troublesome, and exacting, with regard to food and clothing. She would demand things as a right, instead of, as other sisters would, by making her wants known. In February and March, 1862, the affair took place with regard to the intercepted letters at Clifford. They were sent to me at Hull. I considered it a very great fault, and we had always been taught in Baggot-street that clandestine letter-writing inflicted the penalty of dismissal. It mattered not to whom they were written. I wrote Miss Saurin a kind letter of expostulation.

After this, according to Mrs. Star, the plaintiff alternately denied and admitted sending letters clandestinely. After a time she came to me, and spoke to me privately. She knelt down of her own accord, and said, “O reverend mother, oh, the lies I have told! I did send the two letters to my uncle," and that she was very sorry having denied it on the Sunday previous. She acknowledged that all the denials and acknowledgments she had made to Mrs. M'Owne in the previous March at Clifford were false; that the admissions she made to me in July were true; and that the subsequent denials on the same day were false. She spoke of Mrs. M'Owne in a manner that led me to suppose she had deceived her. She said, "Poor Sister Agnes, I gave her so much trouble!" and she asked me if she might kneel down and beg her pardon for it. She said that she had deceived Sister Agnes. I asked her why it was she had made all those admissions to me. She said it was one of the instructions given in the report of the previous day, which seemed to her so like the apostasy of Judas, and which she thought apposite to her case. I asked her if she would give me an acknowledgment in their presence, and she expressed her willingness to do it. In Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. M'Owne's presence, shortly after, Miss Saurin went on her knees and acknowledged sending the letters, and asked their forgiveness. I asked her to give me written acknowledgments, and she did so. One was dated the 4th of August, 1862, and the second the 6th of August, 1862. The first is in her handwriting, and I objected to it, as it was not sufficiently explicit. The first was, "I acknowledge to have written two notes to my uncle, the Rev. Mr. Mathews, parish priest of St. Mary's, Drogheda, and that I sent them without the knowledge of my superiors." I then wrote the following, which she signed:-" I acknowledge to have written two letters to my uncle, the Rev. Mr. Mathews, parish priest of St. Mary's, Drogheda, to obtain his assistance in procuring my admission into another community; and I sent those two letters without the knowledge of my Superior."

Mrs. Star gave an account of her conversations with the plaintiff's mother; Mrs. Saurin had also described this conversation in her evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice remarked how different the two versions were. Mrs. Saurin asked me to take her daughter to Hull, and live happily together; but I refused, because she would be a bad example to the novices. I told her I was surprised she knew nothing about her daughter, and I quoted a part of plaintiff's letter to her uncle, where she regretted her mamma knowing it. Mrs. Saurin appeared confused, as if detected in a falsehood, and muttered something. I had a correspondence with the Baggot-street institution.

The Lord Chief Justice.-When was it the Superior there told you they would not take Sister Scholastica back? In July or August, 1862. Letters between communities are destroyed. I believe that letter was destroyed the day after it was received. Mrs. Star passed on to the time when the plaintiff's removal back to Baggotstreet was mooted.

The Lord Chief Justice.-Did you, when you wrote to the Superior at Baggotstreet, think it necessary to tell them why you were anxious to get rid of her?

Yes. I think I told her of the clandestine correspondence.-Then you did not tell her all the faults you had to find with Sister Scholastica? No; I told her in a general way that she was imperfect.—That was a very imperfect way of stating it. I should have thought if you intended to be candid with them you would have given your reasons for parting with her. I think I let them know about the clandestine correspondence. They knew her as well as I did.-Then what was the use of your asking them to take her back? I knew there was none, but I made the application.

Some letters from Miss Saurin's Jesuit brother to her, Mrs. Star said she stopped because he had spoken disrespectfully and contemptuously of her former Superior in Baggot-street. Another reason for withholding them was that her brother spoke of her having been put in the laundry at Baggot-street as an indignity. He said of Baggot-street that they were torturers and tyrants, or tormentors. He spoke of them as Madame M'Guire and Madame Whitty, and hoped they had given her her fortune. Mrs. Star explained away some of the matters of complaint by stating that they were part of the discipline. Mrs. Star then gave some account of her having searched the plaintiff. She said, She had some things tied round her under her cloak, she had, in fact, a bagful of things fastened to her cincture. I went to her room whilst plaintiff was preparing, but I don't distinctly remember if Mrs. Kennedy accompanied me. She had on a pair of stockings, and was putting another pair over them. As far as I can remember, I told her one pair would suffice with the pair in the basket. I think she kept on the pair and one of the second pair. I did not see Mrs. Kennedy push the plaintiff down the back stairs. It could not have been done without my seeing it. Plaintiff made no complaint of Mrs. Kennedy's conduct.

Other alleged grievances of the plaintiff were explained away. She wore six pockets, or at least five, and Mrs. Star emptied them. They contained a heterogeneous mass of odds and ends of various kinds; bags filled with bits of calico, braid, silk, and things of that kind, and worsted thread.

