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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNEsDAV ArtlstiNG, MAY 11 1868.

sportation as it ha;d bten inflicted, contained more
that was alakMitig to 99 men out of 100 than any other
psusishment. One reason for this was that it contained,
he might say, many different elements. But it was not
merely the difficulty of obtaining employmenty which
was obviated by the present ey'steril 0t enligration : a
sudden return to unrreitealned liberty was also prevented.
Experience had shown that a sudden change from strict
control to unrestrained freedom was more than a man
could bear. It was even so in the colonies, and thus it
was that the system of sending out men with conditional
pardons was changed. When the convicts had condi-
tional pardons it was found that they speedily relapsed
into former idle and disorderly habits. The system of
assignment was then adopted and persevered in until
disapproved by the House of Commons. The system of
granting tickets of leave was then adopted. Under this
system the effect had been very gratifying. The papers
upon their lordships' table would show that the convicts
had in many instances set examples which might well be
followed by free labourers. In the case of a convict
who had committed a very serious offence, one who had
barely escaped capital punishment, through the Secre-
tary of State commuting it to transportation for life, it
might be quite safe to release him at the end of four or
five years, if he were removed to a distant colony, and there
placed under restrictions still tolerably severe, though a
great improvement on his former condition, and though
he must pay a considerable sum of money, and do a con-
siderable amount of work before he could obtain a con•
ditional pardon. Such a man, who had committed a
crime which was only distinguished by a nice shade from
murder, might, under such conditions, be safely re-
leased, after four or five years, from Portland ; but what
would be the effect if, after those four or five years of
seclusion, he were allowed to go back to his old com-
rades, and say : " See what I have done ; I knocked out
the brains of the keeper of the prison," or, "I have been
a notorious housebreaker for ten years ; and, after four
or five years, which I don't much care about (for that
was always • the language they held), here I am back
again. Don't be afraid of the sentence of the law ; that
is the worst it can do. Join with me, and we will break
open another house." (Hear, hear.) To allow men of
this kind to return to their old haunts would destroy all
reformatory discipline. No one who knew anything at
all of the criminal law would believe that this would be
safe. But what was the alternative ! To prolong the
period of punishment. (Hear, hear.) But precisely as
they prolonged that period, precisely as they made very
distant the period when good conduct would procure a
release—precisely in the same degree did they diminish
the influence of that hope which was now the main in-
strument of Government in leading convicts to behave
well in our prisons at home. If a man was told that,
let him behave ever so well, he must continue in that
gloomy retreat for ten or twelve years, it was greatly to
be feared that the hope of accelerating the period of his
discharge would lose its effect, and that he would net
think it worth while to exert himself in the hope of
knocking off one or two days at the end of that period,
and that he might as well be guilty of some breach of
discipline, and enjoy himself as he could while in pri-
son. To prolong the period of prison discipline would
cut off the main source whence its excellence was de-
rived, and would render the hope now excited in the
minds of the convicts comparatively null. He assumed
that it would be argued, by those who opposed his
motion, not that transportation was otherwise than useful
in itself and beneficial, but that it must of necessity be
given up—that it was impracticable to remove from this
country the hundreds of convicts who were now looking
forward to transportation. He denied the validity of
that argument. If they were to abandon transportation,
because Van Diemen's Land could not be called on longer
to receive convicts, and there was no other place to which
they could be sent, the Government ought to have taken
the course which was adopted by their predecessors. As
far as his information went, he was not aware of any
sufficient reason for abandoning the practice of removing
convicts to Van Diemen's Land ; but, for the sake bt ar-
gument, he would concede that it must be abandoned.
Granting that this was so, what was the proper course I
He found no fault with the dispatch written by the late
Colonial Secretary, who said he thought that transpor-
tation to Van Diemen's Land ought to stop, but that
Government could not fix the precise date of the change.
(Hear.) The late Government proposed to submit cer-
tain changes in the law, which they thought necessary
in order to effect this alteration in the practice, and at
the same time to make certain arrangements by which
they thought these alterations might be accomplished
without injury. (Hear.) That was a perfectly legiti-
mate course, and had it been adhered to by the present
Government, it would have been perfectly practicable,
by arrangements which might have been made, and
changes in the law which might have been proposed—
not certainly without considerable expense—to put
an end, at no distant period, to transportation to
Van Diemen's Land, and at the same time to
maintain that punishment to an extent sufficient to
answer the most important purposes. (Hear, hear.)
What similarity was there between the strong feeling
which had led to the ejection of tea into Boston harbour,
and the feeling which did nob prevent the scenes which
took place at the arrival of the convict ships? Why, hi
a recent paper there was a most graphic account of the
tumult which such an event occasioned. Even the as-
sistance of the military had to be invoked to restrain the
crowds of rich and poor who assembled, not to drive
away the convicts from their shores, but to secure their
services. (Hear, hear.) What a contrast between the
persons who had indulged in this foolish• talk in the co-
lonies, and the great men of the American revolution—
men not less distinguished for their moderation than their
firmness—men whose moderation was such that, had
there been the smallest infusion of political wisdom in
the councils of this country, the calamitous struggle and
the secession of those colonies would never have taken
place. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the amendment
which he understood the noble earl (Lord Chichester)
intended to propose, he trusted that it would not be
pressed. If he wished to tako the sense of the house
upon it he hoped the noble earl would bring it on
as a substantive motion, because it was entirely beside
the question he (Lord Grey) wished to place before the
house. The language of that amendment was utterly
incomprehensible. It talked about sending convicts to
colonies which were "incapable" of receiving them.
Surely there must be a mistake, for it was not common
sense. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl wished the govern-
ment to devise a system of secondary punishments which
should be as much dreaded and as reformatory as trans-
portation. Why that was a problem which every civil-
ised nation had been attempting to solve for the last cen-
tury. Yet the noble earl demanded an immediate solu-
tion. Was that rational ! (Hear, hear.) Again, the
noble earl distinctly recommended additional means of
secondary punishment in this country, and admitted that
new buildings would be necessary. Was it then reason-
able to put an end to transportation before these further
arrangements had been provided I Surely this alone
was sufficient to prove his (Earl Grey's) case. If, how-
ever, the noble earl did press his amendment, he (Lord
Grey) trusted the house would deal with it as merely an
indirect way of evading a question which the Govern-
ment did not feel prepared to meet. Was it right, three
months after the ships had been chartered which should
have taken convicts out, they should be discussing what
to do with them ? Surely the course the Government
had taken was an erroneous one ; but it was still not too
late for Parliament to interfere, and he asked them,
therefore, to agree to the resolution of the terms of which
he had given notice, viz. :—" That an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty
will be graciously pleased to give directions that the
arrangements with respect to criminals sentenced to
transportation, which were in force in the year
1852, may not be changed in such a manner as
to prevent the ultimate removal of such offenders
from this country until a full account of any contem-
plated alteration in the above arrangements shall have
been laid before Parliament, and till Parliament shall
have had an opportunity of considering the measures it
may be intended to adopt previously to their being car-
ried into execution."

