STATE INSPECTION OF CONVENTS A REPLY TO DR. ELIZABETH SLOAN CHESSER In the last issue of this Review there appeared an article entitled 'Convents in England: a Plea for State Inspection,' by Mrs. Sloan Chesser. I have no desire to enter into any controversy concerning the different aspects in which conventual life can be legitimately regarded, although, being, as I am, either related to or connected with a large number of those who have deliberately and of their own free will chosen that mode of life, I should probably present a picture of it entirely different from that which apparently fills the mind of the writer of the article referred to. But I do desire, if I may, to remove some misapprehensions on her part, and to correct, if I can, certain inaccuracies of statement to which she, though obviously earnest in her contentions, has, through no fault of hers I am sure, inadvertently committed herself. I will follow the article as closely as I can, and it will be my endeavour to state nothing which cannot be verified by anyone who seeks for the truth; though, within the limits assigned to me, it will not be possible to deal so fully as I should wish with the many disputable points raised by Mrs. Chesser. She begins by referring to the number of religious houses in England, and states that there has been, within the last few years, a large increase of convents in this country. This is quite true, and of that fact England certainly has no need to be ashamed, for, true to her traditional policy, she has afforded an asylum, as she did at the time of the French Revolution, to a good number of honest and religious people, notably from France. The welcome they have received is gratefully acknowledged, and there is an earnest desire on their part to serve, as best they may, the country which has given them shelter. They are no burden to us; they interfere with no one; they observe the laws of the land, pay their rates and taxes, and, as they must be fed and clothed, must help the trade of the country. With regard to those who came from France, if the French Government promulgated such legislation as they knew could not fail to bring about the practical suppression of the religious orders, it was not because they considered that their houses needed inspection. The movement in France against the religious orders was, as is well known, directed by anti-religious and socialistic forces. It will not be pretended that it had the support of Catholics who professed and practised their religion. In Italy, where the same forces have been in operation, there has been, I believe, some legislation regarding the religious houses, but it would puzzle anyone to say what it amounts to. It has apparently had little or no effect, for the religious houses do not seem to be much diminished in number, though I have heard of one religious order of men of its own accord closing some of its houses for economic reasons, much to the grief of the people in their neighbourhood. There are very few Italian nuns in this country. After a long and wide experience, I cannot remember ever having met one. As regards Belgium, I am unable to verify Mrs. Chesser's statement that the only conventual establishments recognised by law are those which have for their object the care of the poor, and where each inmate retains full ownership of her property and income.' I have referred the subject to two Belgians, but they are quite unaware of the existence of that law. Anyhow, from the annual returns before me, I cannot detect any appreciable diminution in the number of religious houses throughout Belgium, whether they are connected with the cloistered or the active orders. But there can be no doubt that the Socialist section of the Belgian people has its eye on the religious houses, as was made manifest at the recent general election. They make no secret as to what their political aims are, but inspection of convents is the very last thing they are likely to ask for. But to come to the chief point of Mrs. Chesser's contention. She names the following as being in most urgent need of inspection-namely, 'convents, convent schools, orphanages and laundries.' For the sake of convenience I will deal in the first place with schools, orphanages and laundries. So far as the inspection of these is concerned, Mrs. Chesser is obviously unaware that this urgent necessity' has already been met by legislation. All schools and orphanages which receive what may be called children of the State, such as workhouse, reformatory, industrial, and 'special' school children, must be certified by one or other of three Government Departments-namely, the Local Government Board, the Board of Education, and the Home Office. For instance, in the Roman Catholic diocese of Westminster, comprising London north of the Thames and the counties of Middlesex, Essex, and Herts, there are fourteen certified schools conducted by members of religious congregations, and of these seven are certified by two Government Departments and two by all three Departments. One would imagine that sufficient inspection of this class of school had been thus provided for, but evidently our legislators have not thought so, for under Section 4 of the Poor-Law (Certified) Schools Act, 1862, a power of visiting and examining into the state and management' of the school and the condition and treatment' of the children is conferred upon Boards of Guardians who have placed children in a certified school. Nor can this section be regarded as a dead letter, for it is exercised to the full. I could name several Roman Catholic schools where as many as twenty or more Boards of Guardians do each of them, twice a year at least, make surprise visits of inspection to these schools. Surely schools that are liable to so many visits without notice may be regarded as being rather overinspected. Similarly, the reformatory, industrial, and 'special' schools are also visited and inspected by county councils and education authorities, at whose instigation children may have been sent to them. With regard to orphanages which are not certified by a Government Department, it should be borne in mind that the inspection of these has been provided for under Section 25 (1) of the Children Act, 1908, .which says: The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose.' This section of the Act applies to all orphanages, whatever religious denomination they may be connected with. I have positive evidence for the belief that the Roman Catholic body would have been pleased if all such institutions had been placed under a Government Department to