The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-06 00:00:00

must oppose_ it, unless a'greats, change wael-imade-insitie
,machinery and details.
Mr. FAGAN objected to proceeding with the bill to-
day, a's it was a violation of an understanding that was
come to on the first reading, that the second reading
should not be taken until after the committee on con-
vents had been appointed, and had made their report.
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to rebut the state-
ments which had been made with regard to the case of
the Black Rock Convent, wherein it was alleged that
two ladies named M'Carty had been coerced into trans-
ferring their property to the convent to the great injury
of their own family, and concluded by declaring himself
to be decidedly opposed to the bill.
Lord PALMERSTON neither approved of the pre-
amble nor the enacting portion of the bill, because while
the one contained assertions that were not necessary for
the purposes of the bill, if, indeed, they had any founda-
tion in truth, the enacting clause did not go far enough
to accomplish the object of the bill. The enacting
portion of the bill proceeded upon the assumption
that nuns were morally coerced into leaving their
pioperties to convents. But .how was that to be
proved ? Such deeds were executed by these ladies under
the impression that their doing so was-essential to their
spiritual welfare, and the bill, if passed, would remain a
nullity, because:it would be impossible to prove coercion,
while it was clear that these ladies themselves always
thought and felt that they were acting with perfect.free
will. - •

Mr. WHITESIDE reminded the house that on a for-
mer occasion the objection of the noble lord was that it
did not go far enough. The noble lord remarked that
if ladies were coerced in convents, such institutions
should ue put down, which this bill did not go the length
of doing ; but now the noble lord had changed his tone,
and he was opposed to the principle as well as the details
of the bill. He denied that there was anything unfound-
ed in the preamble, or that the machinery was impracti-
cably or offensively inquisitive, and therefore he objected
to shelving his bill until they obtained the report
of a committee, which, it was now clear, would
never be appointed. Nothing had occurred to change
his opinion that ladies were coerced in convents for the
spoliation of their families, and the records of our courts
of law, which were occasionally resorted to for a restitu-
tion of the property, fully established the necessity for a
bill of this nature, which rested upon no new principle,
but was founded upon the rule of law which protected
the child against the parent, or the ward against the
guardian, or the wife against the husband, in cases
where the transfer of property was concerned.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND cor-
rected the hon. and learned gentleman in supposing
that the noble lord at the head of the Home Depart-
ment had stigmatised the preamble of the bill as
untrue. What the noble lord said was, that the pre-
amble contained statements that were offensive to the
Roman Catholics, but which were wholly unnecessary
for the purposes of the bill. The effect of this bill, he
agreed with the noble lord, would practically nullify all
deeds of gift or wills executed in convents ; for though
a lady might leave property fairly amongst her brothers
and sisters, they could not take it if the bill passed without
proving to the satisfaction of a court of law that no
coercion had been used in the convent upon the lady.
No where were they to prove that ? It could not be
done, and the bill would therefore operate most un-
justly without accomplishing the real object which it had
in view.

Mr. NAPIER gave it as his opinion that the hon.
and learned gentleman had put a case which could not
arise, because such a disposition of a nun's pro-
perty would be contrary to her vow of poverty
and obedience. But the case fully illustrated the
necessity for the bill, for many ladies in con-
vents who had the wish to do so were deterred by
the power of their superiors and the influence of their
vows from making such a disposition of their property,
and therefore, before any property should be allowed to
succeed to their convent, the superioress, or other party
interested, should be required to prove that they
had used no undue authority in order to obtain the
property. The only objection that he had to this bill
was simply that it did not go far enough, and entirely
prohibited vows.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE also thought the bill did not
go far enough, and declared that the question it involved
would never be settled until the law was revised, which
held the inmate of a convent acting under vows of obe-
dience and poverty to be civilly dead.
Mr. MALINS took the noble lord the Secretary of
State for the Home Department to task for having
changed his opinion on this subject, and declared his
belief that the noble lord had made the change to con-
ciliate the Roman Catholic members who supported the
Government in times of pressure. The noble lord
said the bill did not go far enough, but if
the bill was so altered as to dispossess professed nuns, the
noble lord would turn round and say it went too far.
There was no having the noble lord anywhere, and he
regretted to find him so changeable and inconsistent.
The debate was adjourned until next Wednesday.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned shortly before six o'clock.