> ;>^V^>3»^ 
 
 3> 3^ 
 
 -'■jr -iSi 'is» "5> £» ■-* ^ > - > :»-»>--■» 
 
 
 0> p 
 
 
 ^> ? ^ « >v 
 
 Vl£> > ■> 
 
 CD i) s 
 
 ^5^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >0» J>^J>> 
 
 (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 
 
 ^5 / 
 
 f UNITED STATUS OF AMKRICA.J 
 
 
 O so ^> 
 
 5 r v?j> ^» 
 
 33 -3>>33> 
 
 3»> ~> >3» .v>3> 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 » J>J^^U^O^ 3vj^ ^ 3> 
 
 ^^oic»» 3>^^ -33 3-yr, 
 
 '3«» ^D» 3 ... 
 
 > >"3>0 33&. 
 
 
 53 > T>> 
 
 > >>S >>>^ ^' \-> • 
 
 "p^ 
 
 

 .'V ^ 
 
 • ^^ 
 
 
 
 y >■> z 
 
 
 v 
 
 eT3 
 
 
 > 
 
 3 
 
 ► > 
 
 1 S i, "> *■ JlsV^r 
 
 
 1 >-> x» - 
 
 
 
 
 i^>> > 2= 
 
 
 *>!* %3 5> ■)> V 
 
 >>^> Sip ^ ^ 
 
 ^> i>- > . 
 ^> » • > 
 
 . > i> 5> ?> 
 
 > ~y ~3> » > _ 
 
 ^ > > S> R> ^> 
 
 3 ^> > ".-»"« ^ 
 > > 3 » > 
 
 
 5§ 
 
 
 5T> 
 
 o 
 
 
 Dl 
 
 
 > 3 
 
 » ) i 
 
 
 
 > 2 
 
 
 »> '.)■■>■ 
 
 •> 
 
 .^^E ? 
 
 
 >y 
 
 5 
 
 j 
 
 "*s5 ^s«>^^» -»' 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 
 » ->%y 
 "> ^L 
 
 >S>3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 9 - 
 m ■ 
 
 
 ' i 
 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >" ^~> S»^ 
 
 "^>^ 
 
 ^ 23 ■> »y-'.3t 
 
 "IS 3 > 
 
 ^ 3>®X 
 
 2BS36, 5^ ^^> 
 
 
 V»:j>> JS> -^ 
 
 5> > >3> 
 
 Si ^ ^ 
 
 y>»' » 
 
 ^>J§5!> 
 
 .r> ^j 
 
 
 
 
DOCUMENTS 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 URSULINE CONVENT 
 
 CHARLE STO WN 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 REPRINTED BY SAMUEL N. DICKINSON. 
 1842. 
 
 / 2- 
 
 / 
 

PREFACE. 
 
 The relation of the owners of the Ursuline Convent to the commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts is a subject which may well occupy the public attention. It involves 
 a great principle of public justice, and the facts of the case present one of the gravest 
 questions that can engage the attention of a free people, or awaken the inquiries and 
 stimulate the exertions of individuals. If, in the pauses of political agitation, 
 leisure and attention can be found for the calm, dispassionate consideration of what 
 concerns our highest honor, our good name, our abiding interests as a people whose 
 government is founded and should be administered in justice, this, among other 
 objects, may claim our care. Fortunately, it is the sole blemish on the honor of 
 the country, for which we of Massachusetts are in any wise peculiarly responsible, 
 or over which we have exclusive jurisdiction ; and it is consolatory to reflect, that, 
 when this question shall have been met upon its merits, and disposed of according to 
 its merits, if no untoward accident shall befall our public affairs, Massachusetts will 
 stand before the world not merely as a model republic, but as a state, in which indi- 
 vidual rights rest on the imperishable foundations of both the power and the dispo- 
 sition to be just. 
 
 It is not proposed here to argue the merits of the question between the owners of 
 the convent and the commonwealth of Massachusetts, but merely to state it. It 
 will be convenient, however, to state first what the question is not. It is not a 
 question in the smallest degree analogous to the application of a college or other 
 literary institution for aid from the state ; and therefore it is not to be answered by 
 those arguments which are commonly deemed a sufficient response to such ap- 
 plications. These owners ask for no encouragement, or aid, and no one asks aid or 
 encouragement for them. They, being citizens of the commonwealth, were possessed 
 of certain property ; they paid upon it all the taxes assessed by the laws ; their right 
 to its possession, enjoyment, use and absolute dominie, was the same as that of 
 every other citizen to his property, a ri»ht without which civil society docs not and 
 cannot exist. This property was torn from them and struck out of existence. In 
 any question, therefore, as to whether this property ought to be replaced by the 
 state, a question grounded on an alleged omission of public duty, there is not the 
 most remote analogy to the case of an institution or individual asking a gift of pro- 
 
perty entirely anew, or to replace what has been destroyed by accident. To liken 
 the two cases would be as correct as it would be to find a resemblance between a 
 claim for damages and an asking for alms. 
 
 What then is the question ? It is : whether, by force of the social compact, there 
 exists a duty on the part of the body politic to protect the property of its citizens ■ 
 and, if that duty exists, whether it does not — in a case where protection has failed 
 in the manner and degree and under the circumstances peculiar to this case — draw 
 after it a solemn public duty to make reparation of what has been destroyed ? In 
 other words, the question is, granting the duty of protection, whether that duty does 
 not involve the duty of indemnification, in a case of public violence, breaking forth 
 in unrestrained fury upon the citizen, sweeping his property out of existence, and 
 leaving him without a shadow of redress, either against the local community where 
 the outrage occurs, or against those who permitted it to be done. 
 
 In order rightly to consider this question, the people of the commonwealth ought 
 to be possessed of the facts of the case. In order to consider it fairly and without 
 prejudice, and to feel kindly and impartially towards those immediately interested, 
 the people should know that impressions once industriously spread abroad, affecting 
 the purity of the institution, are wholly false ; and that a great, undeserved and cruel 
 wrong — far exceeding the work of the mob itself — has been done to the good name 
 of individuals and the honor of a sect, by such impressions. In order to consider 
 the question intelligently and in its true legal and moral bearings, the people should 
 have before them the existing state of their own laws at the time of this outrage, the 
 state of the laws at the present day, and some discussion of the legal doctrine ap- 
 plicable to the subject. For the purpose of meeting these wants, the following 
 documents are now re-published. 
 
 This republication is not made at the instance or by the funds of Roman Cath- 
 olics. Up to the time when this pamphlet will issue from the press, there is 
 not a single Roman Catholic, in this city or elsewhere, who is aware that it is 
 about to be published. Indeed, that sect of our fellow citizens, for eight years, 
 have maintained a dignified, but sorrowful reserve, upon this subject. They are 
 not connected with, or responsible for any present movement. The wound 
 inflicted on them is too deep, and their self respect is too great, for them to be 
 active promoters of any measure of justice. They may and do grieve that the 
 commonwealth should be so tardy in its action in this behalf, or that those 
 who guide its councils should bestow no thought upon their wrongs ; but they 
 are as silent as they are grieved, pondering many things in their hearts. 
 
 This is as it should be. If ever this act of mingled grace and justice, of 
 sound policy and clear duty is to be performed; if ever the chaplet, to be won 
 from the admission of a principle by a lofty public virtue, is to be wreathed 
 round the pillars thai uphold the state ; it is to be done by the spontaneous 
 movement of the Protestant people of this commonwealth, in kind, large and 
 elevated feeling towards their Catholic brethren. 
 
 It is proper also to say, that no political party is connected with or responsi- 
 ble for this republication. This too is right and fortunate. The means of repub- 
 lishing these documents have been furnished by benevolent and public spirited 
 
Protestant citizens of all parties, who have no object to gain thereby, other than 
 the interests of truth, justice, mercy and the public honor. 
 
 The first of the documents contained in this pamphlet, consists of a report 
 made by a committee of the citizens of Boston, after an investigation of three 
 weeks, commencing on the day after the riot. It contains all the facts attending 
 the outrage, and all the facts necessary to place in the clearest light the moral 
 character of the institution. It is quite improbable that such a committee, em- 
 bracing eminent lawyers accustomed to the scrutiny of evidence, and men of other 
 pursuits of the highest intelligence, accustomed to the weighing of testimony, 
 after examining more than a hundred and forty witnesses, should have been de- 
 ceived in any essential fact. It is equally impossible that such men should have 
 placed their signatures to a publication intended to mislead the public. That, it has 
 not at this day been found to have done all its work of vindication, is owing to the 
 fact of its limited circulation. The report was never successfully contradicted, in 
 any material point. Other publications have indeed left their natural effect of preju- 
 dices in the public mind. But the day has come when these prejudices ought to be 
 dispelled. It concerns the honor and the intelligence of the people of Massachusetts, 
 that they do not suffer a continued injustice to be visited upon persons as innocent 
 of wrong and as worthy of the blessings of free institutions as themselves. 
 
 The other document contained in this pamphlet, is a report made to the 
 House of Representatives, at the winter session of 1S42. It was never acted 
 upon, having been purposely allowed by the chairman who made it, to remain 
 upon the table for future consideration. 
 
 Boston, November 1st, 1842. 
 
BURNING OF THE URSULINE CONVENT. 
 
 At a public meeting of the citizens of Boston, held at Faneuil Hall, on the 
 12th day of August, 1834, the following Resolutions were unanimously adopted. 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of the citizens of Boston, the late attack on the 
 Ursuline Convent h^Charlestown, occupied only by defenceless females, was a 
 base and cowardly a"ct, for which the perpetrators deserve the contempt and 
 detestation of the community. 
 
 Resolved, That the destruction of property and danger of life caused thereby, 
 calls loudly on all good citizens to express individually and collectively, the 
 abhorrence they feel of this high-handed violation of the laws. 
 
 Resolved, That we, the Protestant citizens of Boston, do pledge ourselves, 
 collectively and individually, to unite with our Catholic brethren in protecting 
 their persons, their property, and their civil and religious rights. 
 
 Resolved, That the Mayor and Aldermen be requested to take all measures, 
 consistent with law, to carry the foregoing resolution into effect, and as citi- 
 zens, we tender our personal services to support the laws under the direction 
 of the city authorities. 
 
 Resolved, That the Mayor be requested to nominate a committee from the 
 citizens at large, to investigate the proceedings of the last night, and to adopt 
 every suitable mode of bringing the authors and abettors of this outrage to 
 justice. 
 