be inspected by His Majesty's inspectors in the same way as are the certified schools, but Mr. Herbert Samuel, who had charge of the Bill, could not, it was understood, entertain the idea on account of the enormous cost which such a system of inspection would have involved. I will now deal with the subject of convent laundries and workshops. It should be observed that the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907, relates to all such institutions, to whatever religious body they may belong, and the effect of that Act has been to bring all such institutions within the scope of all the factory and workshop legislation up to 1907. Towards the end of her article Mrs. Chesser says that the only inspection of convents at present existing relates to convent laundries, and as the law provides that no inspector can examine an inmate of a convent laundry save in the presence of the Superior or priest, it is an inspection not worthy of the name.' It is quite clear that Mrs. Chesser is here referring to the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907, Section 5 (2) (d), which says: In the case of premises forming part of an institution carried on for reformatory purposes, if the managers of the institution so give notice to the chief inspector of factories, an inspector shall not, without the consent of the managers or of the person having charge of the institution under the managers, examine an inmate of the institution save in the presence of one of the managers or of such person as aforesaid.' It will be observed that there is no mention here of 'convent,'' superior,' or 'priest,' and I am able to state, without fear of contradiction, that the request made for this concession was from non-Catholic sources. Further, I am in a position to state that no managers of a Roman Catholic convent laundry have availed themselves of this concession, nor are they likely ever to do so. The conclusion, then, at which I arrive regarding inspection of convent schools, orphanages, and laundries' is this, that the State does inspect Roman Catholic certified schools as rigorously as it does any others: that provision has been made whereby all Roman Catholic voluntary homes and orphanages, in common with those of other denominations, have been placed by statute under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, and may at any time be inspected under his authority: and that all Roman Catholic laundries and workshops are under the same inspection as are commercial laundries, and subject to the same regulations of the Factory Acts, with a few unimportant concessions made on account of their different circumstances. Mrs. Chesser refers to an inquiry made so far back as 1902 at a Roman Catholic school certified by the Local Government Board, when an apparently sad state of things was discovered. I have no knowledge of the case myself, but it would seem that the management was inefficient, and the Local Government Board's inspectors were rather late in detecting the consequent defects in the school. This sort of thing will happen from time to time, and any school, whether Roman Catholic or not, is bound to suffer from an inefficient staff; but I think it pertinent to observe that the ophthalmic disease, usually called conjunctivitis, which would seem to be the disease from which most of the children were suffering, is very prevalent among Poor-Law children who have been drawn chiefly from districts near the large ports. At the present moment the Metropolitan Asylums Board's ophthalmic schools are filled almost to overflowing, but not with Roman Catholic children, who are provided for elsewhere. Any Poor-Law school is liable to an outbreak of trachoma or conjunctivitis, neither of which diseases is due to 'eye-destroying tasks.' Much is said by Mrs. Chesser regarding competition as between work done in convents and that done by companies and private persons who pay rates and taxes, as if convents were exempt from such payments. But why does she single out convents? Is she unaware that there is a vast number of nonCatholic charitable institutions throughout the country in which similar work is done? I will make but one or two observations on the subject of competition, and will take the laundries as a typical industry. When it is alleged that this competition is injurious to others, it is presumed that the prices charged at convent laundries-with which, in common fairness, all charitable laundries must be joined-are lower than those at the average commercial laundry. This can be easily tested by obtaining price lists from both classes of laundries. My own experience is that, on the whole, the prices at convent laundries are somewhat higher than at commercial ones. The women in these charitable laundries have a right to live and a right to work, and, if they get no wages, they are well lodged, clothed, fed, and medically attended to during the usually short period of their residence. They cannot be overworked because of the Factory Acts. But is it a fact that the majority of laundry hands in commercial laundries get much more than a living wage? If I can rely on the evidence before me, such is not the case, and, if this is so, where does the grievance regarding competition come in? If there is competition there is no unfairness about it. Then it is said that the convent laundries may be worked at a profit. If there is a profit, what becomes of it? Surely the nuns do not require it for themselves. If, then, there is a profit, it can only be used in one way, namely, in works of charity, which an active religious order is bound by the rule or law of its existence to carry out. II I now come to the subject of convents themselves. As Mrs. Chesser has correctly stated, these may be divided into two classes-namely, the cloistered and the active orders. The Council of Trent began its sessions in 1545, but since that date there has been a large amount of legislation by the Holy See affecting religious orders. Two Tridentine Decrees are partly quoted by Mrs. Chesser, of which the first is as follows: 'Let no nun come out of her monastery under any pretext whatever, not even for a moment.' It is hardly fair that the quotation was not continued. The following is, I believe, an accurate translation of the Decree of Chapter V. of Session XXV. But for no nun, after her profession, shall it be lawful to go out of her convent, even for a brief period, under any pretext whatever, except for some lawful cause, which is to be approved of by the bishop.' Thus completed, a somewhat different impression is VOL. LXXII-No. 429 3 R |