The Patriotic Fund Volume 170: debated on Thursday 28 May 1863
Question
MR. J. A. SMITH
said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Patriotic Fund, and the causes of the resignation of the majority of the members of the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, appointed in January 1862; also to notice the admission of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, that a girl of sixteen years of age had been flogged in that establishment; and further, that the conduct of the officials who had committed this act was condoned by the Executive Committee; and to inquire what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices. As he understood the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) wished to make some observations on this subject, which he could not do that night, according to the forms of the House, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) would repeat the Question on Monday, on going into Committee of Supply?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the statement of the hon. Member for Chichester, which, coming as it did ten days after notice, he had now heard with great surprise and regret, induced him (Sir J. Pakington) to ask the hon. Member a question. Having himself had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission on the Patriotic Fund, and also a Member of the Executive Committee, he that morning attended a meeting of the Committee. That Committee felt that the hon. Gentleman had so shaped his Question as to convey an insinuation against the Royal Commission and the Executive Committee. They therefore wished to meet those insinuated charges as soon as possible, and he (Sir John Pakington) asked the hon. Member whether he would bring forward his Question not later than Monday next, in order that explanations might be given on the subject.
MR. J. A. SMITH
said, he would put the Question as early as the forms of the House would permit.
[Hansard: Link.]
ROYAL VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM House Of Commons, Monday, June 1.
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 1863
Publication: The Times (London, England) Issue: 24574
[8]
The case of the girl Bennett...
Mr J.A. Smith said he rose to ask the question of which he had given notice, and which he postponed on Thursday, believing it to be the wish of the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich that he should do so. The Royal commissioners appointed by Royal
[9]
ible to offer their explanation eqnaujpnbEely. The question alludes in very prominent terms to the flogging, ia the hon. member call it, of a girl of 16. The hon. gentleman has just tdt that she was not 16. She was a girl in her 16th year, and for an act of insubordination she was punished with a birch rod. I do not either in my own name or in that of the committee for is moment vindicate that proceeding. (Hear, hear.) The executive committee entirely disapproved of it, and have taken such precautions as will most effectually prevent the recurrence of any such punishment.
I will go further, and state that we have ascertained that in the early days of this establishment there were several things done, and several practices adopted, of which we are equally unable to approve. At the same time, although it is not my duty to cast blame upon parties who are not before this House I am bound to state that for the irregularities to which IS have adverted there are parties who are more to blame than either the lady superintendent or the chaplain. The lady superintendent is the daughter of a very distinguished naval officer, and a lady of the highest character. The chaplain is a most highly respectable clergyman of the Church of England and oath these persons are, as I am sure the House will admit, entitled to the strictest justice at the hands of those who have to judge of their conduct.
The hon. gentleman has fallen into a mistake in saying that the management of this school is under the executive committee In the first instance that was in some respects the case, but the executive committee afterwards appointed a sub-committee of their body, called the house committee, to undertake that duty, and as a was not a member of that body, I only speak of what occurred at this early period from hearsay.
I also ought to have said that this whipping of the girl took place in the month of January, 1861, and in January, 1862, occurred the death by fire of another pupil I hope I need not assure the House that the executive committee and every one connected with the establishment, heard of that melancholy event with the feelings of sorrow which it was calculated to inspire; but I do think that the hon. gentleman has made a most extraordinary statement this evening.
The coroner's jury returned a verdict of "Accidental death," and I believe that lo verdict was over more thoroughly justified by the facts; but the hon. gentleman has told us that ho has made it his duty to hold private communication with the jurymen who sat upon that inquiry, and that he has ascertained from them that they were dissatisfied with the whole of the proceedings. I think that I may venture to say that I am dissatisfied with the proceeding of the hon. gentleman. I never heard of a more irregular proceeding (Hear, hear), and I hope that the house will not allow its judgment to be influenced by the private conversation between the hon. member for Chichester and the jurymen, who, whatever feelings they may have entertained about the proceedings did not record them in the verdict which they found. (Hear, hear.) I am sure that my hon. friend is the last man to say that in a discussion in this House we can listen to any opinion of a jury except as it is recorded in the verdict returned by the jury upon the case into which they have to inquire.
But what else did the hon. gentleman tell us? If there is any particular object in his question, it is to censure the executive committee for what he called "condoning" the officials, viz., the lady superintendent and the chaplain — and he has told us, in speaking of this melancholy event, that when it occurred the lady superintendent was far away from the building, and that her two school mistresses who were in fault were dismissed. Under these circumstances I was surprised to hear him endeavour to swell his charge either against the officials, as he calls them, or against the executive committee by alluding to this melancholy event of which I have given to the House an explanation which I think must be considered quite satisfactory,
The hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying that the sad event led to the appointment of a committee of ladies T am very sorry to be obliged to admit the fact to which the hon. member has also adverted, that a great difference of opinion arose between those ladies and the executive committee, and was carried to such an extent that seven out of the 13 ladies resigned their positions on the committee.
