MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 03 March 1865 vol 177 cc1045-87

MR. NEWDEGATE

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Monastic or Conventual Establishments, or societies, in Great Britain. He said:* It will be in the recollection of the House that on the 8th of April last I ventured to make a Motion in the House for a Committee to inquire into the case of a Mr. Smee, detailed in a petition which I presented to the House, with reference to certain circumstances connected with the last illness, burial, and the disposal of the property of a Mr. Hutchison, a relation of his, who became a member of the Society of St. Philip Neri, or Society of Orato-rians, which has an establishment at Brotnpton, and also had a burial-ground at St. Mary's, Sydenham. It was alleged on that occasion that this case was to be adjudged by the tribunals of the country, and a circumstance occurred which tended to divert the attention of the House from the conclusion of the Motion which I then made, which going beyond the immediate case presented by the petition of Mr. Smee, proposed to inquire into the conventual and monastic institutions, which have increased so largely in this country. It happened that Mr. Smee, without consulting me, without my knowledge, and without my consent, although he had placed his case in my hands, addressed a letter to the Duchess of Norfolk, and printed and circulated that letter the day before without my knowledge or consent. Perhaps no Member of this House had more reason to complain of that proceeding than myself. I had no opportunity of replying on that occasion; but I now beg to assure the House that that letter was printed and circulated without my knowledge or consent. I allude to this circumstance because great use was made of that letter for the purpose of diverting the attention of the House from the more extended matter of my Motion; and upon a division, in consequence, I may say, to a great extent, of the circulation of that letter, the Motion was defeated. I am happy to say, however, that the House afterwards gave me reason to believe that the circumstances which I had adduced connected with the burials in the burial-ground at Sydenham—the inaccurate description of the dead, and the non-registration of the burials—were circumstances worthy of the attention of the Legislature, for I have this proof, that the hon. and learned Member for Guildford introduced a Bill for the registration of burials conducted in cemeteries other than those of the Church of England. That Bill passed both Houses of Parliament by unanimous consent, and is now the law of the land. The House will excuse me for adverting to this fact, because I wish to show them that when I venture to make a Motion in this House it is never done for the mere purpose of agitation, far less for purposes of party triumph, but with an honest intention of effecting an improvement in the law and performing my duty as an independent Member, by suggesting matters to the House which I respectfully deem worthy of their consideration. And this was the case on that occasion. During the debate to which I have referred allusion was necessarily made to this Society of Oratorians, and a petition was presented from the Rev. Mr. Harrison, of Bugbrook, in Northamptonshire, complaining that his son, a minor, when captain of the school at Westminster, had been seduced—I use the term advisedly—into that establishment contrary to his parental authority, had been kept there in defiance of his parents' will, and had been induced to enter that monastic order, for such I must term it, to the detriment of his prospects in life. I know not why, but the Committee on Public Petitions have not thought proper to print this petition in their Report. I must express my surprise, for a more important petition has seldom been presented to the House. It was presented by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, the representative of this injured gentleman, and it is with the consent of his family that I now ask permission of the House to read this petition. It runs thus— That on the 1st of March, 1861, your petitioner's son was captain of the Westminster School, and would in the course of a few weeks have obtained his election to a junior studentship at Christ's Church, Oxford. That up to Sunday, the 3rd of March, in the same year, your petitioner's son had never held the slightest communication whatever with any Roman Catholic priest; that at one o'clock on that day he was introduced to Father John Bowden, a priest of the Oratory, at Brompton, to be shown, as he supposed, over that establishment; that he was detained in the Oratory by various invitations and by other circumstances for the remainder of the day, and was finally baptized at nine o'clock the same night, with the knowledge and consent of the Superior of the said Oratory, and for the express purpose of debarring your petitioner from the exercise of his just rights and authority as a parent. That your petitioner's son was at that very time in an infirm state of health, and was actually under medical treatment; that after his confession in Father Bowden's room at a quarter before nine o'clock at night, he felt so prostrated as to be obliged to lie down on a sofa; and that he was unwell and suffering from headache at the time of his baptism, That in a letter addressed to his sister on the 8th of March your petitioner's son described his reception into the Church of Rome as a sin, and as having been obtained by fraudulent means. That your petitioner, on the removal of his son from Westminster, renewed the expression of his intention to educate him for the Indian civil service, which offer he seemed inclined to accept, but that the Superior or other Fathers of the Oratory, offered him (as your petitioner is credibly informed) £100 per annum if he would become a postulant for the noviciate in their establishment. That in consequence of the infirm state of his health your petitioner's son, shortly after his removal from Westminster School, was sent by your petitioner to reside for several weeks with a relation at the seaside, where everything necessary for his health and comfort was most amply supplied; that the Superior of the Oratory gave him three pounds to enable him to go to the Oratory whenever he pleased, notwithstanding your petitioner's most positive commands to the contrary. That your petitioner's son did go to the Oratory before the time fixed for the expiration of his visit; that he became a postulant, and was permitted to commence his noviciate some months before his 19th year, notwithstanding the strong letter of remonstrance your petitioner wrote to the Superior, in which he forbade such a violation of parental authority. Tour petitioner therefore humbly prays your honourable House to inquire into the truth of the above allegations, and to adopt such measures as to your wisdom shall seem meet for the protection of families and the vindication of parental authority. The petition is signed J. H. HARRISON. This petition has not, I think, received the attention which it ought. The House will, therefore, excuse me—as I was consulted by that gentleman before he prepared the petition, as I recommended him to seek legal advice in order that it might bear the strictest investigation, and as I know he accepted my advice—if I say that I think that petition worthy of the attention of the House. I wish now to advert to another circumstance connected with the debate of last Session, to which I have referred, since, as I have said, I had no power or opportunity of reply. During that debate the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. O'Hagan) said— Every one belonging to his religious creed (that is, the Roman Catholic) knew that, which it was no shame to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire if he did not know, that the constitution of the Community at Brompton did not in the smallest degree bring them within the purview of the law. Persons who belonged to the Oratory at Brompton—those who belonged to any Community of that distinguished Order—were not bound by vows such as the hon. Member appeared to suppose. It was a matter of perfect notoriety that they lived together in Community; they were secular priests associating voluntarily, not bound to remain together for a single hour, each holding his property, and able to dispose of it just as he desired."—[3 Hansard, clxxiv. 657.] Now, that statement was in accordance with the evidence afterwards adduced before the courts in this country, and it was the paraphrase, and contained the substance of the evidence adduced in 1855 before the Provincial Court of Genoa, in Italy, when the constitution of this very Order was tested by that tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Order came within the law for the suppression of monasteries in Italy; and the Court, in the first instance, decided that that description of the Order was correct, and acted upon the supposition that these Oratorians had been wrongly included in the decree which was to give effect to the law passed by the Italian Legislature in 1855 for the suppression of the convents and monasteries of Jesuits, Franciscans, and other regular Orders of the Church of Rome in Italy. But the following year this question was raised again by appeal in the same Provincial Court of Genoa, and that Court finally decided that the Order of Oratorians came within the provisions of the law of 1855—that the decree for giving effect to that law correctly included that Order; and, to the best of my belief, as that decision was considered final, that Order is suppressed as being one of the regular Orders of the Church of Rome, although not, perhaps, coming technically and strictly within the provisions of the Act of 1829—the Act for the Relief of Roman Catholic Disabilities. I wish to make these statements to the House because the conduct of the Oratorians in the case of Miss M'Dermot has excited so much attention, and is not unlikely to come before the courts again. It has already been investigated before the magistrates; and it is, I think, important that the House should know that the Italian Parliament and Government, who must have been more cognizant of and possessed more knowledge on these subjects than the late Attorney General for Ireland thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire possessed, have decided that this is one of the Orders which it is expedient for the welfare of the Italian people should be suppressed. I have ventured to ask the House to appoint a Committee in the terms of my Motion, and for this reason. It is notorious to every one that of late years there has been a most enormous and, I may say, unprecedented increase in those monastic and conventual establishments in this country. Let me show the House exactly what I ask. Last Session I gave notice for a Return which should include some information as to the locality of these establishments, the character of their inmates, and the nature of their organization. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department told me that I should find this information in documents in the Registrar General's office. I have applied, but there are no such documents in the possession of the Registrar General. Well, then, this House, acting in the spirit of the law of 1829, takes cognizance of convents of women, in the terms of the Act, as establishments the existence of which are at least recognized, if not protected. These same clauses in the Act of 1829 strictly prohibit the establishment in this country of the seminaries or houses of the Jesuits, and of the other male Orders of the Church of Rome; and I will call the recollection of the House to this fact, that these clauses of the Act of 1829 are recited and re-enacted in the Act of 1860 for the protection and due administration of Roman Catholic charities. Therefore, let the House remember that by its own act these clauses are not obsolete, but were revived only five years ago. Well then it is urged, "Oh, but these are private establishments, especially the convents, with which the Legislature has no more right to deal, and of which it takes no more cognizance than of establishments consisting of families of Roman Catholics, or of families belonging to any other denomination." Now, look at what you have done. You have provided for the due administration of property belonging to these convents as though it were possessed by a quasi corporation. You have forbidden the acquisition of property by the male monastic Orders in any such character; and by the Act of last Session you have provided for the registration of burials within the precincts of these monasteries and convents. I say then that the plea that these are private institutions in the sense in which they have been described as similar to private families comes too late. That interpretation is adverse to the sense of every Roman Catholic country. In France there are strict provisions for the regulation of these establishments. The Mayor of