3 k 2, , ^ 
 )< 5 % ' 4 * 
 
 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 “ My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled: 
 and at last I spake with my tongue.” — P salm xxxix. 3. 
 
 “ Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and 
 needy.’’ — P roverbs xxxi. 9. 
 
 People who have an indifferent or a weak cause to support, 
 endeavour to catch at anything to uphold and to improve their 
 position, they often also attempt to lessen the force of the 
 complaints made against them by attributing various false motives 
 to their opponents : and thus it is with many of those who 
 take the part of the Trustees of the Molyneux Asylum. It has 
 been sometimes said, “ If reform was needed, what occasion was 
 there for bringing all such matters in print before the public — 
 would it not have been more Christianlike and considerate if Mr. 
 Allnutt had, in the first instance, privately seen and remonstrated 
 with the Trustees? The subject would then have been looked into 
 and amended. We reply, this was tried, and tried in vain, and it 
 was only when there appeared no prospect of reform that the 
 Address was published — nay, further, the abuses which have now 
 become so patent would not have been so widely known, had the. 
 Trustees bestirred themselves after the issue of the Address. 
 Had they then met and acted according to the trust deed, the re- 
 form could have been effected by them without such painful dis- 
 closures, but it appears that after being torpid for so many years 
 it required no slight amount of time to rouse themselves. Mr. 
 Bickerstaff (a young Trustee, as he calls himself) told Mr. Allnutt 
 (see page 54) that he also had suggested reforms, but was always 
 pvt down ; and he added that it was entirely owing to his efforts 
 that a Report was printed after years of silence. What could 
 Mr. Allnutt have flattered himself to effect if a Trustee could 
 do nothing ? Therefore, should any suppose that no efforts were 
 made quietly and in a most friendly spirit in the first instance, 
 they are greatly mistaken ; that this was done will appear evident 
 from the following copy of a letter forwarded to Mr. Ferrier (the 
 then leading Trustee), some time in the spring of 1854, when this 
 gentleman was on a visit in Dublin : — 
 
 [Written about April or May, 1854.] 
 
 Sir, — I am anxious to write to you on the subject of the Molyneux Asylum 
 for Blind Females, as I believe you are the leading Trustee. I trust you will 
 not disregard this communication merely on account of its emanating from a 
 
 E erson of no influence, for I can assure you there are many gentlemen of the 
 ighest respectability who entirely coincide with the views I entertain, but 
 they have not time to trouble themselves on the subject. 
 
 a2 
 
 41)4110 
 
4 
 
 It is a matter of complaint that no accounts or reports are published of the 
 state of the Funds and Institution generally. It is true we could see the 
 accounts by calling on Mr. Harris, but it is not to be expected that people 
 will go out of their way to look at accounts; still every subscriber should have 
 laid before him some account of the expenditure, and it is pleasing and satis- 
 factory to have an annual statement. 
 
 These Reports were formerly printed, for I have one showing the expen- 
 diture in 1827-28-29. We hear that the funds are very much decreasing ; this 
 cannot be a matter of surprise whilst the affairs of the Institution are kept so 
 close. You have only about 250 subscribers, assuredly this number could be 
 doubled if more active steps were taken. 
 
 Then again, is it not to be deplored that so excellent an Institution does 
 not advance. I find that in the Report I have alluded to, in 1829 the number 
 of the inmates was 27, and now you have but 29. Last year there were about 
 42 poor applicants, and only two could be elected, and this year it seems doubt- 
 ful if the funds will admit of the entrance of one poor woman. Surely such 
 a state of things cannot be satisfactory to the Trustees. Your Institution 
 cannot be prosperous until more energy is shown — it exists, but is not thriving 
 by any means. I have before me the Report for the Glasgow Blind Institution. 
 There cannot be a greater contrast between the working of that Institution 
 and the Molyneux. In the former the poor people are taught a variety of 
 employments, especially that of reading. It is scarcely to be credited that 
 the younger girls at least are not taught to read in your Asylum. They do 
 nothing but knit from day to day. I could say very much more but I refrain. 
 However I trust that what I have written may have some little effect. If the 
 Trustees desire the Institution to prosper and be a credit to Dublin they 
 should have an Annual General Meeting, and form a Managing Committee of 
 such active, respectable men as Mr. Cathcart, Mr. Sutton, Dr. Ireland, Dr. 
 Bigger, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Gallie, Mr. Parker, &c., and there should be an 
 active and zealous Hon. Secretary ; for Mr. Fleury, having his school to 
 attend to, really cannot afford to devote more time than he at present gives 
 to the Asylum. 
 
 I could mention many other things — such as the greater prospect of having 
 bequests and donations if your annual reports were well circulated. I do 
 earnestly hope you will take some steps in the matter. 
 
 I am, dear sir, yours truly, Henry Allnutt. 
 
 Mr. Allnutt was favoured with no reply to this communication, 
 but the only notice taken of it was exhibited in the following 
 manner : — 
 
 It has been the custom from the very foundation of the Asylum 
 that the inmates occasionally visit their friends. It was never in- 
 tended by its founders that the Asylum should become a prison. 
 It was, we say, always usual in the Molyneux Asylum (and it is 
 also the practice of other similar institutions) for the inmates to 
 go and see their friends. In the evidence of the inmates, p. 40, &c., 
 it will be seen that it was a common occurrence, and Miss Allnutt 
 had some of them to spend the evening ; on one occasion seven of 
 the poor blind women went to tea and spend the evening with her 
 and Mr. Allnutt; they were taken and brought back in covered 
 cars: but, after this letter was written to Mr. Ferrier, when 
 this lady sent a note to the matron, to request that three of the 
 women might be allowed to come and spend the evening with her, 
 she replied she was sorry she was not allowed to give permission 
 to any of the inmates to accept Miss Allnutt’s kind invitation. 
 Mr. Allnutt applied to Mr. Bickerstaff, and in vain pointed out how 
 
5 
 
 unkind it was to prevent two or three of the poor old women 
 having- a little innocent recreation, and Mr. Bickerstatf recom- 
 mended him to write to the Board on the subject. On the 
 approach of Christmas-day, 1854, Mr. Allnutt wrote again to Mr. 
 Ferrier, who had returned to England, and requested that Margaret 
 Roberts, Susannah, the organist, and Mary M‘ Donnell, or Letty 
 Lawless (women who had been in the Asylum upwards of 35 years) 
 might be allowed to spend the evening at his house. Mr. Ferrier 
 in reply said he really could not interfere in the matter, he was 
 not one of the acting Trustees , and he expressed his thanks to Mr. 
 Allnutt for exhibiting such kindly feelings towards the inmates. 
 
 Mr. Allnutt again applied to Mr. Bickerstatf, and he appeared 
 rather annoyed, declaring that Mr. Ferrier was quite as much an 
 acting Trustee as he was. In fact there appeared no means of 
 approaching the Trustees. 
 
 Shortly after this occurrence, Mr. Allnutt became interested 
 about a poor blind girl, of the name of Anne Burnett, who had 
 before this period been a candidate for election, but had been un- 
 successful ; having her situation explained to him, he commenced 
 canvassing for votes thus early to be in time for the Election that 
 was expected to take place in May. Cards were lithographed as 
 follows : — 
 
 MOLYNEUX ASYLUM, DUBLIN. 
 
 Anne Burnett, 
 
 Recommended by the Rev. H. Wilson, Incumbent, Forgney, Co. Longford. 
 Nominated by Henrt Allnutt, Esq., Fair View, Dublin. 
 
 I wish to vote for the admission of Anne Burnett at 
 the ensuing Election. 
 
 Dated day of 1855. 
 
 These cards were accompanied by a statement of facts showing 
 how destitute and deserving an object this poor woman was. Mr. 
 Allnutt wrote to Mr. Fleury, the Chaplain, on the subject, but no 
 notice was taken. In the course of one of Mr. Allnutt’s visits to 
 the Asylum lie went up stairs, and saw a dear little child who 
 had been ill for many weeks, and was most surprised to find no fire 
 in the room. No one spoke to Mr. Allnutt on this subject, neither 
 did the poor little child or any of the inmates complain ; but, when 
 he returned home, he wrote kindly and politely to Mr. Fleury to. 
 suggest the necessity of a fire in the room of the little invalid, not 
 alone for the benefit and comfort of the child, who had lain week 
 after week on her narrow little bed in this large room, having old 
 and ill-fitting windows, but it was most trying to the other inmates 
 who attended on this poor little girl so assiduously until her death. 
 We all have reason to remember this exceedingly cold winter. 
 What sort of a reply did Mr. Allnutt receive to his well-intentioned 
 
letter ? No complaint indeed, but thanks as far as related to the 
 offer of paying for the fire, although the offer was declined for very 
 inadequate reasons ; but a letter literally abusing him and all the 
 friends of Ann Burnett, calling their exertions jobbery. It will be 
 observed in the following letter, that when Mr. Fleury saw the 
 child, she was in the matron’s room where there was a fire. 
 The little child did not get better, but died not very long after- 
 wards. 
 
 24, Upper Leeson-street, Jan., 26, 1855. 
 
 Dear Friend — Our little invalid is much better, and will soon be 
 able to remove to the warm work-room. We usually keep no fires in the 
 dormitories, as it is dangerous when the patients or inmates are blind, and 
 unable to guard against accidents, or protect their clothes from taking fire. 
 When the little one was up at first she was removed to Miss Hines’s room, 
 where I saw her last sitting by the fire. 
 
 Of course the Trustees will be very much obliged when I communicate 
 to them your generosity. They are very thoughtful men, and regulated by a 
 Trust Deed in all things. — [Query — How far from the trut h is this statement.] 
 
 You wrote to me some days ago about some blind girl, Burnett, I 
 think. The excitement on this subject has given much annoyance and em- 
 barrassment. There is to be no election for a long time to come, till mid- 
 summer, and the canvass set on foot, as if from the Molyneux Asylum, in 
 her favour ! has damaged her cause greatly. 
 
 First — It has created a great deal of trouble to the Trustees and to me, 
 by applications and correspondence, and confusion, as if there was going to 
 be an election when there is not ! 
 
 And, secondly — It has appeared to disinterested people so odd that from 
 the Molyneux Asylum a partial application should issue, that they have re- 
 solved to vote against her admission, and so neutralize any partiality or jobbery. 
 
 Yours very affectionately, C. M. Fleury. 
 
 If you have any acquaintance with the friends or ill-judging patrons of 
 the poor girl, try and point out to them what mischief they are doing, and 
 what annoyance they have given me and the Trustees. 
 
 It is well to say that (Mr. Allnutt had been a subscriber and 
 pew-holder nearly all the time he resided in Dublin, he had also 
 given a donation of Five Pounds to the Asylum. This donation 
 would never have been alluded to but to show that the interest he 
 took in the Asylum was not merely in words, the feeling of regard 
 towards the well-being of the Institution was sincere on his 
 part. Mr. Allnutt, entertaining these sentiments, was astonished 
 and hurt at the receipt of Mr. Fleury’s letter — from one he so 
 very highly esteemed — he could not but feel acutely the insult 
 to his efforts, and he wrote the following letter to Mr. Fleury in 
 reply : — 
 
 My Dear Sir — I am glad to hear that little Mary is so much better. 
 You know I only offered to pay for the fire whilst she was confined to her 
 bed-room, and, in that case, an iron guard would make all quite safe. I am 
 happy, however, to hear that there will be no necessity for such steps 
 
 I really cannot avoid saying that the other contents of your letter, re- 
 specting Anne Burnett, have taken me greatly by surprise, and I feel hurt 
 beyond measure, that you should designate the exertions we are making to 
 get her into the Asylum as jobbery. Partiality, no doubt, we feel, but I, for 
 
7 
 
 one, cannot submit, even from you, to remain under the imputation of jobbery 
 in the matter of getting a blind girl into the Molyneux. The word is so 
 common in Ireland, that it appears you even cannot escape making use of it. 
 Though the word in this instance is most singularly misapplied. You 
 say, “ if you have any acquaintance with the friends and patrons of the poor 
 girl.” We, Englishmen, like no roundabout proceeding. Do you not know 
 that I am one of those most active for her ? Why, I wrote and told you this 
 long since. Really, a Christian should not be afraid to speak to another, and 
 I must tell you plainly that you do yourself an injury, and you are quite 
 , wrong about the canvassing coming from the Molyneux. The heading of the 
 card I got lithographed has those words on it, for it is in that place we want 
 to get her admitted. Surely, you would not have the card headed “ Mercer's 
 Hospital.” I beg to remind you that the papers stating the case of Anne 
 Joice were also headed the same way. 
 
 I look upon it every member of the Institution has an undoubted right 
 to propose who he pleases ; and, further, that he has a right to canvass for 
 her when and how he pleases. It would be too late, and quite useless to 
 canvass immediately before the election. 
 
 One thing strikes me most forcibly throughout your letter, that you shut 
 your eyes to the fact that several ladies, I hear at least seven, are canvassing 
 for Callaghan; and if you complain of the words Molyneux Asylum being 
 at the top of our card, we may, with far more reason, complain of your name 
 being pressed into the service for the other party. Before I say this, how- 
 ever, I should call on the seven ladies working for Callaghan, for perhaps you 
 have administered as sharp a rebuke to them as to me. 
 
 My dear Sir, I with pain see you have been needlessly disturbed by this 
 matter. I would with pleasure hold out the hand of Christian fellowship to 
 Miss Jackson, and the other ladies who are trying to get their candidate 
 elected ; no ill will need exist between us, and I am deeply grieved that the 
 frailty of human nature should have got the better of your understanding. 
 I request you will be good enough to explain, if you can, how I am to be 
 accused of jobbery. Do you suppose the poor woman will give me, or any of 
 her friends, any money for our exertions ? The thing is perfectly ridiculous. 
 Am I to convey the contents of your letter to the Hon. K. Harman, Lady 
 Molyneux, Mr. Guinness, and a hundred others, who are Anne Burnett’s 
 “ill-judging” friends ? Professions of Christianity will avail us nothing, if we 
 do not endeavour, with God’s grace, to practice what we profess. What a 
 specimen of Christian feelings is such a sentiment as this. The blind girl, Anne 
 Burnett, no doubt, is a deserving object, but because her friends have been 
 over anxious, and have exerted themselves too energetically, we are resolved 
 to vote against her admission, (your own words,) and so neutralize any par- 
 tiality. The Lord preserve us from such feelings. You neutralize this 
 partiality to one to be partial to another. My heart aches to have received 
 such a letter from one I so highly esteemed. I am not, however, a whit less 
 the friend of Anne Burnett for all this.— I am, dear Sir, yours truly, 
 
 Henry Allnutt. 
 
