The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-09 00:00:00

VORBEIZIPCMANOE F 11,04 RAM,

(FllOll OUR OWN CORRESPONDKNT-)
PARIS, MONDAY, February 8.
The great debate in the Senate is still the topic of the
daiPri!A.eric rule, M. Maupas is supported on all sides,
...iberals, of course, agree with him in preference tc
M. tiCulter. The Imperialistjournals canhardlyoffer down.
right opposition to so staunch a supporter of the Empire.
Some of them are inclined to agree with him, for his argument
is plausible enough. It amounts, as I said before, simply tc
this : though he vehemently opposed the press law and
the law of public meetings, as being too great a concession
to be consistent with public safety, yet he would now
extend reform and grant Ministerial responsibility, simply
because these concessions laid the Emperor open to per.
sonal attacks. In another sense M. Rouher's speech gives
satisfaction. He rejected, it is true, the request for Minis.
terial responsibility, but he accompanied the rejection by the
important statement that he would retire the moment he
received personal blame from the Legislative Body, and that
each of his colleagues would do the like in a similar ease.
The Siècle and other papers consider this a great ad-
mission. If M. Rouher would really resign if he received
a check from the Legislative Body, then Ministerial respon-
sibility is already established. The Corps Ldgislatif could
change a Minister or a Ministry. But, unfortunately for the
SMde, its enthusiasm carries it too far. Where is the
Chamber of Deputies or the Senate which would pass a
direct vote of censure on any Minister? Neither are likely
to be found under the present system. M. Rouher wae.
quite safe. Nevertheless, the whole discussion is not
merely interesting, but important as an indication of the
spread of Liberal ideas.
Some further particulars have transpired respecting the
mystery of the Rue Princesse. As your readers may be
lost in Paris mysteries, I may just mention that this is the
affair of the two legs being fished up from a well in the
dismal quarter of Paris known as the Rue Princesse.
There is now no doubt that a crime was committed,
and that the victim is an upholsterer, of about 50
years of age, residing in the Rue Dauphine. He
must have been murdered on the night of the 14th,
or early on the 15th of December. He was separated
from his wife, and was endowed with the not uncommon
vanity of desiring to appear richer than he really was,
frequently drawing gold coins from his pocket mixed with
smaller change. On the night of the. 14th of December,
he was observed to enter his apartment with a young
woman, and shortly afterwards to go out with her. He
wag never again seen alive. On the 15th, part of his body, the
trunk, was found in the Seine, and a waistcoat which s

covered it was recognised by his wife ; as were other
garments. It is certain, therefore, that the trunk found
in the Seine, the part of a breast found on the quay, and
the two legs fished out of the well all belong to one person.

So far the mystery ends. It is supposed that the n;;;
was murdered by one of the women with whom he was in
the habit of associating. The gold which he was so fond
of displaying had been his ruin.

Yesterday took place that yearly absurdity, the prome-
nade of the Bceuf Gras. The weather was fine and the
crowd immense, but the display- itself was inferior to that

of last year. This mock pageant seems to be dying
a natural death. I even hear it hinted that this may be the
last year of its existence. There was a band of music, irr
the costume of Louis XIII.'s Mousquetaires, then came

the great Chilp6ric, standing on a car drawn by lour
horses, another carriage containing hunters with horns,
and then a mythological vehicle, bearing a score of girls
clad in the scanty dresses common to the mythological
period and to the nineteenth century. It was rather a

THE CONVEAT CASE.

