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

delicacy. (Hear.) Here is a case for inquiry—let not
these daughters of Catholics be subject to grievances
which it is unfit should be endured by any subjects of a
free state. (Hear.) But, on the other hand, to go into
an inquiry to find out (as the hon. member proposed)
what is the number of convents, he himself having
stated to us the exact number—(hear)—and to know in
what relation they stand to the law, he having informed
us that they stand in no relation to the law at all--
(hear)—does seem to me a very useless sort of inquiry.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, with respect to the case itself, I can
only say that which I said last year, that I cannot be-
lieve that Catholic gentlemen in England, Ireland, or
Scotland would allow their daughters to be ill-used in
these convents and not appeal to Parliament for an alte-
ration of the law. How is it that nonefbut Protestants
appear to care about the liberty and security of Catho-
lic ladies, and that their Catholic relatives should be
indifferent to it l (Hear.) It was an insult to Catholic
parents to suppose that they could be insensible to such
grievances and acquiesce in their going on. The hon.
member for Tavistock said that Catholics should submit
to the inquiry in order to do away with suspicion. But,
sir, to say that it is sufficient that persons should spread
suspicions through a country without any facts to sup-
port them, and then have a right to call upon the. parties
against whom they have excited those suspicions, to
submit to inquiry in order to get rid of the suspicions,
this really does seem too much. Sir, the very appoint-
ment of a committee would be an admission that a prznies
facie case is made out ; and Catholics cannot be expected
to admit this when nothing has been stated after the
circulation for two or three years of the most worthless
gossip. (Hear.) Sir, I cannot but think the house
ought not in common fairness to entertain this applica-
tion. The learned gentleman who brought the question
forward stated only two facts to support it : one was as
to Miss Knight's case. Sir, I read the account of that
case, and although the conduct of the superioress seems
to have been injudicious, and the result of the case was
painful, the lady herself did not desire to leave the con-
vent, and all the objection came from her. If, in staying
in conventual establishments, ladies are induced, not by
physical, but by conscientious bonds, then, it would be
idle to break open the doors of those institutions, and
say to them, " Nowiyou are at liberty—you may act in
contradiction to your vows ifyou please." These convents
are connected with the practice and spread of the Roman
Catholic religion, and if these inmates are told that
they may leave them at their pleasure, they will not use
the power or the liberty which it is your object to con-
fer. If you say to these nuns that inquiry must from
time to time be made into the mode in which their es-
tablishments are conducted ; and, still further, if you
tell them that those establishments can no longer be
suffered to exist—the result will be that you will compel
ladies who wish to devote themselves to a conventual
life, to go to Belgium, or to some other Catholic country
in order to crrry their wishes into effect, and to exercise
those duties of charity which make these ladies the
greatest ornaments of the religion they profess. (Hear.)
Well, if such be the state of the case—if there be nothing
to be required with respect to the question of their per-
sonal liberty--what good reason can be adduced for the
motion which the hon. and learned member has brought
forward this evening ? The hon. and learned gentleman
spoke of education in this country in connection with
conventual establishments, and, if I have understood
him rightly, he proposes that that system of education
should be suppressed altogether. Now to such a propo-
sal lam not prepared to give my concurrence. (Hear.)
I see no reason whatever why that system of educa-
tion should be put an end to. I believe that in many
instances it is productive of a great deal of good, and that
the virtue of charity is exercised in a high degree in
carrying it out. Under these circumstances I can by
no means consent to the enactment of any measure
which may have the effect of obviating the
beneficial results of which it is likely to be productive.