The Lord Chief Justice.-Were those forbidden things? She might have had them if she had permission. She had permission for working materials, but not for these particular things. There was something unusual in one individual having such a number of things concealed in her pocket. There was also a broken-bladed penknife. She told me she wished to get new blades put into the knife. I judged from her manner it was her own knife. After her separation from the community I found it was not hers, but that it belonged to one of the other sisters, who claimed it. I used no roughness or violence in emptying her pockets. I directed her to sew up all her pockets except one. She had more lining in her dress than I had, and I requested her to make it the same. measured it, and I found hers was double the width of mine. I put the scissors into it to show her where to cut it. She cut the lining out herself without taking the habit off. Up to the time when the order of dismissal was made, her clothing was as good as the others in many respects, and in others better, and as a whole it was as good as the rest of the community. The winter clothing is not given to all at the same time.

case.

We

The Lord Chief Justice.-Then why take hers away? It was an exceptional She spent so much time about remodelling hers, that I took charge of it. She had sent more clothing to the wash every week than was usual; that was another reason for my taking charge of them. In 1862 or 1863 a regulation was made limiting the sisters' needful articles of dress; but I discovered that, instead

of giving up what I considered to be superfluous articles (as I considered them), she put one on another, and cut up others so as to lessen the number without lessening the substance. All the articles are in common, but some are applied to particular persons, but they may be taken from them, and it is frequently done. Sister Scholastica's clothes, Mrs. Star said, were torn every week, in a way not explicable by age or wear. It was a settled practice to take away presents from the sisters and was done as an exercise of poverty. Three sisters, Mrs. Star said, reported that they had reason to believe Miss Saurin took part of the children's dinners. This occurred again after an interval. As to the stripping of the plaintiff, Mrs. Star said, it was done from suspicion that she might have secreted certain articles about her person or in her pockets.

The sisters, said the defendant, are not allowed to converse with the chaplain without permission, but Miss Saurin frequently did it. I believe what I wrote respecting it to the Bishop was a correct statement. I think I first observed it

in 1857 or 1858. It was reported to me in 1857. I am certain I saw it in 1858, 1859, and 1860. I had seen her go into the hall and parlour, and speak to the priest. In 1861 she returned where the priest was, and spoke to him. Mine was a general statement, embracing what was within my own knowledge and what was reported to me. I wrote the deposition, to the best of my honest belief.

Speaking of the commission, the defendant said, On the 2nd of January I received the Bishop's letter, giving the plaintiff notice of the commission. I suggested that Father Porter should be on the commission, because he knew the case and the community. Father Porter had become aware of the case partly by letter and partly by the retreats. I wrote to him at the time of the discovery of the clandestine correspondence, after March, 1862. I wrote to him for advice. I am almost sure I wrote to him after he had been named on the commission. In December I had occasion to go to Liverpool with a sister who was about to pass her certificate for a training school. I called on Father Porter, and had a conversation with him about the case. I think I heard a few days afterwards that Dr. O'Hanlon had been named on the commission. When I received the Bishop's letter of the 5th of January, that the plaintiff was to write any thing she pleased to the commissioners, I both read it and showed it to her. I offered to give her writing materials, but she declined to have them. The next morning (Sunday) she came to me, and asked for a little paper and ink to write down her feelings for the commissioners. I gave them to her at once, and I told her if the paper was not sufficient I would give her more.

Mrs. Star totally denied that Miss Saurin was confined to her room in the manner she had alleged, neither was she guarded. She said, The direction I gave was that her movements were not to be controlled in the least, but that she should be allowed to do just as she liked. I gave directions, however, that she should not be left alone. On the 30th of April, about noon, I ordered that a particular door should be kept locked, because Miss Saurin was in the habit of going to the room, and remaining so long that she inconvenienced the community. There were four other rooms of the same description to which she had unlimited access. Miss Saurin was in the habit at night or early morning of getting up and going over the house alone, and I understood she had been seen in the corridor at five o'clock in the morning in her tunic and without her stockings. I have learnt that since, but in my own mind I believed she would. I gave directions that a sister should sleep in the corridor, and that a string should be attached to her bed and Miss Saurin's door, that if Miss Saurin should

come out it should awaken the sister, and she should accompany her about the house. The rope did not fasten the door. There was nothing to prevent Miss Saurin's going out.

