services of religion on her altars, (misera- | He could not see why monks were to be considered worse than the gentlemen of that House, who live on their estates without labour. Might not a society of ancient ladies be as usefully employed in a convent as if they were distributed in parties at different card tables? If, again, gentlemen would consider the usefulness of monastic institutions, they would find much to respect. How valuable have been the discoveries of the missionaries sent from them to almost every corner of the world, add to which the number of useful books which have issued from time to time from their cloisters! He saw no danger from the progress of conversion, which was slow and immaterial.-Here the right hon. member urged the general topic of toleration, and observed, that while it might be politic for a state to interfere in extreme cases with the religious opinions of a people, yet no interference would be justifiable except on very strong grounds. It was because he thought so that he voted for the repeal of the Test act, and would probably vote so again. The present bill, as far as it related to convents, proposed to save a man from the effects of his own act; whereas laws proposed, in general, to save a man from the acts of others. There was a law, indeed, to prevent people from riding on the top of a stagecoach, but this law appeared to have the safety of the inside passengers as much in view as that of the passengers on the top. In some countries, there were, again, laws to prevent people from going on the ice at certain periods; but all such laws, though obviously well meant, were far from popular. Hence it was evident, that a law to prevent conversion could not be an effectual or politic law. It could never be wise in the legislature to set itself in motion to enact laws to restrain men from committing that of which they must so speedily repent. With respect to the taking of vows, he believed the fact was, that only those who had served their noviciate, or the greater part of it, on the continent, took the vows in this country. Thus, then, no acquisition was made from the natives of Great Britain; and as to the alarm about converts, he could only say, that the church must increase its diligence, if it has relaxed it. The divines of the established church should feed their flocks with spiritual food, and thus enable them to withstand the poison of delusion. Instead of this, ble as to their weaknes and means of acquiring influence, but respectablefor their virtues) was it likely that these people like the Trojan colony, would be able to found an empire? There never were means more inadequate to the end. The bill was indeed wholly without an object, and could not be supported without inconsistency. But so general was the practice of calling on the House for laws, and with so great facility did the House of late grant such requests, that it would not excite any surprise in him to hear of bills for the merest trifles. At present there was nothing so cheap as law, [a laugh] nothing so cheap as the law of parliament, but as to the courts below, there the law kept pretty much at the old price. Men now a-days went to the legislature for laws, as they went to the parish pump, which might be worked by any man who put his hand on it. The present bill might well be said to be one of those which had no strong case to support it. He wished therefore, to stop its progress. If, how ever, the House went into the committee, he would be glad to know how gentlemen would discuss a subject which had neither form nor substance, an object which had no visible joints or limbs. But it would be asked, are we to see convents and nunneries established among us without any attempt to suppress them? If this subject were fully examined, it might be asked what greater danger is to be apprehended from monasteries, than from the numerous other sects in our country which dissent from the established church? If a man thinks that his duty to his God can better be performed in a monastery than a chapel, what liberal minded Protestant will object to it? If a man thinks that he, by retiring from the world, and leading a life of self. denial, austere piety and penance, better fits himself for eternal life, shall Protestants forbid him the exercise of his zeal? He had never met with any thing so severe, however, as the notions of some Protestants against the Catholics. Nothing but acrimony and a spirit of persecution pervaded the whole of the Protestant writings against the Ascetics of Rome. But why is a Catholic to be marked out as a subject of enmity for mortifying himself to exalt his penance, and prepare himself for another world. The Catholic ought to be permitted to be his own physician, who had chosen, To quit a world where strong temptations try, And where 'tis hard to conquer, learn to fly. they are too fond of raising the cry, that the church is in danger. If proselytism exists, it is a disgrace only to the clergyman in whose parish it takes place. What, if they do their duty, can members of the church of England fear? They meet their antagonists on more than equal terms. Should any one, indeed, attempt to preach up the rights of man, or teach insubordination to lawful authority, to silence him would be a work of necessity; but popery has nothing in it of this dangerous tendency, and may be met fairly in the field of argument. But if a line of conduct be adopted similar to that which induces persons to apply to the legislature to protect themselves by penalties and statutes, where they are entirely careless about themselves, and would rather defend their property by acts of parliament than by a quickset hedge; what can persons thus acting expect, but that advantage should be taken of their supineness? Success, and the protection of the laws, belong rightly to a different class, "vigilantibus non dormientibus." Penal laws can never defend the country against popery. I cannot help making