The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-09 00:00:00

Catholic Convents.

We are requested to publish the following cor-
respondence :

Birmingham, March 6.

Sir,—Although I have not the advantage of your per-
sonal acquaintance, your speech of last Friday in the
House of Commons on the subject of convents and your
direct use of my name justify me in addressing you.
You have spoken of two communities of ladies--the ono
your neighbours in North Warwickshire, the other not
very far off in North Staffordshire. Of these ladies, though
deserving as high respect as any of your countrywomen,
you spoke in a way that nothing short of having been
blinded by more designing persons can possibly palliate.
I have been the ecclesiastical superior of one of these com-
munities for 18 years and of the other since its foundation;
and after carefully reading the Times' report of your speech
I solemnly, and with full knowledge of the facts, declare
that there is not a statement in it, so far as it concerns
those convents, which is not substantially erroneous in
what it directly or by implication alleges against them.
In the one convent referred to, whatever caves or cellars
there may be were built by Lord Tamworth, the former
owner of the house, for domestic purposes, and have been
used for no other ever since. The other convent nearer your
residence happens also to be built on inclined ground ; and
as Dr. Newman was compelled to say in defence of his own
Oratory in 1851, " Catholics have a predilection for hori-
zontal floors." A large structure like a convent so situated
necessitates a considerable cellarage. But in every form
and shape of denial I deny that in any part of those esta-
blishments there are or ever have been, whether under or
above ground, cells or cellars, apartments, or contrivances
of any kind, for the purpose or use of locking up or detain-
ing, or in any way restraining the personal liberty of nuns,
or any other persons whatever. I equally deny that any
nun has ever been put into any bonds or chains or anything
of the sort ; or that bars, grates, or locks have ever been
used, except to keep out thieves and intruders; or except to
separate the internal from the domestic part of the establish-
ment during the night ; or to part the chancel of the church
from the choir of the nuns, for which purpose there is a
metal screen that any one may see. There is also one
room arranged for private interviews upon occasion be-
tween members of the community and their spiritual direc-
tors, and, consequently, parted into compartments by a
wooden screen.

I believe that the story about a mm having been seen in
a wooden cage has been suggested by the sight of this par-
lour; and 1 believe that the other story about a nun hav-
ing been seen in chains, which I was recently challenged
to contradict, originated from the simple fact that every
nun carries a large rosary suspended by her side; a jingling
sound from the links of such a rosary may have been hoard
while some nun waiting in the confessional was using it at
her prayers, though it could not have boon seen, even by
persons passing into the vestry of the church, whore the
laity are admitted.
Tho history of the removal of the ladies who formerly
occupied
the convent in North Warwickshire is untrue in
every point. Thoso excellent persons were once a flourish-
ing community in Belgium, but had become reduced ;in
numbers to a very few aged members ; the house was too
largo for their needs, and thoy sold it to the present occu-
pants, and retired to a smaller house in another part of the
country.

The:story of the lady who left her convent and
ca
Birmingham is mis-stated from begm.
ning to end ; I pubmlisehethd
an authentic statement of the facts in the newspapers
time of the occurrence, which
e eee a t the
possibly has under
your notice. The simple facts are these :--A lady who had
been for many years a voluntary and contented member of
the community, petitioned her superiors for leave to pass
into a more austere order, on the plea of gaining greater
spiritual perfection. Being one day at the convent on busi-
ness, the question was referred to me. On what I con-
ceived to be prudential grounds I counselled her to remain
by preference under the milder observance to which she
was habituated. I supposed the matter settled, and gaveit
no more thought. But after my return to Birmingham that
night, to ray utter surprise that lady came soon after to my
house, having travelled in the same train with me without
my knowing it. She told me she had left the convent un-
known to the community, as any member of it might easily
do, and had followed mo to entreat that I would facilitate her
transition to amore austere community, assuring me that she
had not a complaint to make, but that she earnestly wished
the change. I then said that consideration for her family and
for all concerned required that this should be done in proper
order, and that as she was bent upon it, if she would go
back, I would return with her, and there arrange for her
going
to the Cistercian Institute as she so earnestly desired.
And knowing that the community would be uneasy at the
sudden disappearance of one of their members I despatched
a telegram
to inform them that I was on the point of re-
turning in company with her.
The privacy of the telegraph office was abused, an in-
quiry took place, and it was found to have been not a soli-
tary instance. In short, the result of the inquiry, as re-
ported to me by an officer of the company, differed in
several particulars friim that which you, Sir, have stated
in Parliament.

