in good faith.
The present was by no means a frivolous case, and he con-
tended that it was time the house took the matter into its
own hands and taught these Parliamentary agents that it
was not to be insulted with impunity.
Sir C. WOOD quite agreed that the system of petition-
ing and counter petitioning with the view of pairing off
was a gross abuse of the privilege, equally participated in
by both sides of the house. The whole practice was ex-
tremely disgraceful; and he must say that the proceedings
in the present case came very much within that category.
But it appeared to him That if there were any complaint
it ought to be not against the withdrawal, but against the
presentation of the petition. (Hear, hear.) What he
thought, however, was a little suspicious was the " time"
at which the present motion was brought forward. He
recommended, instead of appointing a committee in this
special case, that a committee should inquire into tho
whole system generally, of the practice of withdrawing
petitions for the solo purpose of jobbery. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE concurred in the propriety of appoint-
ing a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the
withdrawal of election petitions generally, and regretted
that the hon. member for East Surrey had withdrawn his
notice of motion on the subject. If the whole matter were
to be fully inquired into he should recommend his hon.
friend behind him not to press his motion. (Hear.)
Mr. L. KING said, he had not withdrawn his motion,
but, on the contrary, was anxious to bring ,it forward as
soon as possible.
Sir J. TROLLOPE stated, for the information of the
house, that the whole of the election petitions would be
appointed by the end of this month. At present there were'
only eightjremaining to be disposed of, but others might be
presented in the interim, as there were a great many seats
now vacant. _ _

Sir J. V. SHELLEY doubted the purity of motive of
hon. gentlemen opposite. He disapproved of the present
tribunals to which these matters were referred, and sug-
gested that there should be a different mode of taking votes
at elections. _ _

Mr. WiIiTMORE instanced himself as having been pe.

titioned against without there being the shadow of a case.
In fact, he had been a Coppock " butt," but not a Coppock
victim. _

Mr. W. 0. STANLEY deprecated the whole system as
a mockery and delusion, and expressed a strong doubt whe-
ther the house was sincere in its intentions to put a check
upon the gross practices which notoriously prevailed.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. E. C. EGER-
TON, Mr. W. M. SMITH, Mr. S. HERBERT, Mr. T. DUN-
COMBE, and Colonel FORESTER took part,
Lord PALMERSTON said he did not mean to deny that
this might be a fit subject for inquiry, and it might be that
the inquiry ought to be directed rather to the causes which
led to the presentation of the petition than to its with-
drawal. He thought, however, that as an hon. gentleman
(Mr. L. King) had given notice of a motion for the 31st of
May for a general inquiry into cases of this kind, the better
course would be to adjourn the debate for the purpose of
including the inquiry into this particular case in the pro
posed general inquiry. He moved that the debate be ad
journed to Tuesday, the kst inst.
The house then divided, when there were—
For the adjournment
Against it

~ 107

Majority

33

The debate was mem dingle adjourned to the 31st of May.
On the motion of Mr. L. KING, a return was ordered of
the election petitions presented during the present session,
showing the names of the places, names of members peti-
tioned against, and in what manner such petitions may
have been disposed of ; returns of all reports, special re-
ports, and determinations or resolutions of any election
committees reported to the house ; of the names of all mem-
bers who have been unseated, and for what causes they
have been so unseated ; of the names of all places the writs
for which have been suspended, and to what dates they
have been so suspended ; and of the total number of select
committees which have" sat on election petitions up to
Whitsuntide. _ _ .

On the motion of Mr. CORRY, an address was agreed to
for a return of the number of persons employed in her
Majesty's dockyards and gun wharves, and other civil esta-
blishments of the Admiralty and Ordnance, who are en-
titled to vote at the eleCtions of members to serve in.
Parliament for each of the following boroughs :—Green-
wich, Chatham, Rochester, Harwich, Sandwich, Ports-
mouth, Plymouth, Devonport, and Pembroke.
Lord HOTHAM obtained leave to bring in a bill to en-
able the justices of counties to contract in certain cases for
the maintenance and confinement of convicted prisoners in
the gaols of adjoining counties.
The \Vhichwood Forest Bill went through committee.
DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE.

On the motion of Mr. J. WILSON, it was agreed that
a message be sent to the House of Lords, requesting their
lordships to permit the Earl of Derby to attend the com-
mittee on dockyard appointments.
The house adjourned at one o'clock.

time to time occur in them, those
brought - • _....- ognizance of t
uite ':, iV6 : • . aad been at
q'l ' •
to coil: • 41.17,evi en ,I, n their
111 an Cath
circu.... .: Q,„,,:,.1 to. ::,
ho • • t, :I ,Vr.i. notir- . supper
' - - " dful a
sho I. ' •i•
.t. . ,:v2e ~
.>!,.. ea.
by their c• 4 17! .1A ,'.;'P. 77.; :, . , in the
vate '.., . „ - ,4•4ri , ' 'T,,t..;•, esrulgs,
• , -ii,rox.r...• h
to al. .0 ' / :.-. -,. . :-.-. .t_ om e
elusion he ..'..r.`l' fit )"/!` upo
‘.
.): • - '
ever del ,•• ) V.' f
-kit:_zat