 No further letter passed then between the parties. If Mr. Fleury 
 did not intend to convey such unkind impressions, nothing would 
 have been easier than to have written a short note of explanation 
 or have withdrawn words so offensive to a dear friend. Nothing of 
 the kind was attempted, in fact the act was aggravated by letters 
 written in the same singular style to the Rev. H. Wilson, the pro- 
 poser of Anne Burnett, in reply to an expostulatory letter he also 
 sent to Mr. Fleury. Under these circumstances it could not be 
 supposed that Mr. Allnutt would continue attending the Molyneux 
 Chapel — how could lie expect to derive advantage from Mr. 
 
8 
 
 Fleury’s preaching — we should respect and esteem the party who 
 professes to guide us. Mr. Allnutt felt great regard for the 
 Chaplain hitherto, but his feelings were outraged ; so far as 
 concerned the poor inmates, Mr. Allnutt’s interest remained 
 unabated, and his eyes began to be opened as to the Insti- 
 tion ; in short, Mr. Fleury’s strange conduct impressed Mr. 
 Allnutt with a most anxious desire to know more about the 
 affairs of the Asylum ; yet, as he was desirous that Anne Burnett 
 should be elected, he postponed further inquiry for above a year, 
 until this object was attained, which occurred only in April last. 
 The particulars of this election and the very singular subsequent 
 proceedings will be found in page 27, and should be carefully 
 perused. Although Mr. Allnutt had written the “ Address” he 
 took no steps to have it printed until after the Annual Charity 
 Sermon in May, being anxious that his pamphlet should not lessen 
 the contributions, and it may again be repeated that he really had 
 no idea at that time that things were so badly managed, and so 
 opposite to the express provisions of the Trust Deed. We es- 
 pecially beg to remind our readers that no allusion whatever was 
 made in the “ Address” to Mr. Fleury’s conduct, or even that 
 Mr. Allnutt had written and spoken to the Trustees on the subject 
 of the various reforms needed. We should not have given all these 
 particulars so fully, but it appears necessary that the subscribers 
 should be clearly convinced that we are justified in the steps we 
 have taken ; we desire that nothing we say may be taken for 
 granted, we invite inquiry ; for the more the matter is looked 
 into, we are sorry to add, the worse the management of the Asylum 
 appears, and the more well founded our complaints. 
 
 Now, some of our friends having read the excellent, temperate, 
 and clear statement that has lately emanated from the Committee 
 of Gentlemen anxious to reform the Molyneux Asylum, may 
 consider our present pamphlet a work of supererogation, still 
 it is required to fill up many gaps, and we shall endeavour 
 to exhibit the truth in a clearer light. It is necessary, for 
 truth’s sake, to be very explicit, and we cannot avoid giving 
 names as the authority for what we assert. 
 
 The statement of the Committee does not throw light on the 
 commencement of the movement for Reform, such as we have 
 narrated, and it does not allude to the mode in which Elections are 
 managed, a specimen of which we shall lay before our readers. 
 
 The Statement does not state clearly that after the Trustees 
 agreed to act contrary to the usual practice of the Asylum and ad- 
 mit Mr. Fleury’s candidate without an Election (although there had 
 already been two inmates elected), on condition that £150 should 
 be collected in two months, that the said trustees did not wait the 
 two months or even one week for the amount to be collected, but 
 Mary Callaghan was put into the Asylum at once , in the hope that 
 
the money would be collected ; in truth there was not more 
 than half this amount subscribed in three months. Then again 
 the Committee speak but very lightly about the charges 
 preferred against the Matron, although they entertain an 
 opinion diametrically opposite to that of the Trustees. The 
 Trustees would have us believe that they experienced consider- 
 able difficulty in coming to a decision, for, in their Manifesto 
 of the 24th November last, they said they were two days re- 
 viewing four days’ [it should have been three days] evidence. 
 The Committee say truly that out of twenty inmates who were 
 examined, eighteen confirmed the charges, and only two de- 
 clared that these things did not occur — one of these women was 
 of weak intellect and the other was the pet of the accused party. 
 
 We have introduced the grocer’s account for one quarter of a 
 year ; especial attention is requested to articles obtained during 
 the thirteen weeks, and it will be seen that the custom of the 
 Asylum has been withdrawn from Mr. Falkner (page 56). 
 
 The Assistant-Matron was dismissed soon after the inquiry. 
 The Rev. H. V. White was obliged to leave the Asylum, al- 
 though for three months no other clergyman took his position. 
 
 No one is allowed to see or speak to the inmates without the 
 Matron being present. The hours for visiting the Asylum have 
 been altered from Eleven to Four o’clock in the afternoon, to 
 from Eleven to Two o’clock ! and we believe the inmates are 
 scarcely allowed to go and see any of their friends, at least 
 without a previous examination before the Board of Trustees ! 
 
 Important announcement printed on a Black Board, stuck 
 up in the Hall of the Molyneux Asylum, copied 5th instant 
 [March, 1857): — 
 
 Ordered by the Trustees, that all communications between the Visitors 
 and the Inmates be held in the work-room only, and in the presence of the 
 Matron, between the hours of eleven and two o’clock. 
 
 December 15, 1856. 
 
 The mere substitution of the word “ Turnkey” for “ Matron” 
 would make this a fit notice for a gaol. 
 
 We really feel compelled to say a few words on the “ gross 
 calumny ’ alluded to in page 9 of the Committee’s Statement — 
 “ that the writer of the Address was mad" Mr. Allnutt did not 
 really care so much about these ridiculous reports, as far as he 
 himself was concerned, but it might injure the cause 
 he had in hand, — these reports were circulated for some time 
 before he knew of them, and hearing the source from whence 
 they were said to have come, Mr. Allnutt wrote the following 
 letter to Mr. Fleury : — 
 
10 
 
 20th June, 1856. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I am given to understand that you have said very broadly 
 to several parties that I am not in my right mind, that in fact, I am “ mad 
 The matter is laughable enough, but, at the same time, when I know that you 
 have spoken to my medical man on the subject, I think it due to myself and 
 family that I require from you some explanation. 
 
 I should indeed be extremely sorry to feel called upon to act in any way un- 
 friendly towards you, but assertions such as appear to have been made by you 
 to others respecting me, are rather beyond a joke. Requesting your early 
 reply, I am, dear sir, yours truly, Henry Allnutt. 
 
 (Mr Fleury’s reply.) 
 
 24, Upper Leeson-street, June 21st, 1856. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I received your letter this morning ; conversation is an 
 imperfect mode of communicating, and a report of it is seldom exact ; my 
 
 conversation with amounted merely to a friendly inquiry after your 
 
 health ! The last time we visited you together you were far from well. The 
 last time I had the pleasure of meeting you before you left the Molyneux 
 Chapel, you seemed to me hardly recovered, since then I have had no oppor- 
 tunity of intercourse with you, saving the day of the Molyneux Election, when 
 few or no words passed between us. I am, therefore, not competent to pro- 
 nounce any absolute opinion on your general health and state of mind, and as 
 I said before, the drift and amount of my conversation with was to in- 
 
 quire after your welfare. Wishing you all happiness, I remain, yours very 
 sincerely, C. F. Fleury. 
 
 P.S. — I assure you I have no intention to joke at the expense of your feelings. 
 
 This was not deemed satisfactory, and Mr. Allnutt re- 
 quested his solicitor to write to Mr.Fleury , and to say that although 
 he did not deny having circulated the reports against Mr. 
 Allnutt, yet he expressed no regret for so doing, and that if he 
 did not apologize Mr. A. would take further steps in the matter. 
 Mr .Belas then called on Mr.Allnutt’s solicitor, but nothing further 
 was done. In explanation, it may be necessary to say that Mr. 
 Allnutt had the small-pock in June, 1854, and that Mr. Fleury 
 saw him one afternoon,* when he was delirious for a few hours, 
 before the complaint developed itself. This is what Mr. Fleury 
 alludes to when he says he was “ far from well” but in the 
 following sentence he says u the last time I had the pleasure of 
 seeing you, before you left the Molyneux Chapel, you seemed 
 to me hardly recovered really it should be known that Mr. 
 Allnutt left the chapel after the receipt of Mr. Fleury’s letter of 
 26th January, 1855 (see page 6), so that Mr. Fleury inferred 
 that the same delirium under which Mr. Allnutt suffered in 
 June, 1854, from the small-pock, was hardly removed in Feb- 
 ruary, 1855, eight months after, when Mr. Allnutt, it is needless 
 to say, was as well as any one. Mr. Fleury’s saying he was not 
 competent to pronounce any absolute opinion on Mr. Allnutt’s 
 general health and state of mind is really rather amusing — 
 who applied to Mr. Fleury for an opinion on the subject? 
 
 * Mr. Allnutt little thought when he received a visit from his friend and 
 minister, that Mr. Fleury would turn the visit to such an account. 
 
11 
 
 TO THE 
 
 JFrientJg attU £uiiscitfrers of tl)e 
 
 MOIYNEUX ASYLUM. 
 
 At the time of the publication of the “Address” before the 
 copies had left the Printer’s hands, a most material circumstance 
 occurred, namely, the Author of the “ Address ” obtained a copy 
 of the Trust Deed , by which the Molyneux Asylum should be 
 regulated. So very important did its contents appear that he 
 was desirous of adding a postscript to his pamphlet, stating that he 
 had just discovered, by the Trust Deed, that the Asylum was directly 
 and entirely established for the reception of Blind Females above 
 a certain age, and as a school for blind girls, and that the 
 paragraph in page 12 was incorrect, in assuming that the Asy- 
 lum was only taken in hand for the purpose of having a Church 
 in that locality ; the perusal of this document clearly settled that 
 point, and it rendered the appointment of fifteen ladies as a body 
 of Visiting-Ladies imperative ; and further, that there were other 
 matters of vital importance in the Trust Deed entirely over looked, 
 or totally disregarded by the Trustees now in being, however 
 former 'Trustees may have acted. The writer of the “ Address ” was 
 recommended to omit this postscript, and to let the Trustees 
 themselves discover and reflect how widely they were acting from 
 the provisions of their Deed, and so reform themselves. Under 
 these circumstances the pamphlet appeared without any such 
 addition. We cannot now wonder that nothing was attempted 
 by the Trustees ; some of them had never seen the Trust Deed, 
 and were, in other respects, totally ignorant of the management of 
 the Asylum. 
 
 Five hundred copies of the “ Address ’’were struck off ; and very 
 quickly absorbed by the Subscribers, and the public who felt an 
 interest in the Asylum. Copies were forwarded without delay to 
 the Trustees, and in the course of a few days, the Author received 
 the following note from Mr. Alexander Ferrier, the senior 
 Trustee : — 
 
 Newstead, Torquay, Devon, May 29, 1856. 
 
 Sir, — I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 26th, also a copy of the 
 “Address. ” I can only say, that I am sure the Trustees must feel obliged for any 
 suggestion tending to improve the Institution, and that your letter and address 
 will receive mature consideration. You will excuse me for adding that I cannot 
 understand how a real friend of the Institution could print and publish such an 
 “Address.’ I remain, very truly yours, 
 
 Henry Allnutt, Esq. (Signed), Alexander Ferrier. 
 
12 
 
 (Mr Allnutt's Reply.} 
 
 30th May, 1856, Middle Abbey-street. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note, but I find an 
 observation towards the close of it, I am bound to reply to, you say “ you 
 cannot understand how a real friend of the Institution could print and publish 
 such an Address.” 
 
 You make a little mistake in supposing I printed the Address, but I wrote it, 
 and what else could I do ? I addressed a letter to you above a twelve month 
 back, I have also spoken to another Trustee, but no notice whatever was taken ; 
 and now you blame me for taking more active steps. Your Secretary 
 told the Hon. King Harman at the Election that the Trustees would not 
 publish another account for five years; and that you did not care if you lost 
 £10 by so doing ; no real friend to the Asylum could be satisfied to let matters 
 run that course. Why ; if you went on this year as last, you would be about 
 £500 behind hand next May. Believe me, Sir, you are quite mistaken if 
 you suppose others do not feel as I do, as respects the want of a proper manage- 
 ment over the Asylum, but so many people are afraid to speak. I can tell 
 you one thing, that if the Trustees do not take steps to set matters in order, 
 other statements will issue far more entering into detail, and far more painful 
 than has yet been said on the subject. How is it the Trustees permit Mr. 
 Fleury to enter into the establishment of a very large school, when the Trust Deed 
 expressly declares that under no circumstances whatever is the Chaplain to be 
 in any other situation or profession ? How is it the Trustees are on the point 
 of taking in Mary Callaghan, without a proper and regular Election ? Did not 
 the Trustees- decline to take in a woman named by the late Lord Lorton, al- 
 though his Lordship offered to pay a certain sum ; the Trustees acted quite right 
 then, and now, because Mary Callaghan is Mr. Eleury’s candidate, they completely 
 disregard all rules (if really there are any), and take her into the Asylum ; 
 there is now something going forward in the Asylum that calls for immediate 
 and searching inquiry. It would be well, if you could come to Dublin, and 
 meet the Gentlemen who are interested in the Molyneux. 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 Alexander Ferrier, Esq., Henry Allnutt. 
 
 Torquay, England. 
 
 We believe no other Trustee made any communication on the 
 subject, but in the course of about a month, as there appeared no 
 prospect of their calling a meeting, or taking any steps for the 
 reformation of the Asylum, a Letter was addressed to each of 
 the Trustees, requesting a meeting would be convened to which 
 we could be invited ; we are bound to say that very courteous 
 replies were received from most of these gentlemen : — one said, 
 he would not only esteem it a pleasure, but a privilege to meet 
 the friends of the Asylum ; — in fact, so far all appeared as favor- 
 able as we could desire ; but in a short time, we began to ex- 
 perience difficulties — Mr. Armstrong was going on professional 
 business to the North of Ireland ; another Trustee was also 
 leaving Dublin, or deeply engaged, whilst other partners in 
 the firm were absent ; and then again, these gentlemen said, they 
 would not like to meet us until Mr. Ferrier came from England. 
 After a while this Trustee visited Dublin, and we understand from 
 good authority made two or three investigations at the Molyneux. 
 
