Skip to main content

Full text of "Report of the Select Committee on Convents and Nunneries"

See other formats


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Lyrasis  IVIembers  and  Sloan  Foundation 


http://www.archive.org/details/repofconventsnun1856mary 


Document  Q. 

By  the  House  of  Delegates, 
March  4,  1866. 
Read  and  1000  extra  copies  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Bj  order. 

Thomas  H.  Kent,  of  Jos.,  Clerk. 


REPORT 


SEX-.EC'r     O  03^^3iv^Xi:TEE 


CONVENTS  AND  NUNNERIES. 


REPORT. 


The  Select  Committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  various  peti- 
tions, asking  further  legislation  for  the  protection  of  persons  un- 
lawfully confined  in  Convents  and  Nunneries,  beg  leave  respect- 
fully to  report : 

That  they  have  given  the  subject  that  calm  and  deliberate  con- 
sideration whicli  its  importance  demands,  and  while  they  have  been 
led  unanimously  to  the  conclusions  they  present,  they  will  not  be 
able  to  do  more  than  state  those  conclusions,  without  furnishing  all 
the  reasons  in  detail,  which  have  induced  their  adoption. 

The  Constitution  and  Declaration  of  Rights  of  our  State,  guar- 
antee to  every  individual  the  right  to  worship  God  in  such  manner 
as  he  may  think  most  acceptable  to  Him ;  and  they  also  declare 
that  no  person  ought,  by  any  law,  to  be  molested  in  his  person  or 
estate  on  account  of  his  religious  persuasion,  or  profession,  or  for 
his  religious  practice,  unless  under  color  of  religion  any  man  shall 
disturb  the  good  order,  peace  or  safety  of  the  State.  And,  how- 
ever persons  may  differ  as  to  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  estab- 
lishing Religious  Houses,  Monasteries,  or  Convents,  in  which  pro- 
fessors of  religion  may  seclude  themselves  from  the  world,  the 
right  of  any  individual,  under  our  laws,  to  enter  such  places,  and 
there  remain  of  their  own  free  will,  cannot  admit  of  a  doubt. 

As  to  the  propriety  of  persons  entering  such  Institutions,  your 
Committee  are  not  called  upon  to  inquire,  nor  is  it  made  their  duty 
to  determine  whether  such  Institutions  are  consistent  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Age,  with  the  "  well  established"  and  dearly  cherished  prin- 
ciples of  our  Government,  or  with  the  expressed  sentiments  of  the 
American  People. 

The  question  to  be  determined  is,  whether,  in  reality,  there  are 
within  the  limits  of  this  State  Religious  Houses  in  which  persons 
are  unlawfully  deprived  of  their  natural,  civil  or  religious  rights, 
and  whether  any  case  has  been  presented  to  this  House  properly 
supported,  vyhich  justifies  an  examination  or  inspection  of  such 
places,  or  demands  additional  Legislative  protection. 

Mere  complaints  that  there  are  religious  institutions  where  such 
persons  are  said  to  be  detained  against' their  will,  are  not  sufficient 
to  justify  legislative  interference,  for  it  is  possible  that  unlawful  re- 
straints have  been  exercised  in  private  houses,  and  many  individuals 
deprived  of  their  liberty  and  right,  in  the  place  redognized  by  the 
law  to  be  their  castle.     Yet  no  one  has  thought  because  of  such 


abuses,  that  the  Legislature  ought  to  authorize  Grand  Juries  or 
Committees  to  forcibly  enter  and  inspect  private  houses  on  suspi- 
cion that  these  abuses  did  exist.  Such  a  proceeding  would  not  be 
tolerated  in  any  free  government. 

Nor  was  it  intended  that  Grand  Juries  or  Orphans'  Courts  should 
act  the  part  of  Grand  Inquisitors.  That  function  has  been  estab- 
lished in  other  Countries  by  ecclesiastical  and  civil  laws,  and  the 
result  has  been  such  as  to  prevent  your  Committee  from  rcommend- 
ing  any  such  course  in  this  State. 

