§ MR. HENNESSY,who had given notice "to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire a question with reference to the correspondence he has published relating to his recent Motion," said, that since the debate which had taken place upon his (Mr. Newdegate's) Motion relating to the inspection of convents, the hon. Gentleman had published in The Times a letter written in answer to one which he had received from Bishop Ullathorne. The hon. Gentleman was entitled, if he thought fit, to hold, and even to publish, the opinion that—
The direct action of the Romish hierarchy through or upon the Roman Catholic Members of the House had been obvious to every Member taking an interest in such questions as were debatedon the occasion referred to. But his letter went on to say—When I stated these facts, as connected with this convent, 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, could have 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 Members of the House on these subjects was so wonderful that the House decided to consider a measure for testing these denials by the establishment of an inspection of convents.This sentence was somewhat involved, but there could not be the slightest doubt that it conveyed an imputation and charge against Roman Catholic Members to which no Gentleman should submit. Heretofore, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had adopted the prudent policy of attacking women or treating ecclesiastics with very scant courtesy; and it did not need a very courageous heart to strike a blow at those whose sex or sacerdotal character rendered them incapable of self-defence. But deviating for the first time from his old course, the hon. Gentleman by penning that sentence had placed himself for the first time face to face with those who had 1638 power and likewise the determination to require a strict account for the language thus made use of. He wished the hon. Gentleman to tell the House distinctly what he meant by that sentence, and whether in his place in the House he was prepared to adopt it. The charge implied in the sentence was only insinuated, and on that account was all the more offensive. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to prove that charge, and if he were not able to do so, then to call upon him to give to those whom by the insinuation he had insulted an ample and full apology?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that while in Warwickshire on last Friday evening he received a note from the hon. Member for the King's County stating that he intended on that afternoon to call the attention of the House to statements made in the letter written by himself (Mr. Newdegate) in reply to one from Dr. Ullathorne which had been published; but, as it was impossible for him then to be present on that afternoon in his place, the matter stood over till the present occasion. He was glad the House had now afforded the hon. Member for the King's County the opportunity of stating the offence he fancied had been committed. In reply to his Question he must first refer to the letter of Dr. Ullathorne. Dr. Ullathorne claimed to be a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church exercising jurisdiction in Warwickshire; he called himself Bishop of Birminghan, thereby offending against the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. He (Mr. Newedgate) must be excused for not having addresed Dr. Ullathorne by an illegal title, which did not belong to him. Dr. Ullathorne had thought fit in his letter to deny, in the most explicit terms, statements which he (Mr. Newde-gate) had made in bringing forward his Motion for an inquiry respecting monasteries and convents. He did not choose that Dr. Ullathorne, as a resident in Birmingham, should circulate allegations of falsehood against him in the district which he had the honour to represent, he had therefore replied in the letter from which the hon. Member for the King's County had read an extract. He extremely regretted that, in the copy of the letter from which the hon. Member had quoted, there was an error which was an error of the copyist. The passage as it ought to stand was in the following terms:—
When I stated these facts as connected with this convent in the debate in 1853 the facts were 1639 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, was such that these denials could have had but 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 the Roman Catholic Members 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.The House would perceive that reference was there made exclusively to the debate of 1853, and in vindication of the statement he would quote one or two passages from Hansard's Report of the debate of 1853. The Motion before the House on that occasion was one by Mr. Thomas Chambers for leave to introduce a Bill for the inspection of convents, and one of the cases connected with this subject which attracted most attention at the time, was that of Miss Talbot, a relative of Mr. Craven Berkeley, then a Member of the House. She was a postulant at a convent near Bristol, and Mr. Berkeley having applied for permission to see his stepdaughter was refused the necessary permission, unless the interview took place in the presence of the Superioress. In the course of the debate on that Motion of Mr. Chambers the following passages occurred. Mr. Craven Berkeley said—Not only was it the fact that in the convents of England a lady having once taken the veil was prevented from seeing her friends unless in the presence of the Superior or lady abbess. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman might cry 'No, no;' but no amount of contradiction could alter a fact of which he (Mr. C. Berkeley) had personal cognizance. It had happened to himself, in his own person, to be refused an interview, except under such circumstances as he was stating. He had been refused permission to see his nearest and dearest relative in a convent, unless in presence of the Superioress. That was not alone the case with ladies who had taken the veil, but also with postulants, or persons who took the white veil before taking the black."