13 
 
 In a short time, in renewing our application to Mr. Ferrier for 
 a meeting to be held, we were informed that the first Gentleman 
 referred to, was not yet returned to Dublin , and indeed would not 
 be back for a month from that time; and that it would be well 
 for him, Mr. Ferrier, also to embrace that opportunity, and go and 
 see some friends in the North ; that, in short, it was not probable 
 the Trustees could meet us until some time in August. We could 
 not feel satisfied with these great delays, and inquiry being made 
 we found that Mr. Armstrong, the Trustee alluded to, had 
 actually returned to Dublin. On this we wrote again to Mr. Ferrier, 
 and there now being every prospect of our meeting the Trustees, 
 we felt surprised to receive the following medical certificate from 
 Mr. Ferrier’ s son-in-law : — 
 
 15, Stephen’s-green, July 7, 1856. 
 
 My dear Bigger, — Your deputation must excuse Mr. Ferrier from an 
 interview ; he is not well — is under my care, and I have forbidden it. Besides, 
 he has resigned his Trusteeship, positively and definitively. 
 
 Yours, very truly, F. Churchill. 
 
 Had this Trustee resigned when in England, and before he had 
 made the inquiries at the Molyneux, w'e should not complain, but 
 it must be remarked that he only discovered at this particular 
 juncture he was unable to act as a Trustee, and he then 
 abruptly left his brother Trustees to do as best they could. 
 It would appear that formerly Mr. Ferrier, when residing in 
 Dublin, was one of the most active Trustees ; and he took on 
 himself more responsibility than any other gentleman, — however 
 on the resignation of Mr. Ferrier, we wrote again to the Trustees, 
 and eventually Mr. Armstrong named Friday, the 11th of July, 
 for the meeting to take place, at four o’clock in the afternoon, at 
 the Asylum. We received this letter on Tuesday, the 8th, and 
 immediately communicated its contents to those gentlemen who 
 felt an interest in this reformation movement. Most strange to say 
 on the 9th, the Hon. Secretary of the Reforming Committee re- 
 ceived the following note from Mr. Harris, (a clerk in Mr. Ferrier 1 s 
 establishment in William-st.J to postpone the meeting of the 11th : — 
 
 William-street, 9th July, 1856. 
 
 Doctor Bigger — Dear Sir, — The meeting intended to be held on Friday 
 evening next, at four o’clock, at the Molyneux Asylum, is unavoidec% post- 
 poned to some early day next week, of which due notice will be given. 
 
 Please inform Mr. Parker and Mr. Allnutt. — Yours truly, 
 
 Josh. Harris. 
 
 Dr. Bigger instantly replied that he could not take on himself 
 to write to our friends not to attend, and in due time the memo- 
 rable 11th of July arrived. We beg here to observe that the 
 Trustees one and all declared that it was not with their 
 sanction or knowledge, that Mr. Harris penned this epistle, (see 
 page 34). 
 
14 
 
15 
 
16 
 
 1830. 
 
 MOLYNEUX ASYLUM FOR BLIND FEMALES. 
 
 ®tnber tf)e protection of 
 Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, 
 patron : 
 
 Sir Capel Molyneux, Baronet. 
 
 ©uarbtans : 
 
 Right Hon. Viscountess Lorton* | Lady Molyneux. 
 
 Clerical Crustees: 
 
 Rev. William Buslie, Rector of St. i Rev. Goorge Hamilton, Rector of Killer- 
 George’s. mogh. 
 
 Rev. Robert Daly, Rector of Powerscourt. | 
 
 ILap Crusstee* : 
 
 William C. Hogan, Esq., York-street. 
 Charles Moore, Esq., South Anne- 
 street. 
 
 Alexander Ferrier, Esq., Fishamble-st. 
 
 William Lunell Guinness, Esq., Mount- 
 joy-square, North. 
 
 Chaplains : 
 
 Rev. Piers Edmund Butler, A.B. 
 
 Rev. J. C. Lloyd, A.B., Dom. Chaplain to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Aldborough. 
 
 Treasurers : — Sir Robert Shaw, Bart. 
 & Co. 
 
 Physician : — William Stoker, Esq., 
 M.D., York-street. 
 
 Surgeon : — Samuel Wilmot,Esq. , M. D . , 
 York-street. 
 
 Apothecary: — Mr. S. Clindennin, Bag- 
 got-street. 
 
 Uijntora : 
 
 Mrs. Butler, Molyneux Asylum. 
 
 Mrs. Byrne, Hatch-street. 
 
 Miss Barton, Baggot-street. 
 
 Miss L. Brown, Upper Baggot-street. 
 Mrs. Darley, William-street. 
 
 Mrs. Alexander Ferrier, Rathmines. 
 Miss Hayes, Fitzwilliam-square. 
 
 Mrs. Leslie, Woodly, D undrum. 
 
 Mrs. J. C. Lloyd, Peter-place. 
 
 Miss Lloyd, Merrion-square. 
 
 Mrs. Moore, Anne-street. 
 
 Mrs. M‘Master, Rathmines. 
 Mrs. Palliser, Stephen’s-green. 
 Miss Peile, York-street. 
 
 Mrs. Stevelly, Peter-street. 
 Mrs. Shears, Peter-street. 
 
 Miss Scriven, Harcourt-street. 
 Mrs. White, Camden-street. 
 Miss Wight, Baggot-street. 
 
 I^onorarg ITfeitorg: 
 
 Mrs. Hogan, Milltown. 
 
 Mrs. Wilmot, Stephen’s-green. 
 
 Mrs. Cheyne, Merrion-square. 
 
 Mrs. Clarke, Russell-place. 
 
 Mrs. W. L. Guinness, Mountjoy-square. 
 
 Chapel Clerk anh Collector: 
 
 Mr. William George Hulbert, 45, Charlemont-street. 
 
 Matron : — Miss Cluff. | Work Mistress : — Miss O’Brien. 
 
 * The mother of the Hon. L. H. King Hannan, one of the Authors of this Pamphlet. 
 
17 
 
 1855. 
 
 MOLYNEUX ASYLUM FOR BLIND FEMALES. 
 
 patron : 
 
 Sir Capel Molyneux, Bart. 
 
 trustees! : 
 
 Right Rev. the Lori Bishop of Cashel. 
 
 Charles Moore, Esq. 
 
 W. Watson, Esq. 
 
 W. Armstrong, Esq., Q.C. 
 L. Bickerstaff, Esq. 
 
 Waterford, &c. 
 
 Rev. W. Cleaver. 
 
 Rev. C. S. Stanford, D.D. 
 Alexander Fcrrier, Esq. 
 
 Cljaplam : 
 
 Rev. Charles M. Fleury, A.M. 
 
 gsasistant Cljaplatn : 
 
 Rev. 0. J. Yignoles, A.M. 
 
 Creasurets : 
 
 The Royal Bank, Foster-place. 
 
 |>l|DStcian : 
 
 F. Churchill, Esq., M.D., Stephen’s-green. 
 
 Surgeon anti ©cultst : 
 
 R. Wilde, Esq., F.R.S.I. 
 
 apotfjecatg : 
 
 William D. Moore, Esq., A.B., 8, South Anne-street. 
 
 iHatron : 
 Miss Hines. 
 
 ^msitant Secretarp anti Collector: 
 Mr. T. Evans. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 On Friday afternoon, 11th July last, we met, in the Board- 
 room of the Asylum, some three or four of the Trustees, namely, 
 Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Moore, Mr. Watson (we believe), and the Rev. 
 Dr. Stanford, with several other gentlemen who were Subscribers, 
 or Pew-holders. [We understand the Trustees had a private 
 meeting between themselves, an hour or so earlier that morning.] 
 
 Dr. Bigger opened the proceedings, and commenced by saying 
 that some parties had charged Mr. Allnutt with writing two 
 pamphlets, such was not the case, only one “ Address ” had 
 been written, but a few proofs had been laid before some friends 
 for correction, and also for the purpose (if they thought proper) 
 of adding their names to the pamphlet to show their concurrence 
 in the movement. 
 
 The first thing complained of was the extremely vague and 
 loose manner in which the last Report had been drawn up, — it 
 was entitled the Thirteenth Report. We had been at considerable 
 pains to discover the previous reports ; and the only one we could 
 procure was that published in 1830, which was called the Tenth. 
 
 Dr. Bigger handed this Report to Mr. Armstrong, who de- 
 clared he had never before seen this , or any Report of the Asylum 
 (an announcement rather surprising from a Trustee.) Dr. Bigger 
 continued to say that the Report, especially after sueh a lapse of 
 time, should contain information as to the number of inmates ; the 
 nature of their employment ; whether the younger inmates were 
 taught to read ; the capabilities of the Asylum as to its further 
 usefulness ; and those interesting statistical details so well calcu- 
 lated to induce a charitable public to support the Institution more 
 liberally; this information was always looked for by the Subscribers, 
 and was never omitted in Reports of kindred Societies — see the 
 Reports of the Richmond Institution for Blind men ; the London 
 and Glasgow Institutions for the Blind, &e., &c. 
 
 In the Report of 1830, the name of Her Royal Highness the 
 Duchess of Kent appears as the Patroness of the Asylum, with two 
 ladies of rank as Guardians, and also twenty-five Visiting Ladies. 
 Compare the title page of this Report with the last Report. (See 
 previous pages.) Mr. Armstrong, a Trustee, observed that the omis- 
 sion of the names of the Visiting Ladies could he easily rectified 
 next year. We have no doubt, at this stage of the proceedings, 
 he was quite ignorant of there really being no Visiting Ladies 
 in existence ; he evidently supposed their names only had been omitted . 
 Dr. Bigger then pointed out that some of the life members 
 named in the Report had died many years back ; and he then 
 asked the Trustees why the rules of the Asylum were not in- 
 cluded ; in fact, he requested to know if the Trustees had 
 any rules to regulate the Asylum ? Mr. Armstrong said 
 11 he was not aware of any ; he had never seen them.’* In short, 
 it appeared that none of the Trustees knew of any rules or 
 regulations, and then Dr. Bigger proceeded to speak of the 
 balance sheet which appeared in the last Report — (see page 15). 
 
19 
 
 He asked how it happened that the accounts were not Audited ? 
 Some of the Trustees said that it was unnecessary, for they all collec- 
 tively were responsible for its accuracy — that the accounts had all 
 been properly vouched, &c. Dr. Bigger drew their attention to 
 the receipts. Some of the annuities were entered as a year and 
 a-half, others for only half a year ; and, without dwelling much 
 on this inconsistency, he spoke of no credit being given for the 
 rent of two houses in Bride-street, for which upwards of £40 had 
 been received in 1829. (See accounts for 1829, 1855, p. 14 & 15.) 
 
 Dr. Bigger now entered on the disbursement side. The 
 first item that called for explanation was the charge of £534 odd 
 for maintenance, which, when added to that for washing, £26, 
 amounted to the very large sum of £560 for the food and washing 
 of about the same number of inmates as in 1829, when the 
 expenses of food and washing was then only £295 ! very little 
 more than half of what it cost this last year. He then read to 
 the meeting the average cost of individual maintenance of the 
 various Dublin institutions, and compared same with the cost of an 
 inmate of the Molyneux, when the latter appeared excessively high. 
 
 MAINTENANCE AND WASHING. 
 
 The Matrons and servants are not included in the years 1827, 
 1828, and 1829, neither should they be included in 1855. 
 
 Years 
 
 1827. 
 
 1828. 
 
 1829. 
 
 1855. 
 
 Maintenance and Washing .. 
 
 £353 4 2 
 
 £309 16 0 
 
 £295 9 11 
 
 £535 15 3* 
 
 Number of Inmates 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 26 
 
 Average cost each per annum 
 
 £13 7 2 
 
 £11 9 6 
 
 £10 18 )0£ 
 
 £20 12 0 
 
 * <£534 15s. 3d. for maintenance added to the washing, £26, amounts to 
 £560 15s. 3d. Now there are three externs ; one is paid £5, another about 
 £12, and the other <£8. Total, <£25, which being deducted from the 
 £560 15s. 3d,, leaves £535 15s. 3d., as above stated, being the total cost of 
 maintenance and washing last year. 
 
 The statement of the Committee says £16 19s. lOd. ; the reason 
 of this amount differing from ours is, that we do not include the 
 two matrons and two servants, for matrons and servants are not 
 included in striking the averages of other institutions. 
 
 RICHMOND BLIND INSTITUTION, 
 
 21 Men. Food £296 6 2 \ ; average £14 2 2£ 
 
 ST. PETER’S BOARDING SCHOOLS, 
 
 31 Boarders. Food £195 3 6; average £6 5 11 
 
 HOUSE OF REFUGE, BAGGOT-STREET, 
 
 30 Inmates. Food £226 18 3; average £7 11 3$ 
 
 FREEMASON’S ORPHAN SCHOOL, 
 
 21 Girls. Food £164 19 4; average £7 17 1 
 
 LONDON BLIND ASYLUM, 
 
 57 Pupils. Food £762 19 6; average £13 7 8J 
 
 BLUE COAT HOSPITAL, 
 
 80 Boys. Food £386 9 3; average £4 16 7 
 
20 
 
 All these institutions are far lower than the Molyneux. One 
 of the Trustees, the Rev. Dr. Stanford, said that perhaps the 
 inmates might be better fed in this Asylum. Now we knew 
 quite well what food the poor women had, but we were anxious 
 to see whether the Trustees knew it also. “ Well,” replied Dr. 
 Bigger. “ perhaps the Trustees will inform us how the inmates of 
 the Molyneux are dieted ?” And looking to Mr. Armstrong (a 
 Trustee remember,) that gentleman said, “ he really did not know 
 what the women had /” He now turned to Mr. Moore, and this 
 Trustee remarked, “ that being delicate v;omen , of course they were 
 obliged to give them very good food.” We pressed this gentleman 
 as to what good food he referred to, and he also confessed he 
 did not know. We then applied to their Secretary, the Rev. C. M. 
 Fleury, and he informed us they had “ meat.” However, as we were 
 anxious to know what food the women had each day, and as he knew 
 no more about it than the Trustees, he went out of the Board- 
 room, and brought in a large book, and proceeded to read the 
 dietary given to the inmates. 
 
 Monday, Bread and Milk for dinner. 
 
 Tuesday, Broth.* 
 
 Wednesday, Cold Meat, (which had been boiled for hours in the broth the 
 day before.) 
 
 Thursday, Boiled Salt Beef and Cabbage. 
 
 Friday, Salt Fish, Ling ! 
 