Cross-examined.-Is one of the most binding rules of this order absolute obedience to the will of the Superior? Not absolute.-How is it qualified? The sisters are bound to obey the Superior in all that is without sin, as far as her authority extends. For example, if the Superior thought a sister ought for a certain fault to be placed last in the community, and deprived of her vote in the chapter, she could not impose that penance without the permission of the Bishop. I might propose it, but I could not put it into execution.-You might hold that punishment over her? Yes. It is part of the virtue, excellence, or goodness of a nun to think according to the thoughts of those above her, and to submit herself, her mind, and thoughts, to them? Yes.-It is a desirable thing in a nun to, as far as possible, submit her judgment to that of her Superior? Yes. -She would feel that to be an obligation if she could do it without sin? Not as an obligation. She would feel it right to do so.-Is it the duty of a novice to obey the mother superior as if she held her authority from God rather than through servile fear? That is one of our rules.-And it would be still more the duty of a nun to do that? Yes, having taken the vows.-Another part of the rules says, that they are to regard the directions of their superior as coming from God? Yes. That is influential on their consciences? Yes. It is the duty of the Superior to lovingly correct and sweetly admonish sisters when wrong, without lessening the gravity of their faults? It is. I consulted Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. M'Owne about the treatment of Miss Saurin, and no one else. There is nothing in our written customs or printed rules about expulsion for writing letters. The authority of the Superior to withhold letters is traditional. According to custom the Mother Superior is to open all letters to sisters, whatever position they may occupy in the community. I withheld a letter from Miss Saurin's Jesuit brother for six weeks.-Why was it better to deliver it to Miss Saurin at that time than when it was received? I spoke to her about the letter, and she condemned her brother for having written it. I either read the letter or told her what was in it. I condemned her brother.-You condemned him first, and in all humility, as a good nun, she agreed with you? Not if I were wrong. -It was her duty to submit her judgment to yours if she possibly could? If she considered my judgment did not err.-You expressed your opinion about her Jesuit brother very strongly? I expressed my opinion, but not, as far as I recollect, very strongly.-You cannot say it is not the duty of all persons in the order to submit their judgment and opinion, as far as they can without sin, to those placed over them? They ought to do so. I know Miss Saurin said her brother was wrong. Mrs. Star then spoke of having examined Miss Saurin's pockets.

The Solicitor-General.-Are these the things which were in them (handing up a small parcel of papers)? No; these were taken from her desk.-You are quite right. Let me ask you what on earth was the use of taking away these papers, every one of which is a devotional note of one kind or another? My reason for taking away those papers was this. When I saw she made notes to the disadvantage of the community, I wished to take away from her every facility for writing such notes.-Can you point out a single thing in them which a good, pious, God-loving woman might not be delighted to read? I repeat, that I took them so that she might not have paper on which to make notes to the disadvan

tage of the community. When I took the papers away I had no intention to return them, because I had no hope of her leaving the convent. Afterwards, when I thought she would leave, I preserved them in order that they might be returned on her leaving.-Why were those papers not returned on which she could not find room to write? I can give no reason, except that it never entered my mind to return them.-May a nun, a woman who devotes herself to Christian life, or not, have little scraps of devotional worship and bits of poetry for her own private use? Certainly.

Another parcel of papers was handed to the witness, and she admitted that they also were taken away from Miss Saurin.

The Lord Chief Justice.-Had you no other motive in taking away these papers than to prevent her writing on them any thing disparaging to the sisters? None whatever.

Cross-examination continued.-The little book of devotions produced belonged to a deceased sister, whose medal it was said Miss Saurin had stolen. The book had an inscription upon it in the handwriting of the deceased sister, who gave it to Miss Saurin. It was with my permission that Miss Saurin used the book until 1865. In January of that year all the sisters, by my directions, gave up their devotional books as an exercise of poverty, and there was afterwards a redistribution of them. It was then that the inscription "Sister Mary Katherine" was rubbed out of this book. The books were redistributed indiscriminately. I do not remember any other death-bed gift to a sister except this. It was the following August that I heard about the medal. The tablets of Miss Saurin were not covered with writing when I first saw them-some of the pages were blank. I found other things written upon them than what should be there, and I took them away. She said, " Pray don't read my confession;" and I replied, "Not for any consideration whatever." I asked her to efface from the tablets what she had written, except the first page and the disposition of her time, and she did so, with her pocket-handkerchief, which she wetted with her mouth. I cannot say the tablets remain in the same state still, as I directed a sister to clean them. I gave her no particular direction on the subject. It never occurred to me that I should leave the tablets just as they were when I received them. Mrs. Kapter was the sister who cleaned them. She is in Hull. It did not occur to me that Miss Saurin had difficulties and troubles of her own, and made these notes with a view to confession. There were three or four pages of writing affecting other sisters. The scapular produced is what I took from Miss Saurin. It is a devotional emblem to wear about the neck. I found it in her pocket. At the same time I took from her a relic-case.-Does that piece of paper which was taken from the case not contain a piece of the true cross which Christians of your denomination value most highly (handing up the paper)? I think not; there is no authentication of it.-Does not the paper say that it is a piece of the true cross? Yes. Was that taken from her? I do not know: I never remember to have seen that before. She might have had such a thing.-What was the good of taking away from her things of that kind? I cannot give any answer. I admit I took a relic-case from her. It is now at Hull.

The Solicitor-General then handed the witness a small card representing our Saviour kneeling at the cross, and underneath the words, "Pray for your sister Mary Theresa Magdalen," and asked her if she supposed Miss Saurin would write upon that. Her reply was that she thought she might. Miss Saurin had two sisters who are Carmelite nuns, and this card, no doubt, came from one of them.