the remark here, that opinion may be too much under the protection of law. A little opposition is no bad thing, it makes persons attentive to their duty, and may be as useful in the church as in the senate. In the physical and moral body, opposition tends to keep up the proper tone of health. Did the earth spontaneously produce every thing for the use of man, the short-sighted philosopher might say it was well; but nature has wisely ordained it otherwise. Every thing valuable is only to be acquired and preserved by labour. In this point of view, I deprecate the bill which gentlemen wish to bring in, as it tends to narrow the field of intellectual exercise and fair discussion. Another objection against the bill is, that it raises prejudices in the minds of the illiberal, against a number of unoffending persons, who have fled to our shores from the tempest which threatened their destruction. When this shall subside, they will be very ready to seek their own country again, and carry all their offensive customs and sentiments along with them. But why should we send them back lame and crippled? While they remain here, it is not generous to mark them out as objects of public scorn and suspicion. An hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Jones) has called this a nun-baiting bill. I, however, am their defender; and the ball himself turned into a baiter, is running furiously among the nuns. Now, Sir, there is another evil to be remedied, or a danger to be avoided by this bill. As to danger to the state, every person must scout the idea. If conversion be the evil complained of, why is that greater in this case than in that of the sectaries? I have heard it as an argument for the bill, that if it will do no great good, it will do no hurt; but this I deny, so long as unjust prejudice is liable to spring from it. I therefore vote against the Speaker's leaving the chair. Sir Henry Mildmay said:-My right hon. friend has argued as if he supposed that the bill went to introduce some innovation into the criminal law of this country. This is by no means the case: the object of it is not to introduce any one principle whatever that has not been already generally recognised, since we have had any laws to regulate the coR. duct of persons professing the Catholic persuasion. Its object is, to give effect to the act of 1791, and to adapt its provisions to the particular circumstances of the present moment. If the subject of these provisions be of trivial moment they do not originate with me: they rest with the attorney-general, who brought in the bill of 1791, and with my right hon. friend' who spoke last, who seconded that very measure, in a speech replete with the most satisfactory arguments. Now, on what principle my right hon. friend could have supported a bill that distinctly prohibits the introduction of a monastic community in 1791, when scarcely the most remote possibility appeared to exist of any such attempt being made here— and in the year 1800, when the evil actually exists, he should tell us that it is a subject unworthy of legislative interference, I am unable to conjecture. That he may have seen good reason to alter his opinions on the subject, I cannot pretend to dispute; but that circumstance alone is not sufficient to induce the House to relax from the principle and spirit of those laws which were originally formed to restrain our own Catholic subjects, in favour of a set of foreigners, who still adhere to many obnoxious tenets and opinions, which have been regularly disclaimed by our own subjects as inconsistent with the civil establishment of this * See vol. 28, p. 1264. country. When the emigrants were ori- | it, that the members of that communion ginally expelled from their former resi- are daily decreasing, so that the propordence on the continent; when, victims of tion of Catholics to Protestants is not, the most merciless persecution, they were exclusive of the emigrants, more than turned friendless adrift on the world; we one to one hundred. To this remark I afforded them our protection: we have shall observe that in 1687, subsequent to subsisted them at the public expense; and the famous proclamation of James 2nd, all that we require in return is, that they at a time when the king was professedly should not attempt to interfere, in any a bigoted Catholic, when all the principal respect, with that constitution in church officers of state were Catholics, when or state, to which we are indebted for every avenue to wealth, to honour, and the blessings we enjoy. The object of to preferment, was attainable only by this the first part of the bill is merely to pre- Catholic influence-at that very time, vent them from rendering permanent Mr. Hume distinctly tells us, that the those monastic establishments which are proportion of Catholics to Protestants directly opposite to the spirit and the was "something less than one to one letter of our constitution; and to prevent hundred." Now, Sir, if in 1687 the prethem from immuring, in useless inactivity valence of Catholic opinions was sufficient and seclusion, young persons of both to create such an apprehension in the sexes, subjects of this country. The ob- public mind as to go a great way towards ject of the second part of the bill is solely producing the revolution, I think, so long to restrain Catholic teachers from holding as that proportion continues the same, we out bribes and temptations to seduce the cannot say that we are so totally exemptchildren of Protestant parents from the ed from any danger from such opinions, profession of the established religion of that we can suffer upwards of 5,000 authe country, and to enable us to detect thorized Roman Catholic missionaries such proceedings, in case they should be to be dispersed over the country, without practised. These objects appear to me subjecting them to some regulations. so moderate in themselves, that I can Every year these persons continue in this scarcely conceive