 The following committee was nominated by the Mayor : 
 
 H. G. Otis, John D. Williams, James T. Austin, Henry Lee, James Clark, 
 Cyrus Alger, John Henshaw, Francis J. Oliver, Mark Healy, Charles G. Loring, 
 C. G. Greene, Isaac Harris, Thomas H. Perkins, John Rayner, Henry Gassett, 
 Daniel D. Brodhead, Noah Brooks, H. F. Baker, Z. Cook, Jr., George Darracott, 
 Samuel Hubbard, Henry Farnam, Benjamin F. Hallett, John K. Simpson, John 
 Cotton, Benjamin Rich, William Sturgis, Charles P. Curtis. 
 
 On motion of Mr. George Bond, the committee of twenty-eight were requested 
 to consider the expediency of providing funds to repair the damage done to 
 the Convent, &c. 
 
 On motion of John C. Park, Esq., it was 
 
 Resolved, That the Mayor be authorized and requested to offer a very liberal 
 reward to any individual who, in case of further excesses, will arrest and bring 
 to punishment a leader in such outrages. 
 
 THEODORE LYMAN, Jr., Chairman. 
 Zebedee Cook, Jr., Secretary. 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE COMMITTEE, RELATING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE 
 URSULINE CONVENT, AUGUST 11, mm /9Ti^. 
 
 The Committee appointed at Faneuil Hall, at the meeting on the 
 12th nit., to investigate the recent outrages in Charlestown, and take 
 measures for bringing the perpetrators to justice, and also to consider 
 the expediency of providing funds to repair the damage done to the 
 Convent, believing that an account of their proceedings and of the 
 results of their inquiries may be acceptable, respectfully 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 That, upon the second day succeeding that of their appointment, 
 they entered upon the discharge of their duties, and continued in 
 session every day from 9 A. M. to sunset, with the intermission of 
 Sundays and the usual time for dining, until the 27th ult, when the 
 afternoon sittings were dispensed with. 
 
 The most active and vigorous measures within the scope of their 
 authority, were adopted to obtain intelligence, and have been perse- 
 vered in till the present time — sub-committees being frequently des- 
 patched to various parts of the city and to the neighboring towns, 
 and messengers constantly employed to obtain the attendance of such 
 persons as were supposed capable of giving useful information. 
 
 The number of which the committee was originally composed 
 being insufficient for the discharge of its various and arduous duties, 
 and some of the gentlemen appointed having declined the service, 
 the aid of several others was requested, who have been among the 
 most efficient of its members. 
 
 The committee being invested with no power to compel appear- 
 ance, or take examinations under oath, were careful to notify those 
 who came before them, that their attendance and statements were 
 entirely voluntary ; and that no use would be made of the information 
 they might give, unless it should be thought necessary to summon 
 them as witnesses before a magistrate or judicial tribunal.* 
 
 * This latter assurance was given to most of the persons who appeared in the committee room, in 
 order to remove the apprehensions entertained by them or some of them, for their personal safety, if 
 it should become known to the rioters or their friends, that they had given information to the commit- 
 tee, inculpating persons concerned in the riot. — Sub-Committee. 
 
8 
 
 In this manner more than one hundred and forty persons, and some 
 of them repeatedly, have been examined, and much important infor- 
 mation has been procured, which has led to the arrest of several 
 individuals, and constituted important additions to the evidence upon 
 which other arrests have been made ; and, it is hoped, will lead to 
 further disclosures. But it is obvious that any statement of the testi- 
 mony would, at this time, be improper. 
 
 The whole number of arrests and commitments made by the efforts 
 of the Charlestown committee and magistrates, and of this committee, 
 is thirteen ; of which, eight are upon charges of a capital nature. 
 
 It appeared, immediately upon commencing the investigation, that 
 the destruction of the convent might be attributed primarily to a 
 widely extended popular aversion, founded in the belief, that the es- 
 tablishment was obnoxious to those imputations of cruelty, vice, and 
 corruption, so generally credited of similar establishments in other 
 countries, and was inconsistent with the principles of our national 
 institutions, and in violation of the laws of the commonwealth ; 
 and which aversion in the minds of many, had been fomented to 
 hatred, by representations injurious to the moral reputation of the 
 members of that community, attributing to them impurity of conduct, 
 and excessive cruelties in their treatment of each other, and of the 
 pupils; and denunciatory of the institution, as hostile, in its character 
 and influences, alike to the laws of God and man : and also by reports 
 that one of the sisterhood, Mrs. Mary John, formerly Miss Elizabeth 
 Harrison, after having fled from the convent to escape its persecu- 
 tions, and then been induced by the influence or threats of Bishop 
 Fenwick to return, had been put to death, or secretly imprisoned, or 
 removed ; so that her friends could neither see nor obtain information 
 concerning her. These assertions and reports were not only preva- 
 lent in this city and its vicinity, but, the committee have reason to 
 believe, pervaded many distant parts of the commonwealth, and have 
 extended into other states ; affording a monitory lesson of the extent 
 and excitability of public credulity, when in accordance with popular 
 prejudice. , 
 
 It was doubtless under the influence of these feelings and impres- 
 sions, that some of the conspirators were led to design the destruction 
 of the convent, and to avail themselves of the aid of those miscreants, 
 who, actuated by the love of violence, or the hope of plunder, were 
 the foremost in the perpetration of the outrage. 
 
 The committee, therefore, considered it an important part of their 
 duty, to make faithful inquiry into the character of the institution, and 
 into the truth of the assertions and reports of such fatal influence : 
 believing that authentic information upon these subjects was de- 
 manded in justice to the sufferers and the public; and might be 
 instrumental in leading to the detection of those who had instigated 
 or aided in the commission of the crime; and who, it is feared, are 
 still, in great measure, sheltered by the prevalence of the impressions 
 above referred to. 
 
 The committee are not influenced in communicating the result of 
 this inquiry, by any impression that the truth of the imputations, if 
 
established, would have constituted any justification of the wrong ; 
 being entirely of opinion, that whatever might have been the charac- 
 ter of the institution, or the deportment of its members, they could 
 give no sanction to this high-handed violation of the law. Still less can 
 it be supposed that they have any disposition to aid in the dissemina- 
 tion of the Catholic faith, being unanimously opposed to its character- 
 istic tenets. 
 
 But having discovered the existence of the prepossessions so 
 generally prevalent, and perceiving how much they affected the dis- 
 position of those called to give testimony, and how often they were 
 referred to as a palliation of the offence, they have felt imperatively 
 bound by a regard for truth, by a just appreciation as they hope of the 
 candor of their fellow citizens, and also by a sense of justice to the 
 injured, to make known the conclusions, to which the evidence before 
 them has irresistibly led. And in doing this, they are careful to make 
 no statements but those of which they consider themselves to have 
 evidence amply sufficient to sustain them, were they in question 
 before a judicial tribunal. 
 
 The institution at Charlestown was of the Ursuline Order, which 
 was first established in the year 1536, for the purposes of administering 
 relief to the sick and the afflicted, and of superintending the education 
 of female youth ; and so exemplary had been the character and 
 deportment of this order of nuns, and so extensively beneficial were 
 their services in the cause of education and Christian charity, that, 
 when other convents were abolished by many governments in Eu- 
 rope, these alone were not only permitted, but encouraged to remain. 
 
 Unlike the other order of convents, into which the members 
 repaired for the avowed purposes of religious seclusion from the 
 pleasures and duties of the world, and in which corruptions and 
 abuses might be supposed to exist beyond the reach of human 
 detection, the members of this religious community, by the necessity 
 of their order and by their vows, devote themselves to those services 
 in the cause of humanity, which render them at all times subjects of 
 public observation ; and expose their personal deportment, as well as 
 the character of their institution, to the strictest scrutiny. 
 
 However just, therefore, might be the popular odium against an 
 institution which secluded its members from the occupations and 
 enjoyments of life, cutting them off from the sympathies of society, 
 and dooming them to an irrevocable concealment, into which the 
 eye of friendship and affection could never penetrate, and where 
 suffering might be without remedy, and crime without punishment, 
 there can be no rational pretence for similar feelings towards an 
 institution, whose members were openly engaged in the most useful 
 and elevated offices of humanity in the presence of the world ; who 
 had it in their power to leave the institution at their pleasure ; and 
 whose dwelling was filled with those who were not members of their 
 community, and accessible at proper times to the parents and friends 
 of its numerous inmates. 
 
 The institution in question was founded in the year 1820, by 
 Doctors Matignon and Cheverus, whose names will be, in this cora- 
 2 
 
10 
 
 munity, a sufficient guarantee of its purity and Christian character, 
 with funds, given by a native citizen of Boston. By their invitation, 
 four ladies of the TJrsuline Order, emigrated to this country in the 
 year 1820, and established themselves at first in this city. They 
 afterwards, in the year 1826, removed to Charlestown, and occupied 
 the farm house at the foot of Mount Benedict until the main building 
 on its summit was finished in the year 1827. In the meantime the 
 reputation of their seminary was widely extended, and the number 
 of pupils from all the New England, and from many of the southern 
 states, and the British provinces, rapidly increased; so that in the 
 year 1829, it was found necessary to add two large wings to the 
 building for their accommodation. 
 
 The number of nuns has varied at different times from four to ten, 
 each of whom performed a distinct part in the care of the establishment, 
 or the education of the children. For admission as a member of this 
 community, the candidate, after a preliminary period of probation, 
 enters upon a noviciate for two years by taking the white veil, in 
 order to give her ample time, after full experience of the discipline, 
 duties and principles of the institution, to determine whether they are 
 such as she shall be solicitous to enter upon for life. During this 
 period no restraints by religious vows or otherwise are imposed to 
 prevent her secession from the establishment, and the committee 
 have plenary evidence from those who have thus seceded, of their 
 freedom in this respect. 
 
 Upon receiving the black veil, the religious vow is taken of devotion 
 to the institution for life ; but even then no forcible means could be 
 exercised to detain any one, who might choose to return to the world; 
 and their legal right to do so, is perfectly well understood by every 
 member of that community. 
 
 No penances or punishments are ever forcibly enforced or inflicted ; 
 they are not only always voluntary, but can never even thus take 
 place, but by permission of the head of the order, which is not granted 
 unless the applicant be in good health. 
 
 The committee do not mean to be understood, as believing, that 
 there may not be a mental subjection, not less effectual upon the 
 individuals concerned than one created by external force ; but they 
 consider this a matter of religious faith, resting entirely between 
 themselves and the only Being to whom they are accountable ; and 
 one which neither renders them amenable to public law, nor in any 
 degree justly obnoxious to popular odium. 
 
 Some of those, who after entering upon their noviciate seceded 
 from the convent, still retain the warmest affection for its members, 
 and bear willing testimony to their unvaried kindness and the purity 
 and excellence of their deportment. 
 
 The number of pupils has varied from forty to sixty, during each 
 of the past five years, being for the most part children of those among 
 the most reputable families in the country of various religious deno- 
 minations, (the number of Catholics never exceeding ten at any one 
 time,) and wholly unrestrained in their communications with their 
 friends concerning all that transpired in the seminary. 
 