—[3 Hansard, cxxvii. 96.]The late Mr. Drummond subsequently, but in the same debate, said—Hon. Gentlemen opposite might dissent from that opinion; the power of denial in some hon. Gentlemen was most marvellous; and the only way in which he could account for it was by supposing that Dr. Wiseman was correct when he stated in a recent number of the Dublin Review that Catholic laymen knew very much better than to read books they had no business to read. They were not allowed to know anything about the matter—not allowed—not allowed."—[3 Hansard, cxxvii. 118.]He cited these two passages to show the 1640 House that, notwithstanding the flat denials given by the hon. Member for Dun-dalk (Sir George Bowyer) and other Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion to the facts alleged in support of the Bill for the Inspection of Nunneries, and to his references to the attempt made by a nun to escape from the convent at Atherstone, the House felt that that course of proceeding was not right, and thought proper to sanction the introduction of the Bill. These were historical facts; and he had reason to believe that if the House had consented to have the facts he had recently adduced tested by a Committee it would have been proved that the denial of them was worth as little on the part of Dr. Ullathorne as the denials given to the statements made during the debate of 1853. The hon, Member (Mr. Hennessy) said something about the want of courage on his part in attacking ladies and ecclesiastics; but did the hon. Member ever know him shrink from defending statements he had made in that House? What he thought it his duty to assert he would defend whenever called upon to do so. As Dr. Ullathorne had been alluded to, he begged to remind the House that he had singled him out by name because Dr. Ullathorne in his own letter claimed to be the Superior—that is, the governor, of all the three convents he (Mr. Newdegate) had named. He therefore held Dr. Ullathorne when speaking on his Motion of the 3rd of that month, and he still held him responsible for any oppression that might have been practised in these convents by forcing back these unhappy ladies after their attempts to escape, first from the convent at Atherstone, and next from the convent at Colwich. It was only yesterday that he received a letter from Mr. Ritchings, the Protestant clergyman of Atherstone, supporting his statement by reference to a conversation between himself and Mr. Oxley, the priest resident at Atherstone Convent at the time that the attempt to escape was made. Mr. Oxley told him, yes, there was one inmate of that convent who was so troublesome (referring to the attempt to escape) that they were compelled to remove her elsewhere—lie (Mr. Newdegate) knew not where. Yet here was Mr. Ritchings ready to support the statement that Dr. Ullathorne had flatly denied, upon the admissions of the Roman Catholic priest in charge of this very community at the time of the attempted escape. This was part of the 1641 evidence which he (Mr. Newdegate) would hare produced before the Committee had it been granted. These were some of the witnesses; but Dr. Ullathorne, in his letter, manifested the most extraordinary-knowledge of the body of the sworn evidence that he (Mr. Newdegate) did not produce in the case of the escape from Colwich. In his first letter, he talked of nuns confined in chains; and it was true that something to that effect was in the evidence from which he had read extracts, but he had never stated his portion of the evidence. How came Dr. Ullathorne to be acquainted with that part which he (Mr. Newdegate) had not stated in the House? As far as he knew neither the narrative from which he had quoted on the 3rd of March, nor the affidavits upon which it was founded, was ever brought within that Doctor's knowledge, yet he was perfectly conversant with the facts; and he (Mr. Newdegate) could only attribute his denials of sworn evidence to this circumstance—that any one who knew anything of the organization of the Roman Catholic Church, as regarded the charge of convents, knew that Dr. Ullathorne, as Superior of these convents, was under sworn obligation to maintain inviolate the secrets of these convents, and to resist all attempts of unwilling nuns to leave the convents in which they were confined except permissu supe-riorum, of whom he was a part; and therefore he thought that by propagating a misunderstanding of the facts among the public, and by flat denials of sworn testimony, he was performing his duty to a power superior to the laws of this country; which it was his (Mr. Newdegate's) duty, not only as a Member of that House, but also as a magistrate acting within the county which he had the honour to represent to see administered. Dr. Ullathorne might think it his duty to incarcerate those ladies against their will; but as a magistrate it was his (Mr. Newdegate's) duty within the sphere of his jurisdiction to seek information of all cases of false imprisonment, and of all undue severities of discipline; for false imprisonment was an offence against the laws of this country, and these undue severities constituted aggravated assaults which he should be wanting in his duty if he did not seek to prevent and detect, he should be wanting in his duty if he did not seek to bring before the proper tribunals the authors and perpetrators of these offences. As there was a conflict between the sense of duty that influenced 1642 Dr. Ullathorne, and that which influenced himself, he would only add that he regretted that any minister of religion should venture upon a flat denial of sworn evidence; the more so because while uttering these denials Dr. Ullathorne had shown a complete knowledge not only of those parts which had been quoted in the House, but of the remaining part, which he (Mr. Newdegate) had never mentioned.
