The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-02-13 00:00:00

On Monday, which was the fifth day of this remark-
able trial, the most intense interest wtoe still manifested
and—

The Plaintiffs re-examination was continued by the Solid-
tor-General, —I never took a book from any sister for the
purpose of secreting it. I never took another sister's Imok
, for a temporary purpose without permission. That is given
in the leaves.. I never knew an ceder for a sister to have
less clothes than the others, except in my own ease. I did
not Cut up my clothes, to make theta more in substance.
(It was usual for all to make one good garment out of two
pld ones. I held business conversation with one of the
"Nests at Hull. I never endeavoured to attract his attention
In ally occasion. I was never in an habitiml state of excite-
ment when be came to the convent. I never purposely and
constantly, and needlessly, put myself in his way. I never
did no in Mrs. Starr or Mr. Keneedy's presence. I never
was rebuked for it or forbidden to oo it Sister Mary , Mrs.
Collingwood) was at the school, but I never remember being
with her In the presence of the priest. I never went on my
knees, pulled things out of his hand, and entreated him
to go with me in her presence. I have not the least idea of
anything that will give d colour to such a charge. I remember
a sister dying in the convent, but I don't recollect her
wishing to have her medals buried with her. I never heard
before to-day anything of the kind. I attended her, hut
never took her medal from her scapular. We were greatly
attached, and I should have been sorry to have disobeyed
any wish of hers. This is the first time I have heard about
her medal, or any of the sisters haft g lost them. I never
huh 1 medal belonging to any-one in my Me. I never Ceded
the ~inallest particle of food from the school children during
the time 1 was in the convent. I never heard of such a
charge before this trial. I only wrote two letters to my uncle
without the permission of the mother superior. IliaC was
the extent of my clandestineeorrespon lance. I was not unkind
to the children. I never struck or pinched one .1 them. I
once presumed bm take a sheet of note paper and an envelope
without leave, but I afterwards told Mrs. Shirr. I wrote
ott bly reports from June 1563 to Sept., 1864, inclusive. I
never endeavoured to make strife betwiam the mother
superior and the sisters.

Ehe plaintiff was under examination three days and a half.
She mice her evidence in a clear avid distinct manlier, and
neither during her examination In chief, nor voider a search-
ing cress-examination by Mr. liewkins, slid she hesitate in
her answers or prevaricate in the least.)
-•

Mrs. Scorns, the plaintiff's mother, deposed: We did not
wish her to become a professeii slim. she was very desirous
of beimmimg one. Finally, however, the family consented,
anti she entered on her noviciate at Bagot-street. I used
frequently to see her there. She appeased very happy and
contented. than! every reason to believe she was happy and
contented with all in the convent. llcr going to England
Caine upon me with surprise. As AOOll I heard it I left
Drogheda by the midnight mail for Dublin, to remonstrate
with her. I saw the archbishop upon the subject. I came
over the summer following she left to see her at Clifford and
also the mother superior. She appeared happy, and the
superior was very kind and attentive to me. I saw Mrs.
Starr and Mrs. Nll'liwne afterwards in Dublin, at Mrs. Starr's
request, she having directed my datighter to write to me to
that etfect. At that interview she said my daughter was
quite well and happy, and that she would take care of her,
and further that my daughter should write to me every
month. That very much remind's dme to her remaining at
Clifford. I frequently received letters from my daughter,
and -owe from Mrs. Starr. When I heard Mrs. Starr was
displeased with my daughter, I handed Mrs. Starr's first two
letters to Father Mathews. The letters, which were given
by Father Mathews to the bishop, were called for, but they
were not produced. In IS6a applications were made for
their return, but Father Mathews never received them.
Mr. Dighy Seymour: The Rev. Mr. Mathews gave the
letters to the bishop. I now call for them.
Mr. Mellish: The bishop is very unwell, and cannot be
prusent to-day.
The Lord Chief Justice : I am sure the bishop would not
hesitate to produce them.
Mr. Mellish I have sent to him, my lord. I have no ob-
jection to the character of the letters being stated.
Several letters were then read which had been sent by the
plaintiff's relatives, and which have been referred to in the
evidence.)

