The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 1:1854.

SHARE MARKETS.
(THIS DAY.)

ALLEGED TRAFFIC IN SITUATIONS BY
-IRISH REPRESENTATIVES. .\.;

IMPERIAL PARMA ME NT.

Yesterday the committee on this subject re-assembled
in committee-room No. 19. Present : Mr. Henley (in
the chair), Lord Hotham, Mr. I. Butt, Mr. Macartney,
Mr. Granville Vernon, Mr. Bentinek, and Mr. Muntz.
Mr. Ennis, chairman of the Irish Midland Railway,
was the first witness. lie said he was acquainted with
Mr. Christopher Kelly in 1841, who was then a clerk in
his counting-house, but denied that he had any conver-
sation with him in reference to the payment of a sum of
money to a member of Parliament for obtaining a situa-
tion as a stipendiary magistrate ?
The Chairman—Then if Mr. Kelly has stated that a
sum of 500/. was paid to a member of Parliament on
the promise of a place, and the promise of another
500/. on that premise being ratified—you have no know-
ledge of it !
Mr. Ennis said he had not. If such conversation had
taken place he had no recollection of it. He would not
take upon himself to say, aye or no, that no such con-
versation took place, but he was strongly of opinion that
it did not. At the same time he was not in so good a
position to remember such a thing after 13 years had
passed as perhaps Mr. Kelly was.
Mr. Honley was then called. He said he was a sti-
pendiary magistrate, and his first appointment took
place on the 13th Feb., 1841.
The Chairman—lt has been stated to us by a witness
who was examined last week that your name has been
mixed up with other persons in reference to that ap-
pointment. It is hardly fair to ask you anything further
upon this point, unless you wish to make any statement
upon it.
Mr. Honley—The statement of Mr. Kelly in the
papers is without a shadow of foundation. I applied to
two members of Parliament, and I have no objection to
lay their communications before the committee ; but no
such transactions as Mr. Kelly alleges ever took place.
The witness here produced a letter from the late Mr.
Dillon Browne, dated Dec. 5, 1837, in whic'a the writer
expressed his fear that the Government would pay little
attention to recommendations coming from him. The
next communication was from Mr. Somers :—" St.
James's Hotel, St. James's-street, Dec. 18, 1838.—My
dear Honley,—l have much pleasure in complying with
your request, and forward you the enclosed letter for
Lord Morpeth, wishing you success.—Believe me, in
haste, yours sincerely, J. P. Swam."