any reasonable objection country, their situation is materially albeing made to them; and I acknowledge tered: in proportion as they become fathat the opposition which has been so miliar with our language, as they learn to industriously fomented out of doors, and assimilate and incorporate themselves in collected, to throw out the bill, is an ad- society, so in proportion augment their ditional reason in my mind why parlia- powers, their means and their opportuniment ought to adopt it. Can it be ex- ties of subverting the established church, pected that we are to sit still and tamely As to the second provision, the professee the constitution of this country sions of the superiors themselves, and undermined by a set of men whom we their own advertisements, show that they have received here from motives of com- undertake the education of children inpassion, and to take no steps to prevent it, discriminately, whether of Catholic or of merely from the apprehension of inflaming Protestant parents; and in some instances the public mind against the Catholics? they profess to educate the children of Be the consequence of the bill what it indigent parents, free of any expense, may, no blame attaches to us ; it is to be ex- This appears to me to be offering bribes clusively attributed to those whose conduct and temptations to obtain the instruction has driven us to adopt regulations which of Protestant children, and, so long as we are become absolutely essential to our profess the reformed religion, such pracown security. With regard to the Ca- tices ought not to be suffered. I am in tholics, I consider them to be, as a body, possession of an official letter from the as amiable and respectable in private life, bishop of St. Pol de Leon to the bishop. as harmless and as loyal as any one class of Winchester, in consequence of very of his majesty's Protestant subjects. My heavy complaints that were made by his right hon. friend has said, that at this lordship to the French bishop on the subtime of day it is impossible that the pub- ject to which I have called the attention lic mind can entertain any reasonable of the House. In his answer, the bishop apprehensions from the prevalence of of Leon does not apologize for the conCatholic opinions. The same has been duct of the emigrants; but tells us dissuggested to me by several very respectable tinctly that he considers them perfectly Catholics, and they assign as a reason for justified under the letter of our existing [VOL. XXXV.] [24] laws. Now, Sir, if our laws are so inaccurately drawn as to be subject to misconception by those very persons to whom they are meant to be immediately applicable, that is a sufficient reason for re-considering them. Mr. Jones said, he would not have troubled the House on this business, had he not been" baited" by a right hon. gentleman to say a few words. He would not contend with the right hon. gentleman in his metaphysical refinements and abstractions; but would confine himself to the plain and obvious parts of the question. And first, he would say, that as the French priests were well received and protected by this country, they should not have been wanting in gratitude. He had read a pamphlet, which went so far as to say that priests must make converts. This doctrine he did not understand; but he understood that the bishop of St. Pol de Leon did insist upon it. The right hon. secretary had made an elaborate speech in favour of those monastic institutions: in his (Mr. J.'s) opinion, they were bad. A celebrated character had said of the French revolution, that "the age of chivalry was gone," so, would he say, the age of popery had commenced. He could not but think that danger was to be apprehended from 5,000 priests being in this country. Mr. Ryder said, that the principle of the bill was good, and its provisions unexceptionable. It would operate as a protection to the Catholics, and would reconcile the populace to their residence in Great Britain. These exiled priests had behaved in the most peaceable manner, but if they were now in danger of encroaching upon the laws, was it not proper to give them warning of this error? If this bill did not pass, these religious societies would soon become objects of much jealousy. The bill was, in fact, an enabling bill, and not a bill to coerce, to restrain, and to punish. The existence of the monasteries was directly contrary to several statutes. His only objection to the bill was, that it carried toleration too far. It had been stated as an argument against the bill, that it would tend to suppress monasteries altogether. The monastic life was generally condemned even in Roman Catholic countries, and he little expected to hear that defended in this House, which was contrary to our religion, hostile to our laws, and destructive of our prosperity. There could be no doubt that, if these monastic institutions were to be at all tolerated in this country, they ought to be under the control of the magistrates. Mr. Hobhouse said, that it had been the policy of our law to inflict penalties and disabilities upon persons professing the Roman Catholic faith, not on account of their religious tenets, but of the politi cal opinions which they maintained. Such persons had been regarded as objects of terror, because they acknowledged a foreign potentate paramount to the king of their own country, and held that faith was not to be kept with heretics, and that princes excommunicated might be murdered. The Catholics of this country had long abandoned those doctrines; and therefore, in 1791, a bill was brought in, for the purpose of exempting them from certain penalties. Those who gave a proof of having renounced their civil opinions, by making the declaration required by that statute, were Roman Catholics; those who could not con scientiously subscribe that test were still papists, for they still believed the supre macy of the pope, in affairs temporal as well as ecclesiastical. Now, which