The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-14 00:00:00

EXPLANATION.

Mr. HENNESSY, who had given notice of his intention
to put a question to the hon. member for North Warwick-
shire,tsaid that since the debate whichihad taken place upon
his motion relating to the inspection of convents the hon.
gentleman had published a letter written in answer to one
which he had received from Bishop Ullathorne. The hon.
gentleman was entitled, if he thought fit, to hold, and even
to publish, the opinion that "the direct action of the Romish
hierarchy through or upon the Roman Catholic members
of the House had been obvious to every member taking an
interest in such questions as were debated" on the occasion
referred to. But his letter went on to say : •
" When I stated these facts as connected with this con-
vent, the facts were denied by some Roman Catholic mem-
bers in the House, but the impression produced by the
statement of them, taken together with the other facts at
that time alleged, could have had little weight with the
house, for the majority seemed to think, with the late Mr.
Drummond, that the power of denial on the part of some
Roman Catholic members of the house on these subjects
was so wonderful tnat the house decided to consider a mea-
sure for testing these denials by the establishment of an
inspection of convents."

This sentence was somewhat involved, but there could not
be the slightest doubt that it conveyed an imputation and
charge against Roman Catholic members to which no gen-
tleman should submit. Heretofore, the hon. member for
North Warwickshire had adopted the prudent policy of at-
taking women or treating ecclesiastics with very scant
courtesy, and it did not need a very courageous heart to
strike a blow at those whose sex or sacerdotal character
rendered them incapable of self-defence. But deviating for
the first time from his old course, the hon. gentleman by
penning that sentence had placed himself for the first time
face to face with those who had power andlikewise the de-
termination to require a strict account for the language
thus made use of. He wished the hon. gentleman to tell the
house distinctly what he meant by that sentence, and whe-
ther in his place in the house he was prepared to adopt it.
The charge implied in the sentence was only insinuated,
and on that account was all the more offensive. He wished
to ask the hon. gentlemanwhether he wasprepared to prove
that charge, and if he were not able to do so, then to call
upon him to give to those whom by the insinuation he had
insulted an ample and full apology. (Hear. hear.)

Mr. NEWDEGATE was glad the house had afforded
the hon. member for King's County an opportunity of ex-
plaining the offence which he fancied had been committed.
On last Friday evening he received a note from that hon
member stating that he intended to call attention to seri-
ous statements made in the letter written in reply to that
from Dr. Ullathorne ; but, as it was impossible for him
then to be present on that occasion, the matter stood over
till the present occasion. Dr. Ullathorne thought fit to deny
in the most explicit terms statements which he had made
when bringing forward his motion, and, not choosing that
allegations of falsehood should be circulated in the district
which he had the honour to represent, he wrote the letter
from which an extract had been read by the hon. member
for the King's County. He extremely regretted that in the
copy from which that passage was taken an error had crept
in. The language, as it ought to read, was in the following

terms :
" When I stated these facts as connected with this convent
in the debate in 1853 the facts were denied by some Roman
Catholic members in the house, but the impression pro-
duced by the statement of them, taken together with the
otherfacts at that time alleged, was such that these denials
could have but little weight with the house. for the majority
seemed to think, with the late Mr. Drummond, that the
power of denial on the part of the Roman Catholic members
of the house was on these subjects so wonderful that the
house decided to consider a measure for testing these denials
by the establishment of an inspection of eonvents.
The house would perceive that reference was there made
exclusively to the debate of 1853, and in vindication of the
statement he would quote one or two passages. The motion
before the House on that occasion was one by Mr. Glianabers

•
for leave to introduce a bill for the inspection of convents,
and one of the cases connected with this subject which
attracted most attention at the time, was that of Miss 9-141:
bot, a relative of Mr. Craven Berkeley, then a member a
the house. She was a postulant of a convent at Bristol,
and Mr. Berkeley having applied for permission to see hi°
stepdaughter was refused the necessary permission unless
the interview took place in the presence of the superioress
In the course of the debate which took plaee on that rao"
tion of Mr. Chambers the following episode occurred. gr
Craven Berkeley said—
" Not only was it the fact that in the convents of Eng"
land a lady having once taken the veil was prevented fro)
seeing her friends unless in the presence of the sup
lady abbess--[Sir G. Bowyer.—No, no.] The hon• nil
learned gentleman might cry No, no ;' but no amount 0
contradiction could alter a fact of which he (Mr. C. 13er"
keley) had personal cognizance. It had happened to 110:
self, in his own person, to be refused an interview, exec?
under such circumstances as he was stating. He had been
refused permission to see his nearest and dearest relative
in
a convent, unless in presence of the superioress. That WI
not alone the case with ladies who had taken the veil, bu
veil be-
also with postulants, or persons who took the white
fore taking the black." super or