THE O'DONDGHUEthought that the hon. Member for the King's County was entitled to much credit for affording to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire an opportunity to express his regret for what had taken place, and to promise to be more careful in future. If the hon. Member had not thought fit to avail himself of the opportunity, that was his own fault. Having had considerable opportunities of watching the hon. Member, he had watched his movements with peculiar interest, and yet he had never been able to decide, notwithstanding the extreme gravity of the hon. Member's demeanour, whether he really believed the stories he told about the Jesuits or about the convents, when making his ridiculous attacks on that system. If the hon. Member did, then his case was really alarming; but he had often thought that the hon. Member would, after some of his gravest speeches, rush into some lonely place, and enjoy a hearty laugh. What was the position of the hon. Member at the end of so many years during which he had been telling the House that inquiry was his object, and that his great attempt was to see with his own eyes those locks, bolts, and bars behind which he had tried to persuade people, if not by assertion, at least by insinuation, that some hapless ladies were confined? The hon. Member asked for a mode of inquiry which he knew he could not obtain, and refused that mode of inquiry which he could obtain, and which he ought to have accepted if he were sincere, and if the welfare of the inmates of convents was really the object he had in view. The House refused to grant the hon. Member his Committee for sufficient reasons. One was that there was no ground for a Committee; and the other was that the appointment of a Committee and its proceedings would only tend to perpetuate religious discords, which it was the interest and wish of the House to terminate. The Bishop of Birmingham had not been treated with ordinary courtesy by the hon. Member. Dr. 1643 Ullathorne gave the hon. Member full permission to enter his convents and bring with him Protestant gentlemen of recognized honesty and integrity. If the hon. Member had availed himself of this permission, he would have found no locks, bolts, and bars in these convents, except such as were used to keep out thieves, vagabonds, and spies; but he would have discovered that the convents were the abodes of peace and charity. But this mode of inquiry would not suit the hon. Member for reasons which all could comprehend. The hon. Member was too good a tactician not to know that an inquiry so conducted in the presence of honourable men would not fail to put an end to all false charges. Then, the hon. Gentleman had the hardihood to take the Roman Catholic Members of that House to task for not assisting him to obtain a Committee which could only prove a source of inconvenience and annoyance to the inmates of convents, and which, perhaps, in addition, might gratify the morbid suspicions of certain persons whom the hon. Gentleman was doing his best to delude. Perhaps it was too much to expect that the hon. Gentleman would desist from worrying the inmates of convents, or to hope that he would allow them to quietly pursue those pious lives which they had selected—lives devoted to prayer and to the good of their fellow-creatures. But it was not too much to expect, after what had passed, after the hon. Member had refused the inquiry which had been offered him, and which every hon. Member must feel was amply sufficient to satisfy any sincere and reasonable man, that the House and the country would know how to estimate the statements which the hon. Gentleman might think fit in future to make with reference to convents.
§ MR. NEWDEGATErose to reply, but was stopped by cries of "Order."
§ Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to,