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

FOREIGN.

10
5
20
20

20
17i
20
20
20
20

9
3
8
2a.

Antwerp &Rotterdam
Belgian Eastn. Juuc
Beziers to Graissessac
Bombay, Baroda, and
Ccutral India,Scrip
Central of Italy

Charleroi & Erg ueliu
Demerara

20
25
100
100
20
203

20i
100
20

30
all
10
all

Dijon and Besancon
Dutch Rhenish .
_ _

4}— 4d
6 4 d

- L. P

... -. .

... '-' .

East Indian

44 3'4cl
14 2 p
11
d

Do. Extension
Gt. Indian Peninsula
Gd. Junct. of France
Grd. Trunk of Canada,
Do. Debentures
Do. do.

10 5 d

Gt. Central of France
Gt. Western of Canada
Shares
Do. Bonds (Ist is.)'s7
Hamilton & Toronto
Do. 6 per cent.
Lake Const. & Basle
Lucca & Pistoj a 5 p.c
pref
Luxembourg
Do. (Railway)
Do. Pref.

4} 4 d
20 21

par 1 p
.07 109

..• - .

dis
5

2A 31
11
lf lid
2 3 d
3 2d
11 id

Do. (Canal)
Do. 6 p. et. pref
Lyons and Geneva
Lyons & Mediterran

Madras
Maria Antonia
Do. do. New
Melbourne bk. 4 Ry
Namur & Liege (with

.• • - •

interest)
)11 Do. (ex interest)
Xll Northern of France
Do. 201. 3 p. c Bds
al (fray. B. Ams.Shs )
dl NoanTrunkPref
Parad Lyons
al Ditto Bonds
11 Paris and Orleans
.11 Paris and Rouen-
11 Paris and Strasbourg
.0 ParisCaen & Cherbrg.
.04 Quebec & Richmond
11 Rouen and Havre..,,,
2 Royal Danish ........
2 Royal Swedish
.11 Sambre and Meuse
6 Do. 54 p. cent. Pref.
6 Southern of France
6 St. Andrew's and
Quebee (A)
11 West Flanders
.11 Do 5. per c. Pref
.0 Western of France
7 West. of Switzerland
2 Wiesbaden
.5 Zealand

3/
2/

6i - 7

27~ - 28

- 8
10i - 11 p

ii. -43
32 - 34
261 - -27 i
... - Pm

28i i

-

is --

21 20i n 1

i* -

-

7i i

.. - pm

3# - 3.

2 -
24 ,i

-

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.
Upon Mr. T. CHAMBERS moving the nomination of
the Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions,
Mr. BOWYER moved that the order for its appoint-
ment be discharged. He suggested the impolicy of bring-
ing forward on the eve of a war any measure that would
sow dissension in the nation, or produce discontent in any
class. This committee was calculated, he said, to exaspe-
rate the feelings of Roman Catholics, who considered it as a
bitter i nsult. He characterised the object of the committee as
incompatible with the principles of the law, and, in re-
spect to convents, and as repugnant to the feelings of
Englishmen. He again implored the house not to emark
on an inquiry which would light the torch of religious dis-
cord throughout the country.