11 
 
 No means were taken to influence or affect their religious opinions; 
 their attendance upon the services in the chapel was voluntary, never 
 exacted. The only religious services forming a part of the system, 
 were morning and evening prayers, common to all christians, and 
 discourses by the Bishop, on Sundays, upon the practical truths and 
 religious duties which are peculiar to no sect. Nor can it be ascertained 
 that any pupil pi ace: I under their charge for tire purposes of education, 
 lias been converted from any other to the Catholic faith, or induced to 
 become a member of the community* 
 
 Of these facts, and of the truly maternal kindness with which the 
 children were uniformly treated, and of their filial affection to the 
 ladies of the establishment, and of the entire confidence and respect 
 to which they are entitled, the committee have the fullest assurances 
 both from children and parents. Nor can it be believed that, if undue 
 severity had been exercised upon the pupils ; or harshness, or cruelty 
 had been inflicted upon any member of the community ; or if any 
 thing inconsistent with purity of deportment had existed, it could, 
 have escaped the scrutinizing observation of so many inquisitive and 
 active minds ; or could fail to be communicated to their friends ; and 
 still less can it be believed, that upon a disclosure of this sort, a father 
 or mother could be found Avho would suffer a daughter to remain 
 under their roof. 
 
 In pursuing their inquiries into the truth of the injurious repre- 
 sentations and reports above referred to, members of the committee 
 have had an interview with the young lady upon whose authority 
 they were generally supposed to rest. She entirely disclaimed most 
 of those passing under the sanction of her name, and particidarly all 
 affecting the moral purity of the members of the institution, or the ill 
 treatment of the pupils under their care. 
 
 As to the reports in relation to the supposed murder or secretion of 
 Miss Harrison, it is only necessary for the committee to recapitulate 
 the facts already before the public, with the further assurance that 
 the relation has been personally confirmed by her to some of them, who 
 were xo ell acquainted ivith her before the destruction of the convent, and 
 have repeatedly seen and conversed with her since. 
 
 This female, a native of Philadelphia, entered upon her noviciate 
 in the institution in the year 1822, and became a member, in full 
 communion, in the year 1824, after knowledge and experience of the 
 principles and rules of it, and of the manners and dispositions of its 
 members. She has one brother and a brother-in-law living in this 
 city, with whom she has constant intercourse, and who have been 
 accustomed to visit her at the convent at pleasure. 
 
 * It is some proof of the estimation in which this School was held by the Protestant community, that 
 of forty-five pupils only four were Roman Catholics. Tho pupils resident at the Institution at the time 
 it was destroyed were from Boston, Cambridge, Charlt'stown, Watertown, Gloucester, Brighton, Mil- 
 ton, and BrooUline, in this State ; from Bath, Maine ; Cluehec, Canada; Savannah, CJn.; New Orleans, 
 La.; and Porto Rico, South America. Among them were daughters of Samuel K. Williams, and Hall 
 J. How, Esquires, of Boston ; of the Hon. S. P. P. Fay, of Cambridge, Judge of Probate of the County 
 of Middlesex ; of the Hon. Levi Thaxter, of Watertown ; of the late John Parkman, Esq., of Brighton ; 
 of the late Alphonso Mason, and grand daughters of Join) Mason, Esq., of Gloucester ; and of the Lamar 
 family, of Georgia : and of many other families of the highest respectability, whose religious opinions 
 are as firmly opposed to the tenets of Catholicism as those of any person in the community. The testi- 
 mony of the Committee shows conclusively that their confidence in the conductors of the School was 
 fully justified. 
 
12 
 
 She is the teacher of music in the seminary, and for some time 
 before the 28th day of July, had been engaged in giving fourteen 
 lessons per day, of at least forty -five minutes each, and by the con- 
 finement and exertion of these arduous efforts, had impaired her 
 health, and was suffering under a nervous excitement or fever, which, 
 on that day, increased to a delirium ; under the influence of which, 
 unconsciously to herself, she left the house and proceeded to that of 
 Mr. Edward Cutter, in the immediate neighborhood, whence, at her 
 request, she was carried to the residence of Mr. Cotting, in West 
 Cambridge. 
 
 On the morning after her departure, her brother, Mr. Thomas 
 Harrison of this city, went to her, and found her surprised at the step 
 she had taken. At her request he accompanied Bishop Fenwick there 
 in the afternoon, and she gladly returned with them to the convent ; 
 where she was welcomed by her anxious friends, and remained until 
 the night of the outrage, receiving from them every kindness and 
 attention which her situation required. 
 
 The story of her flight and of her alleged forcible return, and subse- 
 quent death or removal, had, however, obtained such currency and 
 was so generally believed in Charlestown and the neighboring 
 towns, that the selectmen of that place considered it their duty to 
 investigate the affair; and upon application to the Superior, a time of 
 their own appointment was fixed by the Board to visit the convent. 
 Accordingly on the 11th August, at 3 P. M., they repaired there in a 
 body, and were received by Miss Harrison, the nun who was supposed 
 to be murdered or secreted, and were, by her alone, conducted 
 throughout the establishment, into every room and closet, from the 
 cellar to the cupola, inclusive, and were answered every inquiry which 
 they saw fit to make. 
 
 The result of this examination was their entire satisfaction "that 
 every thing was right," and they proceeded from the building to the 
 house of one of their number in the neighborhood, to prepare a cer- 
 tificate to that effect, to be published in the papers of the following day. 
 
 The committee have been unable to find any report in circulation 
 injurious to the reputation of the members of the community, which 
 may not be traced to one of the above sources, or which has any other 
 apparent foundation. 
 
 And having thus given to the public an authentic statement of all 
 the facts affecting the character and reputation of the institution and 
 its members, so far as they have come to their knowledge, and of 
 which they have abundant proof, the committee have acquitted them- 
 selves of this part of their duty and leave to their fellow citizens the 
 question, whether this institution was in any degree obnoxious to the 
 fatal imputations so generally circulated and beheved, or to the public 
 odium so unfortunately prevalent. 
 
 For some time previous to the 11th day of August, the excitement 
 of the public mind had become so great in Charlestown, that the des- 
 truction of the convent was the subject of frequent threats and con- 
 versation, and on the preceding day inflammatory hand -bills had been 
 posted. 
 
13 
 
 There can be no doubt that a conspiracy had been formed, extend- 
 ing into many of the neighboring towns ; but the committee are of 
 opinion that it embraced very few of respectable character in society; 
 though some such may perhaps be accounted guilty of an offence, no 
 less heinous, morally considered, in having excited the feelings which 
 led to the design, or countenanced and instigated those engaged in its 
 execution. And there is reason to believe, that those who had deter- 
 mined on the destruction of the building, were induced to an earlier 
 accomplishment of their purpose than was originally intended, by a 
 publication in the Mercantile Journal headed " Mysterious," (after- 
 wards copied into other papers,) which, it appears, was inserted by 
 the news-gatherer of that journal, without other authority than the 
 idle gossip then prevalent in Charlestown, (the falsehood of which 
 might have been ascertained at any time by a walk of a few minutes 
 from the office to the proper place of inquiry:) and also by a knowl- 
 edge that the selectmen had made their investigation, and the ap- 
 prehension that a publication of its result might, by allaying the 
 principal cause of the excitement, prevent its execution. 
 
 Soon after sunset several persons were seen at the gate of the 
 avenue leading from the road to the convent, and on being inquired 
 of concerning the reason of being there, gave evasive and impertinent 
 answers ; but there was nothing in their language or numbers which 
 led to the belief that a serious riot was to be apprehended. Imme- 
 diate information, however, was given of the fact to one or more of 
 the selectmen, and assurances were made in reply that no danger 
 could possibly be anticipated. 
 
 Soon after 9 o'clock, the rioters began to assemble in considerable 
 numbers, arriving on foot and in wagons from different quarters ; and 
 a party of about forty or fifty proceeded to the front of the building, 
 using violent and threatening language. They were addressed by the 
 lady at the head of the establishment, who, desiring to know their 
 wishes, was replied to that they wanted to enter and see the person 
 alleged to be secreted. She answered, that their selectmen had that 
 day visited the house, and could give them satisfactory information, 
 and that any of them on calling the next day at a suitable hour, might 
 see for themselves; at the same time remonstrating against such 
 violation of the peace and of the repose of so many children of their 
 most reputable citizens. 
 
 Shortly afterwards, the same, or another party, with increased num- 
 bers, approached the convent, using still more threatening and much 
 gross and indecent language. The lady above referred to again ad- 
 dressed them in terms of remonstrance and reproach, and desired to 
 know whether none of their selectmen were present. Some of them 
 replied that one was there, mentioning his name. He then came 
 forward and announced his presence, stating that he was there for the 
 purpose of defending her. She inquired whether he had procured 
 the attendance of any others of the Board ; and upon being answered 
 in the negative, replied that she would not trust the establishment to 
 his protection, and that if he came there to protect them, he should 
 show it by taking measures to disperse the mob. 
 
14 
 
 It appears from various testimony that he did attempt to dissuade 
 the rioters from their design, by assurances that the selectmen had 
 seen the nun who was supposed to have been secreted, and that the 
 stories reported concerning her were untrue. But his assertions drew 
 forth only expressions of distrust and insult. The mob continued 
 upon the ground with much noise and tumult, and were in that state 
 left by this magistrate, who returned home and retired to bed. 
 
 At about eleven o'clock, a bonfire was kindled on the land of Alvah 
 Kelly, adjoining that of the eastern boundary of the convent, and 
 distant about two hundred and seventy yards from the building, the 
 fences of which were taken for the purpose. This is believed to have 
 been a concerted signal for the assembling of all concerned in the plot. 
 
 The bells were then rung as for an alarm of fire, in Charlestown 
 and in this city, and great multitudes arrived from all quarters. Upon 
 this alarm, the magistrate above mentioned arose and proceeded to 
 procure the attendance of others of the selectmen. In the mean 
 time the Charlestown engines and some from Boston had arrived, 
 one of the latter of which, passing those of Charlestown, which had 
 halted opposite the bonfire, immediately proceeded into the avenue 
 leading to the convent, where her arrival was greeted with a shout 
 from some of the rioters upon the hill and among the shrubbery, many 
 of whom seizing hold of the rope, proceeded with her up the avenue, 
 around the circular walk to the front of the building, when the 
 attack was instantly commenced by the breaking of fences, and the 
 hurling of stones and clubs against the windows and doors. Upon 
 this, the engine, by the order of its commander, was immediately 
 carried down into the road and stationed opposite the gate, where it 
 remained during the night.* 
 
 At the time of this attack upon the convent, there were within its 
 walls, about sixty female children and ten adults ; one of whom was 
 in the last stages of pulmonary consumption, another suffering under 
 convulsion fits, and the unhappy female, who had been the immediate 
 cause of the excitement, was by the agitations of the night in raving 
 delirium. 
 
