commit, in happy inmates, but rather with a view of incur, and the enormous sin they would keeping those who had been once enseeking to be released from trapped. The most florid and vehement rhetoric is exhausted in laying before them the advantages to be secured by remaining within the walls of a convent, however unwillingly, and the dangers and perils incurred by a sinful endeavour to escape. Now, the argumentative value of this admission cannot possibly be overstated or over-estimated. Is it possible, after this, to say that there were no such persons as discontented nuns? This was not an inadvertent admission, casually made without thought of the consequences, or one forced from the reluctant grasp of a controvertist There is another reason why the public distrust the character of these institutions. They know that the Council of Trent has denounced the most severe anathemas against those who either induced or compelled a nun to enter a convent against her will, and they have more faith in the existence of the evil against which this church legislation was directed, than in the efficiency of that legislation to correct it; for even church laws may be broken for church objects, and absolution be easily obtained for breaches of the law committed for the benefit of the church, the motive by an acute and remorseless adversary; converting the crime into a merit. Hence it is that the people of England distrust the assertion that the seclusion of nuns is always voluntary. The existence of the crime may be far more conclusively inferred from the law which appears on the Statute-book, than its suppression can be inferred from the fact of the precept and of the penalties having been directed against it. As the law passed to punish sheepstealing attests the prevalence of the offence, I grant that this argument is not conclusive, but it is one which influences the public mind. Again, the people of England know that the canon law denounces severe penalties against a nun who forsakes a convent after having once taken religious vows, and they think it impossible that such denunciations should have been uttered unless there had been in some cases a desire to escape from bondage. The Church of Rome holds religious vows to be of sacred obligation, and, therefore, naturally enough, enacts penalties against those who presume to violate them; but the British constitution knows nothing of their imperious obligation, and such bonds are broken with as much ease as Samson snapped the green withs which bound him, the moment a nun invokes the aid of British law. This may not be a conclusive argument, though I think it is pretty nearly so; but I am now about to state one to which the ingenuity of hon. Members who represent Ireland will be taxed to find an answer. The next reason which induces the British public to doubt the perfect contentment of religious recluses is, that page after page of Roman Catholic sacred literature is employed in exhorting and denouncing nuns who desire to escape, and describing the heavy penalties they would nor was it a categorical assertion of the existing state of things, as though the public needed to be informed of it; but it was a state of things assumed as existing, as well known, and as a crying evil in the Church, creating the greatest scandal, and requiring a prompt application of legislative and other remedies. Here, then, was a class of nuns treated as discontentedexhorted, warned, remonstrated with, and denounced as such. It may be said that these were, after all, only exceptions; but then these exceptions were just what they were desirous of reaching. It is not desired to liberate those who are contented and happy in their seclusion; we do not want to enter a nunnery and discharge from monastic vows any lady who is desirous of remaining under them; but if we find a class whom learned doctors in former times exhorted, entreated, and anathematised, these are the persons whom we are looking for, and to whom the British constitution will say, "You are free.' No, it does not say that completely yet; but I confidently predict that, if not in this Session, yet at no distant period, this act of obvious justice will be done in this country, as it is done already in every other enlightened country in the world. It may be said that these denunciations were written for a class of persons existing a long time ago, and in other and distant countries; but time and place are utterly immaterial to the argument, for so long as the Roman Catholic system and the human nature subject to it continue the same, the same evils may be looked for, and similar remedies will be required. I put this, therefore, as a conclusive argument. I will now state to the House what is the law in the most important countries in Europe, in reference to this question. It will be found that in nearly every other country where convents exist, there are legal provisions for the liberation of the dissatisfied nuns. It will not do to argue that we have nothing to do with other countries, and cannot be influenced by their example, for history is not written for the mere gratification of an elegant leisure, but for instruetion and guidance in matters of legislation and government. Nor can it be said that there is any overwhelming prejudice against conventual institutions in those countries, or ignorance respecting them, for they are Roman Catholic countries, and as such they must necessarily know these matters better than we do. In fact, the mere existence of such legal provisions as I shall proceed to notice, is the plainest proof of their necessity. In Prussia, no novice can take the veil without having been first examined by the civil authorities, as to the sufficiency and propriety of her motives for taking such a step. In Russia, no convent can receive a nun without first addressing the synod at Moscow on the subject, and sending an affidavit of the postulant, that it is her own wish and free will to enter on a religious life; and the synod then grant or refuse the application, as to them appears right. In Bavaria, vows are not allowed by law for more than three years, besides which, there is a quarterly visitation of all the convents by the civil authorities, for the purpose of ascertaining not only their fiscal