No one is more sensible than I am of the excellent and most benevolent motives with which those ladies undertook their duties; and further, I am quite willing to admit that they discharged those duties with considerable ability and acuteness. They accepted the trust reposed in them, and the finest thing they did was to assemble at the institution and carry on a diligent inquiry into the mode in which its operations were conducted. If I remember rightly, they were appointed last year late in January orin the beginning of February, and in the month of February they held two meetings, which resulted in a report, not to the house committee, but to the executive committee, which promised to institute a searching investigation into every complaint made by the ladies' committee.
The hon. gentleman opposite admitted that the executive committees did correct by far the greater number of points objected to by the ladies' committee, and those corrections were amply acknowledged by them. But deeply regret to say that excellent and unquestionable as were the motives of these ladies, they adopted a course at the commencement of the investigation by the executive committee which was injudicious and unfortunate.
The majority of the ladies forwarded a communication stating that they would not continue to act unless ?? dismissed from their situations the Lady superintendent and the chaplain. The House will see that the executive committee was thereby placed in a most painful and embarrassing position. We had two alternatives before us, either to dismiss this highly respectable lady and clergyman from their situations, because the ladies' committee told us to do so on pain of losing their services, or, on the other hand, to go judicially into an investigation of the conduct of these two persons and to come to such a conclusion as our sense of justice might think fit. I hope the House will not suppose that the executive committee hesitated which course to adopt. (Hear.) Our investigation of the circumstances occupied a considerable time, although no pains were spared to arrive at a just and a prompt conclusion.
In March we received an intimation from the ladies that they would insist on the dismissal of these officers, and on the 9th of May the executive committee adopted this resolution: "Resolved, That the committee, having carefully considered the communications and evidence which have been submitted to them, with respect to the management of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, and certain punishments which have been inflicted, disapprove and regret the conduct of the lady superintendent and the chaplain in some instances. But considering the peculiar circumstances under which the schools have been carried on in the absence of regular supervision, excepting that of the senior honorary secretary of the Royal Commission, the committee are of opinion that a recurrence of these faults may be prevented by improved regulations and proper inspection, and that therefore it is not necessary to proceed to the extreme measure of not calling upon either the lady superintendent or chaplain to resign their situations."
That resolution was passed without a dissentient voice by the executive committee, and I will beg leave to read the names of the gentlemen by whom it was adopted: Lord Colchester, in the chair, General Lindsay, Sir J. Pakington, Colonel Adair, Rev. F. C. Cook, and Captain Fishbourne.
On the 25th of May another meeting of the executive committee vas held, and was more fully attended, nine gentlemen being present on that occasion. These were Lord Colchester, as before, in the chair, Sir J. Pakington, General Lindsay, Sir Alexander Spearinanu, 3r. T. Baring, M.P., Sir Richard Kirby, Captain Fishbourne, Colonel Adair, and Colonel Lefroy.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed, and although my name stands as one upon the list of gentlemen I have Pamed, I think I may appeal without presumption to the House whether those are names likely to come lightly or rashly to a decision. We did so after grave consideration and full discussion of the evidence, and I never saw any body of gentlemen more unanimously persuaded of the Justice of the course they took.
The next step was to present a report embracing these, proceedings to the Royal Commissioners, and at a meeting of that body Earl Grey, who was not satisfied with the decision of the executive committee or the report to which they had agreed, moved a resolution in a contrary sense, declaring that the lady superintendent and chaplain ought to be dismissed.
That resolution was fuUy considered by the Royal Commissioners present, only t, vo of whlm supported it, a majority of seven voting for itsreection. My hon. and ca'danstfriend the member for North Lancashire accidentally lef the room, and was not present at the division, but came in immediately afterwards, and expressed his great regret that ho was not in time to record his vote with the majority. Therefore I think I am fairly at liberty to say that eight to three of the Royal Commissioners were in favour of the unanimous decision of the executive committee. the two Commissioners who supported Earl Grey's view were Lord Nelson and Lord St. Leonard's.
The opinion of Lord St. Leonard's I need not say is entitled to great weight, but his daughter being a member of the ladies' committee, he entertained a very warm opinion on the matter. However, there was a meeting of the Royal Commissioners about 10 days or a fortnight ago, which Lord St. Leonard's attended, and in the most frank spirit he declared that having passed several hours on the previous day in looking over the establishment at Wandsworth, be felt bound, after the part he took the year before, to state that he had never seen greater improvements effected in the time, or a public institution in a more satisfactory condition. (Hear, hear.)