Mr. ESMONDE seconded the motion, objecting to the
inquiry, because the circumstances under which it was
voted no longer existed, and also on constitutional grounds.
Lord LOVAINE protested against such a plea as that
there was more danger in meddling with Roman Catholics
than any other class of her Majesty's subjects. This was
not more a Roman Catholic than a Protestant question. The
constitution laid it down that no person should be confined
in any place whatever, except by due course of law. All
he asked was that the regulations to which Roman Catho-
lics were subject abroad should be adopted in England.
He denied that there would he any intrusion on the pri-
vacy of ladies, for if such were to be the proceedings of the
committee he would oppose its appointment, but there
would be only an inquiry into the circumstances under
which those establishments were conducted.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not know whether the question
which had already been decided by a considerable majority
of that house, ought to be brought forward again, but it
appeared to him that it was well worth the consideration
of the house whether they would persist in the motion for
the appointment of this committee. (Hear.) But, then, as
the noble lord (Lord Lovaine) said, this was a constitutional
question, the house ought to take care not to appoint a
committee on vague supposition. Some case ought to be
made out of persons detained in these convents against
their will. But for persons to come forward and make
statements that convents were bad places, and that per-
sons were confined in them against their will, without
offering any evidence in support of those allegations,
seemed to him not a proper ground for going on with the
question. He said again that there was too much vague-
ness and uncertainty with respect to the sort of inquiry
that was to take place. The noble lord did not wish to in-
quire into what took place in the private matters in these
houses. Did the noble lord mean that the committee
were not to send for persons to examine them? If so that
would make a great alteration in the case. If the com-
mittee were empowered to send for papers but not persons,
the inquiry would be of a totally different character. But,
if they were to send for persons, it was no satisfaction to
be told by the noble lord that he did not wish private
matters to be inquired into. When he looked at the
names of the committee he could not not help feeling
it was not very impartially chosen—(hear, hear)—and
that names would be found on it connected with
strong prejudices and extreme opinions, and this
hardly afforded a sufficient guarantee against inquiries
not being pushed into private matters. (Hear.) If there
was really any case made out—if the liberty of the subject
had been infringed—if against the law of the land persons
were prevented from leaving these conventual houses—
then, he said, there ought to be no delicacy about having
an inquiry ; the allegations ought to be inquired into
thoroughly and promptly. But if no such case was made
out, why should they inquire ? Those who wished to alter
the law should look into the existing law, and propose such
regulations as they thought fit. Let them look into the
laws of foreign countries—let them acquaint themselves
with the rules and regulations on taking vows—let them
consider all these things, and then propose a new law to
that house. These foreign laws could easily be obtained,
and when they were looked into a bill could be brought
into that house. (Hear, hear.) There was another part of
the inquiry which had relation to monastic institutions
against the letter of the law, and contrary to law. The
hon. gentleman said he wished to have inquiry with re-
spect to monastic institutions. lie (Lord J. Russell) had
no wish for any such inquiry. (Hoar, hear, and oh.) He
knew there were many laws existing on the statute book
which had fallen into disuetude, and no evil had been felt.
He knew that in time such laws became practically
extinct. If any particular grievance, if any infraction of
the law could be proved in the case of monastic institu-
tions, he said let there be an inquiry; but he confessed he
did not see to what purpose they were to have an inquiry.
When he had the honour to fill the office of Home Secre-
tary ho found it necessary to write to Lord Normanby to
ascertain if it was necessary to make an inquiry into a
particular monastery in Ireland. Lord Normanby replied
that the monastery was the cause of a great deal of good—
that it promoted agriculture, and otherwise conferred much
benefit on the district. With that answer he was satisfied,
and he consequently gave no public directions for an in-
inquiry. But if they were to have an inquiry, as the right
hon. gentleman urged, then the house must come to one
conclusion or other, either to take further measures—
which were not difficult to take—to suppress monasteries
—to establish an effectual machinery by which, if monas-
teries were found to exist in any place, an officer of the
law would be empowered to drive the occupants out, and
to prevent them from occupying the building. They must
either have that, or they must have a law repealing the ex-
isting law, and allowing monasteries to exist. Was the
right hon. gentleman prepared to take either of those
courses ? Was the right hon. gentleman prepared to drive
monks out of the country ?—a harsh measure, not called
for either by public policy or necessity. (Hear, hear.)
If he could be convinced that any ladies in this country did
not enjoy the benefits of the liberty allowed by the laws,
he certainly should have an inquiry, with the view of
applying a vigorous remedy. (Hear, hear.) But not be-
lieving a word of the stories that had been told on the sub-
ject of nunneries—stories which generally came under the
denomination of what were called cock -and-a.-bull stories
—or rather of what the French called hi3toire,s de coq-d-
Mite—not believing the many inventions that had been
throughout the world ventilated on this question—seeing
no benefit whatever in the inquiry proposed—thinking that
the house would act much Tore wisely in not meddling at
all with the subject, and that the proposal would be a
piece of very peddling and useless legislation, he certainly
should, if he voted at all, vote in favour of the amend/ilea
of the lion, and learned genntl:nhaienhoap:issister.
itz(Calhleeteirsso)ught
Colonel NORTH stated a case which had occurred at
Banbury, in Oxfordslsire, i
to be relased from a nunnery She
inywaeinvei ~ as a writ of habeas- corpus would not app
subsequently
con-
trived to effect her escape.
Mr. H. DE UMMOND had not liked the terms of the
motion, nor the speeches for it, nor the speeches against it.
The latter had evinced misconception, or wilful perversion
anageina of
of meaning, as there haile never been anyinteption
to interfere with the internal m
these
establishments, and no gentleman had ever thought of
summoning any lady before the committee. But the same
reasons now existed
passe
as for thisd. The 1
eir the Ecclesi-
astical Titles Bill we:Rase,wa Catholics had
not retracted a word. of the aggression then then made, and
wore equally determined on brin-sing the country under
the spiritual and temporal dominion of the Pope of Rome.
Members avowed that they were sent here by the priests
to advocate the claims of the Pope. The object of the
priests was to enveiglo girls with money into the convents,
and force them to leave their money away from their re-
latives. Lot priests have the powerthey sought, and where
would be our liberties ? These institution had been per-
verted to infamous purposes, according to the power en-
joyed by the priests. lie pledged himself to prove his
case against these establishments, if permitted.
Captain BELLEW supported the amendment.
mittee.
Mr. CROSSLEY defended the appointment of the corn*mittee.
Even admitting that there
rescind its former resolution.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE hoped that the house would
to consider whether the
as a Protestant, ask Protestants
had been grounds for it, which he would not do, he would,
terbalance any possible (1 it could effect. This inquiry
gOO
evils which would' arise from this inquiry would not coun-
terbalance
uncalled-for by
the Roman Catholics, who were the
ed in its operation, and it did not
only parties concern
present a seemly spectacle to the Roman Catholics of Eng-
land and Ireland, that the Protestants of England should
be legislating for them, not merely without their consent,
u SPOONED, said the real question upon which the
inquiry was
founded was that a moral and undue influence
b t absolutely against it.
was exercised upon young girls to induce them to enter
into nunneries, and that by a continuance of that in-
fluence they were induced to leave their property to these
convents away from their relations. The inquiry was car-
ried by a large majority on a former evening against the
strength of the Government, and no grounds had been
brought forward to warrant the house in retracing its
' steps and discharging the committee. The fact was, that