 Saturday, Broth (as on Tuesday.) 
 
 Sunday, Cold Meat, (out of Broth, as on Wednesday.) 
 
 Potatoes are only given to the women twice a week. Only a 
 few of the elder women have butter on their bread at breakfast 
 and tea time. 
 
 Several gentlemen appeared exceedingly astonished at the very 
 meagre dietary given to the poor blind women. It appeared that 
 six of the oldest of the inmates, out of twenty-six, had a little 
 roast meat once a week , we understand one leg of mutton a week ! 
 the cold meat out of the broth forming two days' dinner every week, 
 and, above all, the salt fish [Ling) every Friday made all the gen- 
 tlemen look at each other in astonishment. Fish every Friday in a 
 Protestant Institution. Some knew not how to believe it.f A gen- 
 tleman asked one of the Trustees whether any of the inmates were 
 Roman Catholics ? Oh, no, said he, but some one expressed an 
 opinion that both the servants were Roman Catholics. 
 
 After this Dr. Bigger alluded to the great charge for clothing, 
 being £79 13s. Id. The same item in 1829 was £27 16s. Id. 
 The clothes were obtained from the establishment of one of the 
 Trustees (Mr. Ferrier), and thus Mr. Harris, his clerk, had (as it 
 
 * There is a little mistake in the statement of the Committe as to Tues- 
 day’s dinner, Mr. Fleury did not read aloud anything about “a leg of mutton'' 
 See what we afterwards have said about the “ mutton." 
 
 t This fish dinner has subsequently been changed to Thursday. 
 
21 
 
 were) to pay himself out of the funds of the Asylum and accept his 
 own receipt. This was virtually the case, although, perhaps, another 
 clerk gave the receipt, if any exists. Mr. Harris said, “ there was 
 nothing due for clothing the end of the previous year? so that whatever 
 made the item so very great, it was for articles supplied the last 
 year. Throughout this discussion on the cost of the maintenance 
 and clothing, the Trustees did not produce any accounts, or books 
 of any kind, to explain or show how such items were made up. One 
 would suppose they could easily 1 ave made matters satisfactory to 
 the Subscribers who attended the meeting. How easily would 
 doubts of the accuracy of the ac3ounts have been dispelled if the 
 Trustees had adopted an open and unreserved course. Could 
 they not have laid on the table, or read out the list of items 
 which formed the clothing to the amount of £79 13s. Id ? No ; 
 they never attempted to explain anything. In one stage of the 
 proceedings, the Kev. Dr. Stanford expressed himself anxious to 
 know and understand the management of the Asylum, for he said 
 he was quite a stranger to it, and had been appointed a Trustee 
 without his knowledge or consent. 
 
 CLOTHING. 
 
 Years 
 
 18*27. 
 
 1828. 
 
 1829. 
 
 1855. 
 
 Total Amount .. 
 
 £30 8 11 
 
 £20 17 1 
 
 £27 16 1 
 
 £79 13 0 
 
 Number Clothed . . 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 27 
 
 28* 
 
 Average cost each per annum 
 
 £1 2 6A 
 
 £0 15 5 
 
 £10 7 
 
 £2 16 10 
 
 * We have two externs here added to the twenty-six interns ; the other 
 extern, Kate Read, was not clothed by the Asylum. 
 
 Information subsequently obtained respecting the clothing, not known at 
 the time of the meeting with the Trustees. 
 
 List of Articles of Clothing allowed to the inmates of the Molyneux Asylum, 
 showing what they really had last year, 1855. Cost, as per last report, 
 £2 16s. lOd. each individual. 
 
 Clothing for each Inmate. 
 
 How often supplied. 
 
 Whether sup- 
 plied last year. 
 
 Estimated Cost 
 in 1855. 
 
 1 Cashmere Gown 
 
 every 2nd year. 
 
 none 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 1 Cloth Shawl ... 
 
 not for eight years 
 
 none 
 
 
 
 
 1 Common ditto 
 
 not for four years 
 
 none 
 
 
 
 
 1 bonnet 
 
 every 2nd. year 
 
 none 
 
 
 
 
 1 Flannel Petticoat 
 
 every 2nd. year 
 
 none 
 
 
 
 
 1 Gingham Dress 
 
 ditto 
 
 supplied 
 
 - 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 2 Aprons 
 
 ditto 
 
 supplied 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 2 Pocket Handkerchiefs ... 
 
 ditto 
 
 supplied 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 2 Towels 
 
 ditto 
 
 supplied 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 2 Chemises, about every... 
 
 H year 
 
 supplied 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 2 Handkerchiefs 
 
 every year 
 
 | supplied 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 2 Pair of Shoes ... 
 
 every year 
 
 supplied 
 
 - 
 
 8 
 
 0 
 
 Articles supposed to be made in the Asylum. 
 
 £1 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
22 
 
 Materials for stays given every three years. 
 
 No hair-brushes, basins, nor wide tooth-combs provided at all; 
 
 It may appear strange that no hair-brushes, &c., are allowed, but the fact 
 is that formerly the hair of the inmates was cut off close round their 
 heads. This barbarous custom was changed, we believe, by the present 
 Matron ; in fact a small tooth-comb is all that is allowed. Hair-brushes, 
 basins, &c., are obtained by the inmates by the kind assistance of their 
 friends. It is but fair and right, in justice to the present Matron, to add 
 that the clothing was of a very inferior quality before she came into the 
 Asylum. The inmates only had very common and coarse stuff gowns, now 
 they have Cashmere and neat gingham dresses ; but it must be remembered 
 that although this improvement has been made in the attire of the inmates 
 yet the cost of female dress has been greatly diminished during the past 
 years. We have given an estimate of the cost of the clothing for 1855 , and 
 it is distinctly remembered by several gentlemen that J. Harris, Mr. Ferrier’s 
 clerk, said there was no old account due to his employer at the commencement 
 of 1855 , (see last page) ; and we see by the unaudited balance-sheet, that a 
 balance of £50 was left on the credit side at the end of the previous year 
 ( 1854 ). [Page 15 .] 
 
 If the items for the salary of the Matron and her assistant, 
 porter, pew openers, organist, house servants, &c., had been given 
 in detail, we should have seen how the extra £20 was expended. 
 £139 8s. was the amount this past year, whereas, in 1829, these 
 sums only amounted to£l 19 2s. 7d. As to mentioning the Organist, 
 we scarcely think it to have been worth while, for Susannah 
 Jenks, (one of the inmates,) we believe, receives only £2 per 
 annum, a very small fraction indeed of £139* 
 
 Then follow the charge for Taxes, which Dr. Bigger said, we 
 could not fathom, for no Taxes were charged or paid in 1829, 
 whereas £22 1 4s. 4d. appeared in the last Report. On application 
 at the office of the Collector- General, we found that Charitable 
 Institutions were not liable to rates — at least, if they paid such, 
 the amount would be refunded on application to the proper 
 authorities. We also understood that the Landlord’s portion, if 
 paid by the officers of the charity, should in due time be deducted 
 when paying the rent of the premises. We were informed that 
 the following payments were received from the Molyneux Asylum 
 during last year: — 
 
 14th November, 1855, on Chapel — Landlord’s Portions 
 Ditto House in Peter-street — Lilly 
 
 13th February, 1855, Ditto Bramble 
 8th March, 1856, Houses in Bride-street ... 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 7 10 0* 
 6 18 0* 
 3 3 Of 
 7 0 Of 
 
 * Should be deducted from 
 Poor Bates 
 
 Rent, f and 10s. l£d for half- j 
 
 £24 11 0 
 14 18 1± 
 
 Amount still liable to a further deduction, £9 13 
 No repayment could be yet claimed for the last item of £7,t as it 
 was only cash paid on account ; no receipt would be given until 
 
23 
 
 the whole of the rates then due were paid, so we understood. 
 How the Taxes could come to £22 14s. 4d. was inexplicable to 
 us. The Trustees would not explain this subject. Dr. Bigger 
 said, it would appear that the year before last must have been 
 much more prosperous than 1855, a balance of £50 remaining on 
 hand, whereas, after absorbing this balance, the Asylum left off at the 
 end of the year with a debt of £203, so that in fact, the expenditure 
 this past year had exceeded the receipts by upwards of £250. It 
 would be most satisfactory to show what had been the Receipts 
 and Expenditure of the year, 1854. However, as we have already 
 observed, the Trustees sat and heard everything, but made no effort 
 whatever at any explanation ; and Dr. Bigger having closed his 
 remarks, Mr. Allnutt produced a paper he had drawn up for 
 the occasion, and commenced reading. But before we commence 
 his statement we must introduce a new element in an advertise- 
 ment that appeared in Saunders' News-Letter , respecting Mary 
 Callaghan, whose case is fully spoken of in page 26, &c. 
 
 MOLYNEUX ASYLUM FOR BLIND FEMALES. 
 
 Peter-street, Dublin, May 27, 1856. 
 
 Average number of Inmates during past year : — Interns, 28. Extems, 3. 
 Matron and Servants, 4. Total, 35. 
 
 Total cost of maintenance per last report, £534 15s. 3d. Average of 
 individual maintenance, £15 5s. 6fd. 
 
 At the election held on April 15th, Ellen Devlin and Anne Burnett, having 
 the highest number of votes, were admitted. Mary Callaghan, a poor persecuted 
 convert, totally blind for the last six years, aged nineteen, was third on the 
 poll, and lost admission by the retraction of one voter. She is now supported 
 by the Rev. C. M. Fleury in an humble lodging, at the cost of 6s. per week, or 
 rate of £15 12s. per annum. 
 
 A benevolent Gentleman, a friend to the Institution, has promised £50 in 
 the hope that £150 more may be raised within two months to create a fund for 
 her admission. 
 
 The above facts having been laid before the General Board of Trustees and 
 Visiting Ladies this day (May 27, 1856), 
 
 It was Resolved — That while the Asylum can accommodate only thirty 
 intern members, Mary Callaghan shall be admitted in the room of one of the 
 extems, in the confidence that the said sum of £150 will be raised to meet the 
 amount of a small stipend now paid to one of the externs, who has nearly 
 recovered her full sight, and is partially able to support herself as an organist, 
 for which she was educated in the Asylum. 
 
 Charles Stuart Stanford, Chan-man. 
 
 It is necessary to give a copy of this Advertisement, as it is fre- 
 quently referred to hereafter, and besides some of Mr. Fleury’s 
 friends asserted (at the time it appeared in Saunders' News-Letter ), 
 that it was a complete answer to Mr. Allnutt’s first pamphlet, 
 the little “ Address I ” 
 
24 
 
 STATEMENT 
 
 Respecting the Molyneux Asylum read hy Mr, Allnutt at the Meeting of 
 Trustees and Friends of the Asylum t 1 \th July , 1856. 
 
 In the last Report, I do not find one word about externs,* 
 but I find that the cost of maintenance and washing during 
 the past year was £560, whereas, in 1829, it was £295; 
 it is not correct to disunite the £26 for washing from the 
 maintenance, for, in 1829, these items were included in 
 the £295. 
 
 The number of inmates in 1829 was 27, and, in 1855, 28 
 (it now has transpired that there were only 26). The cost of 
 individual maintenance, as stated in an Advertisement, which 
 has appeared with respect to Mary Callaghan is not correct, 
 for I know that one of the externs, who is organist at 
 Clontarf, only receives £5 per annum, and another has half 
 her maintenance paid by a lady ; neither is it usual to include 
 the Matron and servants when striking the average ; but if we 
 include them in 1855, we must do so in 1829. The cost of 
 an inmate in 1829 was about £10 19s. per annum, and in the 
 past year, counting two externs, in all 30 people, £18 13s., 
 (truly£20 12s. each for 26 inmates, see pp. 19 & 46), amazingly 
 high for inmates who have potatoes only twice a-week, and a 
 diet table in other respects by no means generous. 
 
 The change complained of in the management of this 
 Asylum has arisen during the last 25 years ; the 10th Report 
 is dated 1830, and that just issued was the 13tli. 
 
 Comparing the Report of 1830 with that just issued, I observe 
 that this Asylum is no longer under the protection of Her Royal 
 Highness the Duchess of Kent — which it was at that period — that 
 it has now no Guardians in the room of Lady Lor ton and Lady 
 Molyneux, and that it has not one of the 25 Visiting Ladies, and, 
 last of all, there appears no Work-mistress. This last official was a 
 very important one. She was independent of the Matron, and, 
 
 * If nothing was said in the Trustees’ Report of the Molyneux Asylum, 
 how could Mr. Allnutt know at that time there were any externs ? His “Ad- 
 dress” was a Review of the Trustees' Thirteenth Report. 
 
25 
 
 as employment is of great consequence to tlie inmates, they 
 should not be deprived of the services of a Work-mistress. The 
 present Assistant to the Matron does not fill that office, and if 
 the Trustees inquire into her employment, they will find that her 
 time is constantly occupied in making dresses and clothes for 
 the Matron. 
 
 The Report of 1830 contains the accounts of three years. 
 Even at that time, a departure was made from the original rule re- 
 lating to the issuing a printed Report every year — for this should 
 have been the 15th Report, the Asylum having been estab- 
 lished for 15 years. It was, however, only the 10th Report. 
 In the Report of 1830, a list of the Subscribers and their 
 residences is given ; does it not occur to the Trustees that 
 they have no check on the Collector? 1 am not accusing 
 this officer of any dishonesty, but I say that mistakes 
 may arise from forgetfulness, and if a list of Subscribers was 
 annually given every one could see for himself whether his 
 subscription was included; in fact, in this 10th Report, and 
 in reports of other institutions, inaccuracies, or omissions, are 
 requested to be pointed out to the Secretary. There should be 
 no difficulty in knowing all the voters ; a list was offered to be 
 made out for me for 5s. by the Assistant-Secretary, Mr. Evans. 
 When I agreed to pay him this sum, a new difficulty was started 
 — no election was taking place. Whether an election is occurring 
 or not, a list of the voters should always be handed to any 
 Subscriber who may ask for it, and that certainly without 
 a charge of any kind. 
 