It only remains for me nowv to answer the Lhtter part of the question of the hon. gentleman. lean assure him that we have endeavoured to take every possible precaution to prevent the recurrence of any of the features which we felt bound to disapprove in connexion with the institution. Instead of leaving the care of the asylum to a sub-committee, the two committees, are now identical, and the supervision devolves upon .the whole executive committee. That committee has been reconstituted, and among other additions I may mention that it now includes the name of the Rev. Dr. N Woolley, inspector of Government schools under the Admiralty, and also that of the Chaplain to the Forces. (Hear, hear.) We have established regular monthly meetings at the asylum, at which all the proceedings are investigated by the committee; and lately we have one a step further and organized inspection, week after week, by individual, members of the committee. (Hear, hear.)
The ladies' committee had unfortunately pledged themselves to resign before the decision of the executive committee had been taken, and thereby cut the ground from under them, and were obliged to carry out their intention. He believed, however, that even these ladies would rejoice to hear that the management of the institution was now placed on a satisfactory basis, and that this had been done without inflicting injustice on two most respectable individuals. The hon. member considered the resignation of Lord Colchester a grave matter, and said that the masters and mistresses now would have the power of using the cane at their uncontrolled discretion. Tlas was not the fact; there was a punishment book, in which all punishments were entered.
The committee adopted a resolution that corporal punishment might be inflicted to the extent of giving three stripes on the hand with a cane, and Lord Colchester thereupon resigned. Last year when the executive committee were investigating these matters, and were engaged in drawing up a new code of rules, they made it their duty to visit three or four of the great public establishments in the neighbourhood of the metropolis in which children of both sexes were brought up. They found that the use of the cane to a limited extent was considered necessary in these schools.
In visiting one of these asylums the first thing that attracted his attention in the board room was the, regulations permitting the infliction of this corporal punishment with the cane. When the House, remembered the class of children in these establishments, and the necessity of prtsersing discipline, they would, he thought, consider that the committee had not acted very far wrong in borrowing this regulation from the large schools near London. "He trusted he had satisfied the lion, member tnati the report of the Ladies' committee had received respectful attention. The whole establishment, had been put on a new footing, and that had been done without making a victim of two persons who did not deserve it.
The executive committee considered it to be their duty to look to the future rather than to the past. They did not shrink from the responsibility of what they had done, and were perfectly willing to submit to any inquiry which Parliament might think It necessary to institute. (Hear, hear),
Mr. KINNAIRD said that the explanation of the right hon. gentleman would give gre t satisfaction after the reports that had been current. The lato Secretary of Stste for War had told him that the report of the Committee of the Patriotic Asylum would be laid before Parliament, but it had notyet been presented. [Sir J. Pakington.-"It will be laidon the table to-night, "] At present no one knew whether the committee were responsible to Parliament or not. An institution containing 30 [??] girls certainly required a ladies' committee.,
Sir T. PAKINGTON said that only seven out of 13 of the ladies' committee resigned. The asylum had never ceased to be superintended by ladies.,
Mr. KINNAIRD was sorry that the right bon. gentleman had justified the use-of the Cane in the girls' school, as he believed that other punishments rmight bea found, and that it was undesirable to give the mistress the power of inflicting personal chastisement upon some unfortunate girl in a moment of anger.,
Mr. BRISCOE was glad that his hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Smith) had brought this subject under the notice of the House. He believed he understood the- ight hon. gentleman to say that the use of the birch was entirely discontinued. [Sir J. Pakington.-" Yes."] He could not think it right that the secretary to the asylum should have the power of sending two girls to be mesmerized, as had been done.,
Mr. CORRY said that a medical officer of experience i now attended the asylum daily, and no cases were treated, except under his direction. The motion was then agreed to...
[PB: "He could not think it right that the secretary to the asylum should have the power of sending two girls to be mesmerized, as had been done."? Who was the secretary? Was this Fishbourne? Where did I read about how they were taken up to town to be mesmerised?]
HOUSE OF LORDS Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum
Volume 171: debated on Friday 5 June 1863
Question
LORD ST. LEONARDS
rose to put a Question to the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies, relative to the Royal Victoria Asylum, Wandsworth. His chief object was, to make a personal explanation in consequence of some observations which had fallen from a right hon. Friend of his (Sir John Pakington) in another place.
For some time considerable difference of opinion had existed with reference to the conduct of the Asylum, and particularly as related to the competency of the lady superintendent and the chaplain. The Ladies' Committee investigated the matter, and elicited certain facts, the result being, that they came to a resolution, declaring that they could not continue to act beneficially to the institution if the lady superintendent and chaplain remained at the head of the establishment. The Executive Committee declined to remove those persons, and in consequence of this decision four of the seven ladies who formed the Ladies' Committee at once resigned. The other three did not resign at the moment, but waited to see whether the Royal Commission would approve of the decision of the Executive Committee; and on finding that they did approve of it, these three ladies, one of whom was his own daughter, also sent in their resignation. At the meeting of the Royal Commissioners, at which it was determined to retain the officials objected to, his noble Friend (Earl Grey) moved a Resolution for their removal; and he (Lord St. Leonards), in supporting that Resolution, expressed himself very warmly on the subject. From the report of his observations, in another place, it would seem as if his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) imputed to him that he had taken that course, and warmly supported his noble Friend's Resolution, because his own daughter was a member of the Ladies' Committee; but if his right hon. Friend had looked into the facts, he would have found that there was no reason for imputing motives to him. He might observe, that of the four ladies who first resigned, three were wives of members of the Executive Committee, and two were also wives of members of the Royal Commission. The husbands of those ladies voted for retaining the officials to whom he had alluded, whereas the ladies themselves resigned because they were retained; so that affection was not allowed to get the better of a sense of duty.
