The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-13 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Srn,—l beg you will have the goodness to pub-
lish the accompanying letter to Mr. Newdegate in
The Sun.—l am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
IV. B ULLATHORNE.
Birmingham, March 10.

"Birmingham, March 10.

... ,
"Sir,—Your letter of the 7th inst. reached me the next
evening, in which you decline the opportunity offered you
of examining the other side of the case.

" For eight years, by your own statement, you and your
friends have been pursuing a private inquisithin directed
against a number of religious ladies, and have accumulated
the secret results. For this ex paste budget of scandalous
stories you appear to make yourself personally respon-
sible ; but the moment the doors of their establishments are
thrown open to you, and you are invited to enter, and on
the common principles of justice to look into their side of
the case, as well as at your own statements, you 'refuse to
be any party to the private inquiry.' You have intruded
upon the world charges against them of gross and felonious
conduct, but you will not ' intrude on them the sort of
extra-judicial inquiry' suggested. The reasons you assign
for this delicate line of conduct are,-1, that Parliament
refused you a committee of inquiry ; 2, that I and others
did not use our influence, as Catholic bishops towards ob-
taining such a committee ; 3, that Lord Edward Howard
and other Catholic members voted with the majority.
" Since reading your letter I have examined the report of
your speech in the Standard. You mention that all the
newspapers omitted your reference to Princethorpe in con-
junction with the story of the locks. But, what does the
suspected crime amount to ? Simply this,—that in the
course of building that large establishment, nearly 30 years
ago, the locks provided for certain cellar doors were not con-
sidered strong enough, and the builder was required to
change them for better. The necessity of this provision
appeared some years ago, when the convent was broken
into and a considerable amount of property plundered.
"The word 'cell' seems to lead to some confusion between
convent cells and prison cells. A convent cell is nothing but
a bedroom, occupying, as in other residences, the upper
floors. There are no such things in convents as under-
ground cells. I have already explained the real cause of
the departure of the former community from Atherstone.
For the locwt. of stanchions,' if that quantity of iron was
used, of which I am not aware, the reason for putting up
bars to the windows was simply a burglarious entry from
without, not an escape from within. There was no attempt
of a nun to escape, and the story was contradicted and ex-
posed in the local newspapers at the time.
" The documents you quoted in your speech confirm all
that I stated before I saw them. The simple, common-sense
remark of Judge Wightman blew into the air all the string
of tales your friends could heap together, and secured proof
of the perfect liberty of the lady in question. Those docu-
ments also prove that when the spies called at Colwich
they represented themselves as the personal friends of that
lady,:while in their interview with her they declared them-
selves to be perfect strangers. I have already said that for
years past that lady has at her own request been freed from
all conventual engagements. I believe she is at present
residing in France, but at what place Ido not know, as
she has changed more than once. It may be in the out-
quarter of some convent, but certainly not within the en-
closure, nor as a member of any community. I may say
thus much more in justification of the ladies of Colwich,
that they are in possession of several letters from her in
which she has at different times entreated permission to
return to them, alleging that she could never be so happy
elsewhere.

" I will offer but one remark more, and then I trust that
my part of the correspondence is finished. You bring out
a story purporting to come from a girl who had been in the
poor school formerly attached to the convent. It is a nar-
rative how she, with her own eyes, im
prisoned'
and nuns
and kept short of food ;' that sho saw one nun ' forced
I down into an underground cellar, who, to the best of her
belief, never came out again.' Why, this is but a repetition
of the stale, old story of Maria Monk of 30 years ago. That
was put down by a body of Protestant magistrates after a
private investigation of the facts, and such as you, sir, have
been invited to make for yourself. Let me now put the case
as you actually maintain it, and I will then leave it to the
common sense of the public. Here are some 70 English
ladies, of good or noble families, varying in age from 40 to
21; and here is an association of men of fortune and others
pushing the spy system and every other engine of private
inquisition that money and ingenuity can command against
these ladies and their residence for the space of eight
years, taking plans of the grounds, questioning servants,
and neighbours, and watching their every movement, even
to the carpenters' work that goes in and out of the house ;
and what is the result ? A. poor girl is got to repeat a tale
only recalling old exploded fables, with 27 witnesses
climb:
presented in the background as corroborating the story.
Now, let common sense use its reflective powers for a single
moment. Those 40 ladies, who are so shrewd as to defeat all
the efforts of ex-Inspector Field and all the forces the Pro-
testant Alliance can bring to bear upon them for eight years,
bring a girl from the poor school into the interior of their
convent, where, by the rules of the house, no such person
can ever enter, and there let her witness the process of
starving nuns, thrusting them into cellars, and leaving them
there to die. And yet you, Sir, with all your faith in this
wonderful legend, and with 28 witnesses to back it, cannot
get evidence enough for a warrant to inquire. And at the
same time you refuse the free offer of inquiry without the
necessity of a warrant.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your
very obedient servant,

" W. B. lILLA.THon.NE.
"To C. N. Nowdegate, Esq., M.P."

-
COMPENSATION CASE.—An important case to
claimant was heard on Thursday, at the Newington
Sessions-house, before the Hon. George Denman, Q.C.,
assessor, and a special jury. Mr. Sergeant Parry, with Mr.
Barnard, appeared for the claimant ; Mr. Lloyd and Mr.
Horace Lloyd, for the railway company. William Henry
Ball, a liverystable keeper, of 29, Amelia-street, Walworth,
claimed from the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Company a sum of £5OO for an alleged injury to his business,
as liverystable keeper, by reason of the noise occasioned by
the traffic on the line. His premises were 100 feet from the
railway, and other property intervened. Structural damage
to the house from the vibration was' also alleged, but was
not proved. After hearing evidence at considerable length,
the assessor directed the jury that upon the case recently
decided of "Ricketts v. the Metropolitan Railway," and
the case of "Penny v. the South Eastern Railway Com-
pany," the claimant was not entitled to any compensation
for damage sustained by him consequent upon the work-
ing of a railway the traffic upon which was carried on under
he
eLegislaturet uiuponc
ctohred
ar icl
e-
wws special
catolhnp
ruling.a neyr . e 1111 hf eerrj eudryb rye tt

A FREAK OF NATURE.—The head of a wild doe
rabbit, which was caught in a gin on Saturday, at
Newchurch, was brought to our office on Tuesday for in-
spection. It has two tusks of pure ivory projecting from
the lower jaw, similar to the elephant, but curving inwards
and upwards towards the eyes, and these protuberances are
an inch and a half in length ! There are also symptoms of
a like exuberant growth in the upper jaw, but the incisors
are altogether wanting. How the animal managed to nip
its food with such a pair of obstacles right in front of its
mouth, we cannot conceive. The owner is about to have
the specimen preserved as a natural curiosity.—Hants In-
dependent.