After these events hired spies were set about the esta-
blishment for weeks. An institution contrary to the spirit
of the British constitution was brought into play ; a per-
son, who keeps what is called a "Private Inquiry-office,"
was sent to ply his disgraceful trade among the working
people employed by the convent. Had there been anything
to be discovered it must have been found out, and the pub-

lie would have heard of it; but those illegal inquisitors, who
were set to work by the Protestant Allianee, as welearnon
your authority, ended their investigations in the same
silence in which they began. They called at last at the con-
vent, were courteously received, and when they asked for
the lady already spoken of, they were at once.told that she
had left for the convent of Stapehill, in Dorsetshire (not
Staplehurst, in Glocestershire), the address of which was
given them. You more than insinuate that a telegraph had
reached this lady before these people saw her. This is quite
untrue, as there had been no communication with her. The
very intimation implies that the interview did not furnish
proof of what the inquisitors were in quest of. After a lapse
of so many years, you now give us the first account of that
interview from your own side, and I can only say that it is
'diametrically opposed to the account written at the time by
the lady herself and addressed to the sisters of 'her former
convent. The lady herself left that convent also after a tans
at her own instance, and after trying several others iti
France, she was finally, on her own petition, released from
all conventual engagements.

I cannot content myself with this brief statement of the
facts, which have been so shamefully abused. I feel that I
have another duty to these much injured ladies. I wish id
make a straightforward appeal to your own honour and
right feeling as an English gentleman, as a man of good
descent, a magistrate, and a neighbour of the ladies in ques-
tion. I put it to you whether, supposing that what yeti
have asserted before, Parliament and the world respecting
these convents and their inmates proves to be untrue, will
it not follow as a matter of course that you have inflicted
upon a number of innocent and accomplished ladies an
amount of injury and wrong so grievous as to require all
the reparation in your power?
Well, then, I will make you a fair proposal, believing
that, however much you have been misled, you have yet
the mind and heart of a gentleman. I propose to give you ti
meeting at each of the convents in question. . Let it be in
"the presence of some Protestant nobleman of the neigh-
bourhood. I am not personally acquainted either with the
Earl of Harrowby or the Earl of Lichfield,. but they are
generally known to be men of high character and staunch
Protestants, as well as near neighbours of the principal
convent of the two, and the one most brought into question.
I feel assured that neither of them would decline assisting
in so great an act of humanity.tse
noblemen,lproposesht you,ouhatldg
oinrercom-
pany with one or both of ho
whole of the establishments as much as you like, and converse
with the members of the communities as much as you desire. I
have had no communication with the communities since I
read your speech, nor shall I interfere myself further than
by being at hand at the time of your visit, in order to faci-
litate your entrance, and to give any information required.,
1 will leave you as much as you choose to yourselves, merely
stipulating, as a matter of delicacy to the ladies and their
friends, that a Catholic gentleman shall also be in your com-
pany, and if 1 mention the name of Lord Edward Howar4 Ido
so, not that I have had any communication with him on the sub-
ject, but because he is a leading English Catholic member of
Parliament.

While I disclaim all right of inquisition into the domes-
tic affairs of those ladies, as I do into those of any private
family, for their vindication on this one sole occasion I
make this offer, subject to the understanding that if, to the
satisfaction of Lord Harrowby or Lord Lichfield, or both,
it is proved that no grounds appear for the statements you
have set before the world, you will then make those ladies
a reparation as public as the injury you have inflicted.—l
have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient servant,

To C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P.

W. B. ULLATHORNE.

3, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, March 7.
Reverend Sir,—Your letter of the 6th of March reached
me at 9.15 p.m. last night. I might fairly, as a member of
the House of Commons, plead the privilege of the house
against any further explanation or proof of the truth of
what I stated on Friday last in my place, and I feel some
hesitation in giving any further explanation, since the
house refused to appoint a committee to inquire into the
facts which I alleged. You, reverend sir, do not stand in
a very favourable position when you seem to feel compelled
to suggest an inquiry into the facts I alleged ever since the
debates upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Act in 1851. The
direct action of the hierarchy withwhich you are connected
through or upon theßoman Catholic members of the House
of Commons has been obvious to every member of the house
who has taken an interest in such questions as that de-
bated on Friday last.
Lord Edward Howard, whom you suggest as a party to
the private inquiry you propose, voted against the inquiry
by a committee of the House of Commons, for which I
moved. So did Sir George Bowyer, while Mr. Pope Hen-
nessy and Mr. Vincent Scully both spoke and voted against
the inquiry, as I believe did every other Roman Catholic
member present on the division.
Had you, and the hierarchy with which you are con-
nected, used your influence in favour of the legitimate in-
quiry I proposed, I have no doubt that the House of Com-
mons would have appointed a proper tribunal to undertake
it, since 79 members voted for my motion, and only 106,
including members of the Government, against it.