Nor  is  it  submitted  to'lhis  Committee  to  inquire  whether  any 
further  legislation  should  be  had  as  to  the  property  of  persons 
who  may  choose  to  enter  those  Institutions.  The  single  matter  re- 
ferred to  them  is  the  personal  protection  of  those  entering  Convents, 
and  whether  there  be,  under  the  existing  laws  sufficient  remedy  for 
illegal  restraint  upon  such  persons. 

Your  Committee  would,  therefore,  respectfully  suggest,  in  the 
first  place,  that  no  allegation  has  been  substantiated,  nor  has  proof 
been  exhibited  that  any  person  is  now  unlawfully  confined  in  any 
religious  house  or  Convent  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 

There  is  a  general  charge  that  such  a  state  of  things  does  exist, 
and  the  statement  is  also  made'  that  unsuspecting  females  are  de- 
coyed into  such  places  and  there  detained  against  their  will ; 
but  it  is  necessary  to  justify  the  interference  of  this  Body  that  the 
petitioners  should  state  some  particular  case,  and  the  facts  in  the 
case  wherein  a  wrong  is  committed,  or  a  right  violated,  so  that  the 
House  could,  as  the  Grand  Inquest  of  the  State,  act,  as  all  other 
Grand  Inquests  do  upon  oath  or  statement  in  regard  to  the  particular 
facts. 

But  even  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  charge  be> 
true,  and  that  certain  persons  are  confined  against  their  will,  still-' 
your  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  laws  of  the  land,  and 
those  now  in  force  in  this  State,  furnish  an  effectual  and  complete 
remedy  for  all  such  cases  as  have  been  reported  for  their  consider- 
ation. 

It  would  indeed  be  an  outrage  were  it  not  so,  and  if,  in  fact,  it 
were  permitted  to  any  religious  sect  or  persuasion  to  erect  private 
houses  or  Convents,  with  intent  to  confine  persons  unlawfully  with- 
in their  walls,  and  if,  in  a  single  instance  properly  authenticatedg 
such  an  intention  were  carried  out  with  impunity,  it  would  not  only 
be  a  flagrant  violation  of  all  law,  but  an  outrage  upon  the  feelings 
of  any  civilized  community. 

But  your  Committee  need  only  remind  the  House  that  that  great 
safeguard  of  personal  liberty,  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  throws 
ample  protection  around  even  the  humblest  citizens  of  our  Com- 
monwealth ;  and  that  if  any  person,  whatever,  has  reason  to  believe 
that  any  individual  is  detained  unlawfully,  or  against  his  will,  in  any 


Convent  or  Religious  House  upon  oatli  of  such  person,  so  believ- 
iuo-  before  any  Court  of  this  State,  this  writ  issues,  as  of  right, 
commanding  the  Owner,  Director,  or  Superior  of  any  such  house 
or  convent,  to  bring  before  such  Court  the  individual  so  detained  ; 
and  neither  bolts  nor  bars,  nor  any  religious  vows  can  preve«l  the 
service  of,  or  compliance  Avith  such  writ ;  but  it  is  a  speedy,  sum- 
mary and  sure  writ  of  deliverance,  to  any  one  deprived  of  his  lib- 
erty, by  any  unlawful  means,  or  under  pretext  of  any  religious  vow 
or  consecration. 

Your  Gommittee  have,  therefore,  arriv&d  at  the  unanimous  con- 
clusion, that,  if,  as  alleged  by  the  petitioners,  persons  are  detained 
against  iheir  will,  in  any  Religious  House  or  Convent,  it  is  not  be- 
cause the  law  does  not  aflbrd  ample  protection,  but  because  of  the 
neglect  to  execute  its  demands  ;  audit  is  the  fault  of  those  interest- 
ed in  the  execution  of  the  law,  not  the  defect  of  proper  legislation. 
Believing,  therefore,  that  no  further  legislation  is  necessary  lor 
ihe  security  of  the  citizen,  or  for  the  peace,  good  order  and  safety 
of  the  State,  they  beg  leave,  respectfully,  to  submit  these  rea- 
sons, which  have  led  them  to  this  conclusion — to  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  House,  and  to  the  enlightened  judgment  of  the 
people  of  Maryland. 

LEWIS  P.  FIERY, 
ANTHONY  KENNEDY, 
JAMES  R.  PARTRIDGE, 
WM.  D.  BOWIE, 
WM.  B.  CLARKE.