The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-24 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Mr. FoLEY from Wor-
cistershire against the opening of public-houses on Sun-
days ; by Mr. W. 0. STANLEY from, the Attorneys and
Solicitors of Chester, praying that the originals of wills
may not be removed from that diocese ; by Mr. COWAN,
from the brewers of Scotland, complaining of the pro-
posal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to levy the
increased malt tax on stock in hand ; by Mr. A. PELLATT,
from Southwark and other places, praying for the aboli-
tion of church-rates ; by Mr. COLLIER, from the mayor
and town council of Plymouth, praying that the univer-
sities may be thrown open to all classes of her Majesty's
subjects ; by Mr. LUCAS, from a place in Ireland,
against any further legislation on the subject of corn
rents

PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL. 11A
On the question for resuming the adjourned debate SO.
on the second reading of this bill, St.
Mr. MA.LINS supported the bill, the object of which 20
was to prevent professed nuns from disposing of their 10,
property in favour of convents, without the deed or in.
St.
strument of disposal was executed in the same manner 50
as deeds are executed by married women in favour of 40
their husbands. No objection had been made to the 25
principle of the bill, but it was said the preamble con- U.
tained improper assertions, As the preamble, however, 812
was a matter of secondary importance, he was sure his St.
hon. and learned friend who had charge of the mea- St.
hon.
would consent to strike it out altogether, if
_25
th

,e house would only sanction the substance of the
bill. The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded
to argue that ladies who take religious vows renounce
the world and its temporal affairs, so that they had no
free will in the disposal of their property ; and it was
therefore only right that some protection of the sort
proposed by this bill should be thrown around them.
Sir J. YOUNG had hoped that the hon. and learned
member for Enniskillen would have been disposed to
follow the example of the hon. member for Bath, and,
withdrawing his bill, relieve the house from those po-
lemical discussions which had produced so much excite.
ment out of doors, and especially in Ireland. With
regard, however, to the bill itself, it was hardly likely
that it would be accepted by the Roman Catholics,
coming from the quarter it did. The evils or injustice of
the system which the bill dealt with, fell wholly upon
Roman Catholics, and if the bill had come from a mem-
ber professing that faith, there might have been some
reason for adopting it, but coming from a Protestant
member who was not remarkable for any predelictions
in favour of Catholicism, it was only natural that it
should be looked upon with doubt and distrust.
Besides, the Roman Catholics received it as cast-
ing a dishonourable suspicion upon an important
class of their body, and knowing that there was no
foundation for such a suspicion, they had unanimously
rejected it with scorn. A stronger animus actuated
the promoters of tho bill than a desire to assimulate the
law relating to nuns, with that affecting married women,
and hence the bill, supposing its provisions had been
sound, would have been distasteful to the Roman Catho-
lics. He denied that the Government opposed measures
like this for the sake of obtaining Roman Catholic sup-
port, they resisted them because they were opposed to
the tolerant spirit of the Reformation, and being ani-
mated by the same feeling, he was confident the house
would negative the second reading of this bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that this was a polemical
question, and said he viewed this subject from a directly
opposite point to that of a religious view. He protested
also against its being supposed that the supporters of
this bill were actuated by a persecuting spirit, or that
the provisions of the bill were at all opposed to the
principles of toleration established by the Reformation.
The policy of the Church of Rome was aggressive and
anti-tolerant, but that should never induce him to sup-
port any attack upon the religious liberty of his Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects. This bill, however, meditated
no such attack, it was altogether divested of anything
like a religious character, and proposed to deal only with
one of the temporal matters of the Roman Catholics.
The only ground upon which this question could be dis-
cussed, was simply this : was there, or was there
not, something in the constitution of these mo-
nastic and conventual establishments which vio-
lated the rights of the subject. ? He believed there
was as their rules and regulations interfered with
,the
great civil right of disposing of private property, and
that was the reason why he supported this bill, which
would only extend to Roman Catholics the same law
that already applied to Protestant. He denied that the
bill assumed that the disposal of property in favour of
convents was invariably made under undue influence ; 20
it assumed nothing of the sort, but it did assume that
17,
there were occasional cases of such a disposal being made 20
under duress, and it was to meet such cases 20
that it was now proposed to assimilate the 20
law in reference to the inmates of convents with that 20
which applied to married women. In the absence of a 20
bill of this nature there was only one alternative for the
25
house to adopt, and that was to revive the law which 100
held nuns to be civilly dead. 100
Mr. HADFIELD thought the acts of the right hon. 20
baronet presented a strange contrast to his professions. 20
He professed to entertain a high raspect for the Roman
Catholics, and yet he was ready to support a bill which ...
cast a most offensive insult upon that body. The Roman 20
Catholics made no demand upon the house in support 100
of their religion, and what right, then, had the house to 20
interfere with their religious establishments ? but, above 5
all, what right had the supporters of the bill to interfere 20
with them ? None whatever ; and he advised the house 10
to reject the bill, as in this enlightened age neither this 5
nor any other mortmain law was necessary for the sup- 5
port of civil rights. He felt humbled as a Member of 10
Parliament to find these religious differences being forced 20
upon the house. In the American Legislature polemical 20
discussions were never allowed to take up the time of 29
the senators, because there the religious sentiments of
10
all were respected, and the same rule ought to,prevail
2D
in the House of Commons. 20
Mr. COLLIER suggested an amendment to the
bill, and observed that if these amendments were 20
made, he could see no objection to the measure. 16
The purpose of this measure was but a corol-
lary to the Mortmain Bill, and having sanctioned 20
the second reading of that bill, he could not understand 10
why the house should reject this one. 20
Mr. J. FITZGERALD reminded the house that 4°
convents had existed both in this country and in Ireland 12-g
for many ages, 20
[LEFT SPEAKING.] 20