condition, but for the purpose of restoring to the world and to society every nun who desires to relinquish the seclusion of the convent. In Austria, the inmates of these institutions may, at any time, privately address the civil Government, stating their desire to leave the convent; and that application will be attended to, and they are permitted to leave or not, according to the reasons assigned, and the circumstances of the case. In the convents in France, in many of them at least, the vows are only temporary, and there is a power in the maire of the arrondissiment, accompanied by the authorities, to visit them without notice, whenever he thought it desirable or necessary to do so. them; of the fact that ingress is never followed by egress; by the decree of the Council of Trent, denouncing the crime of coaxing or compelling reluctant persons to enter a convent; by the canon law which curses discontented nuns; by the rhetoric employed and exhausted by the doctors of the Church upon repentant and turbulent inmates of these establishments; and, finally, by the law and practice of all the enlightened countries of the Continent in relation to the institutions. But certain objections will be stated against the proposition submitted to the House; and to the most prominent of those objections a few observations must be devoted. And, first, it may be said, your object is to invade religious liberty. To that argument my answer is, we seek not to invade religious liberty, but to protect civil liberty. The whole question is, not whether religious liberty is to be secured, but whether civil liberty is to be invaded. Whether against the law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of Englishmen and Englishwomen, individuals are not immured within stone walls, deprived of all communication with their friends, and consequently of all the blessings of social intercourse. If the fact of a restraint from civil liberty be not made out, there should be no legislative interference at all. From some observations which I have heard, I suspect that there is a great want of information abroad upon this subject among those who are hostile to my proposal. Hon. Members are perhaps aware that in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, there is a provision making it in plain terms illegal to establish any monastic institution for males in this country; but there is a saving clause exempting convents for women from the penalties imposed, which at the time of the passing of the Act did not much exceed a dozen. But now if we look to the Roman Catholic Directory for 1853, we shall find that there are no less than seventy-five convents in England and Wales: this is in itself an important fact in this Protestant country; but though the actual number is considerable, it becomes momentous when compared with the returns of former years. In 1851, there were fifty-three nunneries; Now, the existence of a strong public but, as was stated in the former discussion, feeling upon the subject in this country, is nineteen of these had been added during alone, I think, a reason for doing some the four previous years, or fewer than five thing; whilst the justice of that feeling is each year. But how has the number inproved on the several gronnds which I have creased, since 1851, when there were fiftymentioned. On the ground of the external three nunneries in England and Wales? and the internal character of the build- In 1852 there were sixty-two, or an adings; of the jealous vigilance observed in dition of nine; and in 1853, there are 66 course of kindred and society! It is, to use a trite phrase, adding insult to injury, to call that the privilege of seeing one's friends. In entering a convent, the nun is lost to the country as a citizen, and she passes at once from the control of the law and from the protection of the constitution. Within the convent there can be neither communication nor correspondence with the external world. Out of the light of the constitution-out of the reach of the law seventy-five, being a further addition of thirteen. The additions, therefore, go on rapidly increasing from year to year. [Cries of Hear, hear!" from Irish Members.] Hon. Gentlemen near me rejoice, and naturally so, in this fact, for their religious views lead them to believe that these establishments are calculated to spread religion. No doubt Roman Catholic gentlemen are perfectly at liberty to multiply conventual institutions, and to rejoice at their success; but surely they will not consider it an out of the hearing of her friends, the unreasonable request, that young females poor nun, if discontented with her way of should not be compelled to be happy in life, is perfectly unprotected and helpless: them against their will. But with respect no ear can hear her complaint, no arm can to this alleged uninterrupted happiness, I bring her redress. This is the case pracwould refer those gentlemen to the pages tically, although not theoretically, for the of Roman Catholic divines, who complain law stands helpless at the porch of a nunconstantly of the turbulence of convents, nery, as the emperor of old did at the gate and the great scandal that arose to the of the Papal palace at Rome. It is not Church, in consequence. Surely we can- possible to make the law of England availnot infer unbroken tranquillity, when dis- able in such cases, and it is only done in turbance is so often confessed, or unmixed foreign countries, by provisions framed happiness when resignation is so often specially for the purpose. The ordinary counselled with the most forcible rhetoric. laws on the Continent have beenas certainTo attempt to detain persons in a happy ed to be not strong enough, and hence, seclusion by threats and anathemas, is very in most Catholic countries, special provimuch like finding it necessary to fence sions have been enacted far stronger than round Paradise with a chevaux de frise of those which when proposed two years ago as necessary in this country were denounced as monstrous infringements of personal rights. curses. I have mentioned the Roman Catholic nunneries; but there is another class of conventual establishments, namely, the Anglo-Catholic, which equally demand supervision. Of these we have unfortunately no return at all; but