 No warning was given of the intended assault, nor could the mis- 
 creants, by whom it was made, have known whether their missiles 
 might not kill or wound the helpless inmates of this devoted dwelling. 
 Fortunately for them, cowardice prompted what mercy and manhood 
 denied : after the first attack, the assailants paused awhile from the 
 fear that some secret force was concealed in the convent or in ambush 
 to surprise them ; and in this interval the governess was enabled to 
 secure the retreat of her little flock and terrified sisters, into the gar- 
 den. But before this was fully effected, the rioters, finding they had 
 nothing but women and children to contend against, regained their 
 courage, and ere all the inmates could escape, entered the building. 
 
 It appears that during these proceedings, the magistrate above 
 
 * Most of the members of this company have been before the committee, and deny any previous 
 knowledge of a design to destroy the convent, or any participation in the riot ; and it has been 
 stated in the public prints, that the examining magistrates of Charlestown expressed their opinion 
 that this company stood fully acquitted of all concern in it. 
 
15 
 
 referred to, with another of the selectmen, had arrived and entered 
 the convent with the rioters, for the purpose, as they state, of assist- 
 ing its inmates. The mob had now full possession of the house, and 
 loud cries were heard for torches or lights. One of the magistrates 
 in question availed himself of this cry to deter the rioters from firing 
 the building, by stating, that if lights were brought they might be 
 detected. 
 
 Three or four torches which were, or precisely resembled engine 
 torches, were then brought up from the road ; and immediately upon 
 their arrival, the rioters proceeded into every room in the building, 
 rifling every drawer, desk and trunk which they found, and breaking 
 up and destroying all the furniture, and casting much of it from the 
 windows ; sacrificing in their brutal fury, costly piano fortes and harps, 
 and other valuable instruments ; the little treasures of the children, 
 abandoned in their hasty flight ; and even the vessels and symbols of 
 christian worship. 
 
 After having thus ransacked every room in the building, they pro- 
 ceeded with great deliberation, about one o'clock, to make preparation 
 for setting fire to it. For this purpose, broken furniture, books, cur- 
 tains and other combustible materials, were placed in the centre of 
 several of the rooms ; and, as if in mockery of God as well as of man, 
 the Bible was cast, with shouts of exultation, upon the pile first 
 kindled ; and as upon this were subsequently thrown the vestments 
 used in religious service, and the ornaments of the altar, these shouts 
 and yells were repeated. Nor did they cease until the Cross was 
 wrenched from its place, and cast into the flames, as the final triumph 
 of this fiend-like enterprise. 
 
 But the work of destruction did not end here. Soon after the con- 
 vent was in flames, the rioters passed to the library, or bishop's 
 lodge, which stood near, and after throwing the books and pictures 
 from the windows, a prey to those without, fired that also. 
 
 Some time afterwards they proceeded to the farm-house, formerly 
 occupied as the convent, and first making a similar assault with 
 stones and clubs upon the doors and windows, in order to ascertain 
 whether they had any thing to fear from persons within, the torches 
 were deliberately applied to that building ; and, unwilling to leave 
 one object connected with the establishment to escape their fury, 
 although the day had broken, and three buildings were then in flames 
 or reduced to ashes, the extensive barn, with its contents, was in like 
 manner devoted to destruction. And not content with all this, they 
 burst open the tomb of the establishment, rifled it of the sacred ves- 
 sels there deposited, wrested the plates from the coffins, and exposed 
 to view the mouldering remains of their tenants. 
 
 Nor is it the least humiliating feature in this scene of cowardly 
 and audacious violation of all that man ought to hold sacred and dear, 
 that it. was perpetrated in the presence «f men vested with authority, 
 and of multitudes of our fellow citizens, while not one arm was lifted 
 in the defence of helpless women and children, or in vindication of 
 the violated laws of God and man. The spirit of violence, sacrilege, 
 and plunder, reigned triumphant. Crime alone seemed to confer 
 
16 
 
 courage ; while humanity, manhood, and patriotism, quailed, or stood 
 irresolute and confounded in its presence. 
 
 The committee are satisfied upon evidence before them, of what it 
 would indeed be injustice to many of their fellow citizens to doubt, 
 that great numbers of those present were indignant spectators of these 
 scenes, and would gladly have aided in the defence of the convent 
 and arrest of the rioters, had any attempt been made by either of the 
 magistrates or engineers of the fire department of Charlestown, who 
 were present, or by an engine company, or any person having, or 
 assuming to have, authority to rally them for that purpose. But no 
 voice of authority was heard, and no remonstrance, but that of timidity, 
 in effect giving courage to the assailants. 
 
 Nor has any other satisfactory account been suggested, why the 
 mob was not arrested in its career, by the great multitudes by which 
 it was surrounded, than the supposition that, from the omission of 
 magisterial interference, doubt and mistrust existed, whether the 
 work were not so sanctioned by popular opinion, or the connivance of 
 those in authority, that resistance would be hopeless. 
 
 The fact that the dwelling of inoffensive females and children, 
 guiltless of wrong to the persons, property, or reputation of others, and 
 reposing in fancied security under the protection of the law, has been 
 thus assaulted by a riotous mob, and ransacked, plundered, and burnt 
 to the ground, and its terrified inmates, in the dead hour of night, 
 driven from their beds into the fields ; and that this should be done 
 within the limits of one of the most populous towns of the common- 
 wealth, and in the midst of an assembled multitude of spectators ; 
 that the perpetrators should have been engaged for seven hours or 
 more in the work of destruction, with hardly an effort to prevent or 
 arrest them ; that many of them should afterwards be so far sheltered 
 or protected by public sympathy or opinion, as to render the ordinary 
 means of detection ineffectual ; and that the sufferers are entitled to 
 no legal redress from the public, for this outrage against their persons 
 and destruction of their property, is an event of fearful import as well 
 as of the profoundest shame and humiliation. 
 
 It has come upon us like the shock of the earthquake, and has dis- 
 closed a state of society and public sentiment of which we believe 
 no man was before aware. 
 
 If for the purpose of destroying a person, or family, or institution, 
 it be only necessary to excite a public prejudice, by the dissemination 
 of falsehoods and criminal accusations, and under its sanction to array 
 a mob ; and there be neither an efficient magistracy nor a sense of 
 public duty or justice sufficient for its prevention, and if property may 
 be thus sacrificed without the possibility of redress, who among us is 
 safe ? 
 
 The cry may be of bigotry to-day, and heresy to-morrow ; of pub- 
 lic usurpation at one time, and private oppression at another; or any 
 other of those methods by which the ignorant, the factious, and the 
 desperate, may be excited ; and the victim may be sacrificed without 
 protection or relief. 
 
 It is hoped that the fearful warning thus suddenly given, enforced as 
 
17 
 
 it is by similar occurrences in other states, will arrest the public atten- 
 tion ; check the prevailing disposition to give credence to injurious 
 and calumnious reports ; will produce throughout the country a higher 
 sense of the qualifications requisite for magisterial office ; and lead to 
 amendments and improvements of our laws, which are thus found 
 so sadly defective. 
 
 And above all, may it rebuke the spirit of intolerance thus unex- 
 pectedly developed, so fatal to the genius of our institutions, and un- 
 restrained, so fatal to their continuance. If there be one feeling which 
 more than any other should pervade this country, composing, as it 
 were, the atmosphere of social life, it is that of enlightened toleration, 
 comprehending all within the sphere of its benevolence, and extend- 
 ing over all the shield of mutual protection. 
 
 The committee trust that they shall not be thought to exceed the 
 bounds of propriety, by adopting this as a fitting occasion for the sug- 
 gestion of those amendments of the law, the necessity of which is 
 made particularly obvious by this unhappy event. 
 
 The first which they submit, is forced upon their consideration by 
 the difficulties they have encountered in their efforts to accomplish the 
 purposes of their appointment ; having no official power to compel 
 the attendance of witnesses, or examination under oath, or take any 
 other requisite measures for the satisfactory investigation of the guilt 
 of persons supposed to be implicated ; but against whom sufficient 
 evidence, without these means, cannot be procured. 
 
 The only cases, excepting when the grand jury is actually in ses- 
 sion, in which, under the existing laws, these measures can be resort- 
 ed to, is where a complaint and arrest have been made ; and, as 
 this complaint must be the unofficial act of an individual, and being 
 necessarily public, often exposes him to great odium, and, in many 
 cases, to personal danger, it is rarely ventured upon in opposition to 
 public opinion or prejudice ; and seldom in any case, excepting where 
 the evidence is in the first instance conclusive, or the party implicated 
 is too humble to be accounted a dangerous enemy. 
 
 If, on the other hand, a bench of magistrates were empowered in 
 similar cases, to compel the appearance of witnesses, and conduct their 
 examinations under the authority of law, it is obvious that the means 
 of detecting those concerned in the commission of crime, would be 
 far more certain and efficacious ; and those guilty of its inception and 
 instigation, would often be brought to that punishment, which now 
 generally falls upon the humbler instruments of their villany. 
 
 This power might be vested in the judges of the court of common 
 pleas, and such of the justices of the peace in each county as might 
 be selected for that purpose, and thus be deposited in hands free from 
 danger and abuse. A similar one exists in England, vested in magis- 
 trates designated for that purpose ; and it is not known that it has ever 
 been perverted to the purposes of oppression, though often instru- 
 mental in detecting criminals, who might otherwise have escaped with 
 impunity. 
 
 The second improvement which the committee venture to sug- 
 gest is the enactment of a law, rendering magistrates indictable, when- 
 3 
 
18 
 
 ever guilty of an omission to discharge their duty, in the prevention 
 of outrage or crime. 
 
 If rulers are the servants of the people, it ought to he understood 
 that as such they are accountable for the neglect as well as the abuse 
 of their powers ; that the authority with which they are vested must be 
 exercised and shall be obeyed. And if men with no higher sense of 
 duty than accountability to the party by whom they may have been 
 elected, and no more honorable fear than that of the loss of office, shall 
 be placed in authority over us, they, the security of whose persons 
 and property may depend upon their fidelity, should at least have the 
 power of holding them to legal responsibility. 
 
 A further, and perhaps still more salutary addition to our subsist- 
 ing laws, would be a provision that in cases of destruction of life or 
 property occasioned by riot or tumult, the public shall be responsible 
 to indemnify the sufferers to the whole extent of their pecuniary loss ; 
 restoring the value of the property destroyed, and making suitable 
 provision for all, whose means of support shall be lost or impaired by 
 the personal injury of themselves, or of those upon whom they may 
 be dependant. 
 
 A provision of this sort seems called for by the first principles of 
 justice and civil government. 
 