 A list of candidates is given in the 10th Report, and we find 
 that five of their names appear in this year’s list also. Some of 
 the candidates have grown younger; Bridget Galise was 10 
 years of age in 1830, and is now only stated to be 30, instead 
 of 36 ; not one of the five women have their age correctly 
 stated. The list of candidates should not be given at random, 
 No 29 in the last list is Elizabeth Scott, who was recommended 
 by Miss Blackburne about nine years back ; her admission was 
 decided against at the time by the Trustees, as it appeared that 
 her father was well able to support her, and yet her name still 
 appears in the list every election. Why is it retained? This 
 is only one out of many whose names it is quite useless to 
 keep on the paper, unless, indeed, we want the public to 
 believe there are so many more blind women anxious to gain 
 admission than is the fact. At all events it shows how very 
 carelessly these lists are drawn up. 
 
 I have now before me the Sermon preached on the open- 
 
26 
 
 ing of the Institution, 19th November, 1815, and in the rules 
 referred to is the following: — 
 
 There shall be an Annual Sermon preached on the 1st Sunday in May, 
 when a printed Report shall be distributed of the proceedings of the past year, 
 the number admitted into the Asylum, and a detailed statement of the 
 accounts. 
 
 I also see that the house is capable of receiving 50 in- 
 mates * besides affording apartments for the Chaplain, who is 
 required to reside in the house , and to engage in no other lucra- 
 tive employment or situation whatever. On a perusal of the 
 Trust Deed, this, and other matters equally important, are 
 clearly set forth, and the Trust Deed completely establishes the 
 fact, that the Chapel is for the Asylum not the Asylum for 
 the Chapel. Many of us have heard of late years that the 
 Asylum is, as it were, of secondary importance. We must not 
 forget the original object which was solely and entirely as an 
 Asylum for life for blind females above a certain age , and as a 
 school for young females labouring under the loss of sight. The 
 Chapel is thus secondary and subordinate to the Asylum. 
 
 With respect to the election of inmates, it would, perhaps, 
 be as well to give a slight outline of the late Election, as it, in 
 a great degree, opened my eyes to the management of the In- 
 stitution. When I first became interested for Anne Burnett, I 
 wrote a note to the Kev. C. M. Fleury, the Secretary, to tell 
 him what I was about to do. To that letter I received no re- 
 ply. [Whatever other persons may say on the subject, I am 
 far from being ashamed or afraid to say I feel great interest in 
 these poor blind women, and I cannot understand the feelings 
 of any person who may have attended the Molyneux Chapel 
 year after year, and yet have never troubled themselves to visit 
 the blind inmates.] In the course of a few weeks, in one of my 
 visits to the Asylum, I went up stairs and saw an interesting 
 little child, who had been ill a long while. This took place the 
 winter before last — you doubtless must remember the great 
 severity of that season — I was much surprised to find there was no 
 fire in the large room in which poor little Mary Walsh lay. I 
 wrote to Mr. Fleury on the subject, and said, if the Insti- 
 tution could not afford a fire I would pay for one during the 
 period the little invalid was confined to her bed-room. This 
 slight interference on my part brought down on me a very 
 
 * Mr. Fleury says, in the Advertisement, (page 23,) that the Asylum, 
 “can only accommodate thirty intern members.” It may be the case that 
 the house is gradually shrinking as to its internal area, however it may 
 appear to a beholder from the outside. 
 
27 
 
 sharp and uncalled-for letter from Mr .Fleury, (page 6). He said it 
 was considered unsafe to have a fire in the dormitories, forgetting 
 that an iron guard would make it quite as safe there as in the 
 work-room below stairs ; and then he alluded, for the first time, 
 to the canvass that was being carried on for Anne Burnett. I 
 forgot to state that a vacancy had actually occurred, and, al- 
 though in one part of Mr. Fleury’s letter he said there was not 
 going to be an election, yet, in another part he said the elec- 
 tion would not take place until June (his letter was written in 
 January, 1855). He called the parties who were interested in 
 Burnett her ill-judging friends, and he stated that disinterested 
 people were determined to neutralize all partiality and jobbery. 
 I replied to this letter as it deserved ; I repudiated any such 
 words as jobbery being applied to our exertions. I saw 
 clearly the whole drift of the matter — no one was to interfere 
 in the elections ; it could not be tolerated that any Subscriber 
 should attempt to get a blind woman admitted; everything 
 should be done by or through Mr. Fleury, the Chaplain. 
 Although there was a vacancy, yet, as we had a great prospect 
 of a majority of votes, it appeared that the only plan that could 
 be devised to neutralize our efforts was to postpone the Election. 
 
 How different things appear at the present time ; although 
 there is no vacancy, still a candidate, for whom Mr. Fleury is 
 interested, is at once put into the Asylum without a vacancy or 
 any regular election. Without doubt, there should have been 
 an election last year, and the friends of Anne Burnett have 
 reason to believe that there was no election, because it was 
 feared she would be elected. A lady was told by a gentleman, 
 who is a great friend of the Chaplain, that she need not waste 
 her time exerting herself for Anne Burnett, for the Trustees 
 would not allow her to be admitted. We do not believe the 
 Trustees ever determined any such thing, but it was evident 
 others had decided it. Time passed; we had almost for- 
 gotten the subject, when suddenly, about the 3rd of April last, 
 voting papers were issued for an election of two inmates on 
 the 15th instant (poor little Mary Walsh, to whom I have 
 alluded, died in the interim, so that there were now two 
 vacancies). This appeared as though it was a plan to come upon 
 us unprepared, and that the two candidates should be elected 
 without our having time to do anything for Anne Burnett. 1 was 
 not actually aware of the election until about the 8th, but I 
 instantly sent out circulars, reminding parties of their promise 
 to vote for Anne Burnett, and I soon found that applications 
 had been made a fortnight at least before the 8th, that is, a week 
 
28 
 
 or ten days before the voting papers were printed, and some of 
 her friends, forgetful of their promise, or supposing an election 
 had taken place last year, had recently promised to vote for 
 Mary Callaghan. Notwithstanding this, they most kindly 
 offered to do anything to recall their voting papers, and keep 
 their promise towards Anne Burnett ; [this they really had the 
 kindness to do.] 
 
 Do the Trustees consider it proper that Mr. Fleury 
 should send messages to persons, saying, “ that it ivas of no use 
 voting for any excepting Callaghan and Devlin , as they were 
 sure of being elected ?” A reverend gentleman himself told me 
 that it would he of no use voting for Anne Burnett, as Mr. 
 Fleury had informed him that Callaghan and Devlin would he 
 elected. This gentleman votes for a lady on whose estate 
 Burnett’s father lives; who, of course, would be anxious to 
 assist one of her own tenants. He was kind enough to fill up 
 a new voting paper, and thus he kept his promise as respects 
 Burnett. The Trustees cannot but see how injurious it is to 
 the Institution that one individual — and that person the Chaplain 
 of the Asylum — should strive to keep things entirely in his 
 own hands, and to do only just as he pleases; the freedom of 
 election is totally destroyed. Why should parties who desire to 
 get a blind woman admitted, be compelled to place themselves 
 under an obligation to the Chaplain of the Institution to get 
 her elected ? If you desire the support of the public , the Elec- 
 tions should be open and free to all. When the election came 
 on, I attended with the Hon. King Harman, to whom Mr. 
 Fleury was most uncivil, for when Mr. Harman was speaking of 
 the publication of the accounts — Mr Fleury said, “ no one wants 
 an account, master ! The Trustees would not publish another 
 account for five years, and if they even lost £10 by not pub- 
 lishing an annual Report, they did not care.” And on Mr. 
 Harman replying that, those who paid £10 might influence 
 others who paid far more, Mr. Fleury, in a most rude and 
 ungentlemanly manner, said, U letus stop this foolish conversation .” 
 
 The Election was conducted in the most irregular manner ; 
 no Chairman was appointed ; towards the close of the poll, Mr. 
 Fleury, the Secretary, pulled out of his pocket a bundle of 
 voting papers, signed by the parties in blank , which he pro- 
 ceeded very leisurely to fill up one by one for Callaghan. Is 
 this a proper course ? If parties are so indifferent and trouble 
 themselves so little as not to fill up the voting papers, the 
 Secretary* surely has no right to do it himself. W ould such an 
 act be allowed in other institutions? Notwithstanding these, 
 * The Rev. C. M. Fleury is Chaplain as well as Secretary. 
 
29 
 
 and other efforts, which I have not time to mention, Anne 
 Burnett was elected by a majority of 1 9 votes. Even then some 
 doubts were expressed by Mr. Fleury as to her being eligible. 
 Devlin and Callaghan’s certificates were all prepared, and lying 
 on the table ; however, after a few words, a tacit admission 
 was made that she was elected. 
 
 Now 1 come to the movement for Mary Callaghan. The 
 Annual Sermon was preached, and towards the close of it a 
 very unusual and strong appeal was made in her behalf, as 
 if there had never hitherto been an unsuccessful candidate ; to 
 make the appeal more powerful, it was asserted that Mr. Fleury 
 himself was supporting Callaghan. Bear in mind that the 
 Institution was £200 in debt at this time, and two candidates 
 had already been elected ; but still Callaghan had not been suc- 
 cessful. Some one is said to have offered £50 if £150 more could 
 be collected; I, therefore, presume the Trustees must have 
 agreed to admit Callaghan for £200. A meeting of the Trus- 
 tees is then held, and a few ladies are requested to attend, who 
 are dubbed for the occasion “ Visiting Ladies,” and next day an 
 announcement appears in Saunders News-Letter, that the meeting 
 agreed to admit Callaghan, in the hope that £150 would be 
 collected in two months (it has not been done, but still Callaghan 
 is here). A Trustee, who is a clergyman of influence, is put 
 forward as chairman (Dr. Stanford). We believe this gen- 
 tleman was greatly deceived.* If my exertions were called 
 jobbery , what shall we call this method of getting Callaghan 
 admitted? I say it was gross jobbery to take in any candi- 
 date on the bare hope of collecting £150 ; and it was the greatest 
 injustice towards all the other forty candidates, who had been 
 trying for years to enter the Asylum. 
 
 How were the ladies called together ? The Visiting Ladies had 
 not met for a period of about nine years. A lady residing in the 
 suburbs of Dublin, one of the Visiting Ladies about nine years 
 back, received a printed circular by post the morning of the 
 meeting; another lady received a circular the evening before. 
 These printed circulars -were so ancient that they did not bear 
 the name of the present Secretary ,f but that of Edward Marks. 
 One of these circulars had a postscript added by the Secretary, 
 and the other had not. Neither of these ladies attended, for they 
 justly considered if the Trustees wished them to resume their 
 duties, after a lapse of nine years , they would have requested 
 their Secretary to state such wish ; and should not the ladies 
 have had some days notice of the intended meeting, and 
 
 We cannot say this now. 
 
 t C. M. Fleury. 
 
30 
 
 should not the object have been clearly communicated to all 
 of them? These so -styled Visiting Ladies were only called 
 together to give some colour to the proceedings ; they did not 
 visit the Asylum to see how the inmates were fed, nor did they 
 attempt to look to the domestic economy of the Institution. 
 Does it not strike the mind of any friend to the Asylum, that, 
 while the expenditure largely exceeds the income, it is highly 
 improper that Mr. Fleury and the Assistant- Secretary should be 
 collecting funds not to clear this debt, but that Mary Callaghan 
 may remain in the Asylum without being properly elected, 
 contrary to all the rules of the Institution? In the name of 
 everything fair and honorable go through the form, at least, of 
 a regular election. I have promised to vote for Mary Cal- 
 laghan ; I have not one word to speak against the poor blind 
 woman herself,* but I justly complain of the very unusual 
 and irregular manner in which she is thrust into the Asylum 
 by those who should, above all others, be the last to break the 
 rules of the place. The late Lord Lorton wished the Trustees 
 to admit a blind girl, whose eyes had been picked out by a 
 common fowl, and his lordship offered to pay a certain sum. 
 The Trustees at the time very properly declined his proposal, 
 but the girl was afterwards regularly elected. 
 
 To turn especially towards the management of the Asylum. 
 The Trust Deed provides that three Trustees shall form a quorum, 
 and that they shall meet at least every three months. Can the 
 Trustees say this has been done ? If they had such difficulty in 
 collecting their body together to meet us, it appears doubtful 
 whether they could get a quorum to meet every quarter ; but even 
 if they could, surely four meetings a year would never enable 
 them to do their duty faithfully to the Asylum. If a Manag- 
 ing Committee were formed of twelve or fifteen gentlemen, 
 they should meet regularly every fortnight, any of the 
 Trustees could attend their meeting whenever they thought 
 proper, and, of course, take the chair, and have full access to 
 the books of the Committee. 
 
 The Trust Deed also provides, that one of the Trustees shall 
 act as Sub- Treasurer, and keep an account of the collections. 
 Has this been done? Certainly not. The collections are 
 handed over to the Matron Sunday after Sunday , and she gives 
 an account only quarterly , not to one of the Trustees, but to Mr. 
 Harris , a clerk to one of the Trustees. 
 
 The Trust Deed also distinctly declares that the Chaplain 
 “ shall not use or exercise any other lucrative situation, profession, 
 
 * Miss Jackson, one of the present Visiting Ladies, can, perhaps, testify 
 to the truth of this. 
 
31 
 
 or employment whatsoever .” Now ? we all know that the Rev.C. M. 
 Fluery is the proprietor or principal of a large boys’ school, and 
 yet he says in his letter, “ that the Trustees are very thoughtful 
 men , and regulated by a Trust Deed in all things /” (see page 6). 
 Why the Trustees, in many respects, have acted totally at 
 variance with the provisions of the Deed. 
 
 I understand that both the servants are Roman Catholics. The 
 cook entered as a Protestant, but I believe her niece has said 
 she is a Roman Catholic. I ask the Trustees whether Pro- 
 testants cannot be obtained? I also beg to bring under 
 their notice that the Matron is continually absent from her 
 post. Miss Hines generally leaves the Asylum every Tues- 
 day after the Lecture, and does not return until Thursday 
 morning. If she returns on Wednesday she takes a holiday on 
 Saturday. It may be said in truth that she is absent two days 
 in every week, and frequently more. It is a question the 
 Trustees should closely examine as to how the inmates are 
 attended to when the Matron is so constantly away from the 
 Asylum. I am frequently there, and I may safely assert that she is 
 out four times out of five * Dr. Bigger has spoken of the food, 
 and I cannot but add that I was certainly much astonished 
 when first I heard of the very poor diet given to these 
 blind inmates. What can be the meaning of salt ling every 
 Friday — why fish always on a Friday? Really the Trustees 
 would do well to inform us if this is a Protestant or Roman 
 Catholic Institution. Salt meat should not always be given to 
 the inmates every week — why are potatoes only supplied twice 
 a-week ? After the inmates have pleased us by the melody of 
 their voices on a Sunday, they (poor things !) are set down to a 
 miserable dinner — a little bit of cold meat — out of which broth 
 had been made for the Saturday’s dinner. Why, if the broth 
 was good for anything, the meat was boiled to rags. They do 
 not even get a potatoe. The potatoes are only purchased just as 
 they are required , in small quantities. Should not a proper 
 supply of potatoes and every other thing be contracted for? 
 