the Arrondissement has a direct power of visitation. The law provides that monastic vows shall not be binding for more than five years. Then take the case of Prussia. Here the law has been very much relaxed since 1850. Formerly there were strict provisions for the regulation of these places; but they are still kept within the cognizance of the State. The present form of the administration in Prussia so nearly and so practically approaches the despotic form of Government, that the power reserved to the Crown for the visitation of these places, and of judging whether admission to these establishments is justifiable, is found to be amply sufficient for every purpose of guarding the personal freedom and property of those who may think fit to consign themselves to them. Then, turning to Italy. Italy has found it necessary for the establishment of her freedom to suppress a large number of these monastic institutions, and for the sake of her morality to suppress many of the convents. Italy, in 1863, was but following the example of England at the time of the Reformation; the example of France in 1798, and the example of Spain, bigoted Spain, in 1837. And with this movement throughout the Continent, I trust the Parliament of England will forgive me if, in the face of the rapid increase of these establishments at this time, I call upon it to make some inquiry into the localities in which they are to be found, as to the character of the Orders by which they are held, and to include in that inquiry the nature of the discipline carried out within them. To give the House some idea of the increase of these establishments, I find in England and Wales there were religious houses of men in 1841 but one; of convents, 16; of colleges, 9. But in 1851 there were religious houses of men, 17; convents, 53; colleges, 10. And now how stands the account? In 1865 there are religious houses of men, 58; convents, 187; colleges, 10: and if to the account we add 14 convents for Scotland, there are 501 convents established in this country, and possessing, to my knowledge, in the midland counties, considerable real property as well as personal estate. I wish, in addressing myself to this subject, to say a few words in order to dispel the illusion that this Motion is a mere ebullition of Protestant bigotry. I will recall for one moment the attention of hon. Members to some passages in the history of their own country, which I think must have escaped their attention. I find in a work of Lord Lyttelton, the ancestor of the accomplished peer who now bears that name, that in the reign of Henry II. the rapid increase of these establishments—about as rapid as that which is now taking place—was considered a grievous detriment to the country. Lord Lyttelton says— The great increase of religious houses must be reckoned among the evils of this age (Henry II). The author of the Notitia Monastica computes the number of such houses built in England during the reigns of Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II., at no less than 300. And Mr. Inett asserts that more monasteries and other religious societies were founded in that kingdom during the single reign of Henry I. than in 500 years before. But he rightly observes that this was not peculiar to this nation. The high opinion of the merit of such foundations, infused into the minds of the laity by the divines of those days; the hopes of compounding in this manner with the Deity for the greatest offences; but more especially the liberty, granted by the Pope, of commuting for vows made to go to the holy wars by benefactions of this kind, filled all Europe with convents. In the year 1152 the Cistercian order, which had been founded in 1098, had no fewer than 500. Among other causes of the increase of monasteries in this kingdom maybe reckoned the civil war with which it was afflicted during the reign of King Stephen. For many of the nobility engaged in those troubles endeavoured to atone for the pillage of the people and other crimes they had committed by raising or endowing religious houses, and others desired to secure for themselves and their children a quiet asylum in these places. The pernicious consequences of such numbers of men and women being confined to a life of celibacy were grievously felt in the reign of Henry II., by continuing and increasing the depopulation of the country, which the commotions in that of his predecessor had occasioned. Nor was it a small inconvenience to the Government of this monarch in his disputes with the Pope, that he had so many persons in his realm, who, by their separation from society, and the nature of their institutions, were more devoted to the see of Rome than the secular clergy, which difference showed itself upon several occasions in the conduct of both. And the practice of exempting monks from the proper authority of the diocesan bishops increased this mischief. Nothing towards abating these evils was done in the reigns of Henry III. or IV. Henry V., a Roman Catholic sovereign, found it necessary to suppress a great number of monasteries. In Kennett's Cases of Impropriations, page 119, it is stated that— Had the monasteries been dissolved in Henry V.'s reign, when the Bill was brought into Parliament for that purpose, it would have been more regularly and justly conducted than in an after reign; that by this would all have reverted to the parish churches, and the clergy would have gained as much by it as the Government. This appears from the sequel, that when the King, instead of the English monasteries, had only the alien priories given him, he seized on no part of the tithes, but on the lands and tenements that were before of lay fee, and might justly return into lay hands. These, too, he intended to have employed for breeding up a more learned clergy, declaring it was his design to found a college of divines and artists, and to settle upon the said college the lands of the alien priories dissolved, if he had not been prevented by death. In the first act of dissolution there was a saving to the interest of strangers, travellers, and poor, by binding the new possessors of any site or precinct of the religious houses to keep, or cause to be kept, an honest continual house and household in the same site or precinct.…In a preamble written by the King's own hand to another Act, it was declared to be an intent that the endowments of monasteries might be turned to better use, God's Word better set forth, children brought up in learning, clerks nourished in the Universities, and exhibition for ministers of the Church. Divers of the visitors themselves did petition the King to leave some of the religious houses for the benefit of the country, and Latimer moved that two or three might be left in every shire for pious uses. I have seen an original letter from Latimer to the Lord Cromwell (Cleopatra, E. IV., fol. 264) to intercede with the King that Malvern Abbey might be left standing for the better performance of the duties of preaching, praying, and keeping hospitality. Blackstone on the same subject observes that— The spirit of the nation being so much raised against foreigners, that about this time, in the reign of Henry V., the alien priories, or abbeys, for foreign monks were suppressed, and their lands given to the Crown. And no further attempts were afterwards made in support of these foreign jurisdictions. I will quote, besides, another historical authority which I wonder should have escaped the observation of the hon. and learned Members of this House. I find in Hallam's Middle Ages, vol. II., pages 366–7— The virtues, indeed, or supposed virtues, which had induced a credulous generation to enrich so many of the monastic orders, were not long preserved. We must reject, in the excess of our candour, all testimonies that the middle ages present, from the solemn declaration of councils and reports of judicial inquiry to the casual evidence of common fame in the ballad or romance, if we would extenuate the general corruption of those institutions. In vain new rules of discipline were devised or the old corrected by reforms. Many of their worst vices grew so naturally out of their mode of life, that a stricter discipline could have no tendency to extirpate them. Such were the frauds I have already noticed, and the whole scheme of hypocritical austerities. Their extreme licentiousness was sometimes hardly concealed by the cowl of sanctity. I know not by what right we should disbelieve the reports of the visitation under Henry VIII., entering as they do into a multitude of specific charges, both probable in their nature, and consonant to the unanimous opinion of the world. Doubtless, there were many communities as well as individuals, to whom none of these reproaches would apply. In the very best view, however, that can be taken of monasteries, their existence is deeply injurious to the general morals of a nation. They withdraw men of pure conduct and conscientious principles from the exercise of social duties, and leave the common mass of human vice more unmixed. Such men are always inclined to form schemes of ascetic perfection which can only be fulfilled in retirement; but, in the strict rules of monastic life, and under the influence of a grovelling superstition, their virtue lost all its usefulness. They fell implicitly into the snares of crafty priests, who made submission to the Church not only the condition but the measure of all praise. Again in Hallam's Constitutional History, it is stated what an enormous property these institutions possess, and in quoting the passage, I would remind the House that the figures he gives should be multiplied by seven or eight to ascertain the value in our present money. He says— The income of the monasteries prior to their dissolution in the reign of Henry VIII. has been variously estimated. Dr. Lingard, on the authority of Nasmith's edition of Tanner's Notitia Monastica, puts the annual revenue of all the monastic houses at £142,914. This would only be one-twentieth part of the rental of the kingdom if Hume were right in estimating that at three millions. But this is certainly by much too high. The author of Bartner's Observations on Burnet, as I have mentioned above, says the monks will be found not to have possessed above one-fifth of the kingdom, and in value, by reason of their long leases, not one-tenth. The same author (Hallam) having described the mode in which the monasteries were dissolved and the property appropriated, observes— And better it had been that these revenues should thus from age to age have been expended in liberal hospitality, in discerning charity, in the promotion of industry and cultivation, in the active duties or ever generous amusements of life, than in maintaining a host of ignorant and inactive monks, in deceiving the populace by superstitious pageantry, or in the encouragement of idleness and mendicity. I thank the House for having allowed me to read these short historical extracts; but what are the facts? Was the suppression of the monasteries previous to the Reformation the Act of Henry VIII. alone? The other day, in a lecture at Bath, the Rev. Hobart Seymour, whose knowledge of the subject is scarcely exceeded by that of any one I am acquainted with, gave a full account of the process. It was in the reign of Henry VII., that eminently Catholic King, that Cardinal Morton (an English cardinal), applied to the Pope for permission to reform a number of monasteries. I wrote to Mr. Seymour on this subject, and he sent me extracts from the bull and a copy of Cardinal Morton's letter addressed to the bishops in this country, and there is nothing in the Reports made in the time of Henry VIII. which conveys in terms more explicit or more powerful clear evidence of the deep corruption which prevailed in these institutions. I should like, but I forbear, to read the terms in which the Pope's brief to Cardinal Morton is couched. Cardinal Morton, in his letter, declares that nuns were violated and murders committed in these convents and monasteries. And when I am told that the objections to the revival of these institutions which are so generally felt are the fruit of a mere Protestant prejudice, the House will forgive me if I recall these historical facts to the memory of Roman Catholic Members, that it was an English cardinal who first proposed and that it was a Pope who first authorized the suppression of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII. The Rev. Hobart Seymour, in his lecture at Bath on the 6th of February last, said— It will be recollected that one of the measures that immediately preceded the Reformation of the Church of England was a measure for the suppression of the monasteries. That measure has been denounced by our Roman Catholic friends as a measure of robbery, and spoliation, and sacrilege; as a measure of such a character that none but a heretic could have devised it, and none but a tyrant could have sanctioned it. Perhaps, Sir, they are nearer the mark than they themselves are aware, for that measure, whatever was its character, was