views
hni
eTd he
re
eroEfdes
appeal
dill
some
of
eofo
ohlejeeeAßEßDEENnsmttoyhobr,asleteGrheeoeaavrd(eLl,rl
readily,
said
eGnioniit
euuuyl
supon
would perhaps be
convenient for him to state thus early in
ownnn
ootothuttwelhdhi
etdehnel
sspbotnatabtnjehde
ot
mnht
enter-
tainingge
the
ef
fibrestdipsipxoeseedthtios pmreostsiohniswmasotoionne oonf
athsceryhounsne.nsnlanl
character. It was an intervention• of a description
rarely exercised towards the legitimate use of the pre-
rogative of the crown, and of the executive government.
(Hear.) The noble earl thought the Government had
done something which required the sanction of Parlia-
ment to authorise. They bad done no such thing.
(Hear, hear.) Had they been disposed to take any step
requiring the sanction of Parliament they should most
readily have requested the house to authorise or refuse
their assent to such a proceeding. But they had done
nothing of the kind. All they bad done was
H atgliraetewdhwicil
right or wrong, wise or unwise, it was perfectly com-
petent for them in the exercise of the discretion of the
executive Government. (Hear, hear.
the noble earl that this subject had always been treated
as not belonging to any party considerations. (Cheers.)
The subject was one which interested our social con-
dition so nearly, and was so important to the welfare
and lreppiness of such vast numbers of our fellow-citi-
zens, that it had been very properly put aside from all
considerations of party ; and he (Lord Aberdeen) had
certainly no reason to imagine that the noble earl
at all wished to give it that character. (Hear,
hear.) He was ready to admit that the noble earl and his
colleagues had made great improvement in the treatment
of convicts and in their discipline both at home and
abroad. At the same time he must be permitted to ob-
serve that the difficulties under which they were labour-
ing at that moment had been mainly created, however
unintentionally, by the noble earl himself. The practi-
cal question was, after all, notwithstanding all that the
noble earl had said, could transportation be continued ?
and he would show that the noble earl had made that
impossible. And for this reason—when, in 1846, Mr.
Gladstone was Secretary for the Colonies, he found the
howeversystem mwt introddeviseduced by
(tfloce
eo noble a
se earl o
notl
inclined had
to find
fault with that system) had led to such abuses, and that
the country had arrived at such a state of horror and
abomination that he (Mr. Gladstone) found himself un-
derrs the necessity
Shortly a
fotfe
r that suspendingthe
eoi)lnra
February,
noble
ltlreiytor,enaalnrBasl p4s7oou,rhetwacanetrgei:do)tnee
dotffoohrGi
isiloii o.r.
vyTWeehr'.enDmn'oeenbnlitseoetnao,rolkinopnlVactalleatntidhemen's Land,
.tn this effect :
" I have to inform you that it is not tire intention of her
Majesty's Government that transportation to Van Die-
en's Land shall be resumed at the expiration of two
Tears, for which it has been already decided that it shall
be discontinued."
Earl GREY—Read the former FLA.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was quite ready to admit
that the noble earl iltended something different from
what he said. (Earl Grey. loudly, hear, hear.) Well,
if the noble eirl would hear, he would state what he was
about to say. Whatever interpretation the noble earl