 The Molyneux Asylum should be conducted as other insti- 
 tutions at Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool, and London. Can you 
 point to one without a Managing Committee ? If you have fifteen 
 or twenty Visiting Ladies who are permitted and encouraged to 
 do their duty, each lady will have a direct interest in the sup* 
 
 * Mr. and Miss Allnutt were spending the evening on one occasion with 
 the Rev. II. V. White and Mrs. White, at the Molyneux, and Mr. Allnutt 
 took his violin down to the work-room and played a few Hymns to the inmates 
 while they sang — some of them wished him to play other airs also, but most 
 fortunately he did not ; what a handle would now have been made of such an 
 occurrence, had he done so. 
 
port and well being of the Asylum. This also will be the case 
 with the Managing Committee.. If these gentlemen are properly 
 chosen, and will not fear to do their duty, they will not only 
 endeavour to economise the funds, but they will each and all 
 be to some extent collectors, and the existence of these bodies 
 will give the public confidence that the funds are made the 
 most of. 
 
 It is quite impossible to close this statement without alluding 
 to the conduct of the present Matron. It is said on all sides 
 that her behaviour is most uncourteous and repulsive to every 
 one who visits the Institution, as though she was patronizing 
 them by allowing them to see the place. Ladies of great 
 influence have declared her behaviour unbearable. 
 
 I could bring forward several matters of this kind, but I 
 have more weighty things to say. Would the Trustees have 
 the goodness to direct Miss Hines to produce her book of 
 incidental expenses? I do not doubt that the tots in this 
 book are correct (Mr. Harris has taken care of this), but let me 
 for a few minutes look over it, and I put it to the Trustees 
 whether they would allow a week or two of entries to be read 
 before all the women ? I should like to know about the bread 
 given to the servants. I have also to remark that the Trustees 
 should take immediate steps to inquire into the truth of various 
 reports, which, if true, are of themselves quite sufficient to un- 
 dermine and ruin any Institution. The Trustees are bound 
 instantly to inquire into the subject, painful as it is, and it 
 accounts for the very great dislike of having any Visiting 
 Ladies to attend the Asylum. 
 
 It is a fact that these poor blind women are afraid of a 
 similar catastrophe as that which occurred at Strabane a short 
 time back — they are continually in dread of being burned in 
 their beds — and is such an event impossible ? I am alluding 
 to a report that the Matron is constantly in the habit of exceed- 
 ing the bounds of moderation in drink, and I pray the Trustees 
 to go and ask all the women if this is true. 
 
 The Assistant-Matron always goes out from seven to ten 
 o’clock every evening when the Matron is at home, and on her 
 return the Matron is in bed. — (See her evidence, p. 37.) 
 
 I ask the Trustees to have Margaret Ring before them, and 
 examine her as well as the blind women. Say not that she will 
 assert that which is not true — she is well known to various 
 respectable persons, and I have the best of characters for 
 truthfulness, &c., from her present mistress, and the Trustees 
 cannot refuse to hear her evidence. A bottle of wine is had 
 from Mr. Faulkner, the grocer, in Grafton-street, every Satur- 
 
33 
 
 day. Ask the inmates whether any of them have had it — of 
 course at times they are ordered a little — but every week this 
 bottle is brought into the Asylum. I will add no more, though 
 indeed there are still numerous matters yet untouched. Let 
 the Trustees do their duty, and things can be remedied for the 
 future ; but matters have come to that pass that it is impossible 
 longer to keep them secret. 
 
 The reading of the preceding paper was frequently interrupted 
 by the Trustees, they declared they did not come there to hear 
 anything personal. When Mr. Allnutt had concluded, and his 
 witnesses being at hand to substantiate the charges, there arose 
 a warm discussion — it was urged that it was unfair to expect 
 such charges to be met without due notice ; and on the other 
 hand, it was contended if the inquiry was postponed, it would 
 leave room for undue influence to be exerted on the Blind 
 Inmates of the Asylum, who, Mr. Allnutt insisted, ought to be 
 examined on the subject. It was said that, if delayed, an 
 opportunity of tampering with the witnesses would be given ; 
 and as it appeared that Mr. Armstrong, one of the most active of 
 the Trustees, was compelled to leave Dublin on professional 
 business, and could not return for about a month, it was urged 
 that the case ought to be proceeded with at once. Even Mr. 
 Allnutt’s first witness was called into the room, but it was 
 eventually determined to postpone the investigation to the 6th 
 of August. Mr. John Robinson (the solicitor) strongly recom- 
 mended the appointment of a Managing Committee, a course 
 which had the Trustees then adopted would probably have 
 averted the exposure they have now brought upon themselves ; 
 but Mr. Robinson’s suggestion, as well as that of every real friend 
 of the Asylum — from the issue of Mr. Allnutt’s “ Address' down to 
 the recommendation of His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin — we 
 repeat, the advice and good offices of every real friend has been 
 refused and repelled by the Trustees, who scorn the least inter- 
 ference ; in fact, Mr. Moore, one of the Trustees, was heard to say 
 “ what right had strangers to interfere .” We ask who could be 
 greater strangers to the affairs of the Institution than the Trustees 
 themselves, and Mr. Moore, in particular, who had not 
 spoken to the inmates for twelve years? [see page 53]. The 
 Trustees as good as say, why should the public impertinently 
 require an account of their subscriptions ? Is it not very kind 
 of the Trustees to allow their names to be used, should they 
 not be permitted to disburse the funds without any questions 
 being put to them on the subject? Quite recently we have 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 been informed, on good authority, that when a lady ex- 
 pressed to a certain individual, she wished that last year's 
 published accounts at least should be audited. “ Why,” 
 said he — “ it would he just as reasonable to ask for the 
 accounts of a private family /” The management of the Moly- 
 neux Asylum assuredly is rather too much of a private affair. 
 We plainly tell the Trustees so, and either they must submit 
 to have the accounts properly audited and printed every year; 
 or they must resign, and thus make room for others to manage 
 the Institution, who will not be afraid to act openly and 
 above board. True, the Trustees say, (and their Chaplain 
 echoes the opinion), that those who do not approve of the 
 present way of managing the Asylum can cease to subscribe 
 to its funds. We say, what right has any public Institution to 
 confine its privileges merely to such as are willing to “SUBMIT” 
 to its abuses ? 
 
 In due time the 6th August arrived, and Mr. Allnutt and 
 his witnesses attended at 12 o’clock. The following Gentlemen 
 also composed the meeting: — Mr. William Armstrong, Mr. 
 Moore, Mr. L. BickerstafF, Rev. Dr Stanford, Mr. Watson, 
 (these five are Trustees,) the Rev. C. M. Fleury, Chaplain of the 
 Asylum; also the Hon. King Harman, Mr. Grogan, M.P., Mr. 
 Aylmer, Mr. W. Caldbeck, Mr. F. Sutton, Mr. Pollock, Dr. 
 Bigger, Mr. John Hogan, Mr. George Cathcart, Mr. White 
 (the Barrister), Mr. Belas, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Harris, 
 and others may have attended, whose names we did not 
 take down. Mr. Armstrong, who took the chair, immediately 
 called on Mr. Allnutt to proceed with his charges; and his 
 witnesses not being quite ready, he left the Board-room for 
 them. In the mean time Dr. Bigger addressed the Chairman, 
 and said, he requested the Trustees would inform him whether 
 they gave Mr. Harris authority to write him the note to pospone 
 the first meeting on the 11th July to the following week, Mr. 
 Harris saying, “ it was unavoidedly postponed to an early day 
 next week!” (see copy of his letter in page 13) — when it was 
 quite clear, had we not met the Trustees on that day, we 
 could not have met them again for about a month, viz. : — until 
 this day, the 6th of August. Mr. Armstrong and all the 
 Trustees declared they gave Mr. Harris no authority whatever 
 to postpone the meeting, or to write the letter; they knew 
 nothing whatever about it. Mr. Harris was present during this 
 scene, and could not say one word in justification of his having 
 written the letter, neither did he inform the meeting, who in- 
 stigated him to send the letter to Dr. Bigger. 
 
Mr. Allnutt now entered the room with Margaret Ring, and the 
 Trustees, having sent for the Matron the examination commenced 
 by Mr. Armstrong, the Chairman, questioning the witness. Mr. 
 Allnutt and Mr. White (the latter said he attended merely as 
 a friend of the Matron) also examined Margaret Ring. We now 
 proceed to give her evidence. We desire to give the evidence 
 truly, and we appeal to those Gentlemen who attended whether 
 the statement we are now giving does not strictly agree with 
 what took place at the meetings. It may here be said that 
 an application has been made to Mr. Armstrong for a copy of 
 his notes, but he declined to furnish such to the Committee. 
 See page 21 of the Committee’s “ Statement .” 
 
 Margaret Ring lived as Assistant Matron in the Molyneux Asylum for above 
 three years, from December, 1850, to February, 1854 ; the cause of her leaving 
 the Asylum was that one day she complained to the Matron, when in the room 
 with the inmates,' of the constant interruptions she suffered in reading to the 
 girls, by being compelled to get up and open the street door ; she asked why the 
 housemaid could not attend the door ? The Matron was offended that she 
 spoke before the inmates, and said, “ why could you not speak to me when 
 alone?” when she replied, “why, if I did it would be of no use.” The 
 following day the Matron gave her a note, saying she was to leave the Asylum. 
 She had a discharge given her, which she produced to the meeting, and of which 
 the following is a correct copy : — 
 
 “Molyneux Asylum, February 13, 1854. 
 
 “ Margaret Ring has lived with me as Assistant in the management of this 
 Institution for three years, during which period she conducted herself with strict 
 integrity and faithfulness ; she discharged all the duties of the situation in a 
 trust-worthy and industrious manner. I regret to part her. 
 
 34, Peter -street. (Signed), Elizabeth Hines.” 
 
 Margaret Ring lived with Mrs. Crofton, 76, Euston-terrace, 
 Ranelagh-road, before she came to this Asylum, and the follow- 
 ing is a copy of her discharge from that lady : — 
 
 “27, Upper Lesson-street, 21st November, 1850. 
 
 “ Margaret Ring lived with me for four years (and two years previous to 
 my joining the family), as Parlour and Housemaid, during which period she 
 conducted herself with the strictest honesty, sobriety, and quietness. I consider 
 her a person in whom every dependence may be placed on account of her never 
 deviating from the truth ; she understands the care of plate, &c., and attends 
 very well at table. She also solely waited on my mother-in-law, an aged lady, 
 to whom she was most careful and attentive. I part her now with much regret, 
 first paying all wages due. M. CROFTON.” 
 
 She was then living a housemaid in the family of , of Merrion- 
 
 square, North. The Matron nearly always left the Ayslum on Tuesday after the 
 lecture, and returned on Thursday. If she occasionally came back earlier, she 
 generally went out on Saturday for the day. She ahnost invariably was absent 
 two days every week, and frequently oftener than this. She remembers the 
 death of Jane Byrne, in fact she died in her arms — the Matron was absent that 
 night ; she has frequently seen the Matron the worse of drink; she could make no 
 mistake, she was constantly in this state of an evening, so that often she could 
 
36 
 
 not be understood ; she (Margaret Ring) did not name it to any one, she could 
 not speak to any Visiting-Ladies, for there were none during the period she was 
 at the Asylum. Some few young ladies came to read to the inmates between 
 the hours of twelve o’clock and two o’clock in the day, but they were not Visiting- 
 Ladies ; they had no power to interfere , neither had they Committee meetings, 
 nor did they attend at meal times, or look to the clothing of the inmates. She 
 had occasion to see the Matron one evening in her bedroom, and on going up stairs 
 for that purpose, she was met by Alicia Green, the housemaid, and Mary Tremble, 
 who prevented her going into the Matron’s bedroom. A bottle of port wine was 
 always brought to the Asylum every Saturday from Mr. Faulkner, the grocer — 
 this is not the wine used in the Chapel, which is obtained quite from another Wine 
 Merchant, and kept in the vestry. On being questioned about the Accounts, 
 and on Mr. Alhiutt requiring the book of Incidental Expenses, it was produced ; 
 Margaret Ring instantly pointed out the item of Is. lOd. or Is. 8d. as for Bread 
 entered each Monday, immediately after the payment of 2s. 6d. to each of the 
 servants for Breakfast money. She said, it was part of her duty to hand the 
 servants their bread from that supplied to the house by the baker, who attended 
 three times a week from Chapelizod. She had seen the Matron write down 
 this very item of Bread, although such was not purchased by the Matron, but 
 taken out of the regular supply to the Asylum. Most of the charges in 
 the book were over-charges, that for instance, the Buttermilk was set down 
 as having cost 9d. or 6d., whereas it really cost only about 3d. Alicia 
 Green, the housemaid, first drew her attention to these entries. Alicia Green 
 is a Roman Catholic, and also the cook, although she calls herself a Protestant. 
 She has known the cook to be also intoxicated. She knew that Mary Tremble (one 
 of the inmates) was treated by the Matron quite differently from any of the other 
 women. She had her tea and meals often with, or immediately after the Matron, 
 or in the pantry away from the other inmates ; and Mary Tremble gave out 
 the tea for the inmates to the cook. Mr. Fleury, the Chaplain, often came to 
 the Asylum, but not to the inmates , whilst she was at the place. 
 