 The basis of every political community is the surrender of the right 
 of personal defence, and the contribution of individual property, that 
 each may enjoy the mutual protection of all. 
 
 It is a direct contract between each individual and society at large, 
 in which the latter receives a full equivalent for the guarantee to the 
 former of security of life, liberty and property. It is therefore the 
 duty of the community to provide and exercise the means necessa- 
 ry for affording such protection ; and whenever such means do not 
 exist, or the servants intrusted with them are faithless to their duty, 
 the contract is broken, and the sufferers are entitled to redress, 
 
 Nor would the expediency of such provision be less obvious than 
 its justice, as the personal interest which every one would feel in 
 this responsibility, would render him vigilant and active in preventing 
 a tumult, the consequences of which might be visited upon himself. 
 At the same time it would influence the people in the election of mag- 
 istrates, who might be relied on in the hour of difficulty and danger, 
 as competent and fearless in the discharge of their duty. 
 
 The opinion so generally prevalent that the sufferers in this instance 
 were legally entitled to such redress against the town of Charlestown, 
 or the county of Middlesex, is a striking proof how well such a pro- 
 vision would accord with that sense of justice, which we hope will 
 ever distinguish this community. 
 
 But the provision above suggested would, it is feared, be insuffi- 
 cient for the purpose, without the organization of a more efficient and 
 ready force than can now be called into action ; and the committee 
 would suggest the expediency of legal provision therefor. 
 
 It is probable indeed that the mere knowledge of the existence of 
 such organization would often of itself suffice to prevent riot and 
 tumult. 
 
19 
 
 Legislative enactments, however, can avail but little, unless a check 
 be given to the tendency now pervading all parts of the country to re- 
 fer every question to popular will, instead of public law. 
 
 In Europe, the staff of the police officer is backed by the sabre of 
 the dragoon or the musket of the gens d'arme ; but in our favored 
 land, there is no immediate force but the posse comitatus, nor ultimate 
 authority but the judicial tribunal : the one wholly, the other essential- 
 ly, an appeal to the people. 
 
 If it be true of other countries that all power rests in public opin- 
 ion, it is in ours alone that this principle is fully understood and acted 
 upon. Our only security, therefore, is an enlightened obedience to law ; 
 to be enforced by all in conversation and example, as the highest duty 
 of patriotism ; for upon this, and this alone, depends the safety of our 
 political freedom. 
 
 If the time shall arrive when popular will shall take place of law, 
 whether this be by riots and tumults, or under the form of judicial pro- 
 ceedings, the grave of our nation's happiness and glory will have been 
 prepared. Life, liberty, and property, will be held at the will of ma- 
 lignity, prejudice, and passion ; violence will become the common 
 means of self defence ; and our only refuge from the horrors of an- 
 archy, will be under the comparatively peaceable shelter of military 
 despotism. 
 
 The remaining subject submitted to the consideration of the com- 
 mittee was the expediency of raising funds for the purpose of indem- 
 nifying the sufferers. 
 
 They are of opinion that the plainest principles of equity require 
 remuneration to be made ; but are at the same time impressed with 
 the conviction, that a donation, derived from private contribution, does 
 not so well comport with public justice, and would not constitute so 
 entire and expressive a vindication of the majesty of the law, as would 
 a compensation proceeding from the government. 
 
 By the theory of our institutions, the magistrates of Charlestown or 
 of the county of Middlesex are vested with authority, and have under 
 their control a force sufficient for the prevention or suppression of pop- 
 ular riots and tumults. And if the fact corresponded with the theory, 
 that town or county would be justly responsible to make good the pe- 
 cuniary loss occasioned by this outrage. 
 
 But if that authority is insufficient for such emergencies, and that 
 force is defective in strength or organization, so that it cannot be 
 brought to act with promptness and energy, then the fault rests with 
 the whole community, and upon them should fall the burden of 
 indemnity. 
 
 The committee cannot forbear expressing the hope that a public 
 outrage committed in such open and audacious defiance of the law, 
 inflicting so deep a wound upon the reputation of the commonwealth 
 and through her upon the hitherto fair fame of New England, will 
 receive the early attention of the legislature ; and that a committee 
 will be appointed with full power to investigate the character of this 
 institution and the conduct of its members, and to take measures for 
 the further detection of those implicated in its destruction ; and that 
 
20 
 
 a suitable compensation will be provided for the sufferers, so that the 
 same page on which the history of our disgrace shall be recorded, 
 may bear testimony to the promptitude of our justice to the injured. 
 
 They lay aside all cmestions of the expediency of indemnifying 
 the sufferers, as means of aiding in the support of the Catholic faith. 
 Of their individual feelings and opinions upon that subject, their fel- 
 low citizens can have no doubt ; but they look upon the obligations 
 of justice as of higher import and more deeply affecting our welfare as 
 a political community. 
 
 It is enough that the property of a portion of our fellow citizens, 
 erected under the sanction of the laws, paying its full proportion of 
 the expenses of government, and admitted on all hands to be entitled 
 to its protection, has been openly and wantonly destroyed through 
 the insufficiency of those laws, or the supineness or timidity of those 
 intrusted with their execution. 
 
 If regard is to be had to the religious or political tendency of an in- 
 stitution, in determining whether it be entitled to protection or re- 
 dress, it might be hard to find one against which the popular cry of 
 superstition or heresy or corruption might not be raised. To resort 
 to such considerations, is the direct substitution of popular will or 
 passion in place of public law and justice. And if this cruel and un- 
 provoked injury, perpetrated in the heart of the commonwealth, be 
 permitted to pass unrepaired, our boasted toleration and love of order, 
 our vaunted obedience to law, and our ostentatious proffers of an asy- 
 lum to the persecuted of all sects and nations, may well be account- 
 ed vain-glorious pretensions, or yet more wretched hypocrisy. 
 
 CHARLES 
 
 CHARLES P. CURTIS, 
 HENRY LEE, 
 JOHN COTTON, 
 HORACE MANN, 
 RICHARD S. FAY, 
 JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 
 CYRUS ALGER, 
 JOHN HENSHAW, 
 FRANCIS J. OLIVER, 
 MARK HEALY, 
 CHARLES G. GREENE, 
 ISAAC HARRIS, 
 DANIEL D. BRODHEAD, 
 HENRY F. BAKER, 
 Z. COOK, Jk., 
 HENRY FARNAM, 
 WILLIAM STURGIS, 
 BENJAMIN RICH, 
 WILLIAM HALES, 
 
 G. LORING, Chairman. 
 
 JOSEPH EVELETH, 
 CHARLES H. PARKER, 
 R. C. WINTHROP, 
 JOHN L. DIMMOCK, 
 J. L. ENGLISH, 
 NATHAN APPLETON, 
 WILLIAM APPLETON, 
 DAVID CHILD, 
 SAMUEL. K. WILLIAMS, 
 THEOPHILUS PARSONS, 
 EDWARD BLAKE, 
 L. STANWOOD, 
 THOMAS MOTLEY, 
 HENRY GASSETT, 
 JAMES CLARK, 
 GEORGE DARRACOTT, 
 JOHN KETTEL, 
 EDWARD D. SOHIER 
 
REPORT 
 
 MADE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AT THE WINTER 
 
 SESSION OF 1842. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The select committee of this House, to whom was referred the 
 petition of George Bradburn, praying the legislature to indemnify the 
 proprietors of the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, have had the 
 subject under consideration, and 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 Nearly eight years have now elapsed, since the Ursuline Convent 
 in Charlestown, a seminary devoted to purposes of education, 
 resorted to by the daughters both of our Protestant and Catholic citi- 
 zens, and inhabited at the time by about fifty children and ten adults, 
 all of them females, was destroyed by a mob in the night, without 
 defence, upon one of the most conspicuous spots on the map of Massa- 
 chusetts. Deal with this event, and with the claims arising out of it, 
 as we or any future legislators may see fit to do, it is forever engraved 
 upon the history of the commonwealth, as an act of atrocity and bar- 
 barity unparalleled in the history of the civilized world. Such it is 
 felt to be in foreign countries — as such it is regarded by our own 
 people ; and though the slumbering conscience of that people has not 
 yet been awakened to the act of justice which can alone wipe out the 
 disgrace, no man can assume that the question of that justice is 
 settled. The petition before us is but an illustration of what future 
 years will bring forth. It is the petition of a single individual — 
 speaking from the retirement of a far-off privacy — and praying us to 
 dispose of the great question of public duty involved in this subject. 
 So it will be, hereafter. We may neglect or postpone this topic, as 
 we please ; we may turn from its investigation as unpleasant, or 
 inexpedient : we may take the scales from the hands of Justice, and 
 tear off the bandage from her eyes, and permit her to be engrossed 
 with partial views of her great employment : still there will be minds 
 who will not be sdenced by neglect or expediency, and who will, 
 from time to time, and from age to age, demand that their high sense 
 of duty and their keen perception of the true honor of the state, shall 
 be felt in the public councils. 
 
22 
 
 In order to state clearly the relations of the commonwealth to this 
 subject, it will be necessary to premise a brief statement of the facts, 
 which we draw from a report made to the House of Representatives 
 in February, 1835, (documents of 1835, No. 37,) and from a report 
 made by a committee of citizens, in August, 1834, to the inhabitants 
 of Boston, after the most thorough investigation ever had upon the 
 subject. 
 
 The substance of what took place on the night of the 11th of 
 August, 1834, may for the purposes of the present discussion, be 
 stated to be : — That the building and its contents of furniture, clothes, 
 books, musical instruments and other apparatus of instruction, together 
 with much other valuable property, partly belonging to the proprietors 
 of the establishment, and partly to the children resident there, were 
 destroyed, burnt and pillaged by a mob, in the night, the immediate 
 incitement of whose lawless conduct was an unfounded rumor against 
 the purity of the institution, coupled with religious hatred. That no 
 defence of their property or persons was afforded by this government, 
 or any other power, to these defenceless women and children, and to 
 the proprietors of the estate. That those proprietors were citizens of 
 the commonwealth, their property paying its full proportion of taxes. 
 That no law of the commonwealth then existed, to make the town 
 or particular neighborhood responsible for such injuries, when the 
 local authorities should have failed to prevent them, or to punish 
 magistrates who should grossly neglect their duty in such cases. 
 
 We now propose to assert and maintain the following proposition : 
 That there existed, at the time of the destruction of the Ursuline Con- 
 vent and of the movable property contained in it, an implied contract 
 between the state and each of the owners thereof by which the state 
 ivas bound to insure to such oicner the preservation and dominion of his 
 property against such a destruction ; and that the failure to do this, 
 creates a claim upon the state, in justice and equity, of the highest 
 nature. 
 