There is a third reason put forward to induce the house
to agree to this motion, and which refers to the property
held by persons who become nuns, and by whom that
property is transferred to the religious institutions of
which they become members. Well, that is a question
which, in my opinion, may very fairly become the sub-
ject of inquiry upon the part of this house, because on
that question I can perceive how the interests of the State
and of society may be in some degree involved. If these
convents are numerous, and go on increasing from year
to year, I can well understand that a large amount of
property may become sunk in rnortmain ; and that to
prevent a state of things so little to be desired, an altera-
tion in the present laws with respect to the disposal of
such property might be very fairly introduced. There
are measures affecting Roman Catholic property, by
which, according to our law relating to superstitious uses,
that which is a fair and legitimate use of Roman Catholic
property—the purposes of Roman Catholic worship—is
forbidden in a manner which I do not think is consistent
with that religious liberty which members of the Roman
Catholic persuasion ought to enjoy. In consenting,
therefore, to any alteration in the existing law in con-
nection with those matters, I should like to see that
part of the subject entered upon and treated in a fair
and candid spirit. Now, let me ask the house to con-
sider what, if it should comply with the present motion,
it is called upon to do. Those who support that motion
say they do not wish to press their views in such
a manner as that any superioress, or other lady who
may be the inmate of a convent, could take offence at
the mode in which they would be carried into effect.
"We wish," they say, " merely to have an inquiry, in
order that the truth with regard to conventual establish-
ments generally may be ascertained." But while that
is the feeling with which members of this house profess
themselves to be actuated, sentiments of a nature very
different prevail out of doors with reference to the sub-
ject of the present motion. (Hear, hear.) The public
will not be satisfied unless there is a full and complete
inquiry instituted into the mode of life of all the reli-
gious communities in every convent throughout the land;
and very probably nothing less than the total abolition
of those establishments would be in complete accordance
with their feelings. Let not the house imagine that
they can comply with those feelings by instituting an
inquiry which is not calculated to answer public ex-
pectation. But if the Roman Catholics have not been
well used in this particular, let us not give way to the
popular impression that the inmates of convents are
subjected to imprisonment. Let us look at Bavaria, and
Bee how the nuns are treated in that country. In
Bavaria they give protection to the Roman Catholic re-
ligion ; they give protection to all its institutions ; large
revenues are divided amongst its clergy by the State,
and it is, in short, there an established and recognised
faith. In this country our favour, our revenues, and our
protection are given altogether to the Established Church
of this realm, in England and in Ireland, and to the
Church of Scotland. In the case of the Roman Catholic
we allow civil equality; the exercise of their religion ;
but in the way of protecting their institutions, or grant-
ing them revenues for the support of their Church, we
do nothing whatsoever. That state of things may con-
tinue, and I for one do not desire that, with respect to
it, any alteration should be introduced. But you cannot
say, "We shall give to Protestantism all the favour
which we can afford to it, while to Roman Catholicism
we shall extend nothing but the penalties to which in
countries where it is the prevailing religion its members
may be exposed." You must either, in my opinion, be
satisfied with the present state of things, or else you
must introduce changes of a nature far more extensive
than those which you now propose. For these reasons
I for one shall give a hearty and decided .negative to the
motion of the hon. and learned gentleman the member
for Hertford. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE observed, that the question con-
tained in its terms matter of fact and matter of opinion.
Monastic institutions and convents stood upon a different
footing in the eye of the law : the former were prohi-
bited, the latter were not forbidden. With respect to
monastic institutions, in 1829 provisions were made for
their gradual suppression and final extinction, that being
the object of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. The reason
given by the authors of the measure was, that precau-
tions should be taken against the entrance into this
country of orders owing allegiance to a Power ahroad,
and he doubted whether Parliament should not inquire
whether these institutions had not been abused.
If it be true, as he believed it to be, that these
institutions were not necessary for the exercise of
the Roman Catholic religion, that the members of
these ordere delivered themselves up to the allegiance of
a foreign potentate, and that they made use of their
power to assail the Protestant institutions of this coun-
try, these facts furnished a ground for inquiry, with the
view, not of suppressing, but of controlling them.
With regard to conventual establishments, he thought
that, in reference to personal liberty, and to the disposi-
tion and transmission of property, nil inquiry was called
for, and that on the latter head there could hardly be
two opinions that some alteration of the law was neces-
sary. He therefore supported the motion, although he
could wish that some restriction should be put upon the
in order that it might not be prosecuted unduly
or improperly, so as to annoy theh. feelings' of any one.
defended
Mr. J. D
th.eFITZGERALD, reply to Mr. Walpole,
tended that monastic institutions in Ireland, and con-
ventual hadt been adduced in respect to con-
ventual este
mr.
cow LEGATE
e s as a basis for the motion.