originally devised by a cardinal, and sanctioned by a Pope. The facts of the case are these:—Cardinal Morton was Papal Legate in this country at the Court of Henry VII. He found the monasteries in such a state of demoralization and disorganization that he applied to the Pope for the requisite powers to amend and improve them. Pope Innocent VIII., then at Home, immediately complied with the request, and issued his rescript or bull giving the requisite authority. But inveterate abuses take long to eradicate, and before the work had well begun Cardinal Morton lay in his grave, Henry VII. was gathered to his fathers, and Pope Innocent VIII. had gone the way of all flesh. We find next Cardinal Wolsey upon the scene as Papal Legate at the Court of Henry VIII. Cardinal Wolsey found some of the monasteries in a state of disorder—disorder in their finances, disorder in their morals—and he applied to the Pope for the requisite powers, not like his predecessor, to amend and reform, but to suppress the monasteries. Pope Clement VII., then at Rome, immediately complied with his request, and issued his bull or rescript to the Cardinal Legate, authorizing him, as he saw fit, to suppress all and every monastery in the whole realm of England. So that if this measure were a measure of robbery, and spoliation, and sacrilege, if it were a measure that none but a heretic could devise, and none but a tyrant could sanction, there is no truth more certain than that it was devised by Cardinal Wolsey, and sanctioned by Clement VII. The Cardinal immediately proceeded to his work. He suppressed off-hand forty of the lesser monasteries, and with a part of the proceeds he endowed Christ Church, Oxford. Some of the larger monasteries, frightened by these proceedings, surrendered, and were suppressed, and the Cardinal was going lightly and jauntily on his course of suppression when the great quarrel and confusion arose between the King and the Cardinal, and then with the Pope. In the midst of this confusion, which was a great day for England, we could see looming in the distance something that looked like rogues falling out, and honest men coming by their own; and Henry VIII., who was as shrewd a man as ever lived, fixed his hands on the Papal bull or rescript authorizing the suppression of monasteries. These facts seem to me to prove that the suppression of monasteries is not materially a Protestant measure, but that it is essentially a Roman Catholic measure. Hon. Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion forget that, when Henry VIII. succeeded to the throne, he was more eminently Roman Catholic, perhaps, than any sovereign of his time. Why, the Pope himself endowed him with the title of Fidei Defensor, for Henry being an accomplished scholar had written an answer to Luther. Henry VIII., through Cardinal Wolsey, applied for power to suppress the monasteries. The Cardinal agreed, and obtained the sanction and authority of the Pope to the measure; therefore, to tell any hon. Member who, like myself, has been educated at Christ Church, Oxford, that this was not the fact—to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the college of which he is so bright an ornament was not established by funds derived from the source I have described, is really to presume on an incredible amount of ignorance and want of research. Why, it was Cardinal Wolsey himself, the Pope's Legate, who took the funds from the monasteries to found Christ Church; and a blessed work it was. Therefore, when I ask the House to pay some attention to the rapid growth of that which, in the deliberate judgment of two English cardinals, and two successive Popes, before the Reformation, was held to be a national disease, I hope hon. Members will not think me presumptuous in expressing the strong public feeling which exists, that it is the duty of the Legislature to inform itself by its own inquiries with regard to an increase of these institutions which causes so much uneasiness throughout the land. If the Legislature of England persistently ignores the existence of these establishments, and only trusts to the casual information which, with extreme difficulty, is procured as to certain malpractices that have come to light—if the Legislature continues in this state of wilful obtusity, why, it stands to reason that now, when the Roman Catholic countries of the Continent find it necessary to eject the inmates of these institutions from their shores, they will find a harbour here, and that we in England shall inherit the evils from which the Continent is rapidly being delivered? That is a fact which stands to reason. Almost every Member of this House knows that foreign monks and foreign nuns come here, some to take direction of establishments already existing, and others to found establishments of their own. Thus we have growing up in this country the very evil at which Henry V., Roman Catholic sovereign of England, in the thirteenth century, aimed a blow by the suppression of the alien monasteries. Is it reasonable, then, to ask us to ignore these facts? That the public do not think it reasonable, is evident from the number of petitions which have been presented to the House. And now I will touch for one moment on the case of Miss M'Dermott. What is the evidence in that case? It is this. Miss M'Dermott, being then a minor of the age of fifteen, was withdrawn from the natural protection of her mother, and the case was brought before one of the metropolitan magistrates, Mr. Selfe. He declared that the law did not give him power to enforce the restoration of the child to her parent. In the kindliness of his heart he used more private exertion than, I think, his official and judicial position justified him in doing, to accomplish the object which his humanity dictated—namely, the restoration of the daughter to her mother. The law was in that case violated, and what have we in evidence as to the mode in which it was resisted? Why, those priests who got possession of this young girl calumniated her character and the character of her mother. Now, calumny against the characters of women, for the purpose of coercing them into submission, is a favourite weapon of the priests—and if it be not restrained, although I have great trust in the spirit of order among Englishmen, I warn this House lest a violation of peace should be excited. It was only yesterday I received the account of a young man, of seventeen years of age, an undergraduate of Cambridge, having been, two years ago, induced to leave his parents' house for the purpose of entering a monastery in a distant county. His brothers heard of it and went to the monastery and told the Superior that, being a minor, they claimed him as his nearest of kin. The Superior would not listen to them, and resisted. The brothers said, "We do not come here to violate the law, but we know you have got our brother in your possession. We have four friends here, and if you do not give him up we will take him." The Superior then yielded. If you put a stress of this kind upon Englishmen they will break loose. If an endeavour is made to withhold children from their parents, or a brother being a minor from his elder brothers who stand to him in loco parentis, you will find that the English people (as in many cases the American people have done) will take the law into their own hands, regardless of the consequences. Then there is the case of Miss Ryan. As I believe other Members will speak of that, I will not dwell upon it; but it appears she was taken from a conventual establishment in this city, and transferred to a lunatic asylum in Belgium. She screamed, she struggled, she implored assistance from every passer-by, and it is admitted by the Government that those means for testing the sanity or insanity of this poor girl which the law prescribes, had not been complied with. It is stated that Dr. Miller, a distinguished medical practitioner, had given a certificate of insanity, but I have a letter from Dr. Miller to say that he gave no certificate at all. I do not know what the Government mean to do in this case. The corporation of Dover, who very properly interfered when they became cognizant of the facts, have been informed that the Law Officers of the Crown admit that the law was violated and set at nought, but they say that it was not done with a bad intention. These are things which try the patience of Englishmen. The English of all nations in the world are most orderly and attached to the law; but once let them feel that there is some organization in this country, especially if it be an organization with a foreign connection which can defy the law and set an example of lawlessness, and you will find them much more difficult to restrain, because the great characteristic of the English people is their devotion to the ties of family. Once let John Bull put on the bull-dog and you will not find it very easy to make him loose his hold. I would not have ventured to bring this subject before the House if I had no facts which were not known to the House and to the public. These cases of Miss M'Dermott and Miss Ryan are fully before the House; the Government and the public are cognizant of both. But there is a case of graver importance than either of these, of which there is direct and sworn evidence in existence, and of which, I believe, neither the Government, nor the House, nor the public, are cognizant. There are convents in the midland counties; there is one at Princethorpe in North Warwickshire, and under that convent are several underground cells with very strong doors and very good locks. The man who made these doors and fitted the locks when that convent was built afterwards worked for me. I speak of the late Mr. Charles Ball, master builder, of Nuneaton. I regret to say that he is now dead; but I know him to have been a trustworthy truth-speaking man. He was at first told that the locks were not good enough, and that he must get better; accordingly he went to Birmingham and procured better locks. [Laughter.] Yes, I have reason to believe that these were most admirable locks. Many years ago there was an escape from another convent—that at Atherstone. A poor nun had got across the road and half way across the next field. She was captured and forced back into the convent. Those who lived in the vicinity of the convent became uneasy; and all we can say is that we know that there were 15 cwt of iron bars afterwards put in the windows of the convent very soon after the escape-The neighbours did not like these ways of going on, and a close watch was main- tained. All at once a priest connected with the convent became wonderfully communicative. He said it was quite true that the discipline was infinitely too severe, that he was not in the least surprised that there had been an attempt at escape, that he was going to give up his situation, that he would no longer be connected with such an establishment, that the Order was about to be changed, that nuns of an Order with a less severe discipline were to succeed those whose practices had thus shocked the neighbours, and so the whole community—nuns, priests, confessor, and all—disappeared. Then there was the case at Derby. At Derby the corporation were uneasy because burials were known to have taken place within the convent walls, while no deaths were registered. The whole case was brought before the corporation and the Home Secretary. The same thing happened as at Atherstone. The community was removed; but something more was done—the convent was pulled down. There is another case, and here I speak from sworn affidavits, In February, 1857, it became known that a nun had escaped from the Benedictine Priory at Colwich, in Staffordshire. She was seen at the back of the convent on the line of railway; she went to the points man first, and then to the stationmaster. She was described as dreadfully emaciated, poorly clad, and in the greatest state of terror. She seemed anxious to conceal herself; after some time she went by the railway to Stafford, and at Stafford it fortunately happened that an old general officer was at the station and saw her. She went on to Birmingham; that night a telegraphic message passed up the line to the effect that Dr. Ullathorne would bring her back to the convent. I shall not mention any other names in this case. He did bring her back; and the circumstance of her being brought back closely veiled and closely watched created an uneasiness in the public mind. We do not like these things in the midland counties. This happened not very long after the discovery and conviction of the poisoner Palmer. The Government would not allow us midland counties people to try that man. He was tried in London, coolly, properly, according to due course of law, and hanged. That circumstance produced a good deal of excitement in the neighbourhood, and the people were more watchful in consequence, for the crime was perpetrated at no great distance. There was the most extreme diffi- culty in procuring evidence in the case of this nun. I have a complete narrative of what was done in the