HC Deb 06 June 1851 vol 117 cc558-61
MR. SCHOLEFIELD

said, that in a debate some short time since, on the Religious Houses Bill, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) stated, that in a convent which was being built at Birmingham the whole of the underground portion was laid out in cells, the supposition being, that these cells were to be used for the forcible detention of some of Her Majesty's subjects. A great deal of odium had been raised in consequence, and at last the Mayor was called on to inspect the premises, and, he was given to understand, to communicate the result to the Home Office. The Mayor had done so, and, as he (Mr. Scholefield) was informed, the absolute conviction of that gentleman was, that there was no truth whatever in the statement, and no shadow of foundation for it. What he wished to ask was, whether the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had received any communication from the Major of Birmingham relative to the erection now in progress of a large convent within that borough? If the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) was true, Government was bound to interfere and protect the liberty of the inmates; while, if false, he appealed even to the hon. Member, with all his hostility to Roman Catholics, to withdraw the charge against them, for which there was no foundation.

SIR GEORGE GREY

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that I have received no communication, private or official, from the Mayor of Birmingham relative to the alleged erection now in progress within the borough of a large convent.

MR. SPOONER

trusted the House would allow him to answer at least part of the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield). He, in the first place, must deny, that he had any hostility to Roman Catholics individually, though he was not ashamed to avow that he felt great hostility towards the principles of the Roman Catholic religion; and with respect to what he said on a former occasion, he admitted it was fairly open to the construction which had been put upon it. But when the hon. Member for Birmingham said there was no foundation for saying there were cells in the convent, he could give him one very short and conclusive answer, signed by Mr. Newman, who stated himself to be the superior of the establishment. It was contained in a letter written to the Morning Chronicle, signed "John Henry Newman:"— Sir—The Times newspaper has just been brought me, and I see in it a report of Mr. Spooner's speech on the Religious Houses Bill. A passage in it runs as follows:—'It was not usual for a coroner to hold an inquest, unless when a rumour had got abroad that there was a necessity for one, and how was a rumour to come from the underground cells of the convents? Yes, he repeated, underground cells; and he would tell hon. Members something about such places. At this moment, in the parish of Edgbaston, within the borough of Birmingham, there was a large convent of some kind or other being erected, and the whole of the underground was fitted up with cells; and what were those cells for?' That was the question he had asked, and he did not complain of the report, for every word he was stated to have used was perfectly correct, and he still abided by them. What did Mr. Newman say on this?— The house alluded to in this extract is one which I am building for the congregation of the oratory of St. Philip Neri, of which I am superior. I myself am under no other superior elsewhere. The underground cells to which Mr. Spooner refers have been devised in order to economise space for offices commonly attached to a large house. Mr. Newman alluded to the cells. He admitted their existence. ["Oh, oh!"] Let hon. Members not cry out too soon; there was a little more to come. The letter went on:— I think they are five in number, but cannot be certain. They run under the kitchen and its neighbourhood. One is to be a larder, another is to be a coalhole, and beer, perhaps wine, may occupy a third. As to the rest, Mr. Spooner ought to know that we have had ideas of baking and brewing; but I cannot pledge myself to him that such will be their ultimate destination. Larger subterraneans commonly run under gentlemen's houses in London; but I have never, in thought or word, connected them with practices of cruelty and with inquests, and never asked their owners what use they made of them. Where is this inquisition into the private matters of Catholics to end. He would ask any Gentlemen of common sense if ever they knew of baking, brewing, and washing to be carried on in the country in cells underground? But he had more to say upon this subject. Knowing that he was to be challenged in that House, he wrote to a gentleman in Birmingham, who lived close by the place, and requested him to call upon a builder who he know had gone over the building while it was in the course of erection, and he had received from him the following reply. ["Oh, oh!"] He could very well understand why some hon. Gentleman did not like to hear these matters spoken of:— I have seen the builder whom you have mentioned in our conversation this morning respecting the Roman Catholic building now being erected in the Hagley-road, Edgbaston, and he informs me that he saw the basement story whilst it was being built, and that it contains very many compartments below the surface of the ground, about 9 feet by 10 feet, and 10 feet high, and without any means of being lighted. To what use they are intended to be applied, is known only to the founders. But by this builder and other persons who have had the curiosity to visit the building, they have been called cells. They are such places as are made for wine-cellars; but my informant says that the number of them precludes the supposition of this being the object of their construction. I asked him if the object of the construction of these cells might be to strengthen the foundation. He replied, 'Certainly not, or they would not have been made so high; much less than 10 feet would have been sufficient for that purpose.' Why were they fitted up with fireplaces? He had seen a gentleman who had visited the building, who told him one of the compartments was larger than the rest, and was evidently to be covered in without the building over it. He was told it was for a laundry, and he asked what use was a laundry in a convent. Whereupon the person said it might be for a convert, he did not know. Now, were these places cells or not? He might be wrong in the construction which he put upon their use, but he had a right to use his own judgment, and he believed that judgment was correct, and that they were cells. [Loud cries of "Question!"] it was very well to cry question; but when his veracity had been impeached, and it was stated there was no foundation for his statements, he was entitled to show that there was some foundation for them, and that there were cells in this convent, as there were in all others.

MR. MOORE

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had sufficiently exposed his absurdity to the House; and he would not dwell for a moment upon that, as it was impossible to make him a bit more ridiculous than he had made himself. But he appealed to the hon. Member, as a man of truth, whether he had not insinuated in Ills former speech that these underground cells were constructed for immoral purposes; and he appealed to the House whether that imputation had not been shown to be an unfounded slander.

Subject dropped.