It was only recently his daughter had become a member of the Ladies' Committee; but from the first he had been a Royal Commissioner. He had also been a member of the Executive Committee; and that body having done him the honour of electing him their first Chairman, he had worked for the institution day by day and hour by hour during a period of two years. He had not resigned till every shilling of the vast sums contributed towards the establishment and maintenance of the asylum had been secured and appropriated to its proper purpose. It might interest their Lordships and the public to hear that of the vast sums which had come to the hands of the Royal Commissioners by driblets and in sums of all amounts, from all quarters of the globe, every single shilling had passed through the hands of the Royal Commissioners, without any sum whatever having been spent in entertainments, or in anything that might be called personal expenditure on the part of the Commissioners. The contributions had been advertised as they were received; the money, as it was received, was duly paid into the Bank of England every day; no one was allowed to retain any money whatever, and none was drawn out of the Bank except by cheque signed by the Chairman and two other members of the Committee. He had employed a competent person to trace the various subscriptions: that person found that every shilling that had ever been advertised had passed into the fund, and that there was in the fund a considerable sum over and above the amount that had been advertised as received from subscribers. Great precaution had been used with respect to the opening of letters containing inclosures, and also in respect to the drawing of cheques, so that the Royal Commissioners might confidently assert that their management had been a disinterested one. But their Lordships would remember those painful occurrences in the school which had attracted so large a share of public attention. After the institution was fully established, it was superintended by a Ladies' Committee, and in the course of their supervision they discovered certain proceedings of which they could not approve. A girl died in a solitary room in which she was confined; and another girl was sent to London to be mesmerized; and altogether there was a bad moral tone in the school. These were the circumstances which weighed on his mind, and led him to support the Motion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), and not his affection for the lady who had been, as he thought unnecessarily, alluded to in another place. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) said that at a late meeting of the Royal Commissioners he (Lord St. Leonards), in the most frank spirit, declared that having passed several hours of the previous day in looking over the establishment, he felt bound to state that he had never seen an institution in a more satisfactory condition. That implied that he intended to retract what he said previously, which was certainly not the case. He had never changed his own opinion, though he was willing to yield to that of the majority; In visiting the establishment he found all persons at their posts; the lady superintendent, the chaplain, the schoolmistress, the pupil teachers, and the children, were all busily occupied, and he admired what he saw there as he had done before. His objection was, in fact, not to the routine of the school— that was free from all objection; it was that the heads of the Asylum Had permitted certain acts which had demoralized in some degree the school, and had led to the death of a girl. He was happy to say that in consequence of the course pursued by the Ladies' Committee steps had been taken recently which tended to remove all such objections to the establishment as he had referred to. As the Royal Commissioners had decided on retaining the lady superintendent and the chaplain, he did not desire to say a single word against them. There was one thing, however, of which he thought the Commissioners could not approve; he referred to the fact that a girl sixteen years and seven months old was, for petty theft, aggravated by lying, sent to a private reformatory. He thought no individual had a right to send her to such a place. It appeared that she had borne a good character up to the time of 400committing the offence in question, and that on leaving the reformatory she went to service. In his opinion, it would have been far better had she been punished at the school instead of being stigmatized by being sent to a reformatory.
The Ladies' Committee, of which he had spoken, had now ceased to exist; and believing that the institution could not work well without such a Committee, he wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether any steps were being taken for the formation of a new Ladies' Committee?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
said, he was sure his noble and learned Friend would not expect him to enter into the misunderstanding which seemed to have existed between him and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke upon the subject in the other House of Parliament. But taking an interest in the Commission to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, he had gone very carefully through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and it did not seem to him that there was intended to be or was any aspersion cast upon the motives or the conduct of his noble and learned Friend. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was not a member of the Executive Committee, upon whom devolved all the internal regulations of the Victoria Asylum, but filled the office of chairman of the Patriotic Fund, a post which he had occupied since the death of the lamented Prince Consort. He could not therefore reply authoritatively to the questions addressed to him, but would give such information as had reached him. His noble and learned Friend's Question inferred that no steps had been taken to re-constitute the Committee of Ladies. The phrase used by the noble and learned Lord was likely to mislead. The Committee of Ladies had consisted of twelve ladies—seven of whom had resigned and five remained. He believed that those five ladies had not since met as a committee, but an arrangement was made among themselves individually to visit the asylum, and he believed they had done so. His noble and learned Friend shook his head, but that showed the mistake in putting the Question to himself, as it was clear the noble and learned Lord knew better than he did. He was informed that one of the five ladies had recently been compelled to leave this country in consequence of her husband being ordered on service abroad, and a proposal had been made to nominate another lady in her place, and he also understood that the Executive 401Committee at their next meeting on Tuesday intended to consider what steps should be taken with a view to increase the Ladies Committee. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would be satisfied to learn, that if not technically, at least practically, the Committee had continued to exist, and that steps would be taken to increase the number of its members.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.