case, written by a person whom I will not name; but he took the matter up in the spirit of an Englishman. I have before me the name of the solicitor who was engaged in the inquiry. This person had never seen this young woman, but he was determined, from all he heard in the neighbourhood, that the circumstances of the case should be brought out. He was assisted on the occasion by the Protestant Alliance in London. Well, the priests and those connected with this convent, when aware of the inquiry, threatened in the most malignant terms every person who might give evidence upon the subject. They obtained the dismissal of the clerk through whom the telegraphic message should have been sent. It was a most happy circumstance that he was absent from his post at the moment the message came to the office, and he had left another person to transmit the message. That person was not bound by the obligation of secrecy, and it was through him that Inspector Field, the detective officer, found out the name of the poor nun. It was not known for months, and would most probably never have been known had it not been for that happy accident. After Inspector Field came down the terror which had been excited subsided, and people began to speak out. An application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus. Affidavits were produced, and plans of the premises, all of which are in my possession, together with the primary examination. I would not venture to bring that case before the House, on my own authority, but I will read to the House an account of what occurred in the Court of Queen's Bench as it has been drawn up by one of the gentlemen specially engaged in the transaction— The evidence being now complete, an application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench before Mr. Justice Wightman on the—day of July. After hearing counsel in support of the case for a writ of habeas corpus, his Lordship expressed his willingness to issue an order to the authorities at the convent to show cause why a writ should not issue. As this, however, would have prematurely opened a discussion in court, the council after a conference, intimated their willingness to abide by his definite decision. His Lordship, therefore, promised to take the affidavits home with him to peruse them, and to give his decision in the following week … At the appointed time Justice Wightman stated that he had carefully read the evidence, but that he should have again to defer his decision, as it did not appear that any application had been made at the convent for permission to see Miss— (this nun). I will not give her name, or those of others concerned (for I know not whether she is alive or dead), until this House may think fit to appoint a Committee, and thus to cast over the witnesses the protection of its authority. The narrative continues that Mr. Justice Wightman said— An application must, therefore, be made for a private interview with her, to ascertain if she were confined against her will; and, if refused, or, the permission being granted, she stated that she was so confined, then he would grant a writ. His Lordship said it was a most interesting and uncommon case; but as it was likewise a very important one, it was necessary that great circumspection should be used. The persons whom the Judge commissioned went down to Colwich, and the narrative goes on to say— Having met, we proceeded to the convent, and arrived at the door at 11,35 on the 14th of July. Being opened, I presented my card to the servant, who was dressed in black, and on the request to see Mrs.—, the Mother Superior, we were shown into the visitors' waiting-room, a large, cheerless apartment, hung round with pictures of saints and small coloured engravings with plain ungilt frames. At the end of the room was a large counter covered with oil-cloth, which entirely reached across the room and divided it into two parts. Behind this was a door. We had been kept waiting for about a quarter of an hour when two nuns entered by the door behind the counter and inquired our business, stating that the Mother Superior was much engaged. I said that we could not communicate the purport of our visit except to her, upon which they retired, having first requested to be present at the interview. Again we were left alone for about a quarter of an hour, and had ample time to canvass the dress and the manners of the Sisters of the Benedictine Order of Nuns. What we both remarked, apart from their picturesque dress, was the total absence of soul or animated expression in their faces. There was a coldness and want of feeling in their manner which comported well with the appearance of the place, but it failed to impress or interest us in their behalf. If there was happiness in their hearts the outward and visible sign was sadly wanting. After waiting what appeared to us a long time, Mrs.—, the Mother Superior, entered, accompanied by two nuns. After saying that I presumed I was addressing the Mother Superior, to which she nodded assent, I told her that we had called as friends of Miss—and should be glad to be permitted to see her. She immediately replied that—was not there, as she had left the convent several months before—early in May. I affected surprise, and inquired where she had gone to. Without hesitation she replied that she left there for a convent at Staple-hill, near Wimborne, Dorsetshire; that she was not very well, and thought a change would be desirable. I expressed regret at not seeing her, and inquired particularly about her health, and whether she had heard from her. 'Oh, yes,' she re- plied, 'I have received several letters from her, in which she describes the happiness which she enjoys in her new abode, and thanking me repeatedly for the undeviating kindness which she experienced while being here; the undeviating kindness'—repeating the words, but addressing me—' perhaps you would like to see her letters, she writes in such excellent spirits.' I thanked her for her courtesy, but assured her it was sufficient to know from her that my friend was happy, and again in the enjoyment of health. Alluding again, to her leaving there, the Mother Superior said that Miss—seemed to like a change for she had been in several convents. After taking down the address, in case I might wish to write to her, we retired, thanking the Mother Superior for her kindness; for the object of the visit being accomplished, so far as it could be, I was desirous of avoiding any questions, as they might have been inconvenient to answer. According to the directions received from Mr, Justice Wightman, all these facts were reported to him, and he desired that the persons engaged in the inquiry should proceed to the convent of Staplehill, near Wimborne, in Dorsetshire. They were the aged general officer who first saw the nun, his wife—a lady eminently qualified for the mission of charity which she undertook—and the gentleman who had written the account. They found at Staplehill a convent of apparently a totally different description. They had an interview with the nun, which the narrative from which I have these extracts describes as follows:— So I said Miss—, I have no time for trifling. When I tell you that for months past I have had but one object in view to serve you, and if possible to come to your rescue, and to accomplish this interview it has cost me nearly one hundred pounds in my efforts to trace you, I think you will admit that, although I am a perfect stranger to you, I am at least entitled to your candour.' I shall not easily forget the earnest look which she gave me. 'Oh, how can I thank you enough,' she replied; 'I did not know I had such a friend.'…I then particularly inquired what her wish was, as if she still wished to leave the convent there was no law to prevent her doing so; and I promised her immediate assistance if she was confined against her will. 'No,' she said, 'I have no wish to leave now. Since I came here I have been treated so kindly it would be ingratitude in me to leave. The nuns here have treated me like a sister. No, I cannot leave now.' Again she repeated, 'No, I cannot, I must not leave now. I embraced the convent life and took "the veil at the early age of eighteen, with the earnest desire of devoting my best years to God, and serving Him in a way I then considered most for His glory, and I cannot now turn my back upon Him.' I saw that her resolution was taken, and that it was vain to attempt to shake it. It appeared likewise to be a relief to her, as if she had now time to arrange her thoughts, and she quietly said, 'What could I do if I left; all my relations and friends are Roman Catholics, and they would turn their backs upon me, and what do I know of life?' Now, this is a happy conclusion. This nun, who, according to the description given in the affidavits, was, at the period of her escape, emaciated, terror-stricken, who had clambered over a wall and dropped nine or ten feet from it, who had fled across the fields, been pursued, captured and returned to the convent, is found here completely changed in appearance, comfortable, and happy. But, Sir, this is not the whole of the case. It will naturally be inquired why this nun should have escaped. And after it was known that the protection of English law would be extended to the inquiry by the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench, facts came out of which I will now give the House an indication. After the conversation with this nun at Staplehill had proceeded to the point I have mentioned, the person authorized by the Judge to make the inquiry, says— I then informed her of the many affidavits which had been prepared with a view to obtaining a writ of habeas corpus if I had been denied that meeting, which very much astonished and amused her, and that very important evidence had been obtained respecting certain doings in the convent at Colwich. I carefully marked the expression of her face, which at once assumed a very thoughtful aspect. I said, 'Miss—it has been stated to us on oath that there are certain subterraneous cells at the convent called grottoes; have you seen them?' She was silent. I asked again, 'Do you remember a girl named—?' She thought for a moment, and then asked if she was not a scholar in the convent school; she thought she had some recollection of her, but it was several years since she was there. I then said that the late scholar had stated that she had seen a nun put into a cellar under the convent, and that she was found dead there; and I asked, have you any knowledge that such was the case?' She remained silent. I say that silence was equivalent to an admission, and asked again, 'Have you ever seen a nun put into a cellar?' Again she was silent. I did not press her further again on this point, as her resolute silence was to all of us sufficient proof of the truthfulness of the scholar's statement. That statement was, and it stands in the affidavits, that the greatest severities were practised in that convent—that she had seen nuns imprisoned—that she had known them to be kept short of food—that she had seen one nun forced down into this underground cell—that to the best of her belief she never came out alive—that she attended the service at her funeral, and saw her consigned to the grave in the convent burying-ground. Now this evidence is corroborated by a large part of the evidence given of the twenty-seven witnesses who were examined upon the subject. It was proved that there were more burials within the precincts of the convent than appeared in the register of deaths. It was proved that coffins were seldom made outside the convent, but that rough carpenters were employed within the establishment to make packing-cases, without any of the usual appurtenances, in which the bodies were committed to the grave. It is known that the most malignant threats were used by persons connected with the convent against the production of the slightest evidence. It is a fact, that, until Inspector Field came down, few of the witnesses who signed the affidavits could be induced to speak, I now ask whether I have not stated enough to induce the House to grant a Committee to ascertain the character of these establishments. The convent at Colwich, down to the year 1857, was a cloistered convent of one of the severest Orders. The convent of Wim-borne seemed to be a happy home; but what does that prove against the necessity for inquiry? Nothing; if there be other convents which realize and deserve Liguori's description, and are real "hells upon earth" to unwilling nuns! Such are the facts I am prepared to prove by the production of the affidavits. I ask the House respectfully to grant this Committee, for the purpose of ascertaining the locality, the character, and the increase of these establishments. I do not ask the House to appoint this Committee for the purpose of even suggesting a remedy, but in order to furnish the House with information which might enable it in its wisdom to devise some means for the better protection of those who, in too many cases, are, I fear, helpless women.