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE moved the second
reading of this bill. He stated that this, and the
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, the second read-
ing of which he would also move, were the same, with
some minor exceptions, as those introduced into this
house last session. The noble earl entered into an ex-
planation of the main provisions of the bill, which he
observed had been carefully framed, so as to obviate any
interference with the rights of property. He believed
that a sound system of reform should be adopted—that
they should reform where it was necessary—and that
they should not reform merely because they thought that
some other state of the law would be more applicable.
Their case in Ireland was this : it was admitted that
they required a reform—a long time had been spent in
discussing what that reform should be--they had evi-
dence concerning the state of landlords and tenants in
Ireland, and they certainly ought now to legislate on the
subject ; but in England they should not do so, as it was
not required ; although there was not a single provision
in the bill which he did not believe to be just and equit-
able, and if the state of circumstances in England re-
quired reform, there was not a provision of it that he
should not be ready to advocate for that country as well
as for Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He had one great ground
for bringing this subject under their lordships' notice.
He had been for some years in the habit of attending to
the management of landed property in Ireland, and he
found himself met at every turn by the difficulties of the
law when he endeavoured to improve the estate, the
occupiers of the estate, and the cottier population. It
was from his experience of the faulty state of the law
that he earnestly desired that a just and fair change
should take place, and with that view he submitted those
bills for their lordships' consideration.
Lord MONTEAGLE did not wish to oppose the
second reading of these bills, but he could not acquiesce
in it without calling the attention of their lordships to
some principles involved in them, against which he
strongly protested. From the reign of Geo. 111., down
to the present time, 60 bills had been passed for the pur-
pose of regulating the relations between landlord and
tenant, and the result was well described by his noble
friend (the Earl of Donoughmore) when he stated that
his own attempt to improve the condition of his tenantry
had been frustrated by the network of legislation
which Parliament had in its wtnt of wisdom passed.
(Hear, hear.) The difficulty was, he believed, one
of principle. Every attempt to legislate for people hav-
ing the ordinary interests of buyers and sellers would be
infinitely more prejudicial to their real interests than it
would be to leave them free to make whatever agree-
ments they pleased. (Hear.) He appealed to noble lords
who had property in different parts of England whether
many things which applied to the county of Northum-
berland were in the slightest degree applicable to the
county of Dorset or of Sussex ? (Hear.) There were
some species of tenant right, more or less, existing in
every county, and the customary relation which existed
in one part of the country would be totally inapplicable
in another. His noble friend had referred to the question
of contracts. He agreed with his noble and learned
friend (Lord Campbell) that there was a great distinction
to be drawn between contracts and legislation ; and if
ever- there was a bill which was a violation of all the
principles on which contracts were founded, the present
bills were of that nature. As the bill stood, the rights of
property were trampled under foot. He believed that
all cases, whether of the sale, lending, or hiring of land,
finally resolved themselves into the commercial principle
of open contracts, and should be dealt with in that way.
He thought it was wrong to lay down any rule as to the
length of leases. Leases of 21 years were common in
England, of 19 years in Scotland ; but his noble friend
laid it down that 31 years leases were best for Ireland.
If these bills were really to become useful measures, it
could only be done by imposing on the noble and learned
members of their lordships' house the duty of assisting
in the improvement of the clauses in committee.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said—My lords, I should
certainly regret if any other course were to be taken with
regard to the bills now before us than that which my
noble friend (Lord Monteagle) proposes. lam sure that
all your lordships join with me in regretting the absence
of my noble friend the Marquis of Clanricarde, not only
because we have not the advantage of his assistance in
this debate, but from the lamentable cause which pre-
vents his attendance this evening. (Hear.) I therefore
wish all these bills to be referred to a select committee,
in order that they may be made the subject of the same
inquiry. I. rejoice that my noble friend has expressed
his willingness that they should be so referred, although
I am not quite certain that if I could feel the strong ob-
jections to the principles of the measure which he has
stated I would follow the course which he is now about
to adopt. I concur, undoubtedly, in much that has
fallen from my noble friend as regards the principle of
legislation in connection with the law of landlord and
tenant. I entirely agree with the general principle
which he laid down, that all these contracts relating to
the buying and the letting of land resolve themselves
into the category of ordinary commercial transactions,
and are much better left as far as possible to be decided
between the two contracting parties. But when my
noble friend draws a picture of a Scotch tenant from the
Lothians going into the county of Mayo or Galway, and
taking land there, and states the impression that he
would be greatly deterred from taking land when you
present him with one of these bills, supposing them to
become law, I must remind my noble friend of the posi-
tion that the tenant is in when he goes to Ireland now.
Does he find his relations with his landlord a simple mat-
ter of contract and bargain between him and the land-
lord from whom he is about to take the land ? By no
means. The principle has been violated for centuries,
and there are on the statute book at this moment upwards
of 200 statutes legislating for landlord and tenant, all
affecting the question of contract more or less directly,
and infringing that principle which, in the abstract, I
entirely agree with my noble friend is right. I say then
that we are not now in a position to discuss whether
legislation is right, but whether we cannot amend the legis-
lation which already exists. My noble friend objects to
legislation regarding the period of a lease, and thinks it
wrong to lay down as a general rule that the landlord may,
under certain circumstances, give a lease of 31 years to the
tenant. Why the bills of the noble earl (the Earl of
Donoughmore) and the bills which came from the House
of Commons last year are not dealing de novo with this
subject. The law of Ireland regarding leases is in a
most anomalous and ridiculous position—in so absurd a
position that one class of landlords may give leases of
two or three years, and another class of landlords, under
precisely similar circumstances, except that their title is
different, may give leases of a much longer duration. I
think that every species of dignitary in the Church is
now enabled to grant leases of varying durations; and,
in fact, the law of Ireland at this moment is not only in
the most ridiculous but in a most inconvenient and pre-
judicial condition. Now the noble earl opposite has cer-
tainly saved me from the necessity of troubling your
lordships with any lengthened observations on this occa-
sion. I took the liberty of trespassing at some length
on your lordships' attention, on the second reading of
these bills, when they came up from the House of Com-
mons last session, after the most careful deliberation in
that house. I then stated the nature of the bills to the
best of my ability ; but certainly, if I was not sufficiently
sensible of the inadequacy of my explanation on that
occasion, I am more sensible of it now, after the speech
of the noble earl, who has to-night supplied the deficiency
in my explanation ; but as a great portion of his obser-
vations apply to the provisions both of the bills which
he has introduced and of the bills which came up from
the House of Commons last year, and which I have re-
introduced on this occasion, it is quite unnecessary for
me to go over the ground again. The noble earl, how-
ever, must not suppose that because I have introduced
two of these bills in the same form as they came up from
the House of Commons, I therefore consider any
alterations in his bills otherwise than as amend-
ments. I have brought them in as they stand
simply because I considered, under the engagement
into which we entered last session, that that was the
most convenient mode of fulfilling it ; and if we are
ever to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the subject,
there is an advantage in starting in the committee with
the bills in the same form as the House of Commons,
after a careful deliberation of some months in a select
committee, constituted of representatives of all parties,
without distinction of politics, sent them up to your
lordships. The noble earl instanced a clause in one of
the bills which I introduced that he says he has altered,
viz., a clause giving power to the encumbrancer in pos-
session to grant leases under certain circumstances ; and
I myself think it desirable that that clause should be
omitted ; and if I am able, in committee, I shall cer-
tainly vote against that clause. There is another clause
which the noble earl proposes to which I cannot so en-
tirely assent. He proposes to introduce into his bill a
clause that was omitted by the House of Commons after
very mature consideration, viz., the revival of the power
of distraint over growing crops. I think the other house
came to a right decision in leaving out that clause. IThe
law in Ireland gave the power of distraint over growing
crops up to the year 1846, but in that year it was re-
pealed by a bill which I myself introduced into the other
house, being then Secretary for Ireland. My lords, I
believe that if it was right to repeal that measure, it
would be wrong to re-enact it now. I felt at the time
that the bill was introduced, in 1846, that this repeal
was not unattended with inconvenient consequences to
the landlord ; but it was after deliberate examination of
the question, and after the inquiry it underwent before
the Devon Commission, and the unanimous opinion of
the five commissioners that this alteration should be
made, that I introduced the measure to which I have
referred. If I felt then that there were objections to this
repeal, those objections are removed now. I rejoice, in
the altered condition of Ireland, that the power is no
longer continued ; and I should witness with regret the
introduction of a provision which I cannot help thinking
would be attended with much heart-burning and great
discontent. It is unnecessary for me to go into the
discussion of two of the bills of the noble earl, which
are so very similar to those that came up from the other
house last year, and which I have re-introduced on
this occasion. The noble earl has stated the reasons
which induced him not to introduce the third bill—the
Tenants Improvement Compensation Bill. He stated,
and stated correctly, that as regards prospective com-
pensation, there are provisions in the bills which he has
introduced, and that he believes these provisions will be
satisfactory and sufficient for that purpose. lam not
quite certain that I can quite agree with him in this re-
spect ; but at any rate the noble earl does admit the
principle of compensation for future improvements.
Now, my lords, I cannot think that would be so