[Hansard: Link.]
Royal Patriotic Asylum
The condition of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum was brought under the notice the House by Mr. J.A. SMITH.
From his statements it seems that there had been great want of discipline in the schools; that a girl sixteen years of age had been flogged with a birch-rod by order of the chaplain; that another girl had been imprisoned for two days by order of the chaplain, and had been burnt to death during her imprisonment; and that the majority of the ladies committee had resigned in consequence of their suggestions not being carried out.
Sir J. PAKINGTON defended, or rather apologised for the schools. He admitted that the facts stated by Mr. Smith were for the most part correct, but said that the institution was now being much better managed.
[BNA: Link.]
Find Hansard report of JA Smith's speech?
[CHARLOTTE BENNETT]
CATHERINE BENNETT & CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
[NB — Pakington not Packington]
ROYAL VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. If it had not been from the very formal manner in which this subject was introduced to the attention of the House of Commons by Mr. J.A. Smith, and the delicate way in which Sir J. Packington was compelled to admit the soft impeachment, it would have been scarcely possible for us to believe that the rod was used at any of our public educational establishments as a means of correction; and the disclosures which have now been made in reference to the treatment of offenders, at the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, are of that revolting nature, that will compel many of our readers to question the efficiency and competency of those parties entrusted with its management.
According to the statement of Mr. Smith, it appears that on one occasion a girl named Bennett, for some act of insubordination, had been subjected, by the express directions of the chaplain, to two days' solitary confinement, being released at night for the purpose of going to bed, but on the second day when her food was being conveyed to her, she was found to be burnt to death.
On another occasion, also by the express order of the chaplain, a girl of sixteen years of age was flogged in that establishment, with a birch, and in addition to these things, it was found that a general system of theft and dishonesty pervaded the establishment, and the consequence was that the Executive Committee appointed a Ladies' Committee for the purpose of enquiring into the case, management, and direction of the School.
That Committee met, and having thoroughly investigated all matters, came to the conclusion, that the state of moral discipline in the school was most unfortunate, and in their report, insisted upon the dismissal of the Lady Superintendent and the Chaplain, who had sanctioned and earned out such disgraceful proceedings as flogging girls of sixteen years of age.
The Executive Committee, in considering the report of the Ladies Committee, adopted many of their valuable suggestions, but refused to dismiss the officials complained of — in fact their offences were condoned, and the blame was shifted from their shoulders to Captain Fishbourne, who claims the merit of hon. secretary, with a salary of £700 a year.
The contemptuous manner in which the Ladies' report was received by the Executive Committee, gave great offence — as well it might — to those who had devoted so many patient hours to arrive at a just conclusion, and seven out of the thirteen members of the Ladies' Committee felt it incumbent upon themselves to resign.
The next step was to present a report, embracing these proceedings to a meeting of the Royal Commission, at which Earl Grey and Lord St. Leonards disapproved of the decision, at which the Executive Committee had arrived, and moved the dismissal of the Chaplain and Lady Superintendent, but were outvoted by majority of eight, and Lord Colchester, has since resigned his position as Chairman of the Executive Committee, in consequence of a unanimous vote of that Committee sanctioning punishment with the cane the school mistress, at her uncontrolled discretion.
These were the matters brought before the House, and Sir J. Packington who holds a seat in the Executive Committee, though he strove hard to explain them a way, and shift them from the Chaplain and the Lady Superintendent, was obliged to admit that the whole statement was true.
The Chaplain had ordered one girl to solitary confinement and another girl of sixteen years to be indecently flogged with a rod; the Ladies' Committee had investigated these cases, found them strictly true, and insisted upon the dismissal of the offenders. The Executive Committee, however, condoned the offences, and throw their shield of protection over the Chaplain, seven of the Ladies' Committee resign, and subsequently Lord Colchester, on the persistence of the Executive Committee to retain the system of corporal punishment.
Were the Patriotic Asylum a private institution, there would not be wanting pens to denounce the attempt to revive the rod and the cane in girls schools; but as a public educational institute, founded by public generosity, and intended to send out into the world women of moral character, it becomes the duty of the journalist to denounce in the severest terms the degrading discipline pursued at the Victoria Asylum.