.that the hon. and learned
member commenced by said,
to the patriotism. of
the house, and ended by threatening an Irish insurrec-
tion. Was this the vstace: to meet a propositionthe.object
of which was merely
conventual institutions m this country on the sameepfoaoctlniz on which they stood in
many continental nations? Doubtless, we should soon
be called upon to yield to every demand of. the. Papacy
under the coercion of a threatenedpertnis rebellion in Ireland.
Mr. PALK begged for
.onc.to say a few. words
on account of the deep interest
He beli7enviedhliis constituents
took in the question.
that the question
might be investigated
.without necessarily arousing ill-
will or embittered polemical controversy, and he
cer-
tainly felt that the question
churchinvestigated.
that a measure of this sort was so requisite as agai
the covert foes to Protestantism which had arisen in thet
bosom of our own church. Conventual establishments
were not limited to Roman Catholicism, for they were
to be found in the diocese of Exeter, that great focus of
Tractarianism, and among people who still retained the
name—well nigh all they did retain—of Protestants.
These covert foes, far more than the open enemies to our
church, required to be vigorously resisted in every direc-
tion and in every mode.
Lord E. HOWARD much regretted that the hon.
member for Hertford, who seemed filled with morbid
apprehension on this particular subject should in the
fervour of his antagonism have indulged in language
towards the Roman Catholc; which so far transgressed
the bounds of propriety. The hon. member had made
out a case as though the seventeen ladies, whom he
had introduced to the notice of the house as erro-
neous petitioners, were all nuns shut up in dire
convents, whereas several of them had been merely
educated in convents, and were now married and
settled out in the world.' (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member, too, had quite a misconception as to the
pumbara of females in e convents ; any one would sup-

pose from the hon. gentleman's language, that all the 75
convents were crowded with melancholy prisoners,
whereas he himself (LordE. Howard) happened to know
that in one of them there were but 3 inmates, in another
but 4, and in another but 7 ; and he believed the same
description would apply to a great many of the rest.
The fact was that, whenever two or three ladies united
together for the purpose of education or charity in a lo-
cality, the editor of the Catholic Almanac forthwith re-
cristered them as an additional convent. The fallacies
that seemed to be in vogue with reference to the doctrines
and discipline of the poor Roman Catholics were really
quite deplorable. To hear the hon. member for Hert-
ford, one would imagine that a Roman Catholic could
not eat a dinner or drink a glass of wine till he had the
priest's leave, whereas he could assure the lion. member
from constant personal experience, Roman Catholics ate
their dinner and drank their wine without seeking any
such permission. With regard to convents abroad, the
hon. member was totally in error. In France there was
no sort of inspection of the convents by any lay autho-
rity whatever, nor was there any civil interference with
these establishments in Prussia, nor in Austria either.
As to the whole convent of nuns, who, according to the
hon. member, had turned Protestants in Paris, the cir-
cumstance seemed to be known to no one in Paris itself.
Well, the committee asked for might be appointed. He
owned he did not wish to see it formed, not that there was
anything behind which could prove of any harm to the
Roman Catholic religion ; on the contrary, he thought that
good would come from it to that religion ; but he did not
think it right to place those persons, who be conceived
had done no harm and no ,wrong, in such a difficult
position. He could not envy those gentlemen who were
so eager to inflict such hardships. on persons who were
friendless. (Hear, hear.) It might be a proud thing to
bring up nuns to London, and assemble them together
in a room where they would be the object of observation
and remaik to ail those whose curiosity would be excited
by the novelty of the scene ; but he must say he would
much rather be one of those wronged ones who had de-
voted their days and nights in watching, it might be, at
the bedside of some patient dying of the typhus fever,
than be one of those gentlemen, with all their pride of
power, who had brought them into that condition,
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. T. CHAMBERS replied. He thought the ques-
tion had been well nigh exhausted, and that hardly any
question had been left between the opposing parties in
this matter. He placed his motion on the simple foot-
ing of the increasing number of these establishments,
and on the fact of their not being recognised by law.
