The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

The Inspection of Convents

The Stafford Club, Savile-row, March 13,

Now this evidence is corroborated by 27 witnesses.

was proved that there were more burials within this con
vent than appeared on the register of deaths."
_ _

3, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, March 15.

Sir,—l much regret to find that a mistake in the address
of my reply to your letter of the day before yesterday has
delayed your receipt of it. The report of the portion of my
speech which you quote from the Standard may not be exactly
accurate ; but the general purport of the evidence from which
I cited that passage is very much to the effect of that report.
Had I not been in possession of the affidavits which con-
tain corroborate evidence to the effect, I should not have
cited the portion of the evidence to which you especially
refer.

I was sincerely anxious that this portion, as well as other
portions of the evidence, should be tested by the committee
for which I moved ; but the members who are of your re-
ligion voted against the inquiry I proposed, and if you feel
aggrieved that this evidence is not tested, you must blame
those who opposed my motion, not myself. I must, how-
ever, decline your application, as I declined Dr. Ullathorne's
invitation to visit the convent at Colwich. I was quite
prepared to submit the evidence from which I spoke on the
3d, and to which you refer, as part of the matter which a
Committee of the House of Commons should investigate,
but not as the sole matter of investigation. I cannot
consent to remove this matter from the House of Com-
mons for the purpose of having it investigated else-
where. Should you be in possession of evidence that will
refute that which I cited, I have no doubt that there
are members in the house who will undertake at your in-
stance to produce in the House of Commons that which
you may consider a refutation. Except for the sake of that
which I consider, and which was considered by at least 79
members who voted for my motion, an important public
object, I should never have referred to a subject, which
appears to have caused you and may have caused others
some annoyance ; but if my motion has no other effect than
causing yourself and other gentlemen of the Roman
Catholic religion to devote more attention to the convents
in England, and to the treatment of their inmates, it will,

in my opinion, have been productive of at least one bene-
ficial result.—l have the honour to remain, Sir, your
obedient servant, C. N. NEWDEGATE.

Stafford Club, March 17.
Sir,—There has been some delay in-your letter leaching
me in consequence of your having addressed it to my father,
who is unfortunately not equal to a prolonged correspon-
dence. This is the only reason for my undertaking what I
assure you I feel to be a painful duty.
You decline to meet my challenge to have your state-
ment tested by a competent tribunal. The case, therefore,
between us stands thus.

You, a gentleman and a magistrate for two counties,

charge a community of ladies living in your own district
with practices not merely wicked but felonious. You say
you can support this charge by 27 witnesses. You are
asked to come into court and have the case fully investi-
gated, and you decline to do so.
You, a gentleman and a member of Parliament, make a
statement in your place in the House of Commons, involv-
ing a grievous stain on the character of certain ladies, and

then, under the shelter of your privilege, you deny them
and their families the opportunity of vindicating their
honour by disproving your charges.
After this, I am much mistaken if the public will deem
it a fitting reply on your part to appeal again to a committee,
which has already been refused by the House of Commons.
In default of this, you tell me you havo no doubt I can find
some members who will undertake to produce " what I con-
sider a refutation." I incline to think that after the publi-
cation of this correspondence, no further refutation will be 1
necessary. But for the satisfaction of others, I will state
now on my honour what I would have proved, if you had
given me the opportunity, in :a court of justice.
That the statement of the girl named - is a tissue of
falsehoods. The girl referred to was a Protestant child,
whom the nuns out of kindness allowed to attend their
day-school. She never was inside the convent in her life
further than the schoolroom, or perhaps the parlour.
There neither are, nor ever were, any underground cells.
The cellars which do exist are filled with wood, coals,
coke, roots, and bottles.

•
No nun or other inmate of the convent was ever impri-
soned or kept without food, or subjected to any ill-usage
whatever. No death ever occurred which was not duly
registered, and no one was ever buried except in a coffin of
the ordinary shape.

As one result 'of this correspondence, I trust, will be to
show that Roman Catholic gentlemen are not so indifferent
to the treatment of the inmates of convents in England as
you seem to suppose, I shall take the liberty of publishing
it. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. LANGDALE, Jun.
C. N. Nowdegate, Esq., M.P.

8, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, March 17.