To birch girls, or rather young women, on the bare person, may do for a Haynau or in Austria but is disgusting to our enlightened notions of morals and of decency; and we unhesitatingly say, that the clergyman who could order such a revolting punishment is not only morally unfit to hold his situation at the Asylum, but ought no longer to be considered qualified to wear his gown as a minister. If this be the way he would correct little acts of insubordination, we would give him very little credit for the morals of his pupils.
In insisting upon his dismissal, the Ladies Committee acted as became their sex; and finding their request was not listened to, they could not with any sense of delicacy or refinement hold their seals [seats?] in the Committee; and we feel pained to think that Sir J. Packington, who has ever been regarded as an educational philanthropist, should have allowed himself to be so deceited and blinded as to plead the cause of a chaplain guilty of such shocking depravity. But these disclosures will not have been revealed in vain and have no doubt the Press and public will take the matter with earnestness.
[BNA: Link.]
[BNA: Link.]
Fishbourne — was this Edmund Gardiner Fishbourne R.N.?
(He who seems to have spent much of his life pondering ship design.)
[PDavis: Link.]
See
[BNA: Link.]
[Hansard: Royal Patriotic Fund — Case Of The Girl Bennett — Question
Changing membership of the Ladies' Committee?
Who was the Chaplain?
[I recall a story about Chaplain? or Secretary? or similar who used to take girls up to London to be mesmerised. More info? There's a reference in the 2 June Times report, isn't there?]
NB See also
[TNA: Link.]>/p>
[LAMAS: Link.]
[Trove: Link.]
Often called simply the "Patriotic Asylum" not the RVPA
e.g. "London Evening Standard — Monday 11 March 1861"
"The Queen and Prince visited the Patriotic Asylum for the Orphan Daughters of Soldiers, Seamen, Wandsworth, and Marines, at Wandsworth."
[BNA: Link.]
NB Catholics appalled
[BNA: Link.]
ROYAL VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM. Mr. TORRENS asked Colonel Wilson Patten whether there were any vacancies in the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum at Wandsworth; if so, what number; and further, could he state whether it was the rule or intention to fill up any vacancies in the asylum solely with children of soldiers who dies in the Crimea, to the exclusion of the children of soldiers those who, having served in the Crimea, have since died on service with their regiments in India or elsewhere.
Colonel W. PATTEN said the vacancies were gradually being filled up, and the number would very soon amount to 300. The commission was originated for benefit of the children of soldiers who had been wounded or who had died from disease during the Russian war, and they would have the first claim upon attention.
[BNA: Link.]
THE PATRIOTIC FUND In the House of Commons on Monday evening, Mr. J. A. Smith asked the Under Secretary for War whether his attention had been drawn to the report of the Patriotic Fund, and the causes of the resignation of the majority of the members of the ladies’ committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum appointed in January, 1862; and also drew attention to an admission of the late Sir George Lewis, that a girl of sixteen years of age had been flogged in that establishment by the lady superintendent by direction of the chaplain ; that the conduct of the officials who had committed this act was condoned by the executive committee ; and inquired what steps had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices.
The Marquis of Hartington said that the management of the Patriotic Fand was in no way under the control of the War Department ; but he could say that the proceedings in question had been inquired into by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund.
Sir J. Pakington, as one of the commissioners, explained that they did not approve of some of the proceedings in the school in question, but they were of opinion that anything which had occurred was attributable to other persons than the lady superintendent and the chaplain.
The executive committee, on a report from the ladies’ committee, had corrected most of the objections which had been brought before them, but some of the ladies refused to act unless the lady superintendent and chaplain were dismissed, and that course was declined, although «# full investigation was made, and the punishment of the girl in question condemned by the committee. The executive government of the asylum had been remodelled, and a careful system of inspection established.
[BNA: Link.]<
THE VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM. On Monday evening the House of Commons discussed at some length the affairs of the "Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum." Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH, by whom the question was brought forward, is a man most honourably distinguished for his personal and individual exertions in every matter of humanity. Not content with merely taking the lead where popularity may be gained, he is in the habit of personally seeking out and visiting the poor and suffering, and devoting to their relief his time, his money, and his exertions. Any charitable question brought forward by such a man deserves attention.
The substance of his complaint is that this institution (built as a place of education for the orphan daughters of soldiers who died in the Crimean war, out of the funds freely contributed by the public) has been very grossly and shamefully mismanaged. When attention was first directed to this mismanagement, a committee of thirteen ladies was appointed to examine into the facts. These ladies, after a very careful examination, reported that the "Lady Superintendent" and the Chaplain were responsible for the abuses existing, and should immediately be removed.
