MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the question of which he had given notice, and which he had postponed on the previous 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 Charter for the management and conduct of the Patriotic Fund, had applied a portion of the funds furnished by the generosity of the nation to the establishment of two schools, a boys' school and a girls' school, and the sum devoted to the establishment of the girls' school was ample, being no less than £203,000. The girls' school, to which alone he need direct attention, was called the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, and was opened in 1859 with a limited number of inmates, which had been increased to 268, and was intended, and perhaps had been increased to 300. The school was at Wandsworth, and a girl named Bennett was subjected to solitary confinement for two days for some act of insubordination by the express direction of the chaplain. She was locked up for two days, being released at night to go to bed, and at half past eight in the evening of the same day, when another girl went to visit her, to take her food and to release her for the purpose of going to bed, she was found burnt to death. She was the daughter of a soldier, but not a pupil. She was too old to be admitted as a pupil, but she was admitted as a servant, for the purpose of instruction in domestic duties, and, he believed, received no wages. It was quite clear that she was a servant, and not a pupil, and he believed the chaplain had no more right to subject her to solitary confinement than to shut up an hon. Member of that House. An inquest was held, and a verdict was returned of accidental death. Having had communication with several members of the jury, he found that they entertained at the time the strongest feeling of dissatisfaction at the way in which the inquest was held. They complained very strongly of the limited nature of the inquiry, the evidence which was supplied being meagre and scanty, and still more of the absence of all investigation as to the person responsible for the most lamentable event which they had to inquire into. They had, never the less, appended no observations to their verdict, which was very strongly con- 193 demned by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. As he would have, before he sat down, to say something of the conduct of the lady superintendent, he thought it but right to mention that she was not at Wandsworth at the time of the occurrence of the accident to which he was referring, and that she had nothing to do with it. Two schoolmistresses had also been subsequently dismissed for alleged misconduct or neglect on that occasion. In consequence of the accident, the attention of the Executive Committee was drawn more closely to the management of the school, and they, after some deliberation, determined to appoint a Ladies' Committee to assist them in its care and direction. A committee of thirteen ladies was accordingly appointed, and they, having applied themselves with great zeal to an investigation of the state of affairs, arrived at the conclusion very soon that the morals and discipline of the school were in a most unfortunate condition, and that its past management had been marked by grave and serious neglect. They found, among other things, that a girl who was within two months of having completed her sixteenth year had been flogged with a birch rod by the lady superintendent under the express directions of the chaplain, the servants of the establishment refusing to inflict the punishment. They found that the school was pervaded by a general system of thieving and dishonesty, that no steps had been taken to put a stop to those unfortunate practices, or to point out to the children the consequences resulting from them They further found that on one occasion two girls had been sent alone to London by order of the honorary secretary—Captain Fishbourne—to be mesmerized. Another point which attracted their attention was that the girls in the school were allowed to go out with one of the servants of the establishment to visit the adjoining town of Wandsworth without any proper control. As a result to be expected, it was found that the conduct of those girls who quitted the asylum for the purpose of going into domestic service had been very far from satisfactory. The Ladies' Committee reported to the Executive Committee, by whom they had been appointed, that being convinced that the institution had been entirely mismanaged, they could not continue to act with the parties to whom the Executive Committee had hitherto intrusted the local management; that the chaplain had assumed powers not autho- 194 rized by the Executive Committee—that his punishments had been severe and totally unsuitable and revolting, especially in a girls' school; that the lady superintendent was unequal to the control of such an establishment, as not possessing sufficient judgment of her own, and as having consented to follow unauthorized orders which she herself felt to be objectionable. The Ladies' Committee embodied in their report various other suggestions, but the Executive, while giving to these suggestions a respectful consideration, positively refused to dismiss the chaplain or the lady superintendent. They said the mode of inflicting these punishments and other circumstances in the conduct of the institution were disapproved by the Committee; but it was stated by the lady superintendent and the chaplain that 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 (Mr. J. A. Smith) 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 not upon the chaplain and lady superintendent, and therefore declined to dismiss the subordinate officers. That, he must confess, he thought a very excellent reason for relieving Captain Fishbourne also from the duties he was unequal to, but not at all a sufficient reason for continuing in the confidence of the Committee persons who so little deserved that confidence. Captain Fishbourne occupied a very singular and anomalous position. He was called honorary secretary, but he nevertheless received, he believed, no less a sum than £700 a year in the shape of salary. Before, however, he proceeded further, he must, in fairness to the Executive Committee, state that their determination not to discharge the chaplain or the lady superintendent had subsequently been confirmed by the Royal Commissioners. That being so, the Ladies' Committee again met, and out of the thirteen members of which it was composed seven resigned, and agreed to a resolution to the following effect:—Under these circumstances, feeling ourselves utterly powerless to accomplish any good, and hope- 195 less of obtaining redress for any abuses we might hereafter detect in the establishment, we find ourselves under the necessity of declining any longer to sanction with our names a system of management of which we so entirely disapprove, and which cannot, in our opinion, either honestly and faithfully carry out the benevolent intentions of the Victoria Patriotic Asylum or do justice to the munificent contributions of the nation towards the orphans of its Crimean heroes, and we have therefore to request the Executive Committee to have the goodness to erase our names from the list of the Ladies' Committee.Such