 In any discussion by which this proposition is to be maintained, it 
 will need to be borne in mind, that not only must the sources from 
 which obligations are to be deduced lie far deeper than any written 
 or technical law, but that terms expressing the ideas of contract and 
 obligation must be used in a higher sense than the popular or tech- 
 nical meaning of express stipulation. The sources from which the 
 duties and obligations and implied contracts of a nation, or sovereign 
 community, are to be drawn, are not its statutory, or even its organic 
 laws. These merely declare the means and modes in which the 
 political society from time to time undertakes to discharge its duties 
 and fulfil its obligations. In the written or positive law of what 
 state, for instance, is the duty of preserving and defending itself and 
 its members enacted, or declared, so that it may be said to spring 
 from such enactment or declaration ? A state declares by law how 
 it will discharge this duty ; it provides by law the means and the 
 mode ; but the duty is anterior to all declaration and all provision 
 for its discharge. If the duty is in terms recognized, or declared in 
 the fundamental law by which the form of government is defined, or 
 
23 
 
 in any statutory law, it may be well ; but it is no less a duty, if it be 
 not so declared ; for it exists and is created by the original compact 
 of civil society, independent of all forms of government, or modes of 
 exercising it. So also the great duty of administering justice, which 
 is only a mode of protecting the members of society against the rapine 
 and injustice of each other, is a duty wholly independent of the forms 
 or means in and by which it is discharged. This duty springs not 
 from the institution of courts, or the adjustment of rights, or titles ; it 
 is not created by the science of law. It is anterior to all these things, 
 which are merely machinery and instruments. It is found in the 
 organization of society ; by which men have engaged to furnish to 
 each other a mutual defence against violence and the peaceful pos- 
 session of property. 
 
 We may see then, that to ascertain the duties of a state, resulting 
 from its implied contracts, we must not look to its laws, whether 
 written or traditionary. We must look beyond its institutions and its 
 form of government. These, of themselves, in no way determine the 
 obligations and duties of the society, which cannot be changed or 
 diminished, until the end and object of society is found to be, not 
 protection and preservation, but exposure and destruction. Whether 
 I dwell in society under a sovereign prince, or a sovereign people, it 
 is equally the duty of that prince and of that people to protect my 
 body from violence and my property from rapine. This is the very 
 object, politically speaking, for which I am in society at all, and it is 
 what I stipulate to do with and for every other man, who is in society 
 with me. 
 
 From these illustrations, it will be obvious that there is a sense in 
 which the terms contract and obligation may and must be used, wholly 
 beyond the meaning of express covenant, or positive agreement or 
 stipidation. But this higher sense of the terms is not only precise 
 and accurate — it is also familiar and frequent. The technical law of 
 the land, which defines and regulates the duties of individuals to each 
 other, is full of instances of contract, wherein the obligation is strictly 
 implied, springing from no express promise or undertaking. The 
 obligation is deduced from natural equity, from the fact that a con- 
 sideration moves from one party to the other, and from the necessity 
 of presuming a promise without which justice would fail to be done. 
 Upon this basis, the law raises an implied contract, wherever it can 
 take cognizance of the duty incumbent upon the party. It presumes, 
 in all cases where it finds a duty which human laws can enforce, that 
 what a man ought to do he has already promised and undertaken to 
 do. Contracts thus implied are familiar in the daily business of life ; 
 and if the principles on which they rest are sound, and if the use of 
 the terms by which they are described is correct, in such cases, they 
 can be no less so in the great mutual relations of society and the 
 individual. Reason, justice, natural equity and the obligations de- 
 ducible from them, were ordained for the great fundamental relations 
 of man, as well as for his minor affairs. 
 
 Having said thus much of the sources from which our reasoning is 
 to be drawn, we proceed to consider the proposition above laid down. 
 
24 
 
 The first branch of that proposition is, in substance, that there 
 existed an implied contract on the part of the state, to protect the 
 owners of this property in its peaceful possession and enjoyment, 
 against such a destruction as that by which it was torn from them. 
 
 It is obvious, from what has been already said, that it is from the 
 political capacity of the people of the commonwealth, as a civil 
 society, and from the position of the individual member of that society, 
 that we are to deduce this contract ; which, if it exist at all, in any 
 society, exists equally under any and all forms of government, and is 
 independent of all such forms. 
 
 It is generally admitted and presumed by all men, that, among the 
 ends or objects of human society, are the peaceful possession of 
 property and a mutual defence against all external violence. Now 
 the very act of association for these ends, necessarily supposes an 
 agreement of the whole of the members with each member, to aid 
 him in the accomplishment of them. Government is the intelligent 
 agent through whom the whole of the members are to perform this 
 agreement with each other. As these ends of civil society are of the 
 utmost consequence, and as merely partial attainment of them is not 
 to be presumed to be the object of the individual in entering into 
 society, but rather the full and perfect attainment of them is to be 
 presumed to be his object, the agreement by which society is formed 
 must be presumed to embrace a stipulation that the protection 
 furnished shall be as complete, full and perfect as it can possibly be 
 made. This is not merely the presumption of theory. It is a pre- 
 sumption found in the practical recognized duties of states and nations. 
 The individual stipulates for full protection of his life ; and no state 
 can take from a member his life, or abandon it to be taken by others, 
 unless compelled to do so by necessity, or indispensably obliged to it 
 by the strongest reasons of the public safety. The individual engages 
 for full protection of his property : and no civilized state takes from 
 him that property, even for the purposes of the general welfare and 
 safety, without rendering to him a full equivalent. These illustrations 
 are sufficient to show that it is' not a partial, or imperfect, or feeble 
 protection, for which the individual stipulates when he enters into, or 
 is found in society. Partial protection, feeble and imperfect defence, 
 he can make for himself, in what the publicists call " the liberty of 
 nature." He enters into society for as full and perfect protection as 
 a mortal condition can have. 
 
 Such being the nature and degree of the protection for which 
 society is instituted, in what way does the contract for it between the 
 individual and society arise ? 
 
 A contract, in all legal and moral reasoning, imports a consideration 
 of some kind, passing from the party who asserts the existence and 
 benefit of the contract, to the party of whom he claims the performance 
 of its obligations. A consideration may be of money or other material 
 thing. But it may also be of value that is not appreciable in money. 
 It may consist of various kinds of benefit or advantage, passing from 
 one party, or derived from one party to the other. It may be a moral 
 or political benefit or advantage, as distinguished from pecuniary or 
 material gain. Of considerations of these various kinds, as the basis 
 of contracts, the common affairs of life furnish numerous instances. 
 
25 
 
 To apply these principles to the relation of the body-politic and its 
 members, what can be said to be the consideration, or considerations, 
 passing from the latter to the former, in the social compact ? They 
 are of all kinds. 
 
 First. The individual, by his presence and residence in society, 
 by virtue of his membership, adds to the numbers, the force, the 
 power, and resources of the nation. He is an integral part of the 
 whole body of the state ; and as the perfection of a nation, which is its 
 grand duty, can be advanced only by the preservation and is retarded 
 by the destruction of its members, each of whom can contribute 
 to that perfection, it follows that every accession of an individual 
 to the body of a nation must be treated as a new benefit or advantage. 
 Upon this ground, the murder of infants, just born or unborn, of whom 
 no character can be predicated, becomes a crime against the state : 
 and upon this ground the reformation of criminals becomes a duty of 
 the state. 
 
 Secondly. The state derives a benefit or advantage from the indi- 
 vidual, by whatever he does to carry on the machinery of society, in 
 working out that perfection which is its end. Viewed in this light, 
 before this high law of human destiny, it may truly be said that 
 all men are equal. They are all equal, in this : that each, who does 
 not absolutely war against society, fills some sphere, however humble, 
 in its great taskwork, and for so doing, receives all its protection, all 
 its defence, and is thus held of equal value to the state with every 
 other. 
 
 In the third place. The state derives benefits from the individual, 
 by the presence of his property, (in which term is to be included 
 labor,) which he might remove into the liberty of nature, if he chose. 
 The increase which his property adds to the aggregate wealth of the 
 whole, is one of these benefits. The use, employment and con- 
 sequent advantage derived therefrom to the community, are other 
 benefits. The imposts and contributions which the nation may exact 
 from that property, for the common purposes, form other benefits, 
 directly appreciable as an actual pecuniary consideration. 
 
 Finally. The individual has engaged and contracted with every 
 other member of the society to aid in the accomplishment of the great 
 ends of protection and defence, for which the society is instituted. 
 
 All these considerations, in the case of an individual, have passed 
 and are passing from him to the state, at every moment of his 
 existence. Any one of them is sufficient to raise an implied promise 
 on the part of the state, to confer that benefit upon him for which the 
 state is avowedly instituted, and which he demands of it. Take, for 
 instance, the lowest form in which these considerations may present 
 themselves — the case of the most humble individual, performing the 
 lowest offices of human labor. Is his life of no value to the state ? 
 Is he not one of its thousands, or millions, the vast aggregate of whom 
 constitute its character, its force, its grand developement of civilized 
 man towards perfection ? Must not the wood that he hews, and 
 the water that he draws, be hewn and drawn ? and is he not there, 
 patient and faithful, to do it ? Is not his labor at once his own little 
 4 
 
26 
 
 capital and the state's integral wealth ? Happily for mankind, wher- 
 ever false institutions have not corrupted the general heart, these 
 benefits, which move from the humblest individual to society, are 
 admitted to constitute a full and perfect claim to all its protection, for 
 the great purposes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ; and 
 thus the peasant, on the original platform of the social compact, is 
 equal with the prince. 
 
 We have been the more disposed to run these illustrations out to 
 the extreme of society, because it seems to us that the denial, in any 
 case, of the contract between society and the individual, as created 
 by what moves from the one to the other, necessarily strikes at the 
 doctrine of the importance of individual man : a doctrine, which is the 
 great characteristic of this age, and which may be maintained by 
 a legal, as well as a religious argument. 
 
 If, then, it be true that these considerations do move from the indi- 
 vidual to the state, or body-politic, it must of necessity follow that 
 they create corresponding duties on the part of the state towards him, 
 unless we assume that he has no object in entering society, or in re- 
 maining in it, or that he requires and expects nothing of it. If he has 
 any object in remaining a member of the state ; if he and all other 
 members unite together for any great common purpose ; if he and they 
 expect and require of each other some common good, about which 
 they are all agreed ; in short, if society is formed for any purpose, and 
 upon any design, and for any object, the individual is entitled to the 
 whole benefit of that design and object, by paying for it a full consid- 
 eration. We have assumed, as an admitted fact, that the object of 
 joining the social league and for which it is instituted, is mutual de- 
 fence against violence and full protection of property, Whoever 
 enters this league, for its avowed objects, and gives a consideration 
 for what he demands, raises an implied contract on the part of the 
 other members that he shall have what he demands of them and what 
 they demand of him. If there were nothing in the case other than 
 the simple promise of the individual to all the other members of soci- 
 ety, that he will protect and defend them and their property, that pro- 
 mise is made by every member with every other, and thus the idea 
 of a contract is as complete as law, reason and justice can make it. 
 But we have seen that there is much more in the case. 
 