might put upon this letter now, Sir W. Denison under-
stood it in its plain meaning, and he announced it to his
legislative council, as an intimation that no more con-
victs were to be sept to Van Diemen's Land. (Hear,
hear:) it had thus benotne a qUestioti dt gvcd faith, be-
cause the inhabitants had attached that meaning td the
what n o
declaration of their own governor, founded upon the
earl
sropiradt:he
ano tf Aberdeen)
wt the noble ntkhonbaeltwe earl. (Hear,
transportation
w (eHI atrh, a
sthheoaurl.d not be)
the Now
rb hel ee_
sumed in the same manner as had been the practice
before. But neither the governor to whom lie wrote,
nor the colonists to whom Sir W. Denison explained it,
understood it so, They undoubtedly received a fixed
impression that the late Government intended to abo-
lish transportation to Van Diemen's Land. (Hear.)
Well, but with that conviction on their part, it would
be difficult to disabuse them of their belief, which had
been confirmed to them over and over again by the de-
clarations, the emphatic declarations, of their legislative
council. (Hear.) The noble, in one instance, had writ-
ten that the Government of this country had no right to
send convicts to any colony against the consent of the
inhabitants.
Earl GREY—Not being originally a convict colony.
The Earl of ABERDEEN—Very well ; but surely
the noble earl ought to pay some respect to the legisla-
tures of these colonies. Was it only against the Church
of England that the noble earl supported the declara-
tions of the Legislative Assemblies—was it only the
Canadas that were to be supported in the wishes that
they expressed, and was a colony to protest against a
set of convicts being forced upon them, and were they
not to be listened to or receive any attention from their
lordships ? The noble earl ought to be consistent, and
to give due weight to the voice of those assemblies
which he had helped to constitute in these colonies.
The noble earl had throughout treated the whole of
this subject as if Government had taken a decision to
abolish transportation. Now, they had not only done
no such thing, but they were anxious to preserve
transportation. Undoubtedly the field in which it could
be exercised was diminished ; and, as he had already
said, whether inadvertently or not, that difficulty had
been mainly created by the noble earl himself. (Hear,
hear.) But there were settlements that still remained,
and he thought that by good management at home the
number of convicts transported might be so diminished
as possibly to find the means of accommodation in those
restricted territories to which he had alluded. Western
Australia was a colony to which they might continue to
be sent ; but he quite agreed with the noble earl that
the foundation of other penal settlements would not
answer the purpose for which transportation was now
intended and ought to be supported. A noble and
learned lord said the other night they might be sent to
Falkland and Greenland. He did not know what sort
of discipline they could be subject to there. That
showed how little people really felt what was the inten-
tion of transportation, because it was not such a system
as could be found in the Falkland Islands that they
wantedto egablish. That might be a very good prison,
but N;that wan required was the absorption of the con-
vict into the population of the country to which he was
sent. Hoeiever, he was not one of those who thought
it impossible that some use might be made of Falkland
Island for this purpose. At all events, it was a subject
that deservedlnquiry. It was their opinion that tran-
sportation, 89 t4r as it could possibly be exercised, was
a most valuable means, of secondary punishment, but
whether it were valuable or not, and however anxious
they might be to exercise it, and to carry it into effect,
as extensively as the means they possessed would allow,
still he did think tke time had come when it would be

