The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-11 00:00:00

THE CONVE3T CASE.

'lie Case of " Sanrin v. Starr progresses slowly.
Yesterday the defendants' evidence was given. Before
the ordinary proceedings had commenced, however,
Mr. Hawkins called his lordship's attention to a leading
article that appeared in the Times yesterday morning,
commenting on the case in a manner that was likely to
greatly prejudice the defendants' case before they had had
an opportunity of being heard.
The Lord Chief Justice : I have not had time to read
the Times this morning, further than the report of yes-
terday's proceedings.

The foreman of the jury easel he had just inquired of his
brother jurymen, and they informed him that they had
not seen the article.
Mr. Hawkins handed the paper to his lordship, who
looked over the article.
The Lord Chief Justice said : I confess I think it would
have been better if the writer had waited until the case
had ended, because observations made in the public press
are likely to prejudice a case; at all events it is likely to
give annoyance to persons interested. From the cursory
glance I have had of the article I don't think the defen-
dants have much to complain of.
Mr. Hawkins : I am not in the least making this appli-
cation to your lordship because I believe that the jury will
be prejudiced by it, but it is painful to the defendants to
have these comments made before their case is ended. If
your lordship will just read the end of the article I think
you will be of a different opinion.
The Lord Chief Justice : It appears to me to be a cona-
Ment or criticism on conventual and monastic institutions
—on the system—rather than on the interests and rights
of these parties.
Mr. Hawkins : I will not say more than ask your lord-
ship to express an opinion upon the matter.
The Lord Chief Justice : Whilst I am ready to give the
fullest latitude to the observation made by the writers in
the public press on what passes in courts of justice, it is
very desirable that nothing should be said before a case is
ended.
Mrs. Starr, the defendant, deposed lam one of the
defendants, and was formerly the Mother Superioress at
Hull and Clifford. I have ceased to be so since July 1867.
I entered the convent of the Sisters of Mercy in Begot-
street in July 1853, as a postulant, and was admitted as a
sister in 1850. In August 1855 I went to Clifford. I had
been appointed superioress a week after I went to Clifford.
Three sisters went with me. It was a new foun-
dation. I was appointed on the authority of Dr.
Briggs, the late bishop, who delegated his autho-
rity to a priest, Mr. Clifford. That appointment
was for six years. Miss Saurin entered the convent in
Bagot-street in 1850. There was a rule and a set of
customs. This is the book of customs prevailing in
Bagot-street. It is a transcript of what was used in
Bagot-street, and was the book in force at Hull and at
Clifford. 'There has been one alteration made since with
regard to visitors. That alteration was made about four
years ago. (The rule was read.) That was the same
custom in substance as the old one. Ido not know
where to get a copy of the old one. The alteration was
made by the community in Bagot-street, and in 1863 I
got a copy of it and introduced it in our hook of customs.
The rules are the same for all convents, but the customs
may differ. The convent at Bagot-street had no autho-
rity over me after I left. When postulants first come into
the convent the rules are read to them, and they are
allowed them to read and study themselves. Besides the
rules and customs there are certain instructions as to the
rules. They were put into print in 1866. These instruc-
tions were read to the postulants by the mistress of
novices. I was acquainted with the plaintiff while
at Bagot-street, not more than with the rest
of the communicants till after my profession. We
were not closely connected. She was in the laundry, and
lin the school. After I was a professed sister she became
the same. I was then a little more acquainted with her,
through the absence of the superioress, who gave me the
charge the while. The plaintiff complained of being
badly treated by her, and I tried to reconcile her. In
1856 I went to Clifford, and shortly after I applied to the
superioress at Bagot-street for an additional sister, and I
named three or four, Miss Saurin amongst the number.
I mentioned her because I thought she would be useful in
needlework and the laundry. She had not education
sufficient for teaching. We taught needlework in the
industrial schools. I was not aware of any difficulty
about her coming until after she came. I only made one
application for her, and not several, as she has stated. I
gave her a junior class to teach the alphabet and to instruct
in needlework and housekeeping. 'The latter duties were
trifling, as there were but three or four sisters in the house, and
she had a lay sister under her. I went to Dublin in 1865,
but plaintiff did not accompany me. I saw her mother on
that occasion, and she expressed her satisfaction at her
being with me, and her dissatisfaction at her having been
sent from Bagot-street. She spoke of her daughter
being in the laundry at Bagot-street as bad treatment—as
an indignity towards her on their part. The convent in
Hull was established in January 1857, as a branch
of the Clifford establishment, and I continued superioress
of both. The number of the sisters increased, and we
had three or four postulants. Some of them subsequently
became sisters. The number of sisters at Hull
fluctuated, but we never had more than four at one time.
Postulants are called sisters by courtesy but not by right.
At Clifford we had three or four altogether. We had as
many as twenty-four, including postulants, at the same
time in the establishment between 1857 and 1866. In
January 1857 I went to Hull, and returned to
Clifford in February. Plaintiff then went to Hull. I
remained at Clifford until April. I was in weak health at
the time. Mrs. Kennedy was left in charge at Hull during
my absence. In August 1857 Mrs. Kennedy was
appointed by the bishop, Dr. Briggs, Mother Assistant.
Up to this time the plaintiff broke the rule of silence fre-
quently. I observed some of it myself, but principally
I was informed of it by others. In April or
May Mrs. Kennedy told me she had a great
deal of trouble with her in Hull, in her
intercourse with seculars, particularly the young women
who attended the night schcols. She also complained of
her irregularities in being late at the duties of the commu-
nity, such as spiritual duties in the choir, and meals in the
refectory—in short, a great want of punctuality. I spoke
to the plaintiff about it, and cautioned her to be more
reserved for the future towards seculars, and to be more
regular at her duties. She promised me she would try.
She at first denied the charges, and tried to excuse her-
self. In July 1857 Miss Saurin was at Hull.
I went back there. In 1858, 1859, and part of
1860 we were much together. In 1858 she was
housekeeper, and had needlework to teach as well a junior
class in the night school. I observed that she was then
irregular and unpunctual in coming to her duties. She
did not observe the rule of silence, but spoke to the school
girls, the children of the schools, unnecessarily. Unneces-
sary talking to children is a breach of the rule—a disobe-
dience to orders, but the particular circumstances, I cannot
recollect.
The Lord Chief Justice : Can't you tell us the particu-
lars of the disobedience?
Defendant : I cannot call them to mind. I noticed want of
sincerity in her. When accused of a fault she had com-
mitted she would deny it and give equivocal and evasive
answers, and afterwards be obliged to admit the fault
when I proved it was true. I had to speak to all the
sisters about their faults. We expect a sincere admission
of a fault before it is proved. She would endeavour to
throw the blame on the other sisters for her own faults.
A novice came and told me plaintiff had been talking a
long time in the out school, and that bad caused her to be
late. Plaintiff, when she was accused of it, denied it, and