The house then divided, the numbers were—
For the motion
Noes
Majority for the committee —67
The result of the division was received with loud
cheering.

SIMONY.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to amend the law relating to sisnony.
PARISH VESTRIES.
Mr. EVELYN moved for leave to bring in a bill de-
claring the power of parish vestries to carry into effect
objects for the common good. The hon. member was
proceeding to enter into the objects of the measure,
which, he said, was merely a declaratory one, but was
met by loud cries of " Brotherton," and " Move," upon
which he said that he would reserve his statement for a
future stage of the bill.
Mr. FITZROY had hoped the hon. gentlemen would
have explained a little more than he had done the ob-
jects proposed by the measure. (No, no ?") At all
events, then, the hon. member would, perhaps, be kind
enough to lay the bill upon the table as soon as possible,
so that the house might have time to consider it. Both
the title of the bill and the abstract were unintelligible
to him, and the house must not, therefore, be consi-
dered as pledged in any way if the present motion of
the hon. member were assented to.
Mr. HENLEY, as far as he understood the abstract
of the bill, though it appeared to give to parish vestries
unlimited power of taxation for any object they might
choose ; and he doubted whether it was a meaure which
ought to be allowed to be introduced at all.
Mr. EVELYN would read the title of the bill. It
was a measure " declaring the power of the parish ves-
tries to carry into effect objects for the common good."
(A laugh.)
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
HIGHWAYS (SOUTH WALES.)
Sir J. BAILEY obtained leave to introduce a bill for
extending the time limited for putting into execution
the act of the 14th and 15th years of the reign of her
present Majesty for the better management and control
of the highways in South Wales.
NEWSPAPER RETURNS.
Mr. CRAUFURD moved for a return of the number of
newspaper stamps at one penny issued to newspapers in
England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, for the years
1851, 1832, and 1853 • specifying each newspaper by name,
and the number of stamps issued in each of the above years
to each newspaper (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper,
No. 42, of Session 18:;2).
Mr. WILSON objected to the return on the ground of its
unfairness to newspaper proprietors. It had been refused
ever since 1839, and he hoped the house would support the
Government in refusing to publish the affairs of private
persons in a particular business.
Mr. CRAUFURD did not wish to affect injuriously pri-
vate interests ; but he thought public interests should be
considered before private ones.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
house.
On a division, the numbers were—
For the adjournment
Against
The discussion was therefore continued.
Mr. DISRAELI said—Sir, it seems to me very unwise to
oppose this motion. I cannot really understand on what
principle it is opposed. In the first place newspapers are
organs of public opinion, and I think the country has a
right to know, by ascertaining their circulation, how far
they influence public opinion. (Hear.) Their circulation
is a test by which the public can ascertain what is the best
medium at their command for advertising such informa-
tion as they may think it expedient to announce to the
world. Nor can I admit for a moment that there is any—
I will not say analogy—but any complete analogy be-
tween newspaper property with reference to its relations
to the stamp duties and other property subject to taxes.
It is a peculiar kind of property, the essence of which is
publicity, and I think we have a right to know all respect-
ing the newspapers that the Government can communicate
to us, so far as that communication can be made by making
an avowal of what knowledge comes to the Government
through the influence of the law. As a general rule we
have a right to know upon that ground as much as we
can of the condition of a newspaper. But there are special
reasons why I think the house ought to support the motion.
Information of this kind does exist to a certain extent and
in a certain degree. We know, for instance, the circulation
of the newspapers in 1850 ; and what is the consequence of
that accurate and authentic information being before the
house with regard to the circulation of the newspapers ?
Why, you have the comparative circulation of all the public
journals advertised, the test of which is the return of 1850.
