-ings in various parts of the country, this volume will not present much that is new but is a very important volume, and one which ought to be possessed and studied by every Member of both Houses of Parliament, and by every one who is likely to be engaged in any discussion or controversy with Romanists, open or disguised.

We cannot at present find space for any analysis of it. It must, there fore, suffice to say, that it contains the sum and substance of the Results of Mr. M'Ghee's Investigations into Popish books and documents, clearly arranged, briefly stated, and duly authenticated. There is a Table of Contents at the beginning, and a copious Index at the end, which will enable the reader to turn at once to the information he may wish to find on any particular point. We earnestly recommend it to all our readers and friends.

Nuns and Nunneries: Sketches compiled entirely from Romish Authorities. Seeleys.

We can only find space at present for a very brief notice of this work. It is one which gives us a vast amount of indisputable evidence upon a subject, on which we could have most earnestly wished that it had been possible to dispense with evidence altogether. We should have been glad that all investigation of the internal state of nunneries, and of the

conduct of monks and nuns, would have been avoided. But the restless endeavours of the Romanists to extend the influence of their abominable and Antichristian system, and their zeal in attempting to beguile the simple and unwary; the multiplication of nunneries and conventual establishments in our own country; and, still more, the efforts which are made by a party in our Church, who are not of it, to introduce the conventual system in another form, and under a Protestant, or, at least non-Romish, name; all combine to make it necessary to investigate facts, and to ascertain what nunneries are, have been, and are likely (nay sure, in many instances) to be. The investigation, and its results (as presented in this volume) are so foul, loathsome, and disgusting, that we wish that investigation could have been spared, and the results withheld from the public. Indeed this book is not a book for the public, nor can we commend it to anything like general perusal yet it is a book which the iniquities of Romanism have made it necessary to publish. Upon that awful system-that Mystery of Iniquity-that masterpiece of Satan-rests the sin and shame that such a book can, and must be, published. It is full of fearful illustrations of that text of Scripture: “And upon her forehead was a name written: Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth." (Rev. xvii. 5.)

THE NORWOOD NUNNERY
CASE.

SUMMER ASSIZES.-HOME CIRCUIT.

GUILDFORD, THURSDAY, AUGUST 5. CIVIL SIDE. (Before Lord Chief Justice JERVIS and a Special Jury.) GRIFFITHS v. DE L'ESPINASSE AND ANOTHER.

THIS case, which was one of an extraordinary nature, was commenced to

day, and occupied the Court until Saturday afternoon.

We cannot give here in extenso, the report of a trial occupying nearly three whole days. We give, however, a few passages from the speech of the Counsel, in opening the case, and the narrative of the child, who complained of having lost an eye, through the ill-treatment of the defendants.

Mr. CHAMBERS, in opening the case

to the jury, said, the plaintiff was a young girl between fifteen and sixteen years old. She was a Roman Catholic; and her father and mother being dead, the care of her devolved upon her aunt; and it would appear, that some time in the year 1849, she was placed by his Eminence, Cardinal Wiseman, in a Roman Catholic establishment or convent at Norwood, of which the defendants were the LadySuperiors, Madame de l'Espinasse being the principal, and the other lady, Madame Theodosie, being her assistant. The building had formerly been known as the Park Hotel; but, on its ceasing to be used for that purpose, it was converted into a nunnery, under the title of "The Convent of our Lady of Norwood," and was devoted to educational and religious purposes, for young ladies of the Roman Catholic persuasion; and it appeared, that the establishment was under the patronage of his Eminence Cardinal Wiseman. By a prospectus that was issued from the convent by the defendants, it appeared that there were two classes of inmates, one being young ladies who paid 30%. a-year for their board and education, and another which was called the orphanage class, the members of which were received upon the payment of a much smaller amount. The plaintiff was placed in the establishment by Cardinal Wiseman, as he had before stated, in the latter class, and a sum of 121. was paid for her for the first year. The circumstances under which the complaint was made against the defendants was, that, by omitting to provide proper nourishing food, and other misconduct towards the plaintiff, they had caused the serious injury to her for which she sought compensation at the hands of the jury.