BRITISH RAILWAYS.

A letter from Lord Brabazon was of a teLour similar
M o that of r. Browne. -

In answer to the chairman the witness said he received
his appointment from Lord Morpeth.
Mr. Butt—Are the committee distinctiy to under-
stand that you never made any consideration for your
appointment ?
Mr. Honley—Never.
The Chairman—Has there been any application made
to you for money on the part of Mr. Somers ?
Mr. Honley—At the time of my appointment as ma-
gistrate I sold off my stock, and in the newspapers I
advertised that I had 1,0001. to lend. I was subse-
quently applied to, and through my solicitor I lent 4001.
to Mr. Somers and 4001. to some one else. I lent the
money to Mr. Somers on the security of his bond. I
have not received the interest, and the property has been
sold by the Encumbered Estates Court, and after the
previous creditors are satisfied, I am the first to be paid.
I think that loan was made in 1840. A similar sum
was lent to Mr. Custins by Mr. Kane, my solicitor,
about the same time. In that case I have not received
one farthing. I applied to Mr. Somers three or four
times for the interest, and the only excuse for not pay-
ing it he made to me was by not answering my letters.
The money was lent on mortgage, and the interest was
to be paid from time to time, but I had no communication
with Mr. Somers, except through my solicitor.
Mr. Vernon—Then were you satisfied to let your
money go for 7 or 8 years and receive no interest for it ?
Mr. Honley—l was not, but under the circumstances
what could Ido ? I did not consider the money that I
lent to Custins near so well secured as that I lent to Mr.
Somers.