perhaps the whole number, both Romish and Protestant, will not be over-estimated at 100; and supposing each to contain thirty inmates, this will give an aggregate of 3,000 nuns for England and Wales-a number sufficiantly large to excite attention in this House. For though the ceremony of a young lady taking the veil may be looked upon as a very trifling and insignificant circumstance, yet it should be recollected that there is nothing analogous to it in the institutions of this country; in fact, there is nothing at all like it except dying, for when a young woman takes the veil, she passes away entirely, not only from the public view but from the society of her inost intimate friend. ["Oh, oh!"] I have read nothing on the subject but from Roman Catholic books, whence it seems certain, that nuns cannnot see their friends except in the presence of the superior, or of some member of the convent; and how absurd is it to suppose such infrequent and constrained interviews to be any substitute for the constant and kindly inter Now, it may be asked, what proof have you that the inmates of these convents are unhappy? One sufficient reason for believing this is, that a nunnery is ostensibly a place of restraint and infliction, where females are held in strict bondage, and are under absolute power, in irresponsible hands, exercised in impenetrable secrecy. This, at least, it is impossible to deny. What, then, is the necessary inference? It is, that the law should be more vigilant in protecting the rights of parties placed in such a situation, and in preventing any abuse of authority for which there is such an opportunity. It is said, also, that there is, no need to pass a special law, and that any such law would be unconstitutional; but let the House remember that they have special laws for the protection of idiots and lunatics, and many other classes. Yet, in my opinion, there never was a case in which Parliament has interfered specially for the protection of the subject, half so strong as the one I am now bringing under their notice. In the case of lunatics there is no mystery or concealment, and they may have lucid intervals during which they may seek redress for any undue restraint; but what interval or chance for making complaint has the poor nun? She may be happy, it is true; but if she is wronged and wretched, what opportunity has she, or power, of appealing to British law for redress? We have passed laws for the protection of factory boys and girls, interfering for that purpose even with the authority of their own parents, and with the freedom of trade. No such inconvenience or objection arises in the present case. Again, we have passed acts which follow the sailor boy over the world, and give him justice; and it is only a short time since that the right honourable Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board brought in his measure for the protection of parish apprentices, under which the parochial authorities are empowered and required to visit the masters of the children several times in the year, for the purpose of ascertaining that no wrong is done to them, and no cruelty inflicted upon them. And although these apprentices may be removed to a distance from the union whose guardians bound them, yet the law follows them, and requires the overseers of the parish in which they may be living to exercise the same vigilant oversight in respect of them. If these special provisions have been found necessary in such a case, surely there is still stronger reason for interference to be found in the nature of the restraints imposed upon the inmates of conventual establishments. But there is one feature of these institutions especially deserving of notice, and that is that convents existing in this country are affiliated with institutions of a similar kind on the Continent; and, hence, a person may be deported at any moment or under any circumstances-in fact, transported for life, and it will be impossible for the officers of justice to trace the direction in which the exile had been sent. I have said that there is nothing analogous to these institutions in England; and I call upon my honourable friends representing Irish constituencies to name, if they can, any other institutions at all resembling them in principle. Here is imprisonment for life; seclusion from all social intercourse; severance from all domestic ties; and utter deprivation of the protection of the law. In addition to all this there is the risk of transportation for life without offence and without trial, and without the slightest chance of protection from the constituted authorities. But it will be said, "You only make general statements, and have not given one example." In my judgment my case does not rest on single instances, nor can it do so with half the stability with which it is sustained by the general arguments which I have adduced. Those arguments have a better foundation than single instances, which, had I quoted, it would have been said that a single example of wretchedness only served to prove the general rule of contentment. Besides, one ground of our complaint is, that we cannot get the facts, and that the absence of facts is a proof of the secrecy and success of the system. We charge it upon you that your system of wrong succeeds so perfectly that we cannot detect the instances in which the wrong has been committed. If the country were covered with refugee nuns escaping on every side, it might be said there is no need for the interference of the law, as the system of compulsory seclusion evidently failed, and the discontented escaped. That argument has been used on a former occasion; but, after two years' consideration, I shall be astonished if I hear any hon. Member repeat it now. On this part of my subject, however, I will give one or two instances by way of illustration, and feel that my case is much strengthened by what occurred last night in another place, where a most rev. Prelate and a right rev. Prelate had cited examples of the evils now existing in conventual institutions. The Archbishop of Dublin said "He would take the liberty of mentioning a case which had come within his own knowledge, and for the accuracy of which he could vouch. There was a boy in the service of a certain institution in Dublin, who