This the Executive Committee refused. The ground of their refusal is important. They do not deny the gross and scandalous abuses which had systematically prevailed in the institution; but they say that the Chaplain and "Lady Superintendent" were not fairly responsible for them, because, to quote the words of Mr. J. A. SMITH, "They had in all cases acted under the authority or with the sanction of the senior honorary secretary, Captain Fishbourne, to whom, as stated in writing by the Chaplain, 'everything that happened or was done of the most trivial description was made known, as their only means of communicating with their rulers, and whose decision was considered by them to be final and his arrangements indisputable, whether according to their views or not.' From that he inferred that the Executive Committee were of opinion that the real responsibility for all the acts to which he had alluded rested with Captain Fishbourne, and therefore declined to dismiss the subordinate officers. That, he must confess, he thought a very excellent reason, at events, why the conduct of Captain Fishbourne should not paw unnoticed. That gentleman occupied a very singular and anomalous position. He was called honorary secretary, but be, nevertheless, received, he believed, no less a sum than £7OO a year in the shape of salary." Nothing, surely, can be simpler than this. Moreover, on this very ground of the sole responsibility of Captain FISHBOURNE, the a Executive Committee" of the Patriotic Fund refused to dismiss the Chaplain and the Lady Superintendent. Now, who constituted this Executive Committee Their names ac given by Sir PAKINGTON. They are: Lord COLCHESTER, in the chair, General LINDSAY, Sir J. PAKINGTON, Colonel ADAIR, Rey. F. C. and Captain Fishbourne. It appears, then, that the sole responsibility of Captain is accepted as the just and sufficient defence of his subordinate authorities by a committee of six highly respectable persons, one of whom is Captain FISHBOURNE himself. The next step was that a report to this effect was made by the "Executive Committee" to the "Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund." These " Commissioners " are some fifty or sixty of the first men in the State; and, in order to secure just and fair treatment to the children of Catholic soldiers, one of them, Mr. JOHN BALI., is a Catholic; care being taken, however, that that one Catholic member of the Commission should not be a member of the "Executive Committee," by whom alone, ifj by any body at all, the real superintendence of the management was to be executed. Accordingly, when the report of the "Executive Committee" came to be considered by the great body of the "Commissioners," there were present exactly ten Commissioners. Of these ten, three—that is, Earl GREY, Earl NELSON, and Lord St. LEONARDS—voted for a resolution setting aside the determination of the committee, and declaring that the Chaplain and the Lady Superintendent ought to have been dismissed. Seven Commissioners (whose names are not given by Sir JOHN PAKINGTON) voted the other way. The only question seems to have been, not whether the conduct of the parties inculpated had been scandalous—so far, there appears to have been no difference of opinion among any of those who have ever inquired into the case—but only whether the responsibility of Captain FISHBOURNE (which no one questions) ought to relieve them of any responsibility in the case. Before ending our statement, we have only to add two facts—first, that out of the thirteen ladies who inquired into the case, seven resigned, avowedly on the ground that they were hopeless of being able to do any good, without the dismissal of the Chaplain and the Lady Superintendent; the other that Sir JOHN PAKINGTON states that great reforms have since been introduced into the institution, and that "ten days • or a fortnight ago Lord St. LEONARDS visited "it, and in the most frank spirit declared that, "after the part he took a year ago, he felt bound "to state that he had never seen greater provements effected in the time, or a public "institution in a more satisfactory state." As far as appears, the matter rests thus. Now, there is only one point to which we desire to call attention. The managers of this institution go unpunished for abuses of the most monstrous nature, avowedly on the ground that the responsibility lies, not upon them, but upon Captain Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH says:—" That is a very excellent reason, at all "events, why the conduct of Captain "should not pass unnoticed." He goes on to point out that Captain FISHBOURNE, though calling himself "Honorary Secretary," receives out of the subscriptions given by men of all classes and all religions (that is by us) towards the relief of the Crimean orphans, no less than seven hundred pounds a-year. Yet, so far as appears, no "inquiry into the "conduct of Captain FISHBOURNE " has ever taken place. His subordinates are left unpunished, for the most flagitious conduct, solely on the ground that the whole responsibility lies upon him, not upon them; and then he is allowed to retain not merely his "Honorary Secretaryship," with its salary of £7OO per annum; but (what is of far greater consequence), the management (practically uncontrolled and without responsibilitv) of the immense sum of money which we gave for the relief of the Crimean widows and orphans; and (what is far more important still) the influence and power which the management of that money gives him over hundreds of unprotected widows and thousands of children.