The Chairman—Through whose influence did you get
the appointment ?
Mr. Honley—That of the late Mr. O'Connell.
After some other unimportant questions, the witness
was ordered to withdraw.

Dr. Gray was next called. He said he practised me-
dicine, and was the proprietor of the Dublin Freeman's
Journal. He attended a dinner at Tuam in January
last, which was reported in the Freeman's Journal of the
27th of January.
The speech was read over to witness and was stated
by him to be a summary of what he said, and not a
perfectly accurate one. The public will remember that
he asserted some member of Parliament had endeavoured
to sell the office of paid guardian.
Upon being pressed by the committee to give the
names of the parties referred to he hesitated to do so,
stating that they were given to him confidentially.
The Chairman—You, in your discretion, made the
statement, without saying to whom it points, and, as it
affects a whole body of gentlemen who may be sus-
pected most unjustly, I think you cannot withhold the
name of the parties.
Dr. Gray said as the statement was given confiden-
tially he had great difficulty in revealing that that was
confidential.

The Chairman—As this statement may be injurious
to several persons, you must verify it by giving the
names.

Dr. Gray—lf I can do so without a breach of confi-
dence I am ready to do so.

The Chairman'—Who is the solicitor ?
Dr. Gray—Mr. Charles O'Hara, of Wellington-street,
Dublin.

The Chairman—Who stated to you that he was nego-
tiating with a member of Parliament for the office of
paid guardian ?
Dr. Gray—Mr. James Fair informed me of the nego-
tiation. He is now an apprentice to Mr. Dooley.
To Mr. Vernon—He conveyed to me an impression
that he was acting as the agent of a member of Parlia-
ment.

The Chairman—Who was the member of Parliament
Dr. Gray—Mr. Somers.
To Mr. Vernon—l do not know from my own per-
sonal knowledge that Mr. O'Hara was acting for Mr.
Somers.

Mr. Butt—ln your speech you said the system was
generally pursued; do you know of any other instance ?
Dr. Gray—l have heard of a great many, but not to
my knowledge. I have heard general statements from
members of the house.

Mr. Butt—Can you give the committee any other in-
stance to justify the general charge and accusation you
have made ?

Dr. Gray—There are a great many cases, but I have
not inquired into them.

Mr. Vernon—Do you consider you can justify your-
self in making such a sweeping charge against a body of
members ?

Dr. Gray—l did not make a general charge. I spoke
of general corruption. I made no general charge against
the Irish members, but I did charge a section of them
with pretending to advance the condition of Roman
Catholics by obtaining situations, but instead of doing
so distributing them among their own friends, and thus
selling their country.l
It being now intimated that the Speaker was at
prayers, the committee adjourned.

LLOYD'S SHIPPING,--(THIS DAY.)

LONDON, March I.—Wind this day at Noon, S. to
S.W. ; light breeze, and fine, clear weather.
MARGATE, Feb. 28.—Wind, N.W. by W. Arrived—
Adolph, from Leith, for the West Indies ; Ida, Shields,
for Civita Vecchia.
DOVER, Feb. 28.—Wind, W. Sailed—Haabet, for
Christian sand.
PLYMOUTH, Feb. 28.—Wind, N.W. Arrived—H.M.S.
Duke of Wellington, from Lisbon. Sailed—Himalaya
(s a), for Malta.
FALMOUTH, Feb. 28.—Wind, N. Arrived—Jane Morri-
son, from New York, with pumps choked, loss of bulwarks,
short of water, and fuel and part of cargo thrown over-
board ; Elizabeth, Berdianski.
SHIELDS, Feb. 28.—Wind, N. Sailed—Dumsdale, for
Jamaica ; Burlington, New Yolk ; Brothers. Quobec.—
The Sincerity, of Southampton, which struck on the Herd
Sand on the 27th Feb., has broken up : her materials,
with part of cargo (pit pops), have been washed into the
harbour.
BRIDLINGTON, Feb. 28.—The Harkaway, from Hartle-
pool to Shoreham, and the Lochaber (sch.), of London,
were in collision ; the former lost her bowsprit, and the
latter her mainmast.