 There is another view of this great relation equally strong. The 
 state cannot say to one of its members, already within the pale of mem- 
 bership, that it does not receive his consideration, and therefore is un- 
 der no contract with him. It can make no distinctions, for it cannot 
 afford to dispense with the individual. If it could do so, it could dis- 
 pense with one equally as well as with another, and thus the state is dis- 
 solved, or rather it never was formed. The Roman law did not permit 
 the life of a citizen to be valued in money ; thereby declaring that its 
 political value was beyond all price ; and there is, in fact, no other bond 
 or theory by which a nation can cohere together, than the recognition 
 of the inestimable value of the individual to the state, This recogni- 
 tion is found in the theory of all civilized states ; and they have, there- 
 fore, already received from each of their members his part of the com- 
 
27 
 
 pact, already taken his consideration, already entered into the treaty 
 with him, for their own advantage, and are, therefore, bound to his pro- 
 tection and preservation by a tie, which nothing but overwhelming 
 reasons of the public safety can ever break. 
 
 We now proceed to show that the commonwealth of Massachu- 
 setts has rcognized this whole doctrine, as applied to cases similar to 
 that before us. 
 
 An act was passed on the 16th of March, 1839, providing that where 
 property is destroyed by persons riotously assembled, the city or town 
 in which such property is destroyed, shall pay to the owner three 
 fourths of its value ; one fourth of the loss being left to fall upon the 
 individual owner, in order to stimulate him in the defence of his own 
 property. 
 
 Several things are clear from the provisions of this statute. 
 
 First. That the placing the burden of indemnity upon the city or 
 town where the injury is done, is merely a matter of policy, to awaken 
 the vigilance of the local police. There is no reason in principle why 
 the town where a violent destruction of property occurs, should bear 
 the loss. There might well be great injustice in it, if the question 
 were asked, who did the act? — because rioters might go from one 
 town to another, and there destroy property which the innocent 
 inhabitants would be taxed to pay for. But this law proceeds upon 
 the principle that protection from such outrages is guarantied by 
 society, and upon the further principle that the local authorities can, 
 and therefore it declares they shall, prevent such outrages. 
 
 Secondly. It is clear that the state admits, by this act, that in- 
 demnity is due to the individual, by virtue of the social compact. 
 There is, otherwise, nothing but mere tyranny and injustice in the 
 act itself. To say that even a man in the same town, who sits 
 peaceably by his own fire-side, while a riotous assemblage is destroy- 
 ing a neighboring house, shall contribute to pay for the injury which 
 he has not caused, is a palpable injustice, upon any other hypothesis 
 than that of the contract on which society is based. Admit this 
 contract, and there is no injustice or hardship in the case. 
 
 In the third place. It is clear that this statute did not create the 
 original duty or obligation to indemnify the sufferer in such cases. 
 That duty can neither be created nor destroyed by the municipal 
 law. If it can be created by statute, it can be destroyed by statute, 
 and then civil society is dissolved. The duty can be regulated — its 
 burdens can be placed here or there, as matter of policy ; but it exists 
 a duty, in all cases where protection has failed, alike before such 
 regulation as afterwards. 
 
 We now come to the inquiry; whether there was a failure of 
 protection, in this case, for which the commonwealth is in justice and 
 equity responsible ? 
 
 That there was a failure of protection, in point of fact, is matter of 
 notorious history. There was not only no defence made of these 
 helpless women and children, but none was attempted to be made. 
 There was not only no protection of the property actually extended, 
 but none was attempted, by any one. The mob had free course 
 
28 
 
 to glut themselves with the work of destruction. Now, we are aware 
 that there are persons who are accustomed to reason upon this matter, 
 from the fact that the local magistrates and the citizens of the im- 
 mediate neighborhood might have interfered to repel the mob ; that 
 there was a period in the course of the attack, when any twenty- 
 resolute men would have quelled the whole riot ; and that it is, 
 therefore, not just to make the commonwealth pay for what the 
 persons on the spot might have prevented. 
 
 This reasoning would be just, if it could first be ascertained that this 
 government had no duties incumbent upon it, prior to the com- 
 mencement of the riot, or that it had discharged all those duties. But 
 when one looks beyond the duties of the local magistrate, or of the 
 local population, to inquire whether the state had discharged all its 
 duty in the premises, it is impossible not to see that there was a 
 failure of duty on the part of the state, for the injuries occasioned by 
 which, a just and generous people ought to be willing to make 
 amends. 
 
 There was a failure, in the want of suitable legislation to compel 
 magistrates to do their duty in such cases, and to punish them if they 
 did not. It is not within the bounds of probability, if a law of the 
 commonwealth had existed, severely punishing a magistrate who 
 should grossly neglect to use the power with which other laws had 
 armed him for the suppression of riots, or giving the party injured 
 a claim for damages against such magistrate, that this property ever 
 would have been destroyed — that this stain ever would have rested 
 upon the fair fame of Massachusetts. Is it said that such legislation 
 would then have been, or would now be unwise, because the mag- 
 istrate may well be left to his general sense of duty and to the 
 corrective power of public opinion, if he does not do his duty ? This 
 very event proves, with a melancholy distinctness, that such grounds 
 of trust are no sufficient security for the citizen. The infection of 
 popular prejudice that threatens the life or property of a citizen, may 
 reach the magistrate ; there may be no corrective in public opinion, 
 for it may applaud, for the moment, the neglect of duty which gives 
 way to its bad passions, and the magistrate is restored to his sense of 
 duty only when it is too late for him to act. That the commonwealth 
 entertains the same opinion, is manifest from a statute passed only a 
 year after this riot, punishing magistrates for such neglect of duty, 
 and incorporated in the 129th chapter of the Revised Statutes. 
 
 Another failure of protection on the part of the state, was in 
 the want of such a provision as that contained in the act of 1839, 
 by which the social compact with the individual is carried out, and he 
 is made whole, as far as is consistent with the policy of enlisting his 
 own exertions in the defence and preservation of his own property. 
 It is difficult for any man to point out why it was the duty of the 
 commonwealth to have made this provision in 1839, and yet why it 
 was not also its duty to have made it in 1834. It is difficult for any 
 man to show that the state did not stand then in the same position 
 as it stands now, the particular provisions of the act of 1839 being 
 merely matter of public policy, and not differing in principle from the 
 
29 
 
 compact between the whole people and the individual. If it is right 
 for the legislature to call upon the people of a town to pay for 
 property destroyed in it limits by persons who may not dwell there, 
 it is equally right for the state, in its sovereign capacity, to give 1 the 
 individual an indemnity who suffered at a time when no such pro- 
 visions existed. 
 
 Is it said, that it had never occurred to the people of the common- 
 wealth that such legislation was expedient, or that such necessity for 
 it would ever arise ? The answer to this suggestion is two-fold. First : 
 it is as much the duty of the sovereign power to enact wise and 
 salutary laws, as it is to execute those which it has already enacted. 
 Laws are but the means and modes in which society proceeds to 
 discharge its great, original, prior duties to the citizen and to itself. 
 One of those duties is self-preservation, of itself and its members ; 
 equally imperative, equally transcendant as a duty before the nation 
 has taken its measures for defence and after it is armed to the teeth. 
 Can it be said that the nation is guiltless of the blood or the property 
 of a citizen, whose life is taken or whose effects are pillaged, for want 
 of suitable measures of protection, simply because those measures 
 had not been taken? — or because it had not occurred to the nation 
 that the measures were necessary ? A sudden invasion might descend 
 upon a town, from an unexpected quarter, in time of profound peace, 
 and cut it off from the nation ; but it would require circumstances of 
 the clearest surprise, of the most entire absence of all suggestions or 
 suspicions of danger, to absolve from blame, under the social compact, 
 the nation that had thus left its member to destruction. It is the 
 public duty to foresee public danger. There is no principle more 
 clearly defined in the law of nations, or more uniformly asserted by the 
 great publicists of Christendom, than this : that the sovereign power, 
 " as a faithful administrator, is to watch for the nation, and take care 
 to preserve it and render it more perfect — to better its state, and to 
 secure it as far as possible against every thing that threatens its safety 
 or its happiness."* 
 
 It comes then, upon the question of prior legislation, or of the public 
 duty as to such legislation, to this ; that where sagacity and public 
 prudence, and that wisdom which is ever vigilant, in theory, in the 
 mind of the sovereign power, could not foresee danger, should not 
 have borrowed suggestions from every quarter, could not see examples 
 at home or abroad, the failure of provision to anticipate the particular 
 evil or exposure must be excused. But where all reasons for sug- 
 gesting preparation exist — where prior experience at home or 
 abroad, the state of society, the obvious policy, the existing cir- 
 cumstances, the strong necessity, are all pointing to some provision 
 to meet such a calamity as has now come for want of the provision, — 
 it cannot be said that there is no public negligence. 
 
 This brings us to the second answer to the objection we are now 
 considering — an answer upon the point of fact. 
 
 It is not true, that the commonwealth had no reason to suppose 
 
 * Vattel, Book i. chap. 4. 
 
30 
 
 that such legislation would ever be necessary. Riots in her own 
 borders had previously taken place, at different times, with circum- 
 stances of more or less atrocity, and attended with more or less des- 
 truction of property. In other states of this Union, riots of a more 
 fearful character, in which lives as well as property had been des- 
 troyed, had led to legislative enactments adapted to the prevention of 
 such outrages, or to the remuneration of the sufferers. In the country 
 from which our earlier laws and institutions were derived, statutes 
 had existed for centuries prior to the emigration of our ancestors, and 
 still exist, by which the burden of indemnity, in similar cases of the 
 destruction or pillage of property, is thrown upon the local community, 
 which is thereby made to stand in the place and to discharge the duty 
 of the whole public. These laws were not transferred here and 
 adopted by our ancestors, so as now to be part of the common law of 
 Massachusetts, because the theory of our common law is, that it con- 
 sists only of such of the laws of England, prior to the revolution, as 
 our ancestors found to be required by their peculiar situation in this 
 country, prior to that time. But the example of such legislation, as 
 adapted to and required by a state of society such as had already 
 come to pass among us, prior to the year 1834, was before the people 
 of this commonwealth, in the legislation of other states and coun- 
 tries. The very outrage of that year shows that such a state of society 
 had come to pass ; the commonwealth provided for it in part, in the 
 year 1839; and the existence of these facts is sufficient to make up a 
 case, in which it may properly be said to have been incumbent upon 
 the sovereign power to have anticipated the probable occurrence of 
 such evils, by provisions to prevent or repair the mischief, as well 
 before the eleventh day of August, 1834, as afterwards. 
 
