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

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. Ho 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 Macarthy 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 couldmot be
practised upon a young and innocent woman. Pour 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 present bill did not affect this very important point.
He (Mr. Whiteside) must say that when he 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 Romilly 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
tho enactment of any law which might be offensive to the
feelings of Roman Catholics, 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
bad 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
toin charitableandeerof Hertford religious purposes.
should have He ed ecormegrmeetntecdthat
the hon. member
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 by the hon. member in support of the bill was drawn
from the prejudices of the people, who demanded the in-
skection of what were really private houses. He should
give the bill his most decided opposition.
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 wsoßoeeriteemwirmantotheout the pale of
the law ; that statement might be a libel, bciunmatot
toldt wr eort
itt, to the p
and
du self-denialb l
thatic t
it t
woulde lolf hebm
theire b
ihbittloaeltiec waslord
t fellow-
countrymen neelolhopawansll- :
s
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,
he 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 the Home
Secretary. He hoped the house would give the hon. mem-
ber the opportunity to explain the details of the measure.
(" Divide, divide.")
Sir R. 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. He 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
about the streets. (Laughter.) He was very anxious that
the Government should see his bill, but the noble lord had
refused to give him the opportunity of explaining its de-
tails, and he trusted the house would therefore assist him
in bringing it forward. (Hear.)
Sir J. TYRELL, 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 mixtufes of chicory
and coffee without the required labels (iu 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 busup-
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 stpcks, attended by 94 convictions
and fines, by 135 punishments of a minor description. The
Excise, he would add, had hitherto confined the fines to
51. 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 5,540,000114., 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 :—Comnaissioners' names—Michael Prender-
gast, Esq., Q.C., Sir John Eardley Eardley Wilmot,
Bart., andLeofric 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 of cer-
tain electors of the city of Durham, presented 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 of
November, which was the last day for presenting Parlia-
mentary petitions, one was presented from two electors of
Durham, resident in London, named Lumley and Green-
well, who had voted for anger and Atherton, against
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 bond fide
nature, but was intended to attain some tortuous object,
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 unjustifiable abuse of
the right of petitioning, and, as such, a breach of the pri-
vileges 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
the petition against that noble lord was to be proceeded