Therefore you have some information given you ; but it is
imperfect information, and I cannot admit the validity of
the argument of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson)
that we have no right to appeal to the return of 1850, now
on our table, although it is accurate and authentic, because
it was first given to a committee of this house. The House
of Commons, by an order that that return should be laid
upon its table for the use of all its members, took the
question entirely out of the sphere of the select committee.
By that order it announced that it thought it expedient
and advisable that the information should be given, and I
entirely disapprove of the resolution which the house came
to last year, that these returns should not be continued.
In my opinion there is no sound argument against this pro-
position. There are many arguments that I think quite
sound which may be urged in its favostr. The essence
of a newspaper is publicity, and by knowing its circulation
we can know its means of influencing opinion, and the
more we know of how it exercises that influence the better
it is for society. (Hear.) I shall, therefore, sir, support
this motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l
have not much, sir, to complain of in the statement which
the right hon. gentleman has just made ; and as ho says
that he does not see any reason why the Government should
object to the production of this return, it is right that I
should state a reason, and that is, the principle of justice
and of the fair consideration of private interests. (Hear,
hear.) Ido not at all deny that it would be a matter of
some interest as information to know what is the exact cir-
culation as far as the returns of stamps go, although that
is not a very exact test, because a particular newspaper
that wishes at any time to make a large return can lay in
a large supply of stamps. Yet certainly, as far as the re-
turns of stamps go, it would no doubt be a matter of inte-
rest to know what is the return of each particular newspaper.
And it would be a matter of considerable interest, and
would excite one's curiosity in a particular manner, sup-
posing the information collected by the special commis-
sioners of income tax were laid before the house. (Oh, oh.)
Some hon. gentlemen may think it would not be a matter
of interest, but I maintain that it would be a matter of
peculiar interest to know what are the private affairs of
individuals, and those who do not think so are of course
at liberty to profess a different opinion. But the house
had this question recently under its consideration, and
it then determined that it would not call for this
information. The house is, however, now invited to
reverse that determination. The question is one be-
tween the great and the small traders. On the great
trader it would confer nothing but advantage that there
should be exhibited to the world, on a supposedParliamen-
tory authority, evidence of his success, and evidence of the
inferiority of his competitors. On the other hand, to the
small trader, no doubt, it would be a matter of considerable
inconvenience, and would tend greatly to his being further
distanced in the race in which he is already behind, if this
return were made. Now, that is pretty nearly the whole
case, and I think there is not much reason todoubt that this
is the whole question—that the publication of this infor-
mation would have an influence on the course of trade,and
that its influence would be favourable to those who are al-
ready successful, and unfavourable to those who are some-
what in the rear. Last year it was the fashion to find fault
with the Government because a measure which they adopt-
ed was supposed to be favourable to the greater newspapers
—1 moan the measure with reference to the diminution of
the stamp duty on supplements to newspapers. The Go-
vernment adopted that proposal because they thought it
was just, and not because it was favourable to a great
newspaper-abut they believed it would be of public
advantage whilst it was founded on justice, although it
might have an incidental effect of the character stated. On
the present occasion, I confess that I think, without pre-
tenling at all to go the length of saying that the house has
no right to ask for this information—for such a doctrine I
do not at all maintain—yet I think this is information
which the house will do better not to call for, and simply
because it inflicts a hardship and difficulty on private indi-
viduals without the excuse of necessity, in any sense, for
the public interest. (Hear.) Although I freely grant there
is n certain amount of interest in the sense of information
attaching to these returns, I cannot at all allow that any
public interest is involved in the matter in the proper
sense of the term ; and I must observe that the general rule
upon which you act is this—that when, through the inci-
dental operation of taxes laid upon the production of com-
modities, you have the means of ascertaining the relative
position of persons engaged in trade, you not only do not
produce, but you are most careful to suppress the evidence
and information you obtain through the operation of your
laws. If you choose to tax commodities, and the tax itself
is a matter which the producer of those commodities may
consider a hardship, you may contend that, inasmuch as
the money you levy for the support of the establishments .
of the country, the tax is necessary, and therefore you

35
66-31