 It remains for us to anticipate an objection which may occasion 
 difficulty to some minds. It will be urged, that the ground which we 
 have taken covers equally a loss of property by other wrongs than 
 riots, and that an inconvenient precedent would be established, by 
 which persons who had suffered by robbery, or other trespass, would 
 claim indemnity of the state. The answer to this suggestion is, not 
 that a case of robbery (on the highway, for instance,) differs in strict 
 principle from the case before us. It is equally the duty of society 
 to protect the property of the citizen in all cases. But the distinction 
 between a case of robbery on the highway, and the case of the Ursu- 
 line Convent, is, that in the former case there is more ground for hold- 
 ing that the commonwealth has done all its duty of protection, than 
 there is in the latter, Robbery is severely punished, and, considering 
 the degree of temptation held out at any particular time, and the 
 small amount of property exposed, perhaps it may be said that the 
 punishment is in general sufficient to prevent the offence, and thus 
 full protection is at least approximated. But if it be not so, if the 
 punishments provided for the particular crime are not a sufficient pro- 
 tection of the citizen against that crime, if indemnity is the ouly thing 
 that will afford full protection, then it is the duty of society to give it. 
 Especially is this true, where a great mischief has been done to the 
 citizen, marked by circumstances of peculiar atrocity, and caused in 
 
31 
 
 great part by public negligence. Without therefore seeking to dis- 
 tinguish this case from others, in regard to the strict principle of con- 
 tract, we believe that it is so marked by great features of the principle, 
 that there was so striking a failure of protection, both in law and in 
 fact, and that the injury was so cruel an outrage upon those living 
 innocently under what they believed to be our protecting arm, that 
 reparation of their losses may well adorn our magnanimity, without 
 compromising our future justice to others. 
 
 Let us not be misunderstood: — and that we may not be, we state 
 again the distinction.just taken. The crimes of robbery, theft, arson, 
 and other offences against property, are severely punished. Thus far, 
 the state discharges a part of its duty of protection. It goes further; 
 the duty embraces the maintenance of police, strict and vigilant exe- 
 cution of the laws, and certain punishment of the offender. These 
 duties are also discharged by the state. In the case of a simple 
 larceny of property, therefore, the state may be said to approximate 
 very nearly to the discharge of its whole duty of protection. The 
 punishments provided and the police maintained, are, generally 
 speaking, adequate to the prevention of the crime. There is no 
 striking, manifest and important omission of duty on the part of the 
 state, to which the injury may wholly or in part be traced. It is not 
 so with the case of riots. Something more than punishment of the 
 offender, or the maintenance of police, is needed to insure adequate 
 protection to the citizen. It is so easy for a whole community, at a 
 period of excitement, to arm itself with a color of right, and under it 
 to bring ruin and desolation upon the objects of its passionate preju- 
 dices ; it is so nearly certain that, at such a period, the magistrate 
 who has no other fear before him than the fear of the people, will not 
 expose himself to the wrath of the people ; and it is so plain a pro- 
 cess of arithmetic, that when property has been destroyed, if there is 
 no quarter from which indemnity may be compelled, none will be 
 obtained ; — that without special and energetic measures to forestal 
 these occurrences, the public duty cannot be said to have been dis- 
 charged. The commonwealth of Massachusetts has found and 
 declared this to be so. 
 
 The owners of the property destroyed on Mount Benedict are not 
 now before us, seeking a liquidation of their claims. They came 
 before the legislature of 1835, and after a report made in favor of 
 granting to them a sum of money, they were repulsed. Since that 
 time, they have wisely and properly abstained from preferring their 
 petitions, waiting, as was due to their injured rights, for a change in 
 the views of the state upon the question involved in their case. They 
 have left the blackened ruins of their balls, where piety, and learning, 
 and charity, and useful labor, dignified their peaceful lives, standing 
 as they were left by the fires of the incendiary, when the torch could 
 find no more to consume. They have taken down no stone from off 
 another, and the only agent that has yet been busy to remove from 
 before us the monument of our neglect, has been the slow, corroding 
 tooth of Time, which will remove it only after the lapse of ages. 
 They have thus kept a continual claim before the people of Massa- 
 
32 
 
 chusetts, upon their generous justice. They have not spoken, they 
 have not written; but the mournful dignity of their silence, made 
 eloquent by this index of their wrongs, is more touching and more 
 persuasive, than the most elaborate appeals. 
 
 For the committee, 
 
 GEORGE T. CURTIS, 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 
. C C c 
 
 ,y- "- c;c <j> 
 
 C C ^ 
 
 
 v. SS «I3C««T«CC < 
 
 «x^«c«c < < 
 <^sc eccje.oc. 
 
 ccc<s 
 
 %<C< 
 £S CC <*ar~»« 
 
 <<C<£*C 
 
 
 ■c 
 
 C.c 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 r CC 
 
 c 
 
 < c 
 
 C( 
 
 
 re 
 
 Cc 
 
 < S 
 
 <•/- e 
 
 C_C «T c 
 ^5 C c 
 
 Cc re c 
 
 <5S0<£M& 
 
 M cc c 
 
 <■ C t 
 
 - < < <: 
 
 rcc-ccc «gccc« 
 
 C <x<<c 
 f «£*<c« 
 
 <ss«sa^<3 c 
 
 <scc<r<r 
 
 co^«ox c 
 
 
 - V C <3 S£»Cc >^S^> Jr^, 
 
 ^>^c^«3§§: 'cc 
 
 ^C C «5C: CWjg 'C? 
 
 
 - <*Ckx c<: 
 
 vc<: <;<_ 
 
 ccggcoTCC 
 
 s r <^T' <: <j 
 
 Jccc cc «C 
 
 - c<:cc crc <c 
 
 - ^e cc crcc ^ 
 ■ -c cc C5^ cc 
 
 -O^C CC«^ 
 
 a 1 ;* 
 
 CCL^C 
 
 
 
 ^ < (-« «sr. tec 
 CC<^ c <^ 
 
 i *£&*?% 
 
 --- .<^ * ■■■< 
 c ; <^ 5?c 
 
 f 'C<d <K3L 
 - «T* «: < <c_ «r-c 
 
 "c €33Cj *^<L 
 
 I CC <j« <• 
 '& CC4C . <S2C • 
 
 -■"<.■ ii^C c^c 
 
 ; C<c':^ 
 
 < cc 
 
 ' < C<' C| ' 
 
 CC Ct 
 
 1 c< CS. 
 
 
 
 _• c <: cc 
 
 C< <L.c<: 
 
 
 CC C < 
 ccc < 
 
 < < 
 C < 
 
 c c<r *i _c . <■■ 
 
 Cv < !5=v rtr- « cc CC'< 
 
 <c c c c t - ^^ c 
 
 «t<cC ^ 
 *^cCC3C c< 
 
c <c cc ^KTc/.c; 
 
 = C c «L < ' 
 
 £ CC <EI Co 
 
 -^X CC ^E2 C« 
 
 C'« C; < 
 
 tttcCC 
 
 CC ^> 
 
 « ccc < 
 
 :CC « 
 
 C<CC %< 
 
 (£ ^ 
 
 <c <aCC« 
 
 <&.< « 
 
 * « c 
 
 CC i 
 
 . «c <cc 
 
 C CC 
 
 »cc 
 
 c< c< 
 
 CT«'<ro 
 
 w cc 
 
 aerr «:: «-< 
 
 u cc 
 
 cc <C c c 
 «£<£ C O 
 
 _« CC C C 
 
 e cc c <. < 
 
 _« Cc c i< C 
 
 3 CC" c cc 
 
 <:ccc <c 
 
 , <r <r« : <«: : ' <c ccc 
 c ^ <cc? c <cc:cc 
 
 kfe«<! ^-'Sfe 
 
 
 CCC c <; 
 
 Cc c 
 
 c c «r«rc 
 *" c «csc< 
 
 C<C CiCC. <Lc< 
 
 EC 
 
 <sfc<c « ^< C 
 
 cater « < 3*15 >= 
 
 2 <• <C <C V 
 
 <rc c 
 
 <rc <- 
 
 < 
 
 cc 
 
 cc <c« 
 
 <r c <c 
 
 cc < . 
 
 C« c 
 
 
 c c «rc« *. 
 
 ' c 
 CC 
 
 •CtCf, ;C 
 
 C( CSCcC 
 ,.<SC* Cc<«< 
 
 !33 csacc 
 
 srr " CC<Cc<C 
 
 _<*« Cjosggc 
 
 £ c<<c«: 
 
 
 ^»*- - <33- ■ Cjt CL ■ • a. . 
 
 - c <r <c <CL <§ ar« 
 
 '<C ^C <1« 
 
 <^i c 
 
 voe-- ( 
 
 a^QBi 
 
 "C c 
 
 :<«E c c 
 
 <*c c « 
 
 cc C 
 
 CCA d. 
 
 C i c 
 
 cct c 
 •ccx c 
 
 C< *£ ^ < 
 
 ,?ac c 
 
 «c . 
 
 ^ 
 
 «5H|a 
 
 C^ 
 
 .ssc 
 <c« 
 
 fcSyLC < 
 
 
 ^Cj^C^^Mfi 
 
 
 LT_« 
 
 CJ<Birc«:C J 
 
 
 
 fBi?~~<5fw 
 
 S^i 
 
 «K3p-.ct 
 
 &jsm 
 
 
 
 
 KC c<^^ 
 
 
 «T«C C c 
 
 arc " 
 
 MC C 
 
 ok.c 
 
 Cc c c« 
 c ccc <r 
 
 c« c<rc< 
 ^_<atc c«^c <: 
 
 . <SLC C «S ■' • ' 
 
 L ccc «r<? 
 
 - «C cc«rrC 
 
 : C «£ <7_ <T 
 
 c< <r c 
 
 
 c CcC_ 
 
 t CC v-5 
 
 -; <: cc o c 
 <: cc ccc 
 
 C C CC; 
 
 : (c <ax 
 
 »* <S C c 
 c< c c 
 
 c c 
 
 c <^ < «' 
 
 ^< ^fc cc c c 
 
 <r«C <xcr 
 
 s ' C? (C 
 cc C c 
 
 
 3^c<: ococ< 
 
 EpC CCCCo 
 
 CC<C ccflC 
 
 cc c cisn 
 
 m:<*L « <«rc« 
 S3C5 cacc<L 
 
 ^§di< 
 
 ' C ^J 
 
 
 £ c dr 
 
 ^qa% c<r 
 
 v C_^» 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■H ll/l/Uf/ f/f/. flu. .flfj/|/f//f|f/ff/ff I//////// 
 014 078 883 1