MR. WHALLEY

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed. To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words"a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Monastic or Conventual Societies or Establishments in Great Britain,"—(Mr. Newdegate,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. HENNESSY

said, that in his concluding sentence the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire told them he did not ask for a remedy for the grievances of which he complained. That was not surprising, because all the stories which the hon. Member had repeated to the House, however marvellous in their nature, presented this common feature—that the laws of the land, as they now stood, provided an ample remedy for every grievance they disclosed. Take the last case on which the hon. Member dwelt, and which he told them was the most important ever brought before the House. What were the facts? A young lady, the hon. Gentleman said, was confined against her will in a convent. Some persons, whose names they did not know, went to Mr. Justice Wightman and applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The Judge said to them, "If you lay before me an affidavit that you have endeavoured to see this young lady and have failed to do so, I will grant the writ at once, and you will be able to see her." They accordingly proceeded to the convent, asked to see her, saw her, and had a long conversation with her, part of which had been read by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member said these persons were commissioned by Mr. Justice Wightman. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Justice Wightman told these anonymous gentlemen that their first duty was to prove to him, in the ordinary process of law, that they had sought for and been refused admission to the convent—that they had wished to see the young lady, but that the authorities of the convent would not allow them to do so. Well, they went; and even from the story which the hon. Member had told the House—taking the one-sided version of it which these anonymous persons gave—it was perfectly evident that the law of the land was quite strong enough to remedy the grievance of which he complained. But the hon. Member pursued a course that night identical with the one he followed last year and the year before. He had adduced cases which, on his own confession, were still before the courts of law or were to be brought before those courts, and he had gone into certain portions of them, discussing them, and giving one-sided accounts of that which he admitted was to be taken for adjudication elsewhere. Why, what occurred last year? Then the hon. Gentleman brought before the House the case of Mr. Smee and Father Hutchinson of the Oratory. Mr. Smee, whose petition the hon. Member presented, complained that Father Hutchinson made a will on his deathbed, being of unsound mind, by which he gave his property in charity; and the hon. Member endorsed these statements, told the House that father Hutchinson was not of sound mind, that he had been unduly influenced by the priests of the Oratory, and at the same time stated that the case of Mr. Smee and the priests of the Oratory was pending in a court of justice; notwithstanding which he gave his own version of the case to the House, and leading articles appeared in some of the papers taking the hon. Gentleman's view of the matter. But what happened? The case was tried in the Probate Court; it was there ably argued; the most complete evidence was given on each side—and what was the result? A jury, composed of twelve Englishmen—twelve Protestants—unanimously came to the opinion that the case had not been made out, that Mr. Smee's statements were false, and Mr. Smee himself was condemned in costs. Well, the hon. Member told them of Miss M'Dermott's case, which he said was also to be brought before a court of law. Why, it had been before a court of law. The magistrates of the metropolis had already investigated it. They had gone even far beyond the ordinary course of investigation; Mr. Selfe and another magistrate had inquired into it, and it had been inquired into, not in public court only, but also privately; and what was the result? The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), who in all these proceedings was associated with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, attended at the police-office, and himself heard the magistrate dismiss the case. The fact was that the more these cases were investigated by a competent tribunal, and with the full power which the law of England gave, the better. But he asked the attention of the House to the Motion which the hon. Gentleman bad put on the paper. It was now ten or eleven years since a similar Motion was made in that House by Mr. Chambers, and since then events had occurred which had materially altered the public feeling in England on the subject to which it related. At that period the table of the House was covered with petitions in favour of the Motion, and public meetings had been held all over the country in favour of it. The people of England at that time, actuated, he believed, by very blind and ignorant prejudices, did think that a Committee of Inquiry, which should investigate the existence, number, and character of conventual establishments, was necessary. But then they knew very little about those institutions. Very soon after that, however, they began to hear something about nuns. At the time of the Crimean war their conduct and practices came to be talked of in that country; and, speaking from the Treasury Bench as a Minister of the Crown, Mr. Sidney Herbert gave to the House his opinion of the character of these ladies. The people of England, he believed, were very much influenced by what they then heard and saw on that occasion. There were, he believed, at that moment sitting in the House some gallant Officers who had seen those ladies in the Crimea, attending on our wounded soldiers, and who could bear testimony to their character. But in addition to that, something more had happened. About the same time the conventual institutions in England which were in any way connected with education were placed under Government inspection; and in the Report of the Commissioners on Popular Education, which was composed of the Duke of Newcastle, Sir John Coleridge, two clergymen of the Church of England, and three other gentlemen, who were also members of the Church of England, he found it stated—he would not read all they said, but would quote a single sentence from the Report—they stated that the Roman Catholic female training schools were supplied with students of a very much higher class than the male schools, the teachers being for the most part members of religious communities, and immeasurably superior to those who taught in the male schools. Such was the opinion of the Commissioners on Popular Education in England. And last year a blue book was published, which gave the fullest information with respect to all the conventual institutions in Ireland, to which also the Motion of the hon. Member related. And what did the Government Inspectors say in reference to those institutions in Ireland? On the question of the moral training given in those establishments—and that was the only point to which he would at present allude—the Protestant and Presbyterian officials of the Government—and he would quote from their evidence alone—distinctly said that the moral training in the nuns' was greatly better than that in the lay schools. The Sisters of Mercy had a school in Newtown, in Galway, and Mr. Simpson, the Inspector, who was a Presbyterian, spoke of the moral training there as being superior to that of other schools, as a natural consequence of the children associating with the Sisters. Another Presbyterian Inspector made the same statement with respect to another school in the county of Galway; while similar evidence was given by the Protestant Inspector of National Schools in the King's County, as well as by others in the north of Ireland. Mr. Kennedy, re- ferring to a school in Sligo, said, "There are eight nuns employed here, and I consider there is no school in the district in which the moral training is so effective or so good." Such testimony was, he thought, sufficient to show that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, really only represented their own views on the present occasion, and not the sentiments of anybody who was acquainted with the facts of the case, or who had such ample opportunities of arriving at a sound judgment as the Government Inspectors. The hon. Gentleman, in the frequent allusions which he made to the Fathers of the Oratory last year, repeatedly asserted that they had acted in violation of the Emancipation Act of 1829. [Mr. NEWDEGATE said he stated that they might be technically within the law.] Well, then, the hon. Gentleman must have changed his opinions on the point since last year. The decision in opposition to his views, which had been given by Sir James Wilde, in the Probate Court, and the charge which he made to the jury in the case of Mr. Smee, had, perhaps, opened his eyes; because that learned Judge had clearly shown that the statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman in that House had no foundation whatever in law, and the jury immediately found a verdict in favour of the Fathers of the Oratory, All he could say was, that he was not surprised the hon. Gentleman had again come to that House, because in the courts of justice he had been completely baffled and beaten, and his statements found to be mere idle fabrications. He could not, he might add, compliment the hon. Gentleman on his historical research. His historic anecdotes reminded him of the advice given by Lord Chesterfield to his son, when he told him that certain stories were so extraordinary that even if he believed them to be true, he would advise him not to repeat them, for if he did so, people would begin to entertain doubts of his veracity. He should, therefore, pass over the anecdotes of the hon. Gentleman, as the inventions of those anonymous gentlemen who supplied him with his information; and as to some extent, no doubt, the result of those long consultations which he held with the hon. Member for Peterborough, for for some time past they were to be seen in every hole and corner, putting their heads together, and comparing notes for their present great campaign. And what was near being the upshot of those deliberations? Why, that when the Motion was put from the Chair, it happened that the hon. Member for Peterborough was out of the House, and there seemed at the time to be a prospect of the debate coming to an abrupt termination. However, the hon. Member rushed to his seat and seconded the Motion just in time. But, be that as it might, the Motion was one for inquiry—in the first place, into the number of conventual establishments; and why was it, he should like to know, that the hon. Gentleman asked for information on that point? He told the House that he had got all the statistics on the subject. Where did he get them? As a matter of fact, the number of those institutions was elaborately set forth in the Catholic Directory, while their character could be ascertained from any person acquainted with them—and they were many—of whom he might choose to make inquiry. What the Motion of the hon. Gen-leman meant, so far as it related to inquiry into the "existence" of conventual establishments, he could not understand. That they existed was a well known fact, and there could be as little doubt that their existence was in accordance with law. But the truth was that what the hon. Gentleman wanted was not a specific remedy for a specific evil—what he was aiming at was to raise the popular indignation, of which he spoke, against those ladies who passed their lives in educating the poor, attending the sick, and performing acts of charity, who had never done the hon. Gentleman or anybody else the slightest injury, and in making out a case against whom he had, so far as the feeling of the House was concerned, signally failed, as he would also, he had no doubt, fail in the country.

MR. NEATE

said, he desired to explain that he found he was mistaken in intimating to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that in France the State possessed a control over the conventual establishments of that country which it did not possess here. He was formerly under the impression that the Government possessed and might exercise the right of inspection and visitation of convents. In this, however, he found he was mistaken. The fact was that in France there were several sorts of conventual establishments, some which were authorized, and some which were not. Those which were authorized came under inspection, but enjoyed corresponding advantages; for it was only convents belonging to this class that were entitled to the benefit of any bequest made in their favour; bequests to those which were unauthorized being simply null and void. It might be true, as a general rule, that the State did not claim any right of inspection or visitation; there was, however, one class of convents over which, under a law of 1809, the State did exercise the right, and that was "the HÔpitaliéres." The conditions imposed upon that order were that novices should not take vows till after sixteen, and then only for a year; and when they became twenty-one they could take the vows only for five years. But though no habitual right of visitation might exist, it must be remembered that in a Roman Catholic country convents were in connection with, and subordinate to, the civil power—they were subject to the bishops, who in France were to a certain extent State functionaries, and in the case of the particular convents he had referred to no vows could be taken except in the presence of the bishop and some civil officer, who made a registry of the vow. In France, also, there was the greatest facility for obtaining dispensations from their vows on the part of those who wished to be released from them. The House had yet to be told what were the vows taken in this country, with what awful ceremony rendering them more binding on the conscience they were entered into, and what was the minimum of age at which they could be taken. Unless these points were cleared up on undoubted authority, the House was entitled to information, and had a right to demand inquiry. He should like to have these subjects considered in connection with the law recently passed disallowing oaths, except those administered on legal authority and for a legal purpose. Everybody knew that formerly it was quite a common practice for a man who had made some bet to go before the Lord Mayor and swear that he had swum across the Hellespont, or jumped twenty-one feet, or something of that sort, verifying his assertion by an oath. The law had now forbidden that; and what he wanted to know was why it did not interfere in the case of these oaths taken by young men and young women—why, at least, it did not insist upon knowing what these were. At the same time, in supporting this Motion he disclaimed any intention of casting any general imputation upon the Roman Catholic religion. He willingly recognized that among the inmates of those asylums there was much virtue, and much good service to humanity had been rendered, and he was actuated by no hostility towards them whatever; but the object of the Motion was to extend to members of that body the protection which the lay members of their own communion, from undue and perhaps excessive reverence for members of the priestly order, failed to insist upon. He did not deny that on the whole the English conventual life was all that conventual life could be; but the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had brought forward many cases of oppression for which the law provided no remedy whatever. It was all very well to say that the friends of a young woman, oppressed or kept in a convent against her will, could obtain a habeas corpus. But how were they to know that she was oppressed? What were the regulations? If she wrote to her friends, was she not obliged to let the Superioress see her letter; and would any Roman Catholic gentleman say that she could receive a letter without communicating its contents in like manner? In that way it was quite possible that much wrong might be done and much oppression practised. It was for those who were acquainted with the facts to give the answer, and therefore he should support the Motion.