20
20
50
20

STATUE OF CHARLES I.—The statue of King Charles 20
I. at Charing-cross is to be restored and renovated, pre- 5
paratory to being placed under the surveillance consti- 20
tuted by the new act.
THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSIONERS.—Yesterday a 20
return was printed, showing that in the present session 20
a vote of 7,5501. is to be asked for the statute law com-
mission, on the experiment o f codification. 10
PRICE OF GOLD.—The quotation of gold at Paris is 20
about 5 per mille discount (according to the last tariff ), 10
which, at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. 10Id. per 20
oz. for standard gold, gives an exchange of 25.042 ; 20
and, the exchange at Paris on London at short being
24.971, it follows that gold is about 0.28 per cent. dearer
in Paris than in London. By advice' from Hamburg
the price of gold is 4212 per mark, which, at the Eng- 7
lish Mint price of 31. 17s. 10I.cl. per oz. for standard 25
gold, gives an exchange of 13.34 ; and, the exchange at 20
Hamburg on London at short. being 13.31, it follows 10
that gold is 3.30 per cent. dearer in Hamburg than in 10
London. The course of exchange at New York on 50
London for bills at 60 days' sight is 109/ per cent., and, 5
the par of exchange between England and America being 100
109 23.40 per cent., it follovvii that the exchange is
nominally 0.08 per cent. againtst England ; but, after `s'
making allowance for charges of transport and difference 4
of interest, the present rates leaves no profit on the 20
transmission of gold either way between the two coun- 25

tries.
REGISTRATION OF BILLS OF SALE BlLL.—This bill has
been reprinted as amended in committee. It is now pro-
vided that the bill is not to. apply to stock or produce
upon any farm or land, which by virtue of any agree-
ment or of the custom of the country ought not to be re-
moved from the farm at the time of giving the bill of
sale. Neither is it to apply to mortgages of ships, or
shares in ships,' or to sales of goods in the ordinary course
of business, or to transfers of bills of lading, or to mort-
gages of merchandise for advances made in the course of
any wholesale trade according to the known usage of
that trade. The bill is also not to apply to marriage
settlements, and it is still limited to bills of sale by per-
sons in trade, within the meaning of the bankrupt laws.
This limitation seems to be generally considered unwise,
and it is probable that to a great extent it will be inope-
rative, as it will be difficult to be sure that the owner of
the goods is not, by an interest in some undertaking or
other, a trader in the eye of the law, and, that filo bill of
sale ulaY safely be kept unregistered.

50
50
2
1.00
1
25