absolutely necessary to make large provision in this
country for the treatment of our criminals, whether
sentenced to transportation or not. For it was certain
that however much they might wish to employ transpor-
tation, the exercise of it must necessarily diminish ; and
therefore they must endeavour to find some other mode
of treating a vast proportion of those persons who were
tenced to be thus punished. He thought they had
had great success in this attempt ; that the institutions
that had been established, the reformatory systems that
had been introduced, joined with the labour on public
works, had•been attended with the very best effects, and
were said to have been greatly successful. He believed
it was prof. at some change would have to be made
in the very Mate mode of sentencing to transpor-
tation ivhic .a...4ken place for many years. Many
hundreds had been sentenced to transportation for seven
years, and what did thkt mean ? It meant two or three
years in the hulks, r and then, having undergone no
discipline but the whip, to be turned out on the country.
That had gone on year after year without the great
alarm which some noble lords professed now at the pos-
sibility of some criminals being discharged into the coun-
try after a system of discipline from which there was
every reason to hope a moral reformation had taken
place. But the great majority of those who were sen-
tenced to seven years' transportion were not persons who
were guilty of any great amount of moral turpitude.
No doubt there were varieties, and no doubt that was
one of the causes of the inequalities of transportation.
Upon the sensitive temperament of many persons, it
was worse than death ; to the careless and reckless it
was no punishment at all. (Hear.) Many of their lord-
ships would recollect the case of a member 'of the family
of a noble lord, a member of that house, who was so
determined to go to Botany that he declared if his family
did not send him there he would take good care he was
sent there. There was no doubt that transportation
fell most unequally on the persons who were sentenced
to it. The noble earl, though he spol-e:of the necessity
of continuing transportation to Van Diemen's Lard,
had very much confined his observations to the treat-
ment at home, and he had described, and justly, the
effect produced by the discipline in those establishments
to which he had referred. Nothing could be more true
and just, and the necessity of extending that system
became niore apparent every day. And without giving
up transportation ? Quite the reverse ; retaining it espe-
cially for those cases which were of a serious descrip-
tion. He thought that for minor offences the system of
reformatory imprisonment and labour on public works
might be established for a great portion of those persons
who were now sentenced to transportation. The noble
earl had talked to alarm them by referring to the ex-
ample of France ; he said, indeed, that the persons dis-
charged there were the terror of the country. No doubt
they were, but why ? Because they had not undergone
that discipline and reformation which they were endeav-
ouring to give to criminals in this country. It was too
soon yet to speak with certainty on the subject, but he
thought that the experience of the few years which had
passed since the institution of the establishments at
Portland and Dartmoor augured favourably for their
success. The noble lord had made light of the
notion that transportation was no longer the same
terror that it was formerly, and he said it was
desirable that this feeling should operate in the
minds of persons so sentenced. He (Lord Aberdeen)
thought that these reckless minds were not incapable
of being moved by vague notions of this descrip-
tion ; but whether that was so or not, one thing
was certain, that in consequence of the extension of vo-
luntary emigration, the prospect of crossing the sea had
no longer any terror in it. He thought it would be a
great misfortune if criminals convicted of the most seri-
ous offences where not sent out of the country. Where
the sentence was for a longer period, say 15 or 20 years,
then, of course, it would be desirable to carry the sen-
tences into effect. The noble earl had said they would
turn out from these establishments the worst persons in
the country. Why, they should not only turn out the
worst, but they should turn out the best, and if this
system were good for anything, it was precisely that
discrimination might be exercised, and that they should
let out those persons who had shown, by their conduct,
that they were deserving.
Lord CAMPBELL.—Then you would have perpetual
imprisonment in England ?

The Earl of ABERDEEN said no, in serious cases he
thought transportation ought to be observed, but in tri-
ing cases it was a farce to sehtence them to transporta-
tion. A large portion of these persons would be re-
formed ; the experience they had had of the establish-
ment, although but short fully justified that expectation.
The Earl of CHICESTER then rose to move the
amendment of which he had given notice, "That whilst
in the opinion of this house it is expedient to retain the
punishment of transportation for some of the graver of-
fences against the law, it has become necessary to re-
strict such transportation to a few only of the colonies,
and to places which, from their limited extent or popu-
lation, are at present incapable, without prejudice to
their own social condition, of affording employment to
any considerable number of discharged convicts. That
it has therefore become the duty of Parliament to adopt
immediate measures for providing ;increased means of
secondary punishment in this country. That such se-
condary punishment ought to be, both in kind and dura-
tion, sufficiently penal to exercise as deterring an in-
fluence as the punishment of transportation, and at the
same time of so reformatory a character as to afford a
reasonable hope that the convicts who undergo it will,
on their discharge, become useful members of society,
and qualified to obtain employment either in this country
or in the colonies." He said it was with considerable
pain he was obliged to oppose the noble earl who had
moved the address, as he had always regarded with great
admiration the manner in which the noble earl had dis-
charged the office of chief secretary for the colonies, and
because he must admit that, in conjunction with his
right hon. friend Sir George Grey, more was done during
his administration for the improvement of secondary
punishments in this country than had been done by any
previous administration. He objected to the motion,
because it implied a continuance of transportation to a
greater extent than he believed to be desirable, or, in
the present circumstances of the colony, to be either
politic or just. He concurred in much that was said by
the noble earl, and he also agreed with the noble earl
who had just sat down, that, for the graver offences,
transportation ought to be continued. He agreed also
in what had been said with regard to the necessity of
the interference of Parliament in this question ' • he be-
lieved it to be quite necessary that there should be some
alteration in the law, because transportation could not
be carried out to the extent that the law allowed, and
that was another reason why he could not concur in the
motion of his noble friend. He believed that a variety of
successful experiments proved that they had discovered
a satisfactory system of secondary punishments equally
applicable to convicts who were to be sent to the colo-
nies, or who were to be discharged in this country.
The Earl of DERBY said the noble earl bad entered
into a detail of the course Parliament had pursued for
some years with regard to secondary punishment, and
no one was better qualified to speak on the subject of
transportation and secondary punishment than the noble
earl. He must say, however, that in the greater part
of his speech he had given the go-by to the question, as
his amendment did to the resolution of the noble earl on
the cross benches. He did not see why any one sup-
porting the resolution might not also vote for the
amendment ; but he was anxious to state why he should
support the resolution, without giving any opinion for
or against the merits of the amendment. The noble earl
at the head of the Government bad stated that up to