First, with regard to the food, it was said to be inferior and insufficient. They were all required to rise at four o'clock in the morning, and they remained up until nine at night; and during the day, in the intervals of instruction, the girls belonging to the orphanage class were employed in the household work of the establishment. Every Monday, the whole of the washing of the inmates was performed by these children, and on Saturdays

they cleaned the house completely through. It appeared that there were various penances or punishments resorted to in the establishment, some. of which were of great severity and cruelty; and it was one of the complaints on the part of the plaintiff, on the present occasion, that she had. been subjected to these punishments very improperly; and that the result was, that she had sustained the injury for which she sought compensation. Among these penances or punishments, was one which was called "the trial class," and which consisted of the person subjected to it being placed in a room close to a whitewashed wall, and compelled to sit with her face to the wall the whole of the day, without being permitted to speak to any person or to move, except to take her meals. This punishment had been inflicted upon the unfortunate plaintiff, during a period of eight or nine days: and during that long time, except when she took her meals, she was compelled to sit with her face close to the wall, and was not allowed to speak to any one, while she was undergoing this severe punish

ment.

The Learned Counsel having stated some other facts which were afterwards proved as evidence, he concluded an address by requesting the jury not to allow any religious feelings to enter into the inquiry, but to treat the case as they would that of any other boarding-school, where a child was alleged to have been treated improperly, and decide the case solely upon the evidence that would be laid before them on that point.

HENRIETTA GRIFFITHS, the plaintiff, was then examined. Her narrative, or evidence, was substantially as follows. On several points she was contradicted, and on others confirmed by the testimony of medical men, or by that of inmates of the Institution. She said: I am fifteen years old. I was residing lately in the establishment at Norwood. Dr. Wiseman placed me in the establishment. Our diet consisted of soup for breakfast. The soup was made of rice and peas. For dinner we had soup of the same description, and sometimes meat; and for supper we had generally vege

We

tables, such as cabbage. We had meat about three times a-week. used to get up at four in the morning, and went to bed at nine. I was sometimes engaged in washing from six in the morning till six in the evening. We had no extra food on those days. I also used to help to clean the establishment. The washing was only on one day in the week. We had as much meat as we could eat. There was a trial-class which was for punishment. We used to get up at the usual time, and were placed on a low stool, and placed close to the wall, and not allowed to look round or speak. This was continued from four in the morning till nine at night. It was a whitewashed wall we had to look at. The punishment continued for eight days, and if we looked round we had to begin the eight days again. I had been placed in this trial-class by Madame St. Theodosie before the present LadySuperior came. Before this I had asked if I might write to my aunt, and I was told my aunt had nothing to do with me; I was the Cardinal's child, and he paid for me. I heard the Cardinal was coming to visit the establishment, and the defendant said she would pardon me on condition that I was cheerful before him. A short time before Dr. Wiseman came, I was told I was to present a robe to him with some of my companions, and she told me if he asked whether I had done any of it, I was to say yes. I had never seen the robe before. The Cardinal did ask me the question, and I began to cry, and he said, "Are you not good?" I made no reply, and Father Beck, who was by, said, "My Lord, she is a very good girl." The Cardinal then said it was childishness. A "mark was given me to show they were pleased with me, and Father Beck told the Doctor to look at my shoulder to see the mark. When the Cardinal left, Madame St. Theodosie came up and said, that I had not behaved well, and she was very displeased with my conduct before the Cardinal, and I must be placed in the kitchen. I was the first who was placed in the kitchen for punishment. The Lady Superior came to me the day after she

arrived. My eyes were very bad at the time. She asked my why I looked so ill, and I told her that the work had overpowered me. Madame St. Theodosie said I had been a wicked girl; and, when I asked to see the Doctor, she told me I was under her charge, and she would do what she pleased with me. I was in the school-room at this time, and the Superior said, if she heard any more murmuring she would place me in the trial class-room. I repeatedly asked Madame St. Theodosie to let me see the doctor, Mr. Chapman, and she said it was all affectation. Madame St. Louis said this. The Superior told me I ought to have told Dr. Wiseman what I was requested about the robe, and I said it was against my conscience to tell a lie. She said I ought to have done, as the Doctor was very good to me. I afterwards went to confession. Father Beck was father confessor. asked him some questions.