The interest felt by the public in the Hull convent case
increases rather than abates. The crowd attracted to
Westminster yesterday was larger, and the efforts to ob-
tain admittande to the court more vigorous than on any
previous day. The re-examination of the plaintiff, Miss
Saurin, by the Solicitor-General was continued. In answer
to the questions of the learned counsel, the " sister"—who,
notwithstanding the fact that she has been in the witness-
box the greater part of four days, and has had to stand the
fire of a very searching cross-examination at the hands of
Mr. Hawkins, seems as self-possessed as ever—said : I never
took a book from any sister for the purpose of secreting
it. I never took another sister's book for any pniDase
without permission. That is given in the "leaves."
I never knew an order for a sister to have less clothes
than the others except in my own case. I did not cut
up Amy clothes to make them more in substance.
It was usual for all to make one good garment out of two
old ones. It was usual for the sisters to give up all articles
of value for the benefit of the convent. My watch was
given to me, or rather lent to me, by my father when I
was in Bagot-street. I have had the watch returned to
me. 1 had business conversation with one of the priests at
Hull. I never endeavoured to attract his attention on any
occasion. I was never in an habitual state of excitement when
he came to the convent. Inever purposely and constantly
and needlessly put myself in his way. I never did so in
Mrs. Starr or Mrs. Kennedy's presence. I never was
rebuked for it, or forbidden to do it. Sister Mary (Mrs.
Collingwood) was at the school, but I never remember
being with her in the presence of the priest.
I never went on my knees, pulled things out
of his hand, and entreated him to go with me
in her presence. I have not the least idea of anything
that will give a colour to such a charge. I remember a
sister dying in the convent, but I don't recollect her wish-
ing to have her medals buried with her. I never heard
before to day anything of the kind. I attended her, but I
never took her medal from her scapula. We were greatly
attached, and I should have been sorry to have dis-
obeyed any wish of hers. This is the first time
I have heard about her medal, or any of the
sisters having lost theirs. I never took a medal belong-
ing to any one in my life. I never tool; the smallest
parcel of food from the schoolchildren during the time I
was in the convent. I never heard of such a charge before
this trial. I only wrote two letters to my uncle without
the permission of the mother superior. That was the
extent of my clandestine correspondence. I was not
unkind to the children. I never struck or pinched one of
them. I once presumed to take a sheet of note-paper and
an envelope without leave, but I afterwards told Mrs.
Starr, I wrote monthly reports from June 1863 to Sep-
tember 1864 inclusive. I never condescended to make strife
between the mother superior and the sisters.
Mrs. Saurin, the plaintiff's mother, deposed : We did
not wish her to become a professed nun. She was very
desirous of becoming one. Finally, however, the
family consented, and she entered on her noviciate
at Bagot-street. I used frequently to see her
there. She appeared very happy and contented there. I
had every reason to believe she was happy and contented
with all in the convent. Her going to England came upon
me with surprise. As soon as I heard it I left Drogheda
by the midnight mail for Dublin to remonstrate with her.
I saw the archbishop upon the subject. I came over the
summer following to see her at Clifton, and also
the mother superior. She appeared happy, and the
superior was very kind and attentive to me. I saw
Mrs. Starr and Mrs. M`Owne afterwards in Dublin,
at Mrs. Starr's request, she having directed my daughter
to write to me to that effect. At that interview she said
my daughter was quite well and happy, and that she
would take care of her; and, further, that my daughter
should write to me every month. That very much recon-
ciled me to her remaining at Clifford. I frequentlyreceived
letters from my daughter and some from Mrs. Starr.
When I heard that Mrs. Starr was displeased with my
daughter, I handed Mrs. Starr's first two letters back to
Father Mathews. (The letters which were sent by Father
Mathews to the bishop were called for, but they were not
produced). In 1866 application was made for their return,
but Father Mathews never received them.
The bishop, who was absent from curt through illness,
- was sent for.
Father Mathews was called and made the above state-
to° went, and further said that when he handed the letter to
9 the bishop, at York, he said he had brought them
to shew him what a wonderful change must have taken
1 place in Mrs. Starr's opinion of her so soon after to write
2 for the plaintiff's removal. At the commission the bishop
2
6 said the letters were amongst his papers. A general ex-
pression of dissatisfaction pervaded the subsequent
letters.
4 Mrs. Saurin's evidence continued :Up to 1861 I had
peen twice or thrice to Clifford, but I heard no complaints.
7 In the autumn of 1861 my husband was seriously ill. I
was anxious my daughter should come over and see him,
and I wrote to the mother superior accordingly. I wrote
a second letter, in which I stated that my husband was
labouring under a disease that might prove fatal. My
husband had got worse. To that Mrs. Starr wrote a
A. refusal, stating that my daughter might return altogether
2 to Ireland if she could spare me the unhappiness, but that
was impossible, for reasons which she could not then
explain. I replied to that letter, complaining of my not
2 hearing from my daughter, and stated that it was a con-
dition of her becoming a religeuse that she should be
allowed to communicate with her family, and that ifwe were
driven to it we should take the necessary remedies to
enforce it. I stated in one of my letters to
Mrs. Starr, " Let me ask you how it is I never
receive answers to any of my letters ?" Seve-
ral were at that time unanswered. I referred to the
promise made by Dr. Cullen, and assented to by Mrs.
Starr, that my daughter should visit Dublin, especially in
cases of illness. Mrs. Starr wrote me a long letter, in
which she said she could not explain private community
affairs, and she could only repeat that Sister Scholastica
could not then go to Ireland, not could she say when, if
ever, she would return to Ireland. Obstacles to her removal
might last for years, she said, and also that she was no
party to any arrangement for her returning to Ireland.
She would, however, consent to her being removed to a
convent in Ireland, if it could possibly be done. In 1862,
in consequence of what Father Mathews said, I went
with my son Patrick to Hull. I saw Mrs. Kennedy,
and I. asked her what the complaints were of my
daughter. She said she could not tell me, but Mrs. Starr
would. I shortly after saw her. I asked what the com-
plaints were. She said my daughter had disobeyed the
orders of the convent in doing things she had no right
to do. I asked what they were. She said my daughter
had a light in her cell after 10 o'clock, and that she had
washed things there. She also said that my daughter told
untruths, or something like it. She told me my daughter
was at Clifford, but that if I went there I
could not see her without a note from her; and she
accordingly wrote one. Mrs. Starr at that interview
told me that my daughter had written a letter to her uncle
without leave. I went:to Clifford. Mrs. M`Owne refused
to let me see her. I saw her Pam quickly along the
corridor. I went to the door, Aly daughter saw me, but
she passed on. Mrs. M`Owne came to the room and
said
I could not see my daughter, but she could not tell me
why. I then gave her Mrs. Starr's note, and was then
allowed to see my daughter. Instead of being happy, as
she had previously been when I had seen her, she com-
plained very much of the treatment she was receiving.
She promised to ask pardon of MI'S. Starr for writing
letters without leave.