said it was all a mistake. I reproved for her stratagem

with the novice in trying to deceive her.
There was some confusion about this part of the case,
when

The Lord Chief Justice, appealing to the learned
counsel, said : It is such stuff. What is the use of pur-

suing it further? It was only idle talk. Let us get on

with something more material.
Defendant • Plaintiff habitually denied her faults when
she was accused of them. I frequently spoke to her of
her want of truth, and she admitted it during 18.58 and
1859, as well as her disobedience and her non-observance of
the rule of poverty. I observed she had many things she
ought not to have had, such as working materials, and I
told her she would have great remourse on her death-bed
from her want of poverty. She had pieces of calico which
she said remained after she bad made some ceremony
work. I had supplied her with the calico, and she ought
to have returned it to me insttad of applying it to her
own use.

The Lord Chief Just:c.3 : Did she take it away, or did
she give it up to you?
Defendant : I think she did.
The Lord Chief Justice : Then she did not apply it
to her own use.

Defendant : She may have done so.
The Lord Chief Justice : But she did not. Be cautious
in what you state.

Defendant : One of the sisters lost a devotional book—
" Devotions to Jesus." Plaintiff knew I bad given it to
the sister. I found it secreted amongst her clothes in a
cabinet in a cell. I asked her why she had taken the book,
because she knew I had given it to the other aster.
She said she had found it, and was keeping
it for me. I said that could scarcely be the
ease, as she knew I had given it to another, and that
it was no longer my book. She admitted she had done it,
that it was wrong, and that it was a breach of "poverty."
The book had been given to Mrs. M`Owne. In that year
she also took a pair of boots belonging to Mrs. Kennedy,
at the time of Cardinal Wiseman's visit, without permis.
lion from me.

The Lord Chief Justice : Then she could not borr lw a
( air te.pts 1,; gilt Your permission ?