The late Mr. Drummond said :
" Hon. gentlemen opposite might dissent from that
opinion ; the power of denial in some hon. gentlemen
could
most marvellous ; and the only way in which he
account for it was by supposing that Dr. Wiseman was cor-
rect when he stated in a recent number of the Dublin co
r-
rect
that Catholic laymen knew very much better than t°
read books they had no business to read. They were„,rl,l
allowed to know anything about the matter—not allou"
—not allowed."
He cited these two passages to show the house that, notwith
standing the flat denials given by the hon. member for DWI'
dalk and other members of the Roman Catholic persuasion
to the facts alleged in support of the bill for the Inspeetieu
of Nunneries, and in reference to the escape of a nun hi
the convent at Atherstone, the house felt that that course °
proceeding was not right, and thought proper to sanction the
measure. These were historical facts, and ho had reason to
believe that if the house had consented to have the facts
he adduced tested by a committee it would have been proved,
that the denial of them was as little worth on the Past A°:
-
Dr. Ullathorne as the denial given to the statements may,.
during the debate of 1853. The hon. member said sonle
thing about the want of courage on his part in attaeldeg
ladies and ecclesiastics ; but did the hon. member eve;
know him shrink from stating his opinion in that house
(Hear, hear.) What he thought it his duty to assert,
he would defend whenever called upon to do so. Ili'
Dr. Ullathorne had been alluded to, he begged to reran'
the house that if he singled out his name he did so because
Dr. Ullathorne in his own letter claimed to be the Superi°r
—that is, the governor, of all the three convents he hal
named. He held him responsible for any oppression earrii,e:
on there, for forcing back these unhappy ladies after
attempt to escape, first from the convent at Atherstoae,
and next from the convent at Colwich. Yesterday he re:
ceived a letter from the Protestant clergyman at Atli
stone, supporting his allegations, by a conversation llama
with the Catholic priest, who said that one inmate Was
troublesome (that was the nun who attempted to make hero
escape) that they were obliged to have her removed. to the Protestant clergyman at Atherstone ready to s 1113;
port on the authority of the Catholic priest the stateme,lire
to which Dr. Ullathorne gave a flat denial. These 1%,0
some of the witnesses he would have produced he1;•e;
the committee, had it been granted. Dr. Ullathorne „
his first letter talked about nuns confined in chain's; ce
was perfectly true that that statement was in the °vie° e
from which he read extracts ; but how came Dr. Ullathorn°
to know this evidence, which was' never quoted to Oa
house ? Dr. Ullathorne was perfectly aware of the fat4l,o
and he could only attribute the doctor's flat denial g'll'ae
to the sworn evidence to this circumstance
who knew the organisation of the Roman Catholic afar:,
in respect to convents was aware that Dr. Ullathorne t's•iof
under sworn obligation to maintain inviolate the seeroera
those convents, and to resist all attempts of any unnaire,
nun to leave, except permissu superiorum. There der'
Ullathorne thought that by propagating a mien- flat
standing of these facts among the public, and 11 bi 3
denials of sworn evidence, he was performing „r,
duty to a power superior to the laws of this coun','t•O
which it was his (Mr. Newdegate's) object viedia(' is•
not only as a member of that house, but as a „ILL'
trate acting for the county which he represented. 11'4
Dr. Ullathorne might think it a duty to keep Ittlea'lrtblit
cerated against their wills, yet, for his part, he thouP"
as a magistrate it was his business to seek infer/113 jar
within the sphere of his jurisdiction in all cases of falsed
be
prisonment or the practice of undue severity ; to
should be wanting in his duty if he did not endeave""tri,
bring the authors of such offences before the proper
o,
bunals of the country. Therefore, as respected Dr' five
thorne and himself, there was a conflict in their resPe2Bl
sense of duty. He regretted that any ecclesiastic 00,
minister of religion should have thought fit to Venture
flat denials of sworn evidence. (Hear, hear.) ,r for
The O'DONOGHUE thought that the hon. memberto
King's County was entitled to much credit for affording.ti
the hon. member for North Warwickshire an opportneiro,
to express his regret for what had taken place, and t° rva
raise to be more careful in future. If the hon. member
as
not thought fit to avail himself of the opportunity, that Iv f
his own fault. Having had considerable opportunities of
watching the hon. member, he had watched his rnove,T,„fito
with peculiar interest, and yet he had never been au',a,
decide, notwithstanding the extreme gravity of the "s
,os
member's demeanour, whether he really believed the stor
he told about the Jesuits or about the convents, oleo.
