The Express.
London, England, 1852-08-09 00:00:00

OuiWord. Three priests aceompanied them, the toe be-
longing to the convent, and • third who did not. as 44
teen the priests that morning before the court sat. The
other girls had seen them to. They bad been together all
the morning. The witness nether had spoken to the priest
that morning.
This concluded the evidence for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers, at 10 o'clock this morning, proceeded to
reply. He mid that, front the nature of the case, the jury
would doubtless anticipate that it would be his duty to
occupy their attention for some time, but he should endea-
vour to confine himself as closely as possible to the question
at issue, and should not detain them any longer than was
absolutely necessary. In the first place, he would remind
them that the charges against the defendants were gene-
rally that they omitted to give the plaintiff proper food and
nourishment ; that they did not allow her to have sufficient
rest or exercise ; that they confined her improperly in a
dark room; and that they had imposed tasks and punish-
ments up-n her beyond her strength to endure, and which
were injurious to her health, and had ultimately occasioned
her the dreadful calamity of the loss of her sight ; and if the
jury should be of opinion that upon any one of these points
the defendants had neglected the duty they had undertaken
to perform, the plaintiff would he entitled to • verdict.
The most fearful and startling part of the case appeared
to hint to be this. According to the statement of the
defendants themselves it was admitted that for four
or five months the plaintiff was in a state of danger-
ous illness, all the medical men agreed in opinion
that she was in a dreadfully emaciated condition, and
Dr. Alexander said that, when he saw her, she presented
the !appearance of a person who had been starved, and it
was certainly a very striking circumstance, tending to show
that she must have been grossly neglected while she was in
the establish:liens; that it had been proved that, when she
left the convent and was treated in a proper manner, she
was restored very shortly to a state of comparative good
health, her remaining eye recovered, and ate was totally
cured. This fact naturally raised the inquiry whether the
evidence that had been brought forward the the defendants
could possibly be true. It was said that the narra'ive of
the plaintiff was a tissue of falsehoods, but he could not
het, observing, that it appeared to him the fact he had
mentioned went a great way to confirm the truth of her
story. His learned friend who appeared on behalf of the
defendants appeared to lay meat stress upon the absence of
any motive on the part of these ladies to act in the manner
stated, but he did not think it was any part of their duty
to enter into any question of motive in the present case. In
their own religion, and connected with it, there were a
great variety of charities of every description, from the mere
charity school to those of • much higher character, and it
was not at 011 an unusual or extraordinary matter to hear
of the principals or persons connected with them being
guilty of tome act of misconduct towards their scholar, and
the persons under their charge; and taerefore it was nut at
all impossible that the same thing should occur with persons
professing the Roman catholic religion, and all they hadto do
was to ascertain whether the fact was proved, and they had
nothing to do with any motives, good or bad, that might
have migrated it. The first thing they had to consider
was whether the story told by the child was • probable one.
What was her story? She said that she was placed in the
first instance in this establishment, and a years board paid
for her, by Cardinal Wiseman, and he here felt it his duty
to make this observation on the conduct of the cardinal—
that there was no man in this country, however high his
station might be, but what was bound to obey the law, and
to submit to that law which protected him, and that the
highest person in the realm, instead of endeavouring to
evade having a subpoena to attend a court of justice served
tapes him, ought to be the first person to ebey it. The
Mittinal, however, was absent. They had tried to sub-
poena him, not for the purpose of annoying or harassing
him, but in order that justice might be done to this poor
child, and that he might by hie testimony confirm her evi-
dence with regard to one of the issues on the present occa-
sion. If he had been there he might have contradicted the
evidence of the child on one important point, or he might
have confirmed the evidence given by the ladies who bad
been examined on that point; and, under these circum-
stances, he could not conceive how it hail happened that the
cardinal had set the evil example of evading the service of
• subpeens. It was conceded that the child had been placed
in the establishment by Cardinal Wiseman, and he must,
therefore, have known all about her ; and he thought it
would have been very desirable that he should have
attended and have informed the jury how it happened that
this child, who was now said to be unworthy of credit, came
to be introduced into such an establishment, for either she
was an unfit person to be there, or else the statement
respecting her had no foundation. Ile could not deny that
this poor child was the unhappy subject of a scrofulous
affection, but at all events she was in • good state of health
when she went first to the establishment, although she ap-
peared feeble and weak, and this was admitted by the
defendants. This was a very important point as regarded
some of the issues, for if the defendants knew that she was
feeble and weak it was clearly their duty to have taken
more care of her and not to have done anything that was
calculated to increase her malady. Was it then • proper
thing under such circumstances to compel a child to get up
at half past four in the morning, and remain un until nine
at night? Look at the number of hours for a weak and ailing
child to be kept from rest. The question of necessary rest
was therefore • very important one for the consideration of
the jury. Then with regard to the food, which was another •
important consideration. lie admitted he had been misin-
structed with regard to meat being allowed once • week,
it being proved that they had it oftener ; but
the jury must look at the whole question, and what
description of food these children had given to them.
For breakfast they had soup made of rice and grease,
and although one of the witnesses, Miss Leith, appeared in-
dignant at this description being given of it, and stated
that it was made of dripping, he could not help thinking
that it came to the same thing, and he asked the jury
whether such • greasy mess was a proper thing for the
breakfast of • delicate child ? It appeared to him that it
was only calculated to produce the result that followed,
namely, sickness and an unwillingors to take proper food
after it. He would mane himself to what occurred after
the defendant Madame de l'Espinasse came to the a rtablish-
went in this respect, and be should contend that the diet
was most improper. The children might have had a small
quantity of meat for their dinner, but all their meals ap-
peered to have one principal ingredient—"confitures' " or
sweetmeats ; and between the dinner at twelve o'clock, and
the supper of vegetables and tea at half-past seven, the
poor children had nothing but the "goatee, ' which was a
piece of dry bread with a little 'am of some kind scraped—
nodoubt very lightly—over it. The tale told by the wirnesees
for the defendants with regard to the liberal diet at the
establishment, was evidently an exaggeration, and reminded
him of Dickens's story in . Do-the-boys Hall," where the
boys certainly had more than they could eat, for they were
fed as the pigs were, and the pigs certainly got the
fattest. (A laugh.) A great parade bad been made
about the three handfed and fifty pounds weight of
meat that was consumed in the establishment, but
they ought not to forget the number of persons
there were to consume it; and he said notwithstanding
that this poor child had not been properly fed, and he
asked them to say the same. It was probable that the food
had been to some extent changed after the doctor was called
in, and as to her throwing away the victuals and the beer
he urged that it was ridiculous to suppose that she should
have done so, and if she did throw the beer away it sp
paused to him that it confirmed her story that it was only
water coloured with beer, and was consequently so nasty
that she could not drink it. If this poor child aid really
throw the meat away because the condition of her stomach
would not allow her to eat it, ought this not to have ex-
cited commiseration in the breasts of those about her and
ought they not to have seen at ones that something more
ought to be done. Instead of that, however, they culled her
a naughty child, and actually punished her. The next
allegatiern was that the plaintiff had been overworked and
impelled to do work beyond her strength, and he siab-
MIMI that this was sufficiently proved by the fact that
die bad been kept in the kitchen from half-past four in the
Vtill nine at night. The next charge was that the
was ,improperly punished and compelled
to do
iegtsurimse ker health, and the princi evidence to
mined Mimes what vas proved to have been the coons
elpiesembip la the trial dam room. It appeared to him
110 this was a mat severe punishment. For the ant
Onto the poor children were subjected to be confined With*
trial elms for seven days; for the second fourteen, and for
the third twenty days, and the jury would not forget that if
any poor child turned her head from the white wall
in front of which she was placed, if it was only one day be-
fore the expiration of her sentence, it all began over again.
Me god& not help thinking that this was a most cruel
=:tt They all knew hew the eyes were affected by
any white object even for a short period ; but
here were these poor
W children, with the exception of the
for their meals, placed opposite a whitewashed wall
baldpast 4 in the morning until 9 at night,
mad if deir ably turned their heads—the object of
to keep their eyes upon the
pan meat recommenced. It was true
that as attempt had been made to prove that sine*
dm mom defendant had been superior of the convent the
was had been changed, and that the children did not
Met eft with their faces to the wall ; bat he asked the jury
Seileabt whether this was the fact : and, if they should do
esb le contended that it was a most improper and injurious
disaription of punishment. Another of the punishments
which he relied upon to support the plaintiff's ease was that
of prostration. It had been denied, certainly, that any such
punishment was ever inflicted; but in what manner was the
contradiction given ? At first it was said that there was no
such punishment known in the convent; and when the
lady superior was questioned upon the subject, she pro-
fessed entire ignorance it. When she was pressed, how-
ever, she said that she did not know anything of prostra-
tion "in that sense "—meaning as a punishment. It
appeared to him that this braked very much like
saying one thing and mmning another, and he
felt compelled to make this remark, and he asked the
jury from their own observation to confirm him as to the
truth of it, that the ladies who had been examined, although
evidently most acute and intellistent persons, had not given
their evidence with that candour and openness which ort:
be to exercised, and that the mode in which they did ve
it led him to fear they had been studying a book, of w
everybody had probably heard, which professed to make
parlous skilled in the art of saying black was white, and
white was black, la such a manner as to avoid stating a
direct faloshood, and evading the truth by giving an answer
with a mental reservation, and in another sense to that
which was sonveyod by the answer He admitted that the
mysteries slivery roliglea were, and ought to be, sacred
metalass eat mike net to be inquired into, and
be lb ilagairiss upon an intimation
ndirlasmet mesa inlet ; but he submitted that
gales emsugli op= to show that such • punishment se*
MOM= VII to these who professed this form of
eibiglees and altheish it ma denied that the plaintiff had
ewer bona meadow' to pedant it, it appeared to It •
eerprfddes. led best dime Its yes very much like
k
er
•
`.*

0

•S I IV