MR. WHALLEY

said, the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had deemed it important to associate him with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and he thought it was due to the House that he (Mr. Whalley) should explain somewhat of their respective relations. There was no Member of that House who had greater admiration for the just weight, the ability, and the natural influence that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire exercised in the debates in that House; but, at the same time, he must say that very few Members of that House had less communication than that hon. Member and himself. It was certainly unfortunate that those who took the Protestant views which were entertained by himself and the Member for North Warwickshire and by the late Member for that division (Mr. Spooner) should be in so different a position from that of the hon. Member for the King's County and those associated with him, who were compactly organized and hacked by great resources. ["Oh!"] Scarcely a day passed without some addition to their funds. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire told the House not long since of a case in which £40,000 had fallen into their hands—that day he saw in the newspapers that it was £90,000. He had taken some pains to ascertain how much that party obtained from the public purse in support of their particular views, and he found that it was not less in the aggregate than £1,000,000 a year. Meanwhile, what was the position of the party represented by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and himself? It was scarcely possible to imagine a wider gulf than divided them upon most questions. The principles on which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his late Colleague proceeded in this matter were different from those by which he (Mr. Whalley) was influenced; he placed his reliance not upon any ability he could bring to bear, but upon principles which some Members of that House were presumed to represent—the principles of civil and religious liberty. He thought that the Roman Catholics designed to increase their endowments, and to overthrow that Church of which the hon. Member for Warwickshire was so prominent an advocate. He considered that when such abuses as had been brought forward could be shown an appeal to the Government ought not to be made in vain. It was characteristic of the Roman Catholics in this country that they took a special delight in defying the law. The hon. Member for the King's County said, "all these things can be remedied by law;" but he (Mr. Whalley) said they could not. The hon. Member said, "The law is open." But these institutions had assumed such a position that it was almost impossible that the law could be vindicated in respect of any abuses committed in them. As to the M'Dermott case, he could state of his own knowledge that Father Charles Bowden had induced a young lady, whose age was somewhat in question, but who was either sixteen or seventeen, to leave her home. The mother applied to the magistrate, but as she could not state that the girl at the time was under sixteen years of age the magistrate could give her no redress; but he sent for Father Bowden, who admitted that he had to a certain extent induced the girl to leave her home, for which, if the girl was under sixteen, he was liable to three years' imprisonment. That was the observation made by the magistrate on Mrs. M'Dermott applying for redress. He gave him a reprimand, which he believed was approved of by the general voice of the country. Three days afterwards the mother again applied to Mr. Selfe; but on that occasion Mr. Selfe, having consulted with Mrs, Selfe, he (Mr. Whalley) wished to know whether Mr. Selfe had not also consulted with the Home Office on that occasion. Mr. Selfe having had an interview with the girl handed her back to the care of Father Bowden and his coadjutor nun, telling the mother that she ought to be perfectly satisfied that her daughter was placed under such care. Now, he wanted to know whether the House ought to refuse an inquiry, under such circumstances, into institutions to which magistrates sent girls like Eliza M'Dermott. Were magistrates to be at liberty to send persons to those conventual institutions on information supplied by priests and nuns, who came before them privately? If they were, surely the nature of those institutions was a proper subject to be inquired into. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Home Secretary was prepared to justify the conduct of Mr. Selfe in sending the girl back under the charge of Father Bowden and his nuns, without affording the mother an opportunity of making an explanation in answer to the different scandals that had been uttered against her? ["Divide!"] He begged the forbearance of hon. Members for a few minutes. Subsequently the mother applied to Mr. Arnold, the sitting magistrate at the Westminster Police Court. ["Divide!"] The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) reminded him of the necessity of a division. He begged to call the attention of the hon. Member and also of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton), who also appeared anxious to divide, to the letter which Her Majesty had directed to be written on behalf of the safety of railway passengers. Now suppose Her Majesty were to ask the right hon. Baronet what had become of Eliza M'Dermott and of Mary Ryan, whose screams on the pier of Dover had attracted the notice of the public? If the House would not permit the facts of such a case as that of Mrs. M'Dermott to be laid before them what would the public think? ["Divide!"] Well, he could stand there and protest against the interruptions of the hon. Member for Lincoln or of any other Member who interrupted him in pleading the case of the widow. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the conduct of Mr. Arnold on the occasion of the second application of Mrs. M'Dermott for redress, and the House would see that the statement of the hon. Member for the King's County was not justified. He (Mr. Whalley) was present on the occasion, and heard the mother state, on the authority of the registrar of the Lying-in Hospital, Dublin, that the girl was not sixteen; thereby proving the fact which, according to Mr. Selfe, rendered Father Bowden liable to three years' imprisonment. Mrs. M'Dermott on that occasion produced the register, but Mr. Arnold—the same gentleman to whose conduct he had called attention last Session—refused to hear more evidence. The court was crowded by persons that the mother had brought to prove that Father Bowden had sent a man with a letter urging the girl to leave her home, and that she was under the age of sixteen at the time. Mr. Arnold refused to hear more evidence, and said not only that there was no case for a summons against Father Bowden, but that in his opinion Father Bowden had nothing to do with the abduction of Eliza M'Dermott. Hon. Members ought to raise their minds to the consideration of the general state of the law, not to the mode in which it was administered. He himself was not able to raise the mind of the House. Every Member ought to consider the conduct of Mr. Arnold in refusing to hear evidence, though he must have known the language addressed by Mr. Selfe to Father Bowden on the subject. Notwithstanding that Mr. Arnold said that he was of opinion Father Bowden had nothing to do with the abduction of the girl. Would the right hon. Baronet justify an obiter dictum of that kind by the magistrate? The case of the girl in question was not the only one in which the Brompton Oratorians defied the law. He had got a Return last year with regard to the registration of such institutions as required by Act of Parliament. He knew nothing of Smee's case, but he knew the Act required all such institutions to be registered, and he believed that the thirty priests who belonged to it, and who roamed all over Brompton, were persons who were prohibited from residing in this country. The right hon. Baronet knew that he had failed in his duty in allowing such an institution to exist without being registered. These institutions were a standing defiance to the law of the land. ["Divide !"] Not one of the fifty-six similar institutions were registered. The influence of the Oratory extended over the whole district of Brompton, and the Westminster Police Office was the only place to apply for the protection of the liberty of the subject. Mr. Arnold ought to have known this. There could be no doubt that Mrs. M'Dermott was a person of unimpeachable character, but as she had not continued to conform to the views of the Roman Catholic priests she became an object of persecution. One confessor, Father Gloag, got possession of her children, in the hope of getting rid of her. To effect this Gloag had produced the son to prove her mad, and thus to get possession of Eliza. That scheme failed. Another effort was made to get rid of the woman. He spoke from a petition which had been presented a few days ago, but which was too long to read. Mrs. M'Dermott was a remarkable woman—a woman of great force of character, and would have been a match for the priests if she had had an advocate in that House. Finding one scheme fail the priests concocted another, and carried away her three children, at four o'clock in the morning, to the workhouse, on the pretence that she had neglected them. This was in 1849. Mr. Paynter, the magistrate, caused inquiry to be made. A policeman came forward and said that she was a drunken woman, when the reverse was the fact, and Mr. Paynter, without hearing her, committed her to prison for seven days. A mingled system of terror and force characterized the Brompton Oratory. The whole machinery was contrived to supplement the efforts of these nuns and monks. They had heard of bequests to them of £40,000 one day, and of £90,000 another day. Now, he believed they had associated with them the expelled monks and nuns of Italy. The public had no protection against such a system. He believed there were five different cases not less atrocious than that of Mrs. M'Dermott. And yet they were allowed to reside at Brompton, lording it over the people, who had no other protection than what such police magistrates as Mr. Selfe and Mr. Arnold could give them. He would now address himself to the case of Mary Ryan. A few days ago a report had been sent to the Home Office by a gentleman who stood high in his profession—Mr. Collette—giving the result of a visit he paid to Mary Ryan at Bruges. That gentleman reported that he had seen Mary Ryan, the girl whose screams at Dover had attracted notice, and that she did not appear to him to be mad. That gentleman reported that he saw her in her natural state—that was, in her natural state at that time—and that though she was low and desponding, her memory was clear and accurate, and that she said she was taken from England on a representation that she was going to be sent to her friends. That gentleman further stated that though she did not appear to be mad in the ordinary sense, she was exceedingly distressed, and in a such a state that would make every Englishman desire to rescue her from it; and though he thought she was not mad, he feared she might become mad or die, or something of that kind. Having taken the document to the Home Office he had to acknowledge the utmost possible courtesy from the officers of that Department. He then ascertained that a Commissioner had been sent over to inquire into the state of the girl. Since he entered the House he had seen his Report. It confirmed very much the statement of Mr. Collette, but the Commissioner took on himself to say that no doubt when she was carried away and brought over there she was in a state of acute mania. Where did the right hon. Baronet find a Lunacy Commissioner of such extraordinary ability as to discover that? Dr. Hearne, a person who occupied a high position in the Catholic Church, wrote to the newspapers, stating that the certificate of Mary Ryan's acute mania, and her being a proper subject to be transferred to a lunatic asylum, was signed by Dr. Millar; but it now turned out that Dr. Millar had never signed any such certificate, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) had allowed himself to be the dupe of this Dr. Hearne, who stated that which was a deliberate falsehood. ["Divide!"] He would not offend the House by replying in detail to what the hon. Member for the King's County had said about the general administration and moral discipline of the nunneries. It had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that if matters were allowed to go on as at present the people would rise some day and pull down one of these institutions stone by stone. He hoped there would be a calm and dispassionate inquiry, and that something would be clone to amend the existing state of things. He refrained from saying what he knew of the horrors that were perpetrated in these establishments. Now, he held in his hand the translation of a book paid for by the country to the extent of some thousands a year, and which formed the basis of the education at Maynooth and the convent schools. ["Read, read!"] The time might come when it might be necessary to comply with the suggestion of hon. Members, and read the contents of the book; but the time had not yet come. If, how- ever, the House could not be induced to give its attention to the circumstances under which Mary Ryan was carried away, and under which the widow M'Dermott was deprived of her daughter, while an attempt was made also to deprive her of her life, certainly of her liberty, he (Mr. Whalley), whatever obloquy might attach to him, and though disastrous moral consequences might ensue, would make public the contents of the book which he held in his hand. For such attention as the House had been pleased to give he returned his thanks, and he most earnestly implored them to agree to the Motion.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Sir, I can assure the hon. Member for Peterborough that I had no desire to stand in the way of his addressing the House. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that there was an impassable gulf between himself and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who brought forward the Motion; and I believe the House must feel that there is a wide distinction between the mode in which the latter dealt with the question and the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. The hon. Member for Peterborough recommends calm and dispassionate inquiry—but his speech was hardly an illustration of the temper of mind in which the question ought to be discussed. Before dealing with the general subject, I will reply to the questions which the hon. Member has addressed to me. He says he holds me responsible for every act of every police magistrate within the metropolitan district—and he especially referred to what was said and done by Mr. Paynter in 1859, when I had not the honour to be Home Secretary. I need scarcely say I cannot accept such responsibility. The hon. Member also asks me to condemn the conduct of Mr. Arnold. I cannot do so. The case in question has not come before me in any shape. I saw the reports in the newspaper, as everybody else did, but I had no reason to suppose that Mr. Arnold did not on that, as on every other occasion, discharge his duty in the most conscientious manner. Again, the hon. Member asks whether in the M'Dermott case Mr. Selfe communicated with me? He did not—there was no occasion for his doing so. The case came before him for his judicial interposition, but it proved to be one in which he could not interfere as a magistrate. He then dealt with it in an extra-judicial manner, as might be inferred from his having con- sulted Mrs. Selfe, and from humane motives he endeavoured to ascertain for Mrs. M'Dermott where her daughter was, and whether the girl was under any restraint. But no communication took place on the subject between Mr. Selfe and the Home Office. The hon. Member further says I am responsible for the omission to enforce the law requiring the registration of the Brompton Oratory. I am not aware of the existence of any Act by which such institutions as the Brompton Oratory are required to be registered. By the Catholic Emancipation Act all members of any religious order bound by vows or oaths are required to register themselves within six months after coining to this country. There is no law, however, that such a place as the Brompton Oratory shall be registered. I have no knowledge on the subject; but I have been informed, on what I believe to be good authority, that the members of the Oratory are not bound by any religious vows, and therefore do not come within the scope of the statute I have mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman knows that these persons are bound by such vows, he could have brought the matter under the notice of the Attorney General, in order that proceedings might be instituted, if there was any ground for them, or evidence to support them. The case of Mary Ryan has really nothing to do with the subject of this Motion. The illegality committed in this instance was not because she was a member of any conventual establishment—the sole illegality was a forcible abduction of the person—not necessarily of a nun but of any person—and amounted to an assault, for which the offenders were criminally responsible. It had nothing to do with the religious character of the person concerned. The papers on the subject have been laid on the table, and it would only have been fair if the hon. Member had stated that Mr. Wilkes, one of the medical members of the Board of Lunacy Commissioners, who saw the girl and examined her condition, reports as follows:— In my opinion, Mary Ryan is still of unsound mind, labouring under a very common form of melancholia, with a suicidal tendency. I also think that she is not in a state to be safely taken care of out of an asylum. It also appears that every person actuated by benevolent motives, or sent by the Government, received every facility in visiting the girl, and that she is treated with kindness and consideration, and the only reason why she was not brought back to this country—a course which both the Belgian Government and the managers of the institution would gladly have acquiesced in—was that her state was such as to render it probable that her removal would have exposed her to a renewed attack of mania.