making his ridiculous attacks on that system. If the hteo,ri
member did, then his case was really alarming, but heilli4
often thought that the hon. member would, after some 0.1 , 0
gravest speeches, rush into some lonely place, and enner
hearty laugh. What was the position of the hon•
at the end of so many years during which he had bo° at
ing the house that inquiry was his object, and thoit
great attempt was to see with his own eyes those loeicslie,
v if
and bars behind which he had tried to persuade Peo Pnieo
not by assertion, at least by insinuation, that some htade
ladies were confined ? The hon. member asked for ae'ruseci
of inquiry which he knew he could not obtain, and 4110
that mode of inquiry which he could obtain, and W•••„,:l'ayare
ought to have accepted if he were sincere, and if the had to
of the inmates of convents was really the object he beer
r Dis
view. The House refused to grant the hon. nienirae
committee for sufficient reasons. One was that the4,o ar
no ground for a committee ; and the other was that,:a cooly
pointment of a committee and its proceedings IVellibe
tend to perpetuate religious discords, which it Was pof
terest and wish of the house to terminate. The Vi,aes sciYl3l,
Birmingham had not been treated with ordinary con' 'to fat,
the hon. member. Dr. Ullathorne gave the hon. meriti Pre;
permission to enter his convents and bring with 'll.Ol, to
testant gentlemen of recognised honesty and integrl4o,
the hon. member had availed himself of this Perini% con'
would have found no locks, bolts, and bars in tlia° larja;
vents except such as were used to keep out thieVe',,' a 03
bonds, and spies ; but he would have diseeveriatti°,
the convents were the abodes of peace and charity' reaeon
d
mode of inquiry would not suit the hon. member Priv, s tee
which all could comprehend. The hon. Inember;te'l
good a tactician not to know that an inquiry so con' tan
the presence of honourable men would not fail t°bPatici the,
end to all false charges. Then the hon. gentleman of OP
hardihood to take the Roman Catholic metaper°„l3loittr
house to task for not assisting him to obtain a e-,01
which could only prove a source of inconvenielleoe;nao
noyance to the inmates of convents, and -which, P f earta-to
addition, might gratify the morbid suspicions bee ern!
persons whom the hon. gentleman was doing 11',„,e
delude. Perhaps it was too much to expect that I,_mof Con:,
gentleman would desist from worrying the in raat 741 fee
vents, or to hope that he would allow them to 'Olives 1/0,
sue those pious lives which they had selected
..o,ooturaci,
voted to prayer and to the good of their fellow' a poe, j
But it was not too much to expect, after what byvbicb
after the hon. member had refused the incluirY,„lber
been offered him, and which every hon• rue-00'4
feel was amply sufficient to satisfy every sincere and
man
able man, that the house and the country We eatleleo,
how to estimate the statements which the 11°11* ge to c°
might think fit in future to make with refer
og to
vents. (Hear, hear.) -oceed
Dr
Mr. NEWDEGATE rose again, and was P 1 „ea bi
no
explain that he had declined the inquiry Pr°P°'ci Nfitiji et
Ullathorne because it would have been arnle, Ortl
authority, when he was interrupted by cries of
order," which induced him to resume his seat'
agt°'
The subject then dropped. of, t 11'
The other orders of the day were disposed _
_imps
some further business the house adjourned at ils`'
Ve'
Births.
of
arilel;6
BERESFORD.—On the 11th inst., at 30, uPP.,e
the wife of Denis W. Pack Beresford, o'll
daughter.
Hamilton_p:tarer.7oBt,
BAUER.—On the 9th inst., at 4, Kensington-
wife of M. L. Bauer, Esq.. of a son.
HILL.—On the 12th inst., at 7,
the wife of Sir John Hill, Bart., of a daug",.oo,olo-
- the 11th inst., at 25, Cl`
Lady Frances Tremayne, of a son.
St. t i°
Marriages.
t oely
DAWKINS—SRACKLADY.—On the 11th ins 0111
ittla
Groat Ilford, Saml. Dawkins of Stapleftoirissly,
Emily, eldest daughter of 'Mr. John 5,1' ,_OO
Heath Farm, Essex. at St• 6telegtal);
WRITMORE—SMITIL—On the 11th late Paan
Paddington, Major George S. Whitmore, willte•
to Isabella, youngest daughter of the late
Esq., of Roxeth, Harrow.
Deaths.
en,
Comm.—On the 12th inst., at Palmer's-gre
Cuthbert Coiling, Esq., aged 67.
Ezra
e9t71.3'
EA joLErosn.—er,Oangethde6ll.lth inst., at Bedford,
ELLIs.—On the 10th inst., at Old Claarlyi,.: aged
terfo
General Sir Samuel Burdon Ellis, L(j"L'unty SSrt'
HELY.—At Rockfield, near Cappoq 00,
Pierce Hely, Esq., J.P. and D.L., age
HILLMAN.—On the 11th inst., at 1, Ara 171 '-
Hillman, Esq., aged. 81. llis, Esq"
WALLIS.—On the 12th inst., Wm. - a 72
• 0
borough-road, St. John's-wood, aged -- cif '
,ig,
- yof .14.D'vplo of
London : Printed and Published by VC ,„ uptl
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TAB $11::. the ido
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, 11'
Middlesex. —Tuesday, March lit 1805' - 11-street' ittt,il"