CUXHAVEN, Feb. 24.—The Caledonia (s), for London,
has put back with severe damage to her engines.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
LIVERPOOL, Wednesday, 10 a.m.
Wind, S.W. ; moderate, and fine.
No arrivals or sailings.

QUEF2NSTOWN, Feb. 27.
Wind, S.W. ; strong.
Arrived—Gebroeder, from Vienna ; Hannah Hicks,
Tenez ; Mary Eleanor, Odessa ; Napoleon, Alexandria ;
;
Agnes, Ibraila, ; Emilia., River ..Plate Halcyon, Odessa ;
Heroine and Island Queen, St. Michael's.

(BY SUBMARINE AND EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH.)
GRAVESEND, Wednesday, 9.52 a.m..
Wind, W. ; tide, nearly low water ; fine.
No arrivals.
Sailed—Thomas Mitchell, for Calcutta ; Seine, Bou-
logne ; Gem, Genoa ; City of Rotterdam, Dunkirk.
PEAL, Wednesday, 9.14 a.m.
Wind, N.W. ; light, and hazy.
Passed—Frances Henty, from London, for Portland
Bay ; Heath, London, for Port Natal ; Wiltshire, London,
or Palermo.

---
GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.—The fifty-
eighth half-yearly meeting of the shareholders in this
company was held yesterday at
i their offices, 71, Lom-
bard-street, Mr. John Wilkin, n the chair. The report
of the directors, and a statement cf the accounts for the
year ending the 31st Decembei last were read to the
meeting. The report, which was very satisfactory, was
unanimously received and adopted by the proprietors.
The usual dividend and bonus were declared, and the
cordial thanks of the proprietors voted to the chairman
and directors for their continued zealous services in the
management of the company's a:fairs ; after which the
meeting separated.
SUPPOSED MURDER IN LIVIIIPOOL.—On Monday
night one of the police inspectors on duty discovered the
body of a female in Lark-lane, near Liverpool, respect-
ably-attired, lying in the middle of the road. It was
found upon examination that the woman had been shot,
but there was nothing to indi&e that she had com-
mitted self-destruction, and it is believed that a murder
had been perpetrated. Efforts are being made to dis-
cover the relatives of the deceased and the cause of the
mysterious death.
DEATH OF LIEUT.-GENERA-, JAMES HAY, C.B.—
This gallant and venerable offi::er, colonel of the 79th
Highlanders, died at Kelburne, near Longford, on Fri-
day 194.