were the facts to which he deemed it to be his duty to call the attention of the House, and which he thought were amply sufficient to justify his Question. But some other circumstances had, within the last few weeks, taken place, which he thought justified him in saying that the management of the school was still open to grave and serious objection. Lord Colchester had, ever since the appointment of the Executive Committee, been its chairman. Very recently his Lordship addressed to the Luke of Newcastle, the President of the Commission, a letter resigning that office, and stating as his reason that the Executive Committee had come to a unanimous vote sanctioning punishment with the cane by the schoolmistresses at their uncontrolled discretion, and without reference either to the chaplain or the lady superintendent. He (Mr. J. A. Smith) hoped that he had not used, he was sure he did not mean to use, a single word disparaging to the character or the motives of the honourable, excellent, and distinguished men to whom the Queen had intrusted the management of the Patriotic Fund. He had meant and did mean, to express a very grave and serious doubt whether the persons whom the Executive Committee had honoured with their confidence had discharged their duties in a manner which was creditable to themselves, or conducive to the good working of the establishment committed to their charge; and as the Secretary of State for War was, in the eyes of the public, the natural friend of the soldier's child, he ventured to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary 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 196 who had committed this act was condoned by the Executive Committee; and to inquire what step have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that as the Question had been addressed to himself, he felt it necessary to inform the House that the management of the Patriotic Fund was in no way under the control of the War Department. It was true that the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis did in the last Session reply to a Question almost precisely similar to that asked by the hon. Member for Chichester; but on a subsequent evening, in explaining the answer which he then gave, he distinctly stated that he was in no way officially responsible for the management of the school. It was perfectly possible, that as the hon. Gentleman had said, the public looked to the War Office for the protection of the soldier's children; but as the Secretary of State had no power whatever to interfere with the management of the establishment, it would be unreasonable to expect him to assume any responsibility with regard to it. Following the example of the late Sir George Cornwall Lewis, however, he might, while disclaiming any obligation to answer the Question, state that his attention had been drawn to the Report of the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and to the case of flogging which had been mentioned; that it had been inquired into as stated by the Executive Committee, whose decision was disapproved of by the Ladies' Committee; and that subsequently the proceedings of the Executive Committee were brought under the notice of the Commissioners, who declined to interfere. He was glad to see in his place the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwih (Sir John Pakington) who as both one of the Royal Commissioners and a Member of the Executive Committee would, he was sure, be ready to give any explanations which might be necessary.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, the answer of the noble Lord is that which I expected he would give; and as he has alluded to the fact that I have the honour of being both one of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and also a member of the Executive Committee, I trust that the House will permit me to offer an explanation which I sanguinely hope will be satisfactory both to the House and to the hon. Member for Chichester. I intimated the other night, and I must now repeat, that I think the Executive Com- 197 mittee have very considerable reason to complain of the unusual shape of the hon. Gentleman's Question. I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years, and I cannot suppose that he intended anything unfair; but it is the feeling of the Executive Committee, in which I share, that he has shaped his Question so as to bring into undue prominence certain particulars in a manner quite inconsistent with the usual Parliamentary form, and which, had I not known the hon. Gentleman as well as I do, would have led me to believe that it was intended to create in the minds of hon. Members a premature prejudice against the Executive Committee, who have acted in this manner under grave responsibility. At the same time, I am willing to admit that I can take no exception to the tone of the statement which the hon. Gentleman has now made. I wish that he had from the first confined himself to the legitimate course which he has now adopted—namely, that of stating openly and frankly in his place in Parliament that he thinks the management of the establishment has been open to objection, and allowing those who are responsible to offer their explanation equally publicly. The Question alludes in very prominent terms to the flogging, as the hon. Member calls it, of a girl of sixteen. The hon. Gentleman has just stated that she was not sixteen. She was a girl in her sixteenth 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 a moment vindicate that proceeding. 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, and who are not referred to in the Question, I am bound to state, that for the irregularities to which I 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 both these persons are, 198 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 in the hands of 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 I 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 simple verdict of "accidental death," and I believe that no verdict was ever more thoroughly justified by the facts; but the hon. Gentleman has told us that he 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 upon the inquest. 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, 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. 