I utterly refuse to be any party to the pirate inquiry you

7ropose,

I publicly named you, because I knew that you assumed
to be the superior of the convents I mentioned, a fact which
_ in your letter you admit, and that you ere responsible for
the return of the lady to the convent at Colwich, front
which you do not deny that she hail escaped. -
You appeal to me as a gentleman, as a magistrate, and
as a member of the House of Commons. In each of those
capacities I refuse to avail myself of the authority over
these convents which you assume, in order tointrude up3u
their inmates the sort of extra-judicial inquiry you suggest,
in the manner you propose.

But you are resident in Birmingham, and in the House
of Commons I alluded to two convents in North Warwick-
shire, andl shall not permit your interpretaion of what you
suppose that I said to pass without explanation on my part.
You have trusted to the report of what I said which is
given in the Times newspaper. That report is less full and
therefore less accurate than the reports in the Standard and
Morning Post newspapers. The report in the Times does
not contain the documents which I read in the house. I
regret this, and am not aware that I am in any way account-
able for the omission. But I see that in all the reports there
is a confusion as to the convents in North Warwickshire to
which I alluded. And this is not unnatural, for when I
was speaking of them there was a noise made at the end of
the house towards the bar on the side on which I sit. These
interruptions are not uncommon, and I turned my head
from the reporters to see from whom this noise proceeded.
I alluded first to the convent at Princethorp, with respect
to the doors fixed in the underground cells, or cellars, if
you so please to describe these underground apartments of
that convent, and to the locks placed upon those doors
during the construction of that convent, with respect to
which I received detailed information from the late Mr.
Charles Ball, master builder, at Nuneaton. I mentioned
this information in the House of Commons first during the
debate on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in 1851, and then in.
1853, during the debate on the introduction of Mr. Cham-
ber's Bill for the Inspection of Convents. You were then
superior of that convent. My assertion was never dis-
proved, and I must remind you that In an investigation
such as I proposed on Friday last mere unsupported denial
would carry little weight.
I next alluded to the attempted escape from the convent
at Atherstone, and to the fact that 15cwt. of iron stancheons
or bars were immediately after the attempt to escape fixed
to the windows of that convent, and to the subsequent re-
moval of the community of nuns who inhabited that con-
vent. You do not deny the last of these facts, but account
for it in your own way. When I stated these facts as con-
nected with this convent in the debate in 1853 the facts
were denied by some Roman Catholic members in the house,
but the impression produced by the statement of them,
taken together with the other facts at that time alleged,
couldhave 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 mem-
bers 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 convents.
My residence is not more than six miles from Atherstone,
and I had made an investigation into the facts I alleged on
the spot before I ventured to state them to the house.
Thus much I have replied with respect to :the convents
in North Warwickshire, of which I am one of the
Staffordshire. All that I said with respect to that convent
ImePalgisrt:sectronntateclt.uivsieosninl Praerviierrm
is based upon affidavits in my possession, which were sub-.
etnotithane dcwonitvhefint which
ollwiaccth,asina
mitted to the late Mr, Justice Wightman, as a judge in the
and upon the narrative of the
whenwith teheeenninunthweheeonevsecnapet
atd
Court of Queedn
judge. I possess an account
persons
ntm occurrences
hobanuttshr nvcbo interviewseynanyndrten'eacst andciatnßit
oovefCnenc conversation conversation
ehn
whom
she'
haveaj ti o n
attested written bthyeoancecuo of
accuracy
three
that account by their signatures.

—it is now eight years since the events connected with the
escape of the nun whom you took back to the convent at
Colwich occurred. I am in possession of the primary exami-
nations and of the affidavits connected with that case, and
of a plan of the buildings and of the grounds around that
convent made at that time and supported by the evidence.
I know not what alterations may have been subse-
quently made ; all traces of them, if any have been made,
are by this time, probably, so far obliterated as to render
the discovery of any
such alterations almost impossible
during the casual visit you.propose.
The grass must have grown for years over the graves
within the precincts of that convent, and the inscriptions
connected with some of them are probably effaced.
No, rev. sir, I will be no party to any such extra-judicial
inquiry as you propose. Your letter, though bearing sem-
blance of fairness, is artistically written. There is a con-
fusion as to times and places in it which warns me to be no
party to any partial or local inquiry into the subject of the
evidence which I possess with respect to the convent at
Colwich, and from which I spoke on Friday last.
You have assumed an authority dangerous from its ex-
tent in this country ; you may think it right to do so, but
;you must abide the consequences of having so done, You
Will neither dissuade nor deter me from seeking the exten-
sion of the legitimate legal protection of the civil power of
of the conveuto
this Protestant country to the inmates