One thing has been proved: fully half of the men who sacrificed their lives in the Crimea were Catholics. The absolute and uncontrolled management of the fund for the relief of their widows and orphans was entrusted to Captain FISHBOURNE, an Irish Protestant of that extreme school to which (lot us say in passing) not a few of our Catholic brethren are just now amiably desirous of committing the whole Government of Ireland. Even so, however, there will be some check in publicity, and what these men do will be more or less revised by the electors of Ireland, at least when the next general election takes place. But over Captain FISHBOURNE, as the case before us proves, there is practically no check at all. Some years ago we devoted a great deal of attention to his conduct, and we take it upon us to say that the facts which we then published clearly prove that Captain FISHBOURNE habitually and systematically used his influence for proselytism. In most cases this was only too easy. He had to do with a large number of poor, frightened, half-starving widows, and the degree of relief to be given to each must necessarily depend in a very great degree upon the discretion of thoae by whom it was administered—that is, practically on his own discretion. He had to settle also in each case whether their character deprived them of all right to relief. We can say, from our own personal examination, that one impression universally prevailed among all the Soldiers'
widows, whether Catholic or Protestant. That impression was, that if any widow would allow Captain to educate her children as Protestants, she would meet with all possible favour, and that if any widow insisted, on whatever grounds, on her child being educated a Catholic, one excuse or other would be found for depriving her of the benefit of the Fund. Of course it wa-s quite enough that such an impression should exist among the people concerned. It would equally effect the desired object, whether it were well founded or not. We are bound to add, however, that we believe the opinion was practically well founded, and also that, although, as a general rule, it was perfectly easy to use the Fund for proselytising purposes without ostensibly breaking any rule, yet there were cases in which, by his own showing, Captain FISHBOURNE did violate for that purpose rules which he acknowledged to be binding. For instance, at a time (before the case of RACE) when he professed to believe that he was bound by law to see that every child was educated in the religion of its deceased father, even if the wishes of its surviving mother were the other way, he gave directions to his agents in the neighbourhood of Dublin to educate as a Protestant a child named NORRIS immediately after those very subordinates had reported to him that both its parents were Catholics. It may be said that this was a single case. No doubt it was, and so in the nature of things must each:case be. The question is whether a man who (on his own showing) had thus flagrantly violated the rules by which he acknowledged himself to be bound, in order to proselytise one child, is fit to be trusted with unchecked power over thousands of other cases, the particulars of which will never be known. Be it remembered it was only by accident, in consequence of the publication (for another purpose) of the whole correspondence relating to the NORRIS family, that this flagrant case came out. We have no doubt that there were hundreds of similar cases, and that this case differed from the rest only in that the particulars accidentally came out on Captain FISHBOURNE'S own authority. _ One thing is clear, that if there was any real desire to do justice to the families of Catholic soldiers, the only way to manage it would have been to have, at least, two men constantly on the spot, to one of whom the management of Catholic children should be left, to the other the management of Protestant children. Instead of this, the whole management of all, Catholic and Protestant alike, was committed, virtually without any control, to Captain FIEMBOURNE—a Protestant of the extreme proselytising school. We sincerely believe that he was desirous of the good of the children • but we equally believe that, in his opinion, the good of a Catholic child is to be effected solely by making it a Protestant; and that he is utterly unscrupulous about the means employed to effect so good an end. We are far from thinking that this subject unconnected with the abuses pointed out by Mr. J. A. SMITH, and of which the whole practical responsibility fell confessedly upon Captain FISHBOURNE. No man can divert his attention equally to all points at once; and we believe that Captain FISHBOURNE was too eagerly intent on the great and fundamental object of proselytism, to attend much to minor points of the morals and discipline of the school. For example, we should like to ask what care was taken to provide for the religious education of the children of Catholic soldiers in this same "Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum I" We have good reason to believe that at least one-half of the children at this moment in that asylnm are the children of Catholic soldiers, and we also believe that the means nominally intended for their religious education in their own religion are merely nugatory. It appears, among other things, that the Protestant chaplain has been allowed to have them flogged, even between 15 and 16, at his own discretion. We much more than suspect that this very state of things would, in Captain FISHBOURNE'S opinion, "cover a "multitude of sine' in the institution and its governors. It is worth mention that one young person, whose treatment is admitted to have been scandalous, was named BENNETT. Now, the family of Sergeant BENNETT was one of those which Captain was accused of proselytising by very shameful means, and whose case was brought before the House of Lords by the late Duke of Was this poor girl one of his children I We therefore repeat the demand made by Mr. J. ABEL The Chaplain and the "Lady Superintendent" are acquitted, not because the flagrant nature of their conduct is denied, but bolely because the responsibility of it lies not with them, but with Captain FISHBOURNE. That he is chiefly responsible all parties agree; although the Earls GREY and NELSON, and Lord ST. LEONARDS, and seven out of the thirteen ladies who examined into the case, are of that his admitted responsibility did not avail to justify them. We say then, with Mr. J. A. SMITH, "let us have an investigation into the conduct "of Captain FISHBOURNE."
[BNA: Link.]
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. HOUSE OF COMMONS
THIS DAY
NOTICES OF MOTIONS W. FORSTER — To ask Sir John Pakington whether, s of the six ladies now forming the Ladies' Committee of the a Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, one is the wife of the chaplain of the asylum, two are the wives of the two secretaries of the Patriotic Fund, and one is at presentin Canada.
[BNA: Link.]
Back to the top of this page . . .