I

Mr. SERJEANT SHEE objected to anything that was said at confession being given in evidence.

Examination continued.-The Superior asked me afterwards why I did not go to confession, and I told her the priest had asked me questions not fit to be asked; and she said the questions that were to be asked were in my book, and were proper ones, and if I did not go to confession I should be placed in the trial classroom again. I had the book in my hand at the time. I think it is called the "Daily Companion," and it was in common use in the convent. It is the book now produced. After this had happened, and when I had Dr. Chapman, I was very much worse; and when the Doctor made some observation about it, they said I had not taken my medicine. The Doctor asked me if it was true, and I said I always took it when it was given to me; and when the doctor left, the defendant said, that in consequence of what I told the Doctor, I should be confined, and I had to undergo the punishment of prostration. Prostration consists in lying on the floor on your face. Before this, I had been kept by myself in a room, with a nun to watch me. generally lasted for an hour, and I

This

had to lay straight on the ground on my face. I was compelled to do this on one day, and then I was confined in a small closet. I was not locked up, but I was compelled to stay in, as I thought if I attempted to go out, I should be placed in the class of trial. A child passed by, and I spoke to her, and one of the nuns told the Superior that I had done so, and I was ordered to be locked in. I was kept in the closet for three months from four in the morning till nine at night, and I was not allowed to go out for any purpose. My food was brought to me. The closet was only large enough to contain a chair and a table, but neither one nor the other was in it, and I was obliged to lie on the floor. No light was allowed me. There was a window, but it was closed, and I was in darkness all the time. Upon one occasion I was kept in the closet all night, and the next morning they told me they had forgotten me. They also forgot to give me any food on this day. When I refused to go to confession I was placed in the trial classroom. Madame St. Theodosie asked me if I still persisted in refusing to go to confession, and I said I could not go, and she said she would give me two days to consider of it, and, if I refused, I should be placed in the trial class. When the time expired, she put the same question to me, and on my persisting in refusing, she ordered me into the trial class-room. I asked to be placed in the kitchen, and told her I was sure I should die; but she said I must suffer on earth that I might reach heaven. I was then kept for six days so. I begged to see the Doctor, and, after some time, I was allowed to do so. I was taken to the young ladies' room to see him. My eye was very bad at this time, but I could see a little out of it. I have since lost the sight of it. The Doctor said my eye was gone the moment I saw him, and he wished to know why I had not been over to see him before; and the lady said it had come only suddenly. It had been, bad seven weeks at this time. It first began by debility, and then I was very ill. I was ill after I had been in the convent a month. They did nothing for me to relieve me. The

I

Doctor said I had a very delicate constitution, and I was to have beer and meat twice a-day, and be kept in a dark place, and do no hard work. The moment the Doctor was gone I was taken back to the class of trial. I complained continually that my eye was getting worse, and they told me that I merited to suffer. No alteration was made in my food. I stayed altogether in the trial class-room for sixteen days. The time was lengthened because I complained to some of the nuns, and said it was unjust to punish me in the state in which I was. Dr. Chapman used to see me every day, and I was taken out of the classroom to see him. I got worse, and he asked if I had what he ordered? and they told him I had, but I would not take the medicine that was sent for me. This was not true. The Doctor, on the sixteenth day, asked me to tell him truly if I took the medicine, and I said I always did when it was given to me; and for saying this I was punished in the way described. complained to the Lady-Superior that I could not eat the food that was given to me. I had beer sometimes, but it was half water. I repeatedly asked to be allowed to write to my aunt, and at length one of the orphans wrote, and I saw my aunt about eight days afterwards, but a nun was present at the interview, and I only saw her through a grating. After this I was taken to Dr. Alexander. My aunt was very much shocked at my appearance, and made some inquiry of the Lady-Superior, and she said, they did not allow any one to interfere in cases of illness. My aunt wished to take me to an oculist, but they refused to allow her, and my aunt threatened to apply to a magistrate; and at length my aunt was allowed to take me away, on condition that I should be brought back the next day. I was then allowed to accompany my aunt to Dr. Alexander. No priest accompanied me on this occasion. I was taken back to the convent on the following day, and the defendants were told that Dr. Alexander said that my life depended on the way I was treated, and that he had ordered me meat and beer. My aunt offered to send me some stout, but the Lady