the pfeatilt teentent this question of transportation had
always been considered apart from party or political
views. He thought the noble earl could hardly have
meant to except the present discussion, for when he
looked to the state of the house he would not see that
there was any combination between the noble earl
(Grey) and his (the opposition) side of the house. Much
as he respected the great ability of the noble earl on the
cross benches, they had had differences of opinion on
many subjects, and their present views were so much at
variance that he did not think his agreeing with the
noble earl upon the present question would be any evi-
dence of party feeling or agreement, excepting that the
noble earl had intimated that the course which was
about to have been adopted by the Government with
which he (Earl Derby) was connected was a more pru-
dent one than that which had been taken by the present
Government. The noble earl at the head of the Govern-
ment had stated that it was by no means their intention to
discontinue the present system of transportation, and
that had relieved his mind, because certainly the lan-
guage of the noble duke at the head of the colonial de-
partment had had a somewhat different tendency. (Hear,
hear.) The noble duke said that not only was transpor-
tation to Van Diemen's Land to be put a stop to, but
that it was impossible not to see that the portion of our
colonies that would consent to receive convicts was few
in number and limited in extent, and that there was only
one colony in Western Australia which was willing to
take convicts, and that would only be available for a
short time. The impression produced on his mind was
that the Government bad come to the conclusion that
transportation must soon cease to become a portion of
our criminal system. (Hear, hear.) He was therefore
glad to hear that the Government were not about to dis-
continue transportation : and he bad also heard with
satisfaction that whilst they would limit it within nar-
rower bounds, the noble earl was of opinion that changes
in the law were called for by which transportation should
be confined, formally as well an really, to a more limited
number of offences ; and that when persons were sen-
tenced to transportation it should he carried out. It
was desirable that criminals should be well aware of the
penalty awaiting their offences, and that the sentence
to be pronounced should not be a mere brutem fano?.
He believed that there were many offences to which the
punishment of transportation was now applied for which
it would not be convenient to continue it. The noble
earl who had just sat down went farther in disparaging
the advantages derived from the system of transportation
in comparison with other modem of secondary punish-
ment, for he seemed to think that transportation was
for those who were utterly irreclamable, and that the
reformatory influence was only to be applied through a
different system. He, however, was of opinion that
there was more chance of amendment from transporta-
tion than from a reformatory system in this country,
followed up, as it must be, by a recurrence to former
habits and associates. And so far from wishing to re-
strict transportation solely to those with regard to whom
but little hope was to be entertained, still less with re-
gard to the most aggravated cases, he thought there was
a class of persons who, after a reformatory system in
this country, might obtain signal benefit from transpor-
tation to the colonies, and who, might be an advantage
to the community to whom they were sent. (Hear,
hear.) Transportation, therefore, he thought, might be
available as a valuable sequence to a reformatory pro-
cess. He thought, however, that the time had arrived
when we must look to the abolition of transportation to
Van Diemen's Land. The feeling which existed in
that colony against receiving convicts might be partly
produced by the encouragement given in this country
to the notion that a colony which received convicts
was t'a degraded colony. He thought that to be a
mistake—(hear)—but the idea was so strongly impressed
on the people of Van Diemen's Land, that he did not
say we had not the right or the power to send convicts
there, but he thought it would not be good policy to con-
tinue to do so. (Hear.) They had given Van Diemen's
Land an indepenient government of its own, and from
that time they must take the legislative body to be the
representatives of the people, and the organ for expound-
ing the feelings and wishes of the colonists. (Hear.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that the noble earl
(the Earl of Derby) had expressed his intention of voting
with the noble earl (Earl Grey) who had brought forward
this motion, principally because of the approbation which
he had expressed in reference to the course which the
late Government intended to pursue. At the same time,
the noble earl (the Earl of Derby) abstained from
making any statement as to what those intentions were.
He (the Duke of Newcastle) could assure the noble earl
that however the noble lord who made the motion might
approve of that course, he was only able to judge of it
from what was contained in the speech from the throne,
and in a dispatch of the right hon. gentleman (Sir J.
Pakington) who preceded him in office. The noble earl
(Earl Grey) had, in his speech, charged the Government
with having violated the spirit if not the letter of vari-
ous act of Parliament. Now he (the Duke of Newcastle)
utterly denied that the Government had done this. It
had acted upon the power which the Crown had invari-
ably exercised, upon the advice of ministers, to decide
to which colonies transportation should proceed, and
where and in what degree it should be stopped. There
was no act of Parliament stating to what colonies trans-
portation should take place. The matter had always
been regulated by orders in council, and the noble earl
must know that on more than one occasion an order in
council had been made, repealed, restored, and repealed
again merely upon the advice of Ministers. Again,
what had been the practice of late years with regard to
transportation Latterly, until within a short time,
prisoners transported for seven years had never been