of these two descriptions of men had struck the hon. baronet and his friends with so violent a panic? The Roman Catholics of this country had, with very few excep tions, entitled themselves to the indulgences under the statute of 1791, upon the principle of our legal code; therefore, no apprehensions respecting them ought longer to be entertained; neither did he see any reason why they should not be placed on the same footing with the Protestant Dissenters. But we might be told that it was the papist who was so much the object of alarm. He should not dwell upon the fallen state of the papal power, a state so low that to dread the restoration of it to its former greatness would be quite ridiculous. The conduct of the emigrants had been exemplary: they had fled from persecution in their own country, had been hospitably received by us, and in return had manifested gratitude and propriety of demeanor. Besides, the French emigrants were returning to their native homes. Was this a time, when their numbers were fast diminishing, to dread their influence, and impose additional restraints upon their conduct? Certainly not. Far wiser would it be to review our penal code, and expunge the rigorous laws still existing any against the Roman Catholic religion. Such dormant statutes might be considered as so many daggers scattered around, which the demon of superstition might at time seize and convert to purposes the most bloody and the most desperate. Not a weapon should be left within the reach of that fell goddess. The present bill divided itself into two parts, the one relating to monastic or religious houses, the other to places of education. The hon. baronet had been desired to state the grounds of this application to parliament. He had declined to comply with the request, alleging, that he had abstained from motives of delicacy, lest a publication of names should excite odium against individuals; but he would assure the hon. baronet, that all the persons affected by the bill challenged investigation. The societies of English ladies, who were bound by religious vows abroad, and who have resided in this country since 1791, consisted of 17 in number, and contained, in the whole, rather more than 300 persons, including a few French or Flemish servants. Those ladies were, for the most part, sprung from some of the most respectable families in the kingdom. The societies of foreign ladies were 4 in number, and consisted of about 50 individuals. Of male societies there were only four, three of which were entirely composed of English from Douay and Bornhem. With respect to the French emigrant clergy, probably not 500 out of the 5,000 now in England, belonged to any religious order. Were these monastic institutions, then formidable in point of the numbers they contained? Certainly not. Had they been increasing since 1794, the period of their formation in this Country? Quite the contrary. It appeared from the obituary, that, among the women only, sixty had died, and no more than twenty had succeeded in their stead; and hence he was entitled to infer, that death had made more ravages than religious Vows had replaced; nay, it was natural to suppose that these institutions should be in a state of diminution; for it was most probable that, when the members of them were first assaulted by the cruel rage of persecution, the greater part of them would fly together in quest of a peaceful asylum, and therefore few were left to join them since their settlement in Great Britain. Nor was there more reason for apprehension when their property was considered; they lost their houses and moveables by the violence of our enemies; their funds, which were lodged in the bank of Vienna, our magnanimous ally, the Emperor, had seized, and transferred the poor wanderers over to our charity and compassion. To the bounty of individuals, and the money they received for the education of children, they were indebted for their subsistence. But it would be said that their zeal for proselytism might be productive of bad effects, for very many of these societies had opened schools. It was certainly true that many of them took pupils, but they confined themselves to the children of Roman Catholics, conformably to the injunctions of the law. He had the authority of the most respectable abbesses and directors, for saying, that they never knowingly admitted the child of any Protestant. Only two instances occurred in which this rule was violated; but both were the result of deception; and the moment the children were discovered to belong to Protestant parents, they were dismissed. If, then, these monastic institutions were neither formidable for the number of their members, their property, nor their zeal, why should they be made the objects of legislation? It had been said, that this bill would be a protection to the Roman Catholics. Would it be protection_to prevent them from replenishing their numbers, and to oblige those who should survive their present companions, to drag out a solitary and forlorn life within the dreary walls of a convent? Would it be protection to prevent an unfortunate female, who had taken the vows in a foreign country, and who had been expelled from the retreat she had chosen, from finding an asylum in her native land, and from spending her days among the intimate companions of her early life in the service of her Maker? Would it be protection to force her back again from your shores, without friends, and, perhaps, without means of support, a prey to disappointment and despair? for such must be the effect of closing the door of the convent against her, since neither her conscience nor her habits of life would suffer her to live in any other way than among a sisterhood of her own persuas sion. In another point of view, the prevention of new members in these monasteries would operate cruelly by the Roman Catholics, and disadvantageously to the country. The Roman Catholic families who used to send their children, |