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—namely, the lady superintendent and the chaplain; and he has told us, in speaking of this melancholy event, that when it occurred the lady superintendent 199 was far away from the building, and that her two schoolmistresses, 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. I 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 thirteen 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 first 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, or in 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 replied with a promise to institute a searching investigation into every complaint made by the Ladies' Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite admitted that the Executive Committee did correct by far the greater number of points objected to by the Ladies' Committee, and those corrections were amply acknowledged by them. But I 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 both injudicious and unfortunate. The majority of the ladies forwarded a communication stating that they would not continue to act unless we 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 200 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 dictate. I hope the House will not suppose that the Executive Committee hesitated which course to adopt. Our investigation of the circumstances occupied a considerable time, although no pains were spared to arrive at a just and 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 now 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 John Pakington, Colonel Adair, Rev. F. C. Cook, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and Captain Fishbourne. On the 28th of May another meeting of the Executive Committee was held, and was more fully attended, nine gentlemen being present on that occasion. These were Lord Colchester, as before, in the chair, Sir John Pakington, General Lindsay, Sir Alexander Spearman, Mr. Thomas 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 named, 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 201 more unanimously persuaded of the justice of the course they took. The next step was to present a report, embracing the whole of 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 fully considered by the Royal Commissioners present, only two of whom supported it, a majority of seven voting for its rejection. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire accidentally left the room, and was not present at the division, but came in immediately afterwards, and expressed his great regret that he 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 Earl Nelson and Lord St. Leonards. The opinion of Lord St. Leonards, 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 ten days or a fortnight ago, which Lord St. Leonards 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, he 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. It only remains for me now to answer the latter part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I can 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 connection 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 re-constituted, and among other additions I may mention that it now includes the names of the Rev. Dr. Woolley, inspector of Government schools under the Admiralty, and also that of the Chaplain 202 General to the Forces. We have established regular monthly meetings at the asylum, at which all the proceedings are investigated by the Committee, and lately we have gone a step further and organized a regular inspection, week after week, by individual members of the Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will admit that in taking these steps we have shown our anxiety to place, as far as we can, the management of this great establishment in a satisfactory position. The Ladies' Committee, unfortunately, pledged themselves to resign before the decision of the Executive Committee was taken, and thereby cut the ground from under them, and were obliged to carry out their intention. I believe, however, that even these ladies will rejoice to hear that the management of the institution is now placed on a satisfactory basis, and that this has been done without inflicting injustice or casting a stigma on two most respectable individuals. The hon. Member has stated that he considers the resignation of Lord Colchester a grave matter, and has said that the masters and mistresses now will have the power of using the cane at their uncontrolled discretion This is not the fact; there is a punishment book in which all punishments are entered. The Committee have adopted a resolution that corporal punishment may be inflicted to the extent of giving three stripes on the hand with a cane, and it was on the adoption of that resolution that Lord Colchester 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 lour of the great public establishments in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, in which children of both sexes are brought up. Notwithstanding a strong assertion to the contrary, they found that the use of the cane to a limited extent is considered necessary in these schools. In visiting one of these asylums, the first thing that attracted my attention in the board room was the regulations permitting the infliction of this corporal punishment with the cane. When the House remembers the class of children in these establishments, and the necessity of preserving discipline, they will, I think, consider that the Committee have not acted very far wrong in borrowing this regulation from the large schools near London. I trust I have satisfied the hon. Member that the report of the Ladies' Committee has re- 203 ceived respectful attention. The whole establishment has been put on a new footing, and that has been done without making a victim of two persons who did not deserve it. The Executive Committee consider it to be their duty to look to the future rather than to the past. I may add, in conclusion, that the Executive Committee do not shrink from the responsibility of what they have done, and are perfectly willing to submit to any inquiry which Parliament may think it necessary to institute.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman would give great satisfaction, after the reports that had been current. The late Secretary of State for War had told him that the Report of the Committee of the Patriotic Asylum would be laid before Parliament, but it had not yet been presented. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: It will be laid on the table to-night.] At present no one knew whether the Committee were responsible to Parliament or not. An institution containing three hundred girls certainly required a ladies' committee, and he wished to know whether all the ladies had resigned.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that only seven out of thirteen of the Ladies' Committee resigned. The asylum had never ceased to be superintended by ladies.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had justified the use of the cane in the girl's school, as he believed that other punishments might be 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. BRISCOEsaid, the House and the country were greatly indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward the subject. He believed he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the use of the birch would be entirely discontinued in the school. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Oh, yes.] He disapproved of such a mode of punishment, and was glad to hear that it would no longer be practised. He hoped, that under the new arrangement, such a thing could not occur again as a girl being sent without medical advice up to London to be mesmerized. He should like to have heard that there existed a committee of ladies to superintend the management of these poor orphan girls.
MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to supplement the explanation of the right hon. 204 Baronet (Sir John Pakington) by stating that a medical officer of experience had been attached to the establishment, which he visited every day in the week. No case could be treated without his positive order; and therefore sending two girls to be mesmerized could not take place under the existing regulations.