transported at all, but merely sent to the hulks. More
than that, Ministers had not only taken upon them-
selves never to carry the sentence of transportation into
effect, but, even since the late alterations, prisoners sen-
tenced to seven years' transportation were detained for
two years and a half in solitary confinement and upon
public works before being sent out of the country.
What was the effect of these alterations by the Govern-
ment of which the noble earl was a member ? Under
it a man sentenced to transportation for seven years was
virtually transported for life. The noble earl (Earl
Grey) looked amazed at this, but it was the case, for
under these regulations a man was transported and left
without the means of returning. The early part of the
speech of the noble earl (Earl Grey) was devoted to the
praise of transportation in the abstract, but at the close
of his observations he adverted to a speech made by him
upon a former occasion, and expressed an opinion,
which it was only due to the colonists of Van Diemen's
Land that he (the Duke of Newcastle) should advert to
in that house. The noble earl went so far as to speak
of this anti- convict movement as a sham. He (the
Duke of Newcastle) held in his hand a list of petitions
from Van Diemen's Land, which either had been, or
were about to be presented to the other house, praying
that the system of transportation might be altered. The
petitions were not got up by professed agitators, but
were the sincere views and opinions of the people. There
were 42 of them, and among them 19 were from congre-
gations of the Established Church, 8 from Presbyterian
congregations, 7 from the Baptists, 1 from the free
church, 1 from the Dissenters, 1 from the Roman
Catholics, and 1 from the Jews. This did not look as
though the matter were a sham. Even upon pecuniary
ground; the petitioners were dissatisfied with the pre-
sent state of things. But were not the colonists the
best judges of their own intests ! When the noble lord
at the head of the Government stated that the noble earl
(Earl Grey) was the last man who should oppose the
wishes of the colonies, the noble earl had made a gesture
of dissent ; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) could
quote from the interesting book which the noble earl
had lately published two pages in which he laid down
the constitutional maxim, that the colonies were the
best judges of their own internal affairs. Whilst upon
the subjeet he might refer to a dispatch of the noble
earl opposite (Earl of Derby)s written in the year 1842,
upon the subject of the grant of a constitution to Van
Diemen's Land. In that dispatch the noble earl stated
that to grant a representative system would be to put an
end to the maintenance of our present system of trans-
portation to the colony. He (the Duke of Newcastle)
believed that to be a statesmanlike view of the case, and
fully concurred in thinking that a representative system
and a system of transportation were incompatible. As
to the real practical effect of the gold diggings upon the
transport, the return for the first nine months of the
year 1852 showed that no less than 1,413 ticket-of-leave
men had absconded from their employments during that
period to go to the gold fields ; of these only 733 were
apprehended and brought back. In a dispatch, dated
about the month of February last, he had explained the
views of the home Government to the Governor of Van
Diemen's Land, and informed him of the intention of
her Majesty's Government to put a stop to the then
system of transportation. He (the Duke of Newcastle)
had seen nothing to induce him to change his opinion
since the writing of that dispatch ; on the contrary, he
was sure that to ease the colony from its then excited
state was a thing of primary importance. With respect
to the committee presided over by the noble and learned
lord near him (Lord Brougham), he could not find in
the report of that committee that absolute approval of
transportation to which the noble earl (Earl Grey) had
referred. The committee seemed rather to have come
to the conclusion that in certain cases the punishment
of actual banishment might be very efficacious. And
on looking to the evidence the same idea was borne out.
Thus, the Hon. Mr. Law, the late Recorder of London,
confined his testimony to those persons who had been
guilty of obtaining money under false pretences.
Devonport Hill, the Recorder of Birmingham,
and the
Rev. J. Clay, the chaplain of Preston Gaol,
other witnesses before the committee, stated that
transportation was much dreaded by the old women
and men, but not by the young. The chaplains of
Reading and Bath Gaols expressed tb r opinion that
transportation was not generally dreadedei by crimi-
nals. These officers were much better judges of the
effect of transportation than even 1118 noble friend the
Lord Chief Justice. It was in fact mainly applicable to
that class of criminals who wore designated in the evi-
dence by the rather strange and anomalous title of " re-
spectable criminals. (Laughter.) Six years had passed
since this inquiry was made, and great changes had
taken place. Whatever might have beentheterrborsy thof
transportation, they were now greatly mitigated
altered circumstances of the times. When thee
com-
mittee sat, emigration was looked upon with a
kindof dread by the inhabitants of country parishes ; and those
who did emigrate never thought of
going further than
Canada. In those parishes where the population was
most redundant, it had required all the exertions and
all the persuasion of th
eta dlords and the clergy to it •
duce the labourers to migrate. ow, the great diffi-
culty was in retaining the population ; and so far from
emigration being a terror, labouring population
looked upon it as an advanta..el,ehand it was one to which
they aspired. The committee' ad come to the conclu-
sion that imprisonment in thise country was not sufficient
as a secondary punishment ; but since their report was
made, prison discipline had been
would be still more so. There)legrtrearetly improvdeedd,
that
new methods should be found
of dealingeeremwietnh juvenile
offenders, also that the education of the poorer classes