 Kate Read was elected an inmate of this Asylum, when about ten years of 
 age — was now organist at Clontarf Church. Her sight was scarcely any better 
 now than when she was in the Molyneux ; it was always better when she was 
 in good health, but became very indifferent when she was ill. She was compelled 
 to leave the Asylum about five years ago ; she was absent on a visit to her 
 friends in the North ; and she received a letter from the Rev. C. M. Fleury, 
 stating the Trustees did not wish her to return ; she did not feel satisfied, 
 and she immediately returned to Dublin, and went to the Asylum. She 
 saw Mr. Fleury once, who told her she must leave the place ; she asked Trim 
 to let her see the Trustees ; and he replied, “ she coidd not see any of the 
 Trustees ; only saw Mr. Fleury, as well as she recollects on one occasion. 
 There were no Visiting-Ladies to whom she coidd speak ; she did not see the 
 Matron, who was unwell, but she saw Mr. Hands about four times. He 
 insisted on her going, and said, if she did not go quietly , and at once force 
 would be used to make her quit the Asylum. When she said, “ where shall I 
 go ? ” Mr. Harris replied that “ the Trustees did not care where she went to /” 
 After she left, some of the congregation interfered, and caused the Trustees to 
 permit her to attend the Asylum about three times a week, and take music 
 lessons from Susannah Jenks, the chief organist, for about two years. From the 
 exertions of the friends before alluded to, the Trustees also allowed her five 
 pounds a year, payable quarterly, by the Matron — she never gave her any receipt 
 for these payments. She was very kind to her, but with great sorrow she must 
 tell the truth, and say she has frequently seen the Matron mider the influence 
 of drink. 
 
37 
 
 We beg to add a few words on this poor girl’s ease, we 
 believe it was an act of “ jobbery ” (Mr. Fleury’s word) getting 
 her into the Molyneux, for it could not be considered she was 
 blind ; but surely after she had been kept there from childhood, 
 from ten to twenty years of age, it was cruel and heartless in 
 the extreme of the Trustees to turn her out into the world. 
 What would become of her had it not pleased God to raise up 
 friends? We cannot understand why Mr. Harris should appear 
 in the business. Who deputes him to interfere, and who told 
 Mr. Harris to write the letter putting off the meeting of the 
 11th July? The Trustees say, they did not. 
 
 Our readers will learn, we think, with feelings of indignation, 
 that since this enquiry Kate Read’s little annual stipend of <£5, 
 has been taken from her. She had a letter from the Matron to 
 tell her she will not be allowed to visit the inmates for the 
 future; and that the Trustees will no longer continue the 
 payment of £1 5s. a quarter, and yet in the advertisement 
 about Mary Callaghan, [see page 23] the Trustees say, they 
 are collecting funds to make permanent provision for this ex- 
 tern, to enable them to take in Mary Callaghan. So bitter is 
 the feeling against this poor girl, Kate Read, that even the 
 Sexton, Lilly, left his duty of opening the pews one Tuesday, 
 and actually sat up in the gallery by her side, to prevent her 
 speaking to any of her former companions and friends, the 
 inmates of the Asylum. To proceed— on the withdrawal of 
 Kate Read, who was much affected during her examination, 
 the present Assistant Matron was called into the room : — 
 
 Maria Franklin was Assistant Matron in the room of Margaret Ring, the 
 first witness ; had been in the situation about two and a half-years. She is 
 always allowed by the Matron to go home and see her friends of an evening at 
 about seven o’clock, when the Matron is at the Asylum ; and she does not return 
 until about ten o’clock at night, when the Matron has retired to bed. This ar- 
 rangement was not made at her request, but the Matron told her she might go, 
 and, of course, she was happy to see her friends. [Maria Franklin evidently was 
 not at all at ease ; she hesitated, and did not answer promptly in a clear and de- 
 cided manner.] She admitted that the Matron continually left the Asylum ; that 
 she went on Tuesday and returned on Thursday or Friday. When asked whether 
 she had noticed any appearance of drink, she hesitated, and remarked “ why you 
 know, Sir , I am always out of an evening when the Matron is at home.” When 
 pressed for a more decided reply, she said, “ she had seen something .” She really 
 could hardly say what it was, but it was something strange, it might have been 
 drink. Mary Tremble did not have her meals with the other women ; she also 
 gave out the tea to the Cook. Mr. Fleury did not attend the inmates, but was 
 with the Matron often. The girls sometimes complained of their dinner ; and 
 she had told the Matron of it. She cut the bread on Saturday for the use of the 
 women on Sunday ; she covered the pieces over with some clothes. One of the 
 
38 
 
 gentlemen, Mr. W. Calbecksaid, it was “ quite rigid and proper ; she was a 
 good girl for not cutting the bread on a Sunday .' 1 ' 1 Other gentlemen differed 
 from him entirely, and considered it a great unkindness to cut bread the day 
 before it was required to be eaten, especially in the summer time.* 
 
 We have been informed that when one of the inmates com- 
 plained of this circumstance, the reply she got was, “ Oh you will 
 eat all the less of it then /” It is a similar discomfort to that of 
 the work-room, the only room having a fire for the warmth of 
 the blind inmates, is given up to the Sunday School for the 
 children of the members of the congregation. Whilst the 
 women — some of them of advanced age — are to stand or sit in 
 the cold bedrooms, or anywhere else they please, without a fire 
 — formerly the Sunday School was carried on in the Chapel, 
 which is warmed. It shows that the comfort of these poor 
 blind women is of very little, or no consideration. 
 
 Strange to say the inmates are not allowed to join the Sun- 
 day School. We know what Mr. Fleury said on this subject. 
 
 Surely, some plan could be adopted to render a fire as safe 
 in the largest bed-room as in the work-room. The inmates not 
 only have no fire to warm them before attending the church 
 service at twelve o’clock, but when they leave the chapel, they 
 sit down to about as miserable and comfortless a dinner as any 
 one can imagine — a lump of hard cold beef, boiled for hours 
 the previous day for the soup, with a piece of dry bread, 
 cut the previous day, without a potatoe. This at an expense 
 of upwards of £20 each per annum. Such treatment is almost 
 beyond belief ; and it makes one feel most indignant, that any 
 set of men can be found to defend such unfeeling conduct. 
 Maria Franklin proceeded to say, that she was often employed 
 making dresses for the matron. At the same time, we 
 are given to understand that the work for the inmates gar- 
 ments is frequently given out. One would say that should 
 be done before the matron's dresses were made in the place. 
 Lilly, the sexton, sometimes had meat and drink in the 
 place. We know a good deal of this eating and drinking at 
 the expense of the Asylum, but we spared the witness, and she 
 was questioned no more on this subject; she seemed to be at 
 a loss to know what course to steer — she did not want to betray 
 her mistress, knowing full well that she could be sent out of 
 the Asylum at a moment’s notice, (which was actually the case 
 a few days after,) Maria Franklin had been made to sign a paper 
 before her engagement to the effect that she would leave at once, 
 whenever required so to do. Poor Maria ; she had said quite 
 
 * Doubtless Mr. W. Calbeck always has his Sunday’s bread cut on Saturday ! 
 
39 
 
 enough to settle her, although but little to bring home the 
 charges, and in due course she was told to go by the Matron one 
 Saturday evening, without the least reason given to her. She in- 
 sisted on staying until Monday morning, and as the Matron would 
 only pay her the wages due to that exact time, she summoned 
 her before the Lord Mayor for a quarter’s wages. The under- 
 taking was produced, but his Lordship still felt inclined to 
 give her the quarter’s wages, until he was informed the 
 Charity would have to pay the amount, when he dismissed 
 the complaint. We are happy to add, that Maria Franklin 
 has obtained a more respectable place, where we hope she will 
 remain many years. She has since met Mr. Allnutt at the 
 Crystal Palace in London, and on his speaking to her respecting 
 her evidence, she said, “ surely the gentlemen must have seen 
 that I wished to save my Mistress .” 
 
 We will not be answerable for the truth of the result of the 
 summons before the Lord Mayor. We only give the informa- 
 tion we obtained from others. 
 
 Mr. Allnutt now called on the Trustees to examine the 
 blind inmates. Some of the Trustees declared that it was a 
 most improper course; that it would injure the Institution, 
 and so forth. Mr. Armstrong, the chairman, declared that 
 if Mr. Allnutt demanded it, they must be heard. Then the 
 question arose how were they to be examined ? Mr. Allnutt 
 wished the Trustees to go into the work-room, and ask the 
 ■women in a body if the charges, (especially that of drinking), are 
 true. This, it was considered, could not be done. Then he 
 was requested to name the women he wished to have ex- 
 amined, which he positively declined ; and then he suggested 
 that the inmates should be brought into the room one by one. 
 Subsequently it was arranged that they should be called in 
 according to the period they had been in the Asylum, and 
 Mr. Bickerstaff (a Trustee), brought them into the room as their 
 names stood on the list. After the examination of each was 
 concluded, the witness was taken into another room, to avoid, 
 as much as possible, their telling each other what they were 
 asked or said on the subject. 
 
 We now proceed to give the examination of these poor 
 blind women on this painful subject: — 
 
40 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE BLIND INMATES. 
 
 Before we proceed to give the evidence we must remark 
 that this day we were not so careful to note down everything 
 as on the following day, and we wish it to be borne in mind 
 that no lawyer questioned the witnesses on our side. Mr. White, 
 a barrister, appeared very much interested for the other party. 
 With these prefatory remarks we shall commence. 
 
 1. Mary M'Donnell on being led into the room by one of the Trustees sat 
 down. She had been forty years in the Asylum ; had noticed some- 
 thing wrong about the Matron — a thickness of voice in reading of an evening — 
 never noticed anything of the kind in the morning. Cannot account for a 
 bottle of wine being sent to the Asylum regularly every week ; the women 
 do not get it ; sometimes when they are ill they are ordered a little wine, 
 but they are not always ill. 
 
 2. Susannah Jenks, the chief Organist, has been thirty-five years in the 
 Asylum ; she frequently noticed something about the Matron ; could not tell 
 any particular day. Drunk was a hard word to say ; knew it by the 
 Matron’s voice. Does not remember the number of times ; noticed it chiefly 
 by the voice ; the first time by the manner of reading. 
 
 3. Margaret Roberts , thirty-five years in the Asylum. [This witness was 
 most anxious to know who was in the room, whether the Trustees were present. 
 Indeed it may be said that most of the inmates appeared anxious on this 
 point. Margaret Roberts spoke of Mr. Ferrier most kindly, but she seemed 
 oppressed with some thing, not being able to understand why he had re- 
 signed ] After showing some reluctance in speaking she said never knew the 
 Matron to be entirely intoxicated, but there was more than what was right or 
 should be ; [her exact words] she never reckoned the times — not early in the 
 day — it would be in the evenings ; she had prayed for her for years. 
 
 4. Mary Tremble , thirty years in the Institution ; dines and takes her meals 
 in the pantry away from the other women ; the Matron allows her so to take 
 her meals ; she never knew her to be drunk ; never knew any thickness of speech ; 
 she never prevented Margaret Ring from seeing the Matron ; she suffered very 
 much from Margaret Ring ; she heard her say on leaving the Asylum that she 
 (Margaret Ring) would seek revenge of the Matron. [This witness was examined 
 by Mr. White, the barrister, on the part of Miss Hines ; and when Mr. Allnutt 
 cross questioned her she could not explain how Margaret Ring made her 
 suffer. On being asked whether she knew the gentleman who firs't examined 
 her, (Mr. White,) she said she did not; after a while she said she thought 
 she did , and on being further pressed, she of her own accord gave out his 
 name, and admitted Mr. White had questioned her on the previous Friday.'] 
 
 5. Martha Bidwell, thirty years an inmate ; [spoke of the truth of the 
 charges against the Matron as follows] had observed it in reading ; never in 
 the morning ; no thickness of voice in the morning. One evening she 
 staggered against the door, and did not stop to finish the reading ; supposed 
 it was drink ; she smelt the wine through the house of an evening. 
 Mary Tremble [see the previous witness, No. 4] was displeased with Margaret 
 Ring, the late assistant Matron, because Margaret Ring would not let Mary 
 Tremble have the key of the pantry. 
 
41 
 
 6. Catherine Maguire, thirty-two years an inmate ; had observed the Ma- 
 tron under the influence of drink ; often for the last eight years by the hoarse- 
 ness of her voice, which otherwise is good, clear, and distinct. She entertained 
 a feeling of pity towards the Matron, had prayed to the Lord about it. [This 
 witness is supposed to have asserted that she had to drag the Matron up stairs 
 to bed with the assistance of four other women, but Catherine Maguire asserts 
 she said no such thing, but that she and four others — Anne M‘Goey, Mary 
 Mason, Eliza O’Brien, and Ellen Whitley — heard such. The omission of 
 the word heard w'ould of course alter the case very much ; and it should be 
 borne in mind that during the examination the women were in a state of 
 trepidation, many of them shed tears, and appeared very unwilling to give 
 evidence ; they constantly inquired whether the Trustees were present, as 
 much as to say that it would be of no use and even dangerous for them to 
 speak of their treatment to those who had no power to help them. On 
 another occasion she said she heard (her own words this time) a rush on the 
 stairs, and she heard Mary Tremble say to the Matron, “hold tight, dear.” 
 The cook has been drunk, and one time fell down stairs. 
 
 7. Bridget Murphy, thirty years. The Matron was very kind to her ; never 
 knew anything wrong about her ; never knew her under the influence of drink. 
 
 8. Ellen Whitley, an inmate twenty-three years, on being asked if the 
 charge was true, she said — Yes, knew the Matron to be dragged up stairs 
 to bed by Mary Tremble. 
 
 9. Jane Scott, an inmate twenty-two years — knew the Matron to be in the 
 habit of drinking for the last seven years by the thickness of her voice. She 
 has known several times she could not go up stairs without assistance ; 
 she knew this herself; she would not say anything on hearsay; she was 
 afraid to mention it ; Mary Tremble used to take care of the Matron at such 
 times. [Further examination of the Inmates adjourned to the following 
 day, at half-past eleven o’clock in the forenoon.] 
 
 Thursday , August 7 th, Examination of Inmates continued. 
 
 10. Eliza Nelson, twenty-three years an inmate, had observed the Matron 
 under the influence of drink for the last two or three years by the thickness of 
 her voice of evenings. Often goes into the country ; she (Eliza Nelson) was 
 away this time last year for four months in the county of Cavan ; her 
 friends always pay the expenses of her journey ; had often spoken to others 
 of the thickness of the Matron’s voice ; lately did not like to speak of it, 
 or to condemn her, “ for,” she added, “ we are all fellow sinners, and it is 
 hard to speak of the sins of others.” 
 