With regard to the general question, I cannot help expressing my regret that after the interval which has elapsed since this subject was last before the House it should have been revived by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire. I implicitly believe the hon. Gentleman's assertion that he is not actuated by any religious bigotry, but is only acting in what he regards as the honest discharge of his duty, and I also believe that he represents the opinions of a very large number of persons in this country; but, with the recollection of what has before taken place in this House, I do not think that he is acting judiciously in pressing such a question upon its attention. In 1853 Mr. Thomas Chambers, who is no longer a Member of this House, brought in a Bill which led to very long discussions. It was founded upon, I think, the same assumption as the present Motion—namely, that many persons are subject to the undue and improper exercise of coercion and restraint in conventual establishments, and that the existing law does not afford adequate means for their relief. The Bill was lost on the second reading, and its place was taken by an Amendment, moved by an hon. and learned Gentleman not now a Member of this House (Mr. Phinn), to the effect that a Committee should be appointed to inquire— Whether any and what regulations are necessary for the protection of the inmates of establishments of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue influence in procuring the alienation of their property."—[See 3 Mansard, cxxvii., cxxviii.] The object of that Committee was much more restricted than is that of the Resolution now before the House, but it led to a very protracted debate, and ultimately, owing to the advanced period of the Session, it dropped without any decision being come to. In the next Session Mr. Chambers, deferring to what appeared to be the opinion of the majority of this House, moved for a Committee of Inquiry. The Motion was carried by a considerable majority; but what followed? We were led into interminable debates night after night upon the question of the nomination of that Committee or upon Motions for the discharge of the Order. There were many acrimonious debates; much valuable time was lost; ultimately it was found impossible to nominate the Committee, and no practical result was derived from those discussions. That is rather a warning to us not to enter upon the course to which we are invited by the hon. Gentleman than an encouragement to expect from it any useful result. With what view is the inquiry proposed? I was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman would, according to the ordinary practice of Parliament, have shown that he asked for inquiry with a view to some practical legislation. We do not appoint Committees merely to gratify curiosity, or to obtain information which the person seeking it says that he does not desire to make the basis of Parliamentary action.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he stated that he desired to lay the facts before the House, and would leave it to the wisdom of the House to apply the remedy.

SIR GEORGE GREY

I think an hon. Gentleman ought to trust a little to his own wisdom when he brings a subject before the House and asks for the inquiry of a Committee, and to show that some practical result is likely to be attained, and to state that, after inquiry has taken place, he will be prepared to recommend the House to take some legislative action. The hon. Gentleman does not do that; he merely wishes to obtain the information and lay it before the House, without taking any ulterior proceedings upon it. I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman's object is. Is it the inspection of these institutions, or is it, as I rather gathered from his speech, their absolute suppression? On what ground does he think that Parliament ought to interfere in this matter? Does he believe that there are many persons in a state of absolute physical coercion and restraint in these places, and that the law is unable to provide a remedy? I know that such a belief prevails very extensively, and is held by many people much more strongly than by the hon. Gentleman himself. There was sent to me a few days ago a copy of the Bulwark, or Reformation Journal, dated the 1st of March, containing a paragraph headed, "Protestant Action in Parliament," in which it is stated that— On the 9th of February a special meeting of the General Committee of the Protestant Alliance was held in London, when the following Resolutions were unanimously adopted:—' That there has been a large and sudden increase in the number of conventual establishments in Britain, and at the present time there are 201 of these institutions in England and Scotland for females, containing, it is believed, many thousand inmates, most of whom are under a considerable amount of constraint, and are deprived of the liberty of quitting these establishments. That it is desirable that Parliament should institute inquiry upon this subject, and that the following petition on conventual establishments be adopted.' The petition repeats this statement in substance, and concludes— Your petitioners therefore pray your honourable House to institute an inquiry into the existence and condition of monastic and conventual establishments, and to take such means as shall secure the due observance of the law and the liberty of the subject. Now, Sir, what proof has been given of these facts, or of the inadequacy of the existing law to meet any of these supposed cases of physical coercion? The hon. Gentleman has cited several instances, but they seemed to me to show that the law is powerful enough to deal with these cases when they occur. He must know that if there is reasonable ground to suspect that any person is in confinement and kept in restraint against his will, an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made on his behalf to the Court of Queen's Bench, or either of the Superior Courts of Common Law, and if it were supported by affidavits the court would at once grant the writ. I was not acquainted with the particulars of the case with respect to which the hon. Gentleman said that he had twenty-seven affidavits. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Nine affidavits.] One affidavit would be quite enough—and I am sure that if affidavits were made disclosing proceedings as to the illegality or criminality of which there could not be a moment's question, showing that there were in any conventual establishments dungeons into which women were forced, and from which they were not allowed to come out alive—circumstances which would justify a magistrate in ordering the police to enter the establishment and make a thorough examination—the hon. Gentleman would be the last man to put such affidavits into his pocket until he had an opportunity of bringing them before the House of Commons. He must have known as a magistrate that proceedings could be taken to ascertain the truth of the affidavits, to stop the practices complained of, and to bring the parties concerned to justice. In this country such proceedings would meet with universal censure, and general sympathy would support any person in investigating and exposing them; and I do not speak of Protestant sympathy alone. Roman Catholics would unite with Protestants to support the exercise of magisterial authority in their suppression. In these conventual establishments and colleges, ladies of rank and education are to be found, and does the hon. Gentleman really suppose that the friends and relatives of these ladies leave them absolutely at the mercy of those who have the control of these establishments, that they never visit them—that they are so dead to the natural affections which are implanted in our hearts, and so lost to the obligation of those duties which are imposed upon us as members of society, as not at any time to inquire into the condition of their relatives who have taken the veil, and that they would not be the first to seek for the investigation of any such disgraceful proceedings as are now alleged as matters of complaint? The real fact is that the evil with which the hon. Gentleman proposes to grapple—for as a Protestant I cannot deny that it is an evil—arises not from physical, material restraint, but from that moral restraint, from that obligation which is felt to bind the consciences of those ladies, and even when they may have taken the veil at an early period of life, and may afterwards repent of their vows, prevents them from availing themselves of the means at their disposal, of leaving these establishments if they like. These feelings are very much those which were expressed in touching terms by the lady at Staplehurst, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, and who said she had taken the veil with an earnest desire to devote herself to the service of God; adding that all her relatives were Catholics and that she knew nothing of life, and asking where she should go if she left the asylum of the convent. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that any action of Parliament can reach motives of that kind—motives which, however much we may regret their existence, must still be respected? I do regret that any young person should take vows which are to last for the whole of her life; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that there are many of these establishments in which the persons who enter, devote themselves to a life, not of asceticism, but of active virtue and benevolence, employing their time in the education of the young, the reform of criminals, or other works of charity in which Protestants may well desire to emulate them. This Committee is asked for, not to inquire into the existence of convents—this is well known—not into their increase—because the hon. Gentleman has given us exact statistics upon that head, and I believe that an accurate list of all such establishments is to be found in the Catholic Directory, but into their character. Do you mean that it is to enter the convents, examine into their regulations, and ascertain what practices prevail in those institutions? Is the Committee to travel about the country, or is it to call before it the inmates and superintendents of convents? And if you adopt the latter course, do you think that you will find anyone who will appeal to this Committee to deliver her from the bondage in which the hon. Gentleman seems to think that all these ladies are kept? I believe such an idea is chimerical. The only thing that you can do to effect the object which the hon. Member seems to have in view is absolutely to prohibit the existence of any conventual establishments in this country. And I believe that is what the hon. Gentleman desires to do. Now, I ask, would that be either just or desirable? With regard to convents of men, they are so far prohibited by the Act 10 Geo. IV., that it is provided that persons in this country who had taken vows of this nature, were bound to register themselves within six months after the passing of the Act; and persons coming to this country, and who had taken the vows, were bound to register themselves within six months after they came here. With regard to future vows to be taken by members of a religious order of men, they were declared to be absolutely illegal. There is, then, an absolute prohibition existing with respect to the future establishment of convents in which religious vows are taken by men. But the hon. Gentleman says, in spite of all this, they have increased, and are increasing. Well, then, if that be so, is there any encouragement to us to go on imposing restrictions and prohibitions which it is impossible to enforce? If the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that in violation of the law persons have been admitted, or are being admitted members of communities hound by religious vows or oaths, let him lay the evidence upon which he founds that belief before the Attorney General, and then the Attorney General will decide whe- ther he is empowered by law to act, and whether the evidence is sufficient on which to ground a prosecution or not. But the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, will say that the object of his Motion is to attain that end. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Hear!] Then I say, Sir, that is an object which a Committee of the House of Commons will never assist him in accomplishing. He asks the House to appoint a Committee for the purpose of obtaining evidence upon which to found a prosecution against the persons who give it, evidence which the persons summoned before the Committee are compelled to give. Now, I ask, will the House do that? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) alluded to France, and said there is a class of convents there subject to visitation. But then these convents are recognized by, and are under the sanction of the State. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do that? If the State recognizes and undertakes the superintendence of convents in this country, we may do what is done in Roman Catholic countries. We have made an exception with regard to convents in which women live, who are bound by religious vows—we have not passed any law prohibiting them; but then we do not sanction them; we do not profess to regulate them. Will the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. Member for Peterborough agree to take them under the sanction of the State? If so, you can then make regulations which you cannot make now, and which it would be inexpedient to make if you refuse to recognize them. The effect of the prohibition of female convents would not be to diminish by one the number of the inmates of those establishments, but it might be to drive them abroad, where they would be further from the care of their relatives and friends, and where the wholesome public opinion of this country could not be brought to bear upon them. For these reasons I think it would be extremely inexpedient to enter upon this inquiry unless the House is thoroughly satisfied of the existence in those establishments, of physical coercion and restraint, which the law is at present unable to reach. I believe that no proof has been afforded either of the existence of such cases or of the inadequacy of the law, and retaining that opinion, I shall vote against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. SCULLY