simple a matter to omit altogether from our legislation
all compensation of a retrospective character ; and I be-
lieve the noble earl himself indicated that he had con-
siderable misgivings on this point when he said—and
repeated it several times—that if these bills went to a
committee, he, for one, would rejoice if a plan were de-
vised which would give to the tenants that compensa-
tion to which he felt they had an equitable claim. I
entirely participate in that feeling, and believe that, as
regards the law, in Ireland especially, that you will not
be able to pass a satisfactory measure on that question
without legislating on this subject. (Hear, hear.) I
anticipate, from the committee, that this question will
be greatly elucidated ; and if my noble and learned friend
beside me (Lord Campbell), and the noble and learned
lord the late Lord Chancellor of England, and who for
five years, with great credit to himself and satisfaction
to Ireland, held the post of Chancellor of Ireland—if such
noble and learned lord should consent to serve on the
committee, I do hope that this question may be finally
set at rest. But we must not lose sight of this fact, that
the position of the north of Ireland is very peculiar as
respects the question of retrospective compensation ;
and if the noble earl refuses to legislate altogether on
this subject, he must not tell us that he proposes simply
to give compensation for prospective improvements, but
he must also exempt the tenants of Ulster from the
operation of the measure. If this exemption is not made,
a very great injury will be inflicted on those who have
enjoyed, rightly or wrongly, by long custom, a privilege
which they greatly value, and which, I believe, that the
landlords of that district are by no means desirous to
deprive them of. The noble earl said that the retro-
spective compensation clause was altered in the commit-
tee of the House of Commons. It was so, certainly ;
but it was altered in the sense of a reduction of the in-
terest of the tenant. The noble earl said, and truly,
that all the provisions affecting improvements made in
the soil were entirely erased in the committee, and that
no provisions remained excepting those relating to per-
manent improvements made upon the soil, the principle
no doubt being that which was felt in the course of the
discussion—viz,, that improvements on the soil, such as
buildings and so forth, are visible and tangible ; whereas
other improvements, such as even that host important
improvement of drainage, are invisible and extremely
difficult to calculate, and ought not to be taken into ac-
count. The provision originally introduced in the
House of Commons for retrospective compensation was
based upon the two principles of the restriction of time
and restriction of value—that was to say, that no corn-
pensation should be claimed by the tenant beyond a
certain amount, and that it should vary in. amount ac-
cording to the anterior period at which the improve-
ments had been effected. (Hear, hear.) The principle
was altered in committee of the House of Commons
before the bill was passed in that house ; and as the bill
now stands, it remains, at any rate, in a more simple
form, namely, there is no restriction as to amount, and
no restriction as to time ; but it provides that for visible
improvements made on the soil compensation shall be
given by valuation made brpublic authority, viz., the
assistant barrister. My noble friend (Lord Monteagle)
has just now complained of the hardship to persons who,
under the Encumbered Estates Act, have purchased
property without any liability of this description being
now exposed to claims for compensation, which they
had no idea would be attached to the land they had
bought. It is impossible to deny that there is some
force in the objection of my noble friend ; but
at any rate the objection is greatly restricted
and the evil much mitigated by the 14th clause in this
bill, which provides that every claim for retrospective
compensation must be made within twelve months after
the passing of the act, and registered accordingly. So
that no claim subsequently to this twelve months can
be preferred ; and any litigation which may take place
on such a subject must be limited to the first twelve
months after the passing of the act, and notice must be
given by the tenant of his intention to claim any such
compensation ; and it will be within the power of the
landlord to litigate the point with the tenant if neces-
sary, and once the question is decided the claim cannot
be renewed ; so that the landlord will be at once made
aware of the demand to which he will be subject. My
lords, I promised not to detain your lordships any longer,
and 1 wish to keep my word, and more especially as I
must again repeat, the noble earl has left me little ex-
planation to offer in regard to these bills. I sincerely
trust that your lordships will refer the whole of the
bills, including the one proposed by my noble friend
behind me, who is connected with the north of Ireland,
in order that persons representing all parts of that
country may combine, and, if possible, come to the
same conclusion, aye or no, on the question of compen-
sation to tenants. For as regards the other two bills,
they are more consolidations of the law than new enact-
ments ; and I cannot but believe that, under the su-
perintendence of the noble and learned lords, they will
be made sufficient for their purpose, and invaluable to
Ireland. And I only hope that an earnest endeavour
will be made by all parties to devise the means by which
compensation for retrospective improvements can be
given to the tenant consistently with the principles and
the rights of property, which I can assure your lord-
ships I am as anxious as any one amongst you to main-
tain, not merely in this country, but also in Ireland.
Lord CAMPBELL said that no one could be more
alive to the importance of these bills than he was, which
should be viewed not merely as having for their object
the improvement of the agricultural prosperity of
Ireland, but also the cultivation of harmony between the
landlords and tenants. (Hear, hear.) He believed that
Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Serjeant Shee, and Mr.
Napier were animated with the best intentions in pre-
paring their various bills on this subject. He had no
hesitation in concurring in the provisions for giving en-
larged powers of leasing, which he thought might be
*given with perfect safety and security to the remainder-
man under settlement. He hoped that every encourage-
ment would be given to the granting of leases in Ireland.
After some observations from the Earl of Desart, Lord
Dufferin, and the Lord Chancellor, the bills were read
the second time, and referred to a select committee.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord REDESDALE moved " that no private bill
should be read a second time after Tuesday, 11th July."
" That no bill confirming any provisional order of the
Board of Health, or authorising any enclosure of lands
under special report of the Enclosure Commissioners for
England and Wales, should be read a second time after
Tuesday, 18th July."
Agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice that he
should move the second reading of this bill upon that
day week.
Their lordships adjourned at 25 minutes to 10 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY. )
(Continued from our Third Edition of last Evening.)

CONVENTUAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. THOS. CHAMBERS, in continuation, said
that the house was bound to institute the in-
quiry to ascertain the treatment the inmates were
subject to which history proved was both coercive and
severe. Convents were places of restraint or infliction,
where the most excruciating torments were practised
upon the nuns and novices, and it was an abuse of social
and political right to allow them to remain longer in
this country without investigation. It was argued that
any interference would be an evasion of the doctrine of
religious toleration, and that his bill of last session in-
fringed religious liberty. He defied any hon. member
to put together any collocation of words whatever which
showed that that bill infringed religious liberty. On the
contrary, he contended it was one of the strongest efforts
made in modern times to protect it. (Hear, hear.)
What he said was, let spiritual influence take full effect
on body, soul, and spirit, but not upon the conse;ence.
(Hear, hear.) The very instant the spiritual power
loosened its hold, the ecclesiastical power should be made
to relax. There should be no ecclesiastical, and,
above all, no physical, barriers in the way of a nun re-
turning to the world. (Cheers.) Let them keep her,
though in the agonies of religious terror, whilst under
the spiritual power ; but if she repented, if doubts as to
the truth of the Roman Catholic tenets or the usefulness,
admissibility, or lawfulness of monastic vows, or her
calling to live under them —if doubts sprung up and
germinated, and the spiritual power, which did hold and
bind her in fetters, was broken, in the name of liberty
he asked that she should be allowed to return to the
world. (Loud cheers.) It was time we should under-
stand what religious liberty was. When the noble lord
brought forward a bill about Papal aggression, he thought
that a direct and flagrant infringement of the religious
liberties of the Roman Catholics. (Hear.) It what was
then done had been upon spiritual and religious grounds
he should not have objected at all ; but the bill was not
spiritual, it was purely ecclesiastical. (Hear.) Another
argument was that though it was quite true many nuns
repented and lived lives of great suffering in consequence
of taking vows rashly, their condition arose out of an
antecedent contract, and the State must not interfere.
The taw recognised no such contract. The law knew
nothing of religious or monastic vows. No subject
could contract to surrender her liberty. It was not
within the moral competency of any one to do so
and therefore, supposing the original contract ad-
mitted, which it wbe
lawful not, and the constraint to e
lawful under the non-natural consent of the party, the
moment that consent was withdrawn, the deten-
tion become a flagrant infringement of liberty, and an
infringemnt of the gravest character. (Hear.) Black-
principle that every one was en-
stone laid down the
titled to his liberty, and that no one could deprive him
of it, not even the highest power of the State, without
being called to account. But that was done every day
in nunneries. Every person who was desirous to get
out and could not was a palpable instance of a gross in-
fringement on the liberty of the subject. Another and
more serious matter was the connection with other simi-
lar establishments in foreign countries. Dr. Wiseman
admitted that these associations in England were affi-
liated with associations abroad. There was not only
a power to imprison and a power to torture, but a power
to transport. It was done. The house would recol-
lect the case of the Taunton convent. Miss Knight,
one of the inmates, was extremely ill. Her brother,
with the consent of the Roman Catholic bishop, wished
another physician to see her. Miss Jerningham, the
lady abbess, utterly refused, though the physician was
a Roman Catholic, and the consent of the bishop had
been obtained. The brother asked if she might go
to a nunnery at Bristol. The superior said, " No, there
could not be a worse place than Bristol, she was going to
Belgium." And if it had not been for the most earnest
remonstrances, to Belgium Miss Knight would have
gone and died there, for she did die soon afterwards.
Who mild say then that nunneries were not now what
they were in the middle ages ? He would like to know
what instance of tyranny in the middle ages exceeded
that ? It was said if Parliament interferred they gave
an official sanction to these instructions. They could
not pass an act against any wrong without recognising
its existence ; but whatever sanction Parliament could
give, was given already. The executive clause of the
Catholic Relief Act distinctly gave that sanction. There
had been an active whip that night, and he knew there