 11. Margaret M‘ Donnell, twenty-three years an inmate; she was sorry 
 to have to say she did observe the Matron under the influence of drink ; she 
 also complained of the Matron neglecting her; she was often ill with a sore 
 throat ; she could take no food for a long time, the Matron might have given 
 her something, bui never did ; she had often been unwell, and the Matron 
 was not kind to her. She knew the state of the Matron by the thickness of 
 her voice and the deadness of her hand ; observed it often for about seven or 
 eight years past. She was once going up to bed when Mary Tremble was 
 helping the Matron to bed. it was in summer time.; never spoke of it until 
 it was becoming public. Mary Tremble has the key of the pantry , and can do 
 what she likes with the contents. She does not consider Bridget Murphy [No. 
 7] so sharp as she should be. Bridget is no knitter, cannot knit a stocking, 
 but can only do a plain garter. In answer to some question put by Mr 
 White, she said a lady said lately to them — “ Well, girls, what dinners do 
 you get, I hope you will soon be better off ” Miss P. was the lady. This 
 occurred about three or four weeks back. She was on the stairs once when 
 Mary Tremble was with the Matron ; Mary went up every night; the inmates 
 were never visited the by Rev. C. M. Fleury, the Chaplain. 
 
42 
 
 12. Mary M'Goey twenty years an inmate ; she knew that the Matron 
 drank; knew it by the thickness of her voice. She often smelt wine 
 on her and through the house ; observed it nearly eight years back, very 
 often. Never heard the Matron carried up to bed ; she had spoken of it to 
 some few of the girls two or three years back ; spoke of it to her sister. Mary 
 Tremble has the keys of the pantry. The Matron goes out on Tuesday and re- 
 turns on Thursday, and sometimes oftener. The inmates receive no visits 
 from Mr. Fleury. She thought when one girl (Mary Tremble) was ex- 
 amined on Friday last, she might. At the last meeting they heard that some 
 charges were brought against the Matron. The Matron told the Assistant 
 Matron, she (Margaret M‘Goey) heard from one of the inmates that there 
 was a charge of seven years’ drinking and sleeping out of nights ; could not 
 tell which girl, would not like to mention names. They said they knew the 
 Lord would bring the matter to light. Thickness of voice in the after- 
 noon, and when going for directions about work ; understood the Matron 
 but badly. They had noticed it for a long time before they spoke of it. Only 
 three of the inmates could play the organ. 
 
 13. Anne M'Goey — Has been an inmate for twenty years ; has observed 
 something wrong about the Matron; was afraid she took too much drink, 
 observed it by her voice. She was assisted up stairs about two years 
 back ; she heard her assisted up stairs by Mary Tremble about June. 
 She also knew her once to be assisted out of the bed-room where she (Anne 
 M‘Goey) sleeps ; she could not remember the month, but remembers it 
 distinctly between the hours of ten and eleven o’clock at night. The 
 Matron had been in her (Anne M‘Goey’s) room to see a girl in delicate health 
 (Letitia Lawless), Alicia Green, the house-maid, was present, and helped 
 the Matron out ; they have talked of it very much lately since the first meeting ; 
 we heard Mary Tremble leave the Matron in her bedroom, and then she went 
 down stairs for the house-maid, who went up. The house-maid is a Roman 
 Catholic. The Matron leaves the Asylum on Tuesday, and returns generally 
 on Thursday. She (Anne M'Goey) used to play the organ, but was obliged to 
 cease practising ; there was no time, for Mr. Fleury’s two sons were continually 
 playing. She complained to Mr.Ferrier, one of the Trustees, and he referred her 
 to Mr Fleury, who said he would have a Board.* It was Mr. Charles Fleury 
 and Mr. Francis who played ; one had also played the organ for the Church 
 service once.f They have spoken frequently of this matter of the Matron, and 
 although they would be sorry, still they would answer any questions put to 
 them. They heard there were two charges — drinking and living out of the 
 house. In answer to some questions, Anne M Goey stated the following re- 
 markable occurrence. — Remembers a blind man being constantly in the house 
 about two or three years back ; we heard that Mr. Fleury sent him ; he used 
 to come every day about eleven o’clock in the morning, and left the 
 Asylum about eight or nine o’clock in the evening. He had his meals 
 there ; did not sleep there ; he was about nineteen years of age, but could 
 not exactly tell. He did not learn music, but walked about with the girls. 
 We heard that it was Mr. Fleury’s wish that he should have his meals here. 
 He used to walk about the yard whenever the ladies came to read ; he 
 was never present when any ladies were here ; he left the work-room when 
 the ladies came. There were complaints made respecting this man, and he 
 
 * Why necessary for Mr. Fleury to have a Board on such a matter ? 
 
 t No later than Sunday evening, the 22nd February last, Mr. Charles 
 Fleury and some young gentlemen from his father’s school, or it may be his 
 acquaintances, took possession of the organ-loft in the Chapel, had a pair of 
 candles lit, and chatted together. Mr. Charles Fleury presided at the organ 
 instead of one of the blind women ; he sent a message during the week to those 
 inmates who sang, to come and practice with him, but they all declined. Com- 
 ments on this indecorous proceeding in the House of God in an Asylum for 
 Blind Females are quite unnecessary ! 
 
43 
 
 was removed. It is hardly necessary to observe that this communication, 
 elicited by numerous questions, created sensations of the utmost astonishment 
 and indignation amongst most of the gentlemen present at the meeting, in the 
 midst of which the Rev. C. M. Fleury came forward, and said, this 
 matter was a very simple affair, and could easily be explained. The 
 fact was, the Earl of Mayo sent a boy up to Dublin on his way to 
 Liverpool, and as his lordship wanted him to see the Asylum, he (the 
 Chaplain) accordingly sent the boy here, but how long he remained he did not 
 know. In answer to certain questions, Mr Fleury proceeded to say that 
 the Matron complained to him of the conduct of the boy — he was getting 
 troublesome, and he sent the boy away. The boy was a convert. Some gen- 
 tlemen asked Mr. Fleury if he was not aware there was an Asylum in Sack- 
 ville-street, Dublin, for Blind Men, and they wished to know why Mr. Fleury, 
 the Chaplain, did not send this individual to that Asylum for men rather than 
 to the Molyneux We did not hear that Mr. Fleury had anything farther to 
 say in explanation of this remarkable fact. We have since the meeting heard 
 somewhat further of this man, and we beg to refer parties to page 19 of the 
 Statement of the Committee, where they will find that this boy, as Mr. 
 Fleury calls him, was about twenty years of age, and was expelled from the 
 Richmond Asylum, in the year 1851, for bad conduct.* Anne M‘Goey resumed 
 her evidence, and said she told her sister that she heard Mary Tremble 
 assist the Matron up stairs ; she did not help, but only wondered. In reply to a 
 question put to Anne M‘Goey by Mr. White, the barrister (who was defend- 
 ing the Matron) as to how she remembered the exact date of Mary Tremble 
 taking the Matron up to bed, and yet could not remember an occurrence but 
 a few months back, she said the reason she knew it to be in June was that 
 she had a letter which was dated the 17th of June, and she got it on the 18th ; 
 it was while that letter was being read to her that she heard Mary Tremble 
 taking the Matron up stairs ; her foot was heavy and powerless — they knew 
 each other by the tread of the foot. No Visiting Ladies were attending the 
 Asylum; even if there had been a Committee of Ladies she did not know she 
 would have complained — as one person she would not like to have come for- 
 ward. The Resident Chaplain, the Rev. H. V. White, was not allowed to in - 
 terfere. Mr. F errier (the Trustee who had just resigned) when in Dublin could 
 be spoken to by the inmates, but since he left, there was no person that 
 any of them could speak to — the Trustees never came into the work-room. She 
 knows Bridget Murphy [see No 7] ; they do not think her clear, always 
 thought her of weak intellect. Mary Tremble has the keys of the pantry ; 
 heard that she differed with the late Assistant-Matron about the keeping 
 of the keys. Knew the Cook to be drunk ; she believed her to be also a Roman 
 Catholic. 
 
 14. Eliza O'Brien, twenty-seven years in the house. She observed the 
 Matron often much overcome by drink for the last eight years ; knew it by the 
 thickness of her voice, which was apparent when she was reading in the even- 
 ing. She was sitting in her room one Saturday evening and heard her assisted 
 up stairs by Mary Tremble. One summer evening — she could not exactly 
 give the date — she went to the door to find out what the noise was; she thought 
 it was a great weight coming up stairs, and when she found it was Mary and 
 the Matron she went away, she did not assist them ; this occurred between nine 
 and ten o’clock. The Matron appeared like one losing her speech. She (Eliza 
 O’Brien) had spoken to Susannah Jenks and Mary Mason ; they often prayed 
 that the Lord would convert the Matron, or that He would bring the matter 
 to light. It was a subject they much disliked to speak of. It might be a 
 couple of years back; they spoke of it last Friday when the Matron employed 
 Mr. White (the barrister). Mary Tremble was then examined, and they believed 
 
 * There was not any truth in the assertion that this blind man was on his 
 way to the Liverpool Asylum, but after leaving the Molyneux he was in the 
 Poor-house. 
 
44 
 
 also the servants. The Assistant Matron was not in the Asylum. She sup- 
 posed the inmates would be questioned, and she said to Margaret M‘Donnell 
 that if they were asked any questions she hoped they would all speak the 
 truth. Bridget Murphy [No 7] is not considered over bright. 
 
 15. Jane M'Kee , thirteen years an inmate ; she observed the Matron often 
 the worse for drink for about eight years back : knew it by the thickness of 
 her voice, could not say how often. Never knew the Matron to be carried up to 
 bed ; heard Mary Tremble help the Matron up stairs. The Matron passes her 
 bedroom in going up stairs. She was in the country about two years back, she 
 returned in September. Sometimes the Matron is better than at other times ; 
 her voice is never thick in the morning ; her voice has not been thick of an 
 evening for the last month.* She cannot say exactly whether this has been 
 the case for the last two months ; she will only speak of the last month. 
 In answer to some questions this witness further said — sometimes there has 
 not been enough broth for all the women, and when this is the case they 
 can get nothing hut a piece of bread for dinner. 
 
 16. Mary Mason, twenty -seven years an inmate : she has known the 
 Matron to drink for the last seven or eight years, chiefly by the thickness of 
 her voice when reading. She heard her helped up to bed one night by Mary 
 Tremble — one Saturday night, nearly ten o'clock. She then knew the 
 Matron’s state by her helpless, heavy walking. The Matron is absent for two 
 days generally every week ; the broth was very bad. 
 
 17- Rebecca Sheridan, sixteen years an inmate. When asked if she 
 knew the Matron to drink “ Yes,” she said, “ she thought she took too 
 much drink by the thickness of her voice, and thinks it about eight years. 
 She (the witness) was absent about two years back. The housemaid is a 
 Roman Catholic. She knew Kate Read; she had been an inmate in the 
 Asylum for ten years ; she and all the women felt the removal of Kate Read 
 exceedingly ; she was so affected by it that she was obliged to leave the 
 church on account of her crying.” [Dr. Bigger was asking her questions at 
 this time, and the Chairman (a Trustee) interfered, and would not allow more 
 questions to be put ; after some discussion the Doctor submitted to the Chair- 
 man. It may be said that questions were repeatedly objected to as not 
 affecting the matter at issue. Dr. Bigger was going to ask whether Mr. 
 Harris, (the same individual who wrote the letter to him to postpone the 
 meeting of the 11th of July — which letter it may be remembered was totally 
 repudiated by all the Trustees) spoke to her on the subject — the fact H, Mr. 
 Harris told Rebecca Sheridan if she cried after Kate Read she would be sent 
 an ay from the Asylum as Kate was!] 
 
 18. Ellen Crawjord, seventeen years an inmate. Said she had noticed 
 the conduct of the Matron ; she could not read so well in the evening as in the 
 morning, but did not observe it every evening. It was very painful to speak 
 of it ; had not seen anything amiss for the last month.* Did not know her to 
 be assisted up to bed. From half-past seven to ten o’clock of an evening she 
 repeats verses, and would not be likely to hear anything ; repeats the verses 
 in the yard. She does not taste the broth, she gets bread, or waits for tea. 
 
 19. Anne Graham, three years an inmate. Said she had observed the 
 Matron did not read in the evening as she did in the morning. This occurred 
 sometimes, but could not tell how often ; she knew it by the thickness of 
 speech. She often goes for a week to a friend, a lady, who resides in Dorset-st. 
 
 20. Kate Hooley, nine years in the Molyneux ; has seen something 
 wrong in the Matron ; she is given to drink ; thickness of voice, has observed it 
 for four years. Has only heard her once assisted up stairs by Mary Tremble; 
 never heard a noise but once. The Matron had to pass her bedroom door to 
 go to her chamber. As the Matron and Mary Tremble passed, Mary said 
 “ take care;' they had a candle. [One of the Trustees made some observa- 
 tion about the candle, as much as to say that he did not understand why having 
 a candle was any proof of the Matron being on the spot, but a gentleman said 
 
 * That was from the 11th July last. 
 
45 
 
 “ blind people do not require a candle .”] Never heard the Matron hoarse in the 
 morning, but constantly in the evening ; had spoken of it since the last meet- 
 ing. She had the Matron’s directions, but could not always understand her ; 
 the Matron would always answer when spoken to, but still she could not 
 always be understood. 
 
 This concluded the evidence of the inmates, some were 
 away from the Asylum visiting their friends, and others 
 were girls who had but lately entered. Thus twenty inmates 
 were examined, out of which number only two gave evidence 
 in favor of the Matron. One of them (Mary Tremble) was proved 
 again and again, and she also admitted herself that she was 
 treated quite differently to any of the other women ; the other 
 inmate (Biddy Murphy) was considered by all the women to 
 be of weak mind and intellect. [See page 41, number 7.] 
 
 Margaret Ring, the former Assistant Matron, was called 
 again into the room, and, in reply to certain questions, she 
 said that the cause of the difference between her and Mary 
 Tremble was, that Mary had a second hey of the pantry, which 
 she, Margaret Ring, strongly objected to. Mary Tremble was 
 allowed to have this key by the Matron, and she could go to 
 the pantry and take what she pleased. 
 
 The case against the Matron now closed. 
 
 As it was getting late in the afternoon it was considered 
 impossible to enter into the defence, and the meeting was ad- 
 journed to the next day (Friday), at half-past eleven o’clock. 
 
 Before the meeting was broken up Mr. Allnutt drew atten- 
 tion to the following fact, namely — that the list of inmates then 
 on the table, made out by the Rev. C. M. Fleury and the Matron, 
 did not appear to him to contain the names of all the women. 
 Mr. Allnutt requested that this list should be carefully looked 
 over, which was done by Mr. Fleury, Mr. Harris , and the 
 Matron, and they declared that it was a correct list. “Then,” 
 