page 211

Ireland.—The Ursuline Nuns.

From the centre to the extremities of the Empire, the periodical protestant press is calling attention to the Ursuline Nuns, as affording a striking illustration of the unchanged spirit, and workings of Popery. The leading facts of the case are these:

In 1843, A. M'Carthy, Esq., died in the city of Cork, leaving ten children, and property to the value of £100,000. In 1828 one, and in 1829 another, of his daughters entered the Nunnery of St. Ursula, at Black Rock, near Cork. They entered with their own full consent, and with the approbation of their father. One of the vows of admission to these houses, is a “Vow of Poverty; “by this vow the sisters gave up all claim to their father's property. It is a rule of that convent to receive £800 with each candidate from persons of that class; the father's generosity in this case exceeded the rule, and he gave £1000 with each of his two daughters.

Some years afterwards the father framed first one draft and then another of a will, in which he left all his property to his other children, leaving these two in the one case five shillings each, and in the other one, in consideration that they were already provided for in the convent; but as these drafts were never executed, the father died intestate, and the eldest son proceeded to administer the estate according to the known designs of the father, Immediately a bill was filed against him in the Irish Chancery by two Abbesses, claiming two-tenths of the property, or about £20,000 on behalf of the Convent. To make their claims doubly sure they compelled the two sisters to put their hands to a deed of agreement, by which their portions were made over to the institution, and inserted the name of one of them in the bill, making her a co-plaintiff with them against her brother in the suit. The Lord Chancellor did not enter into the real merits of the case, whether or not nuns could inherit property, and convents claim their portion; but he gave the Abbesses the choice of having the question tried by jury, whether or not the sisters were compelled to sign away their right, or did this of their own accord. To this trial the Abbesses would not consent, and on the case being decided against them, they carried it before the House of Lords. Here again it was dismissed on technical grounds; that the Abbesses, as trustees of the convent, and the daughters of the deceased could not sue as co-plaintiffs. It is quite possible that as the laws of Britain in all semi-ecclesiastical matters, are deeply tinctured with popery, and the spirit of the canon law,— witness the Irish marriage question a few years ago—it is possible, if brought up in another form, that the property may be adjudged to the convent

During the trial in the House of Lords, it came out, that the father uniformly understood that his two daughters were to have no further claim on his estate—that in consequence of their “vow of poverty,” they could inherit nothing—that this arrangement was cordially agreed to by the daughters—that the younger sister, being told by her brother that their father had left no will, re-page 212marked, that “in that case she was sure the convent would set up a claim for herself and her sister, and she was bound by her vows to do as her superiors ordered her; but,” said she, “John, I give you every right and title that I have to my share of the assets, to divide among my four younger brothers, and blame yourself if the convent ever get a penny.” They were both, however, compelled to sign a deed in favour of the couvent. The elder stated that she did so “with the greate-t pain,”—that “she cried all night long,” after signing it—that “she had no free will of her own,” — that “her act was like the act of a dead person,”—and that “the operation of her vow was like the presentation of a pistol by a highwayman.” The elder sister stated to her brother who called at the convent during this time, that “the younger sister was unwell, that she had suffered much from the censure of the Bishop, and was undergoing punishment,” and on the younger appearing to her brother, she looked very ill, and said that “having accidentally procured a book containing the rules of her order, she had found therein that the penalty awarded on the Continent for a serious crime, was to be immured between two walls in a standing posture and fed on bread and water,—and that in some cases parties had been known to die from the punishment.” She applied both to the lady Abbesses and to the Bishop for relief, but as the Bishop declared “it was too good a thing not to look after,” she remonstrated and implored in vain. The utter absence of moral principle and common honesty—the nefarious arts resorted to, to gain possession of the money by the convent, are in perfect keeping with the doings of the dark ages—and the worst days of Popery.

“Had the Lady Abbesses of the Ursuline Convent,” says the Edinburgh Witness, “instead of being functionaries of the Romish Church, been simply two gipsy women, who had succeeded in stripping a child of its clothes, or in robbing an adult female of her purse, through the application of half the amount of threats and personal violence which has been employed in compelling these two poor nuns to assign their claims to the convent, the civil magistrate would have sentenced them to transportation for life. And on what plea, we ask, should Lady Abbesses be protected in acts for which gipsies would be banished or hung? These two old ladies, instead of being now suffered to enact the part of plaintiffs in the House of Lords, in behalf of their convent, should be beating hemp in Bridewell in behalf of the liberty of the subject.”