resided in the institution. He fortunately had a father and mother alive, and occasionally went home to see his parents. Not having visited them, however, for some time, they became alarmed, and inquired for him at the institution, but they were put off with evasive answers. At last, becoming very much alarmed, they demanded him at the head of a body of police, when he was reluctantly produced, but in so frightfully emaciated a state that it made one's blood curd!e to hear of the cruelties which had been inflicted on the poor boy. If he had not had a father and mother alive, he would leave their Lordships to guess what chance he would ever have had of being released." Another instance had also come to his knowledge :— "There was a Protestant lady in Dublin, most of whose relatives were Roman Catholics, and she had formerly been of that Church; she had, however, for many years been a member of the Protestant Church, and was bringing up her children as Protestants. She was frequently assailed, and offers of pecuniary assistance (she being in narrow circumstances) were made to her if she would return into the bosom of the Church of Rome. That might be all fair enough; but he would not have done it, for he would rather not have converts obtained in that way. This poor woman was thus assailed constantly, and her Protestant friends (for relatives she had none) procured for her a situation in England, and they had even engaged a passage for her, when just at that time she disappeared, and had never been seen by any of them since. They had inquired earnestly after her, and had traced her from one house to another, and at last had ascertained where she was admitted to be; but they could only get messages from her, saying that she had returned to ther intercourse with her friends. This might be true; but it would have been more satisfactory if she had been produced, and such a statement had come from her own lips. A letter was at last produced purporting to be written by her, but her friends all agreed it was not in her handwriting. From that time to the present she had not been the Church of Rome, and wished to have no fur [“ Hear, hear!” and cries of "Name!" from the Roman Catholic Members.] I believe the facts cannot be denied; but, at all events, hon. Members may have plenty of opportunity for investigation. I do not believe the statement is the Archbishop of Dublin's invention, and I can assure the House it is not mine. The Bishop of Norwich stated the following case : " He would mention a case which came under his observation two years ago. He was residing in the neighbourhood of Dublin when an application was made to him by a Roman Catholic mother, who asked him to obtain information as to the particular nunnery to which her child had been removed. She thought him to be a Roman Catholic priest, and he felt bound at once to undeceive her, or he might have heard more of her story; he advised her to apply to the late Dr. Murray, then Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin." Now, it is clear, that a Roman Catholic mother is entitled to the custody of her daughter, and is not only authorised but bound to know where she is; but all that a benevolent prelate could do in this case was to recommend her to the Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, who was very unlikely to know anything about the matter. on the 29th of last October; but the vows of the nuns were not to terminate till after some considerable period had elapsed. Their change of principles and intentions were discovered. The superior had made an appointment to meet her friends at a particular house in the city, but she has not made her appearance to this hour; the other nuns were at the same sent away a hundred or more miles to some affiliated institution, where neither the law nor their friends could follow them. They were to have written, but no letter has been received. A profound silence has followed, and their friends will never hear of them unless the civil authorities be put on their tract. One of them has indeed happily escaped from her persecutors, for she is dead. Now, these are facts which it is idle to deny. They rest for the most part on Catholic authorities. They have been laughed at, but never refuted. They have been long denied, but are now universally believed, and the time is gone by for contradicting them. Indeed, I would recommend my opponents who are disposed still to deny them, to adopt a more candid and perchance a more successful course—to admit and to justify them. To use the lan= guage of the law, it is idle any longer to plead the general issue: you had better confess and avoid. I will now with the permission of the House anticipate a few of the prominent objections that are likely to be taken to the course I propose. First, it may be said that the measure suggested will be an invasion of religious liberty. It is difficult fully to understand this objection, and therefore to answer it-for we are not going to compel a Roman Catholic lady to abandon her vows, or to interfere with and break up communities of religious females living in conventual institutions, who derive comfort from such a mode of life, or who believe they do. Nothing could be more wrong than to adopt such a course, and I have no intention of taking it. I do not desire to interfere in those cases; but where a person is not satisfied-where the system instead of operating to afford a religious asylum, proves a perfect civil tyranny of mind and body, person and property, and becomes a bold invasion of religious liberty itself-it is proper for the law to interpose. This is not a religious question. It is not even an ecclesiastical question; for it is to be remembered that these institutions form no part of the Roman Catholic Church, but have often been persecuted and de.. A more recent case has occurred in France, which has attracted a great deal of notice, and full particulars of which are detailed in two late numbers of the Chris-mi tian Times. A superior and eight nuns of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Paris, had become convinced that the Roman Catholic was not the true religion, and had determined to renounce it and become Protestants. The superior was only under temporary vows, which expired |