Witness then detailed procedings up to the order from
the bishop absolving "Sister Scholastica " from her vows.
It came out, however, that such an order ought properly
to come from the Pope of Rome, and then only on ver
grave misconduct being absolutely proved,
The case was again adjourned, and seems likely to last
..er a week.

Four men were buried alive, and one was killed by
the fall of a large quantity of gravel in a gravel pit at Mid-
dleton. Three men managed to get their heads above the
sand, but the other was quite buried, and was not reached
until after an hour's search.

CABINET COUNCIL—At the Cabinet Council held
on Monday the Ministers present were the Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone, the Lord Chancellor, Earl De Grey and
Ripon, the Earl of Kimberley, the Right Hon. H. A.
Bruce, the Earl of Clarendon, Earl Granville, the Right
Hon. E. Cardwell, the Duke of Argyll, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, the Right Hon. Hugh Childers, the Right
Hon. J. Bright, the Right Hon. G. J. Goschen, the
Marquis of Hartington, and the Right Hon. C. Fortescue.
SUBSIDENCE OF THE RUSSIAN CAPITAL—The
following interesting but • apparently rather sensational
piece of news is going the rounds of the German papers.
It is said that in fifty years St. Petersburg will have
ceased to exist. The whole soil on which it stands is sink-
ing, imperceptibly it is true, but with fearful regularity,
and the examination that has been made has turned out so
unfavourable that steps arc being taken preparatory to
removing the Court.

I PRINCE RUPERT'S HEADQUARTERS. —One of the
few remains of the architecture of the sixteenth century,
which are to be found in Birmingham, is doomed to
destruction—the Ship Inn, Highgate. This old-fashioned
house possesses some points of peculiar local interest in
connection with the history of the hardware village ; for,
in 1643, during the civil war, Prince Rupert made this
place his headquarters, and slept there for some time. In
1791 the place was taken possession of by the Priestley
rioters, who committed great injury in the neighbourhood,
burning Bordesley House, attacking Moseley Hall, and
also the houses of other gentry in the locality. The house
was supposed to have been built in 1560, and for rew
vemigioYed rep tio .62uutry_kul.