said, he was sure the House would give him a hearing as it always did to any one who was personally con- cerned in the question before it. He had never listened to any debate in that House with more pain. The observations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had been most insulting to him and to every Catholic Member. He would not characterize the speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough. But his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), whom he would not have suspected of such ideas, had said that he would support the Motion on the grounds that he, as a Protestant, felt it necessary to interpose in behalf of the relatives and friends of Roman Catholic Members who, out of reverence for the heads of their Church, would not interfere for the protection of their own relatives. He (Mr. Scully) would have the greatest contempt for himself if any such feeling for priest or bishop, or even for his Holiness himself, should prevent him from affording every protection in his power, not only to his own relatives, but to any other persons. He was in the habit of going to convents, he had sisters in them, and was it to be supposed that he felt no interest in their happiness? Let hon. Gentlemen only change places, and imagine themselves some thirty Protestants in a Catholic Parliament of some 600 Members, and ask themselves what would be their feelings under similar imputations. A sister of his was Superioress of one of those convents, and he would bring the hon. Member for North Warwickshire there if he wished. He would bring him to any convent he pleased—there would be no difficulty in obtaining admission. Any gentleman might do so who sent in his card; in fact, there were no private residences of any ladies into which it was so easy to get admission. He had great experience of convents, and no complaint of restriction or restraint had ever reached him. There were only thirty-one Catholic Members from Ireland in that House, and one from England, the noble Lord the Member for Arundel Lord Edward Howard, and they were, of course, in the minority. The Motion might be carried before the election, but what good would it do? If it were an electioneering Motion, what a miserable course to take upon such a question; and then it was confined to Great Britain. ["No, no!"] Yet the terms were "to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of the monastic and conventual establishments in Great Britain." But Irishmen in England and out of it would deeply resent such a Motion. It was the Catholics who would be aggrieved if such absurd stories as had got into the head of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were true, and it was a personal imputation upon them of the most abominable kind that they would tamely submit to such abuses. Did any one suppose that he would weigh his seat in the balance against the persecution in a convent of any relative of his? The question was not what had happened in former times or in other countries. Did any one suppose that any lady now was immured in a convent against her will? If so, would it not be known to the Catholic Members, as well as to the Home Secretary, who had already professed his ignorance of any such restriction? Then there was the trumpery case of Mrs. M'Dermott. The whole facts were in the hands of the hon. Member for Peterborough, for it was he that drew up the affidavits, and he might easily see that it was a trumpery case if he only knew how to draw the right conclusion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 79: Majority 27.

AYES.
Baines, E.	Fenwick, H.
Baring, T. G.	Fergusson, Sir J.
Beamish, F. B.	Fitzgerald, W. R. S.
Beaumont, W. B.	Fitzroy, Lord F. J.
Beaumont, S. A.	Forster, C.
Beecroft, G. S.	Forteseue, rt. hon. C.
Bellew, R. M.	Gavin, Major
Blake, J. A.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Blencowe, J. G.	Greene, J.
Bouvevie, hon. P. P.	Gregory, W. H.
Bowyer, Sir G.	Greville, Colonel F.
Boyle, hon. G. F.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Brady, J.	Grosvenor, Earl
Bright, J.	Hadfield, G.
Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.	Handley, J.
Bury, Viscount	Hartington, Marq. of
Buxton, C.	Hervey, Lord A.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Headlam, rt. hn. T. E.
Castlerosse, Viscount	Henderson, J.
Cheetham, J.	Hennessy, J. P.
Clay, J.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Howard, Lord E.
Collier, Sir R. P.	Hutt, rt. hon. W.
Collins, T.	Ingham, R.
Colthurst, Sir G. C.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.
Crawford, R. W.
Dering, Sir E. C.	Kekewich, S. T.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Kinglake, J. A.
Douglas, Sir C.	Lawson, W.
Duff, M. E. G.	Leader, N. P.
Enfield, Viscount	Leatham, E. A.
Ewart, J. C.	Lennox, Lord G. G.

Locke, J.	Russell, F. W.
Longfield, R.	Schneider, H. W.
MacEyoy, E.	Scholefield, W.
Maguire, J. F.	Scourfield, J. H.
Malins, R.	Scully, V.
Marjoribanks, D. C.	Shafto, R. D.
Morris, W.	Sidney, T.
Morritt, W. J. S.	Smith, J. A.
Murphy, N. D.	Smith, J. B.
O'Brien, Sir P.	Stanley, Lord
O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M.	Taylor, P. A.
O'Reilly, M. W.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Padmore, R.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Palmer, Sir R.	Watkins, Colonel L.
Palmerston, Viscount	Weguelin, T. M.
Peel, rt. hon. F.	Williamson, Sir H.
Pilkington, J.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Pollard-Urquhart, W.	Woods, H.
Potter, E.
Ramsden, Sir J. W.	TELLERS.
Ricardo, O.	Brand, hon. H. B. W.
Rogers, J. J.	White, Colonel
Russell, A.
NOES.
Anstruther, Sir R.	Knox, hon. Major S.
Archdall, Captain M.	Langton, W. H. G.
Ayrton, A. S.	Lefevre, G. J. S.
Aytoun, R. S.	Lefroy, A.
Barrow, W. H.	Long, R. P.
Baxter, W. E.	Lysley, W. J.
Beach, Sir M.	Mackie, J.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Malcolm, J. W.
Beresford, rt. hon. W.	Martin, P. W.
Bovill, W.	Merry, J.
Bremridge, R.	Miller, T. J.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Miller, W.
Brooks, R.	Mills, J. R.
Bromley, W. D.	Neate, C.
Butler, C. S.	Ogilvy, Sir J.
Caird, J.	O'Neill, E.
Cargill, W. W.	Papillon, P. O.
Carnegie, hon. C.	Ponsonby, hon. A.
Cave, S.	Repton, G. W. J.
Churchill, Lord A. S.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Clive, Capt. hon. G. W.	Rose, W. A.
Cole, hon. H.	Russell, Sir W.
Cole, hon. J. L.	Selwyn, C. J.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Smith, A. (Herts)
Doulton, F.	Smith, A. (Truro)
Du Cane, C.	Somes, J.
Dunlop, A. M.	Surtees, H. E.
Ewart, W.	Sykes, Colonel W. H.
Ewing, H. E. Crum-	Tollemache, J.
Fleming, T. W.	Torrens, R.
Foley, H. W.	Vance, J.
Gard, R. S.	Vansittart, W.
Getty, S. G.	Verney, Sir H.
Gore, J. R.	Waldegrave-Leslie. hon. G.
Greenall, G.
Gurney, S.	Whalley, G. H.
Hamilton, Lord C.	White, J.
Hanbury, R.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Henley, Lord
Holmesdale, Viscount	TELLERS.
Horsfall, T. B.	Newdegate, C. N.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Stuart, Lieut.-Col. W.