Father Mathews was called and corroborated the above
statement, and said that when he handed the letters to
the bishop at York he said he haul brought them to show
ldm that a wonderful change must have recently taken
place in Mrs. Stares opinion for her so soon after to write
for the plaintiff's removal At the commission the bishop
said the letters were amongst his papers. A general ex-
pression of dissatisfaction pervaded the subsequent letters
Mrs. Swain's evidence continued : Up to ISM I had been
twi, or thrice to Clifford, but I heard no complaints. In
the autumn of Is6l my husbaed was seriously ill I was
anxious my daughter should come over and see him, and I
wrote to the mothsr superior accordingly. I wrote a second
letter, in which I stated that my husband was labouring
tinder a disease that might prove fatal, he having got worse.
that Mrs. Starr wrote a refusal, stating that her daughter
might return altogether to Ireland it she could spare vie the
unhappiness, but that was impossible, for reasons which she
could not then explain. I replied to that letter, complain-
ing of my not hearing from my daughter, and stated that it
was a condition of her becoming a relii,doos that she
should be allowed to communicate with her family,
and that if we were driven to It we should take
the necessary remedies to enforce it. I stated in one of my
letters to Mrs. Starr, "Lot nie ask you how it is that I never
reoived misems to any of my letters." Several were at
that time unanswered. I referred to the pioniise made by
lir I 'ellen, and assented to by Mrs. Starr, tlia, my daughter
should visit Dublin, especially in cases of Illness Mrs.
Starr wrote me a long letter in which she Suill she could
not explain private community affairs, and she could only
repeat that Sister Scholastics could not then go to Ireland,
tier could she say when, if ever, she would return
Is Irelmiti Obstacles to her removal might last for
years. she sail, and also that she was no party
Loony arrawrenient for her returning to Ireland. She
would, however, cousert to her being removed to a con-
Vent hi Irelaiol if it could pinaihily be done. In 1888, in
cons"plens, of what Father datthews said, I went with my
son Pa! r•ck to null. I saw Mrs. Ken city awl ,slie.l her
what tee complaints were against my daughter. She said she
could not tell me, but Mrs. Starr would. I shortly after saw
her. I asked what the complaints were. She said my
daughter had disobeyed the orders of the convent in doing
things 'lie had no right to do. I asked what they were. She
amid lily ilaughter had a light in her cell after ten o'clock, and
that she washed things there. She also said my daughter
told untruths, tor something like it. She told me nly
was at Clifford, hut it I went there I could not see her with-
out a note f coin her, and she accordingly wrme one. I went
to Clifford. Mrs. 51•Owne refused to let me see her. I Sow
her pass quickly along the corridor. I went to the door.
My daughter Saw me, hut she passed an. Mrs. M'Owne
came to the room, and said I could not see my daughter, but
she could not tell me why. I then gave her Mrs. Stares
note, and she asked why I had not given it to her at first.
I said I did not think I required a note to see my own
child. I was taken upstairs by a nun. 51y daughter came
out of her cell crying. I asked her was she a prisoner.
Mrs. 51.Keou said: "It is not my fahlt.."

The Lord Chief justice: How much of that time were you
alone with your daughter f-1. cannot tell, my lord. Mrs.
3l'Keon was in aud out.

Examination continued : My ammeter made a complaint
to nie. I asked her what was the cause of the great change,
and she said she did not know ; that she had done nothing
wilful. On previous occasions my daughter was happy and
contented. She woe very ninch affe,ted that day. She did
not volunteer complainta, but answered nip questions as to
the tame of her condition. I went again to Clifford in Sep-
tember, 1863. I had lost a son early in that year. I had
written to iny daughter communicating the intelligence
of his death. I received no reply for a long time.
Mrs. James Mathews, my sister-in-law, accompanied me in
September, 1663. I saw my daughter, but did not see Mrs
M`Kenti. My daughter was very much cast down, and not
at all "herself.' We spoke of my son who had died, and
we were both greatly affected. In reply to my questions she
made communications hi me Next (lay or the day alter I
went to the convent again, and asked Inure Mrs. M'Keon, hut
received DO answer. Nly brother was with me then. We did
not see her. I saw my daughter. In 1865 I went over to
Hull. I was alone then. I saw Mrs. Starr. She stood look-
ing at use, but slid not speak. I asked her did she
know me. She said, " Yes ;" that my daughter was out at
the school. I expressed a wish to see her, and she told me
to go to the community room. I was there for hours before
1 saw my slaughter. When she came she looked very ill and
cold. I examined her clothing—she seemed so cold and
badly clad. This was in April or May. After a short time a
bell rang, and ahe was obliged to go. She was away about
half an hour. She remained only a very short time. I had
asked to see her in the morning, and was told, through her,
that I could not. The hell rang again, and she had to go.
I then communicated with Father Mathews, arid was guided
by his advice. These proceedings have been taken with my
sanction and that psl her father.

Mr. Michael Saurin, examined hy Mr. Willes : lam father
of the plaintiff. 1 pail £5O and 1:250, through Father Mat-
hews to the Baggot-stfeet convent, on my daughter entering.
I gave her a watch, on condition that she should keep it as
long as she lived. She said she could not, as by the rules she
should give it to the reverend mother. She went and asked
leave of the reverend mother in Baggot-street. I said, " twill
not give it you it shall be your brother's watch. I will leml
It to you." It was the best silver watch I could get for the
money. She would not take a gold one. The inscription
had heen put on it before I knew of the difficulty as to her
keeping it. I had never been in England till I came to this
trial. I was very seriously ill in the autumn of HSI, and
wished to see my daughter. This action is brought with my
sanction and concurrence

tross-esamined by sir. Mellish : I received x letter from
Mrs. Starr, dated 15th February, 184141, in which she required
me to take my daughter ; directed that if I did not she
would be treated as a secuhir ; and adding thst " if she was
not removed from the convent the bishop would remove the
convent from her." (Laughter;.
- . ...„ .

The reply of witness was read, in which he characterised
Mrs. Starr's letter as " a heartless production," and stating
he had received no authorised demand from the Bishop of
Beverley.
;Letter from the secretary of the bishop read, stating that
the demand of the rev, mother had been made with his
sanction, and that he, the bishop, had seen the letter before
It was sent.)

Reply of Mr. Sanrin read, expressing surprise at the course
taken in respect of his (laughter, and adding that, while
anxious to perform all the duties which a Catholic owed to
the Church, he should studiously regard the future position
of his daughter.)

The examination of the Rev. Mr. Mathews, parish priest
of St. Man's, Drogheda, was then resumed by the Aolicitor-
General. De said the parents of the plaintiff were much
opposed to he,r leaving Ireland.
The Lord thief Justice Is it in the power of the superior
to send a sister wherever she likes ?—lt is not, my lord.
There was an arrangement made in this case which 1 uedeve
to he against every law.
. . . .

Examination continued I remonstrated with the arch-
Mate as to her removal, and a positive promise WaS halel
that if she did not like being in England, she shonlil be
allowed to return. I visited this country every summer,
and invariably saw my niece. She was perfectly happy down
to 14;1. I always saw the mother superior, There was.
general expression of gratification on b, ti. sides. No Molt
W. found --quite the contrary. In August, teal, I visited
Clifford and saw my niece. 1 think the plaintiff then ex-
pre.se I a wish to return to Ireland. I gathered that she
thought the right to do se existed. She made DO com-
plaints of any unn. I received a letter in March, 1062,
from my niece, or rather a scrap of paper with a few
lines written In pencilling. There was no complaint
made in it. Shortly afterwards I received a letter
tom Mrs. Starr. That was Ose of the threo I gave to
the bishop. • Letter pro, hived. It requested that as
Mater Scholastica was anxinus to leave the convent Mr.
Mathews would have her taken to some other community.
Faamination continued : I came to gnglanil iii May, and
saw the bishop, from whom I got an order to see my niece.
The bishop, on seeing the three letters, aaid it was the first
he had heard of the matter, and Ike prout,ed—as he was
himself leaving for goine—to appoint his vicar to inquire
into the matter. I begged that lie should do as himsell on
his return, and meanwhile stay the action of Mrs. Starr. I
saw lily niece at Clifford. I apprised her of the contents of
Mrs. starr's letters, and she was greatly astounded, and said
there was no cause whatever for her removal I had a letter
• from the bishop olatch July 17, logo, promising to sift the
matter thoroughly.
. . . . . .

(Letter from witness to the bishop read, in which he
said that the reverend mother had not had much cope-
rienoe, an "she had not long been a convert from Protes-
tantism.")