Superior said she would not allow it. No alteration was made in my treatment after this, but I was placed in the closet again. I went a second time to Dr. Alexander, accompanied by my aunt and one of the young lady boarders. My aunt took me into a coffee-shop, and gave me some refreshment, but I was too faint to eat anything. The Lady-Superior had given me, as a reward, "a mark of the child of Mary." The second time I went to see Dr. Alexander, I and one of the priests, and a young lady boarder, went together in a cab from Kennington-gate, and we got out near the residence of Cardinal Wiseman in

Golden-square, and we all went together to Dr. Alexander's. I met my aunt there, and she stood in the waiting-room. The priest went with me into the room and he took me back to the convent. The Cardinal was at the convent on this day. Dr. Grant, the Bishop of Lambeth, was also present. (A laugh.) I was crying, and he asked me some questions, and I answered them; and he called the Superior out, and asked her why I was so unhappy, and she said I was not a good girl; and Dr. Grant made her promise that she would treat me well, and after this they did treat me better, and gave me more beer and meat. Before I went away the Assistant-Superior told me if I said anything about what happened in the convent I should be damned and never be saved. While I was in the trial-room I was not allowed to perform any of the offices of nature until we all required to do so. This was part of our punishment. When I left the convent I went to live with my aunt. My uncle was formerly a butler in a gentleman's family. I saw my aunt in London two days ago, before I came down to Guildford, and I expected she would have been here to give her evidence. Before I came away a person whom I believe from his dress to be a priest, came to our house, and he had an interview with my aunt. I don't know what he said to her, because I was not present at their interview.

The witness then underwent a long and severe cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant SHEE.

Mr. ALEXANDER, the oculist, gave important evidence, that the plaintiff was brought to his residence in Corkstreet by her aunt, and he was told that she had come from the establishment at Norwood. The sight of her eye was completely gone, and, from the condition of the right eye, he had some fear for that also. The plaintiff appeared very feeble and debilitated; and he ordered that she should have nutritious food and good sound beer every day. The second time he saw her, the child did not appear to mend at all, and her eye looked worse. inquired if she had had the description of food he had recommended; and he believed he made the same inquiry of the priest who accompanied them. After the priest had left with the child, he had an interview with her aunt, and recommended her to remove the child; and a fortnight after, when he saw her again, there was a marked improvement in her appearance. The plaintiff was evidently of a very scrofulous habit.

He

The other medical gentlemen were called, who expressed an opinion, that, at the time they saw the plaintiff, her appearance showed that she was not receiving proper nourishing food, such as her condition required.

This was the case for the plaintiff. Serjeant SHEE then addressed the Jury on behalf of the defendants.

Several witnesses connected with the establishment were called, and after the summing up by the Judge

The Jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, when they returned into Court and gave a verdict for the defendants.

MANCHESTER.-Arrangements_are in progress for the delivery of a Lecture at each of the small towns in this district, solely on the College of Maynooth, and to present a Petition from each to Parliament, for an inspection of that Institution, and the withdrawal of the annual grant. The first was delivered on August 16, at Blackley, under the sanction of the Incumbent, the Rev. W. R. Keeling, by Mr. John Atkinson, a zealous, intelligent, and sincere operative.