should be improved. Both those objects had been at•
tended to ; and he hoped the efforts that had been made
would go on increasing. The noble earl (Grey) had
stated, on a former occasion, that 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000
would be let loose on this country before the end of the
present year. But supposing the transportation to the
Australian colonies abandoned altogether, the whole
number would not amount to more than 2,000 for the
year.

Earl GREY—Do you incluck those sent to the Aus-
tralian colonies from Gibraltar and Bermuda, or only
those seat from Great Britain and Ireland I
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said his statement only
included those sent from Great Britain. and Ireland. The
average number sent out for the last five years to Australia
from Great Britain and Ireland was 1,945 ; if those sent
from Bermuda and Gibraltar were included, the average
was only 100 from each place. The annual number of
vacancies was 400 in Bermuda, and 200 in Gibraltar.
Assuming that Western Australia would continue to
take about 1,000 convicts, annually, that the number
sentenced to transportation would be reduced by the
substitution of imprisonment for certain offences, and
that about one-half of those now transported would be
released within this country in consequence of the
change of the law, what would be the proportion to that

of the; criminal class now percolating amongst us under
the present, system ? Au abstract of au official return
made by that independent and valuable public servarA
Major Jebb, showed that the total number of persons
tried in 1851 was 27,949, of whom 2,981 was sentenced
to transportation, leaving, 25,058 who were otherwise
disposed of. Of the number sentenced to transportation
at least one-third were never sent out of the country ;
so that not more than 2,000 were sent abroad in 1851,
all the remainder receiving punishment in this country,
and being released at the expiration of their sentences.
Another return showed that of 2,818 prisontrs tried,
174 were sentenced to transportation, of whom only
120 were actually transported. , There could be very
little danger from this small increase to the number of
criminals relieved in this country. At this moment the pro-
portion of convicts to the population in Van Diemen's Land
was about one in three. In this country, supposing the
numbers released to be augmented by a portion of those
formerly transported, and making the greatest allowance
for this number, still the proportionwould only be about
one in 30,000 of the population. Rear, hear.) Though
we had derived the greatest possible advantage from the
system of transportation, especially of late years, we
were arriving at a period when, by great alterations in
our system of prison discipline, and by the prevalence of
more enlightened views, we were likely to be in a posi-
tion before long to dispense with safety with. the punish-
ment of transportation. It was most important to give
the convicts useful and remunerative employment; and
it was desirable that out of their earnings a certain
amount should be laid by to provide for them when they
came out of prison, and to enable them to get into some
honest way of living, instead of being sent out houseless
and destitute, and with no alternative but to turn to
their former course of life. They might be employed, as
was recommended by Major Jebb, in harbours of refuge,
dockyards, and other public works. At present about
1,000 convicts were employed in Chatham dockyard,
beneficially as regarded themselves, and advantageously
as regarded the public. If they persevered in that
course, he hoped they should soon be in a condition to
discuss calmly and deliberately whether the system of
transportation might not with advantage be wholly
abandoned. The altered circumstances of the times de-
manded a change in the system. The adoption of forced
labour for convicts had been felt to be a hardship by
labourers generally, there being then a redundancy of
labour. This was no longer the case, for able-bodied
men, in every part of the country, readily found employ-
ment. (Hear, hear.) It should be remembered that
other countries had no system of transportation ; neither
the United States nor France pursued such a system ;
and though the travaux forces had failed in Franee, it was
no argument why a similar system should not succeed
here. He had that morning perused an account of an
improved system of prison discipline adopted at Munich,
the effects of which were such as might make even Major
Jebb himself envious. The Government had done nothing
in this matter at variance with either the spirit or the
letter of any act of Parliament. He had shown the ne-
cessity of giving up the system of transportation to Van
Diemen's Land, and had shown the means of doing
this, by improving our system of secondary punish-
ments at home. The transportation to Western Austra-
lia would be continued ; and he fully anticipated from it
benefit, both to the colony and the mother country.
(Hear, hear.) In taking this step the Government had
not been influenced by any agitation in the, colonies, but
had only listened to those claims which he thought to be
just. The noble earl (Grey) had pointed out the distinc-
tion between a wise statesman and a shallow politician.
He would remind the noble earl that it was also the duty
of statesmen, of those who undertook the responsible
duties of ministers of this great country,. to watch the
progress of events—to concede where concession was
necessary, and to concede in time ; not to wait until de-
mands became too clamorous to be resisted, but to con-
cede before it was too late. Such a concession ought to
be made with a good grace, when it might be accepted
as a boon, and might engender,feelings of harmony and
concord between the mother country and the colonies,
instead of being delayed till too late, when it would be
regarded only in the colonies as a sign of weakness, and
would expose ministers to the very charge which the
noble earl deprecated. (Hear, hear.) The Government
hoped to be able to carry out such measures as would
meet the wishes of the colonists, and would 'promote the
interests of this great country, without doing altything
to destroy that security for life and property here which
it was most essential to maintain. (Hear, hear.)

Lord CAMPBELL asked whether the mover of the
' amendment meant it to be added to the i csolution, or to
be a substitute for it. If the former, it quite concurred
with the motion ; they were perfectly harmonious.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had put it as an
amendment ; to leave out all the words 'of the original
resolution after the word "that."

The Earl of CHICHESTER stated that he had so
proposed it.

.Lord CAMPBELL said in that case, he should advise
their lordships to adopt the address and reject the amend-
ment. (Hear, hear.) As a judge of the land, and having
a scat in their lordships' house, he thought it his duty to
take that course.

After some further discussion their lordships divided,
when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it..

37
54

Majority l7
The amendment was then agreed to.
Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter to ore
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.
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 tonal
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 the majority of instances,
no doubt, these institutions were places of peaceful and
comfortable retreat for persons who wished to lead A, se-
cluded life, but the public mind believed that 'ninny
of these convents were full of those who were dis-
contented. Most of these convents were built like
prisons with bolts and bars, and porters at the doors
watching all day and night. All these architecturalfeatures resembled those of an ordinary prison.ink Tusiony,
had high walls, and other guards
against
But
besides cells andopp
sopposed to dungeons,
such
establishments.
edirected the public
_against
mind
Was
strongly
Monastic
his bill was not intended to
b
Roman Catholic cAonngvio Catholicen-ts.
It would embrace alike
A gapentonies andnunneries.
vows were not recognised by the constitutional law of
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
rex-
hortingifthere
was not
a class
already
eifnd keepiiisuenenneterinetsedtonnnsin h
tthiesireovuonAt'
who sighed for liberty, how came it thatthe Roman Catho-
eunincr
plieersc clergy yw
iwwe rwe
econtinually
to
oab admonishing
o
th or denouncing
vows. The
fact that such a class existed was a
strongrdn
argument
in favour of this bill, but there was another argument
which he must adduce in support of his motion.
(Hear, hear.) Almost
reoN-eidryd other country in
Europe but England provided a remedy for the
case which this bill contemplated. e
Pi-
stance, no novice could take the veil In P
withourutstshiea,cfoonrseinn; of the civil authorities ; while its 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, while the State reserved
to itself the right of visiting these monastic institutions,
and setting those persons at liberty who were anxious
to return to the world. The same practice prevailed
in -France • and though he did not wish to follow
the example of foreign countries, he thought these proofs
were conclusive against all these monastic institutions
being simply places of peaceful retreat. No doubt ho
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 estabsieidshainncr which
were in existence at the time the act was,i
I„rsto the Roman
Almanac,("corfor 1853, it appeared
were confined to females.
75 nunneries in England
t•hat Catholic
there Diivreercet Directory and
th n
aesnscCatholic Church, while of those
tholic Church he believed there
were not less than
too ttlhiee
a hundred, containing something like
batetlrnhgeindgt.R.A°nrngllo • a

3,000 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 wbo 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
Nottvic'i 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 ha.l 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 I.lstsurged against his motion that
it was as an invasion efV3lig,ious 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 Justine 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. Ehe 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 pieposed 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
uses 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, fouoaded, 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
impression, 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 ! 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 hon. 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, hear,)—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 the 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
but death to relieve them from their situation. (Hear,)

Mr. BOWYER said he understood the condition im-
posed 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
any 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
country. 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 wiabed 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, and alienation of their property effected, for the
benefit of the establishment or of the superior, a circum-
stance explaining how great were the pecuniary interests
concerned in the maintenance of these establishments. It
appeared to him that if these nunneries were such imma-
culate establishments as they purported to be, the sooner
they admitted inspection the better for their character, for
at present the most unfavourable ideas prevailed with re-
spect to them. This was the case not only here, but in the
United States, where not long since evil was the character
which a particular convent eui reri the public opinion,
that a body of 200 men, masked,broke open the doors by
night, and, after compelling the abbess 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
independent of the law, so much so in oneirrpeaere
rtadn t par-
quite
ticular, that although, no doubt, sudden deaths mustfo
time to time occur in them, those deaths were neverrra
brought within the cognizance of the coroner, it being
quite impracticable, as he had been assured by a coroner,
to collect any evidence within their walls upon any such
circumstance. As to the Roman Catholic members of that
house, they would not dare to support the bill, lest they
should incur the solemn and dreadful anathema denounced
by their church upon whoever, in the exercise of his pri-
vate judgment and his better feelings, should lend himself
to aid the withdrawal of a nun from her convent. In con-
-
elusion he would inerely say that, upon this subject, how
ever deluded they might be, Protestants thought though they

' 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, au d because they were determined to hay.• the Con-
stitution of England, extended to nuns and every one else.
Lord J. RUSSELL said,—l greatly regnt that this
question has been brought before the house. (Hear, hear.)
A bill on this same subject was introduced abut two years
ago, or more, I think, and the house, Navin; 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
orpus and the other acts which have been passed in order
to make that law effectual are totally inadequate, and that
in such cases we ought to have separate legislation for their
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 takers vows upon
them, and who live in communities in certain 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, one 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-
' feet 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. (Hear, hear.) I certainly agree with
the hon. gentleman that those arguments are hardly likely
to 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 tell 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; you may go to-morrow and
live in thsr.,. etropolis of England if you please ;" the pro-
bability I.4Mie 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 th4at 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 hrroe 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 case 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 to establish 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 bo 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
subject—if any remedy is required, let it be a remedy
that will apply 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. hen 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 upouhy 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
less for any purpose of public necessity. (Hear, hear.) You
have heard some, symptoms of those feelings in the declare-
ion made by two hon. members to-night, that if such in-
spection were authorised byParliament, those
.who belonged
to those institutions would immediately quit both this
country. and Ireland, and would establish themselves in other
coi
cuannt
nheeerievtoh.ev would not be liable to that inspection.
COiTO the sisters _ such event happenina—l cannot con-
ar relations of the Roman Catholic