Sir,—l have referred to your letter of the 13th, and to
a copy of my reply, and I do not understand what you
mean, as applied to myself, by the following paragraph in
your letter of to-day :

_ -
" You decline, sir, to meet my challenge to have your
statement tested before a competent tribunal." _

The statement which I made in the House of Commons,
and to which you refer, consisted in an avowed citation of
sworn evidence in my possession. That evidence was col-
lected, after an inquiry of about five months, by competent
persons for submission to the Court of Queen's Bench. The
only reason that it was not brought into court and there
tested by cross-examination was that it was found that the
nun, for whose liberation this preparation had been made,
had been removed from the convent to Staplehill, which
at the time when she was seen by direction of Judge Wight-
man, she refused to leave.

This evidence I proposed to submit to a committee of the
House of Commons, which was refused at the instance of
the Roman Catholic members of the house. Ido not, there-

fore, understand what you mean by the expression I have
quoted from your letter of to-day. I have no wish to dis-

pute the sincerity of your belief that the evidence in my
possession is untrue ; but you may rest assured that I will
not submit this evidence to any tribunal but such as I con-
sider competent—such as a committee of the House of Com-
mons—since this evidence relates to events which occurred
more than eight years ago.

I felt bound to reply Co the Rev. Dr. Ullathorne, because
I named him in the House of Commons, and because he
claims to be the Superior governing the convent at Colwich,
and was a party to the transaction to which the evidence
relates. I have thus far replied to you because you stated
that you have a relative in the convent at Colwich; but I
will no further waive the privilege which guards freedom
of debate in the House of Commons, since I see plainly
that those connected with persons in these convents might
inflict a practical penalty upon all mention of convents by
any member of the house, if the member who alludes to
them is to be held bound to appear before any tribunal
which persons who may deem themselves affected by his
statement might extemporise for his annoyance.
I have no wish to prevent your publishing this corre-
spondence if you think fit to do so, reserving, of course, the
same discretion to myself.
I have the honour to remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. N. NEWDEGATE.
The 1.10/1. C. Langdale, Jun., Stafford Club.

N.B.- -My letter of the 17th was delivered by my servant
at the St 'afford Club on the same day that Mr. C. Langdale's
second letter was received by me—i.e., on the 17th, which
date it be: lars. The following letter was received byme on
the 19th o f March, at Arbury, near Nuneaton.

C. N. NEWDEGATE.

4, Queen-street, Mayfair, March 18.
Sir,— crur letter of yesterday has reached me, and I
regret tl tat the previous portions of the correspondence has
already be, 3n despatched to the following papers :—The
Times, Stag ,dard, and Daily Telegraph. I mention them in
case you w ish to forward yours of yesterday for publica-
tion With 1 he others.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. LANGDALE, jun.

C. ?:. Noy rdegate, Esq., M.P.

fl AT FIR EAT STANGATE.—About half-past 11
o'clo :k last nigh t a destructive fire broke out in the large
engi steering and patent iron revolving shutter works be-
le]] Bing to the Ifesars. Jennings, situate in the Palace-road,
,a ate, which burnt with such rapidity that in less than
Alf an hour the whole factory with its valuable stock and
plant were completely destroyed.

The following correspondence appeared in the
Times :

•
Sir,—My excuse for calling your attention to a state-
ment respecting the convent at Colwich in your speech in
the House of Commons on the 3d of March last, is that I
have a sister in that convent, where she has been a nun for
the last 20 years. She must, therefore, have been cogni-
zant of, or possibly a victim to, the atrocities you describe.
I hardly know which alternative is the more painful.
You must not imagine that the fact of her being a nun
makes my sister less dear to me. Her honour and well-
being are matters that concern me as nearly as ever.
Therefore, sir, I feel it a duty to call your attention to
the following extract from your speech, taken from the
Standard of March 4th. That statement (viz., "of a girl
named —") was.,_',‘ that she saw nuns imprisoned in that
convent, that she knew them to be kept short of food, that
she saw one nun forced down into this underground cell—
that to the best of her belief she never came out alive. . . .

Now, Sir, do I understand you rightly ? Do you mean to
insinuate that, at any time during the last 20 years, any nun
or inmate of the convent at Colwich has been subjected to
the cruel treatment you describe, has been imprisoned in an
underground cell, has been left there till death ? Do you
mean to assert that during that period any nun or inmate of
that convent has been clandestinely buried ? Am Ito under-
stand that your 27 witnesses can prove all these charges
or any of them ? If this is your meaning, I call on you to
come out of your privileged position, and to make these
charges in such a way as will enable those whom you accuse
or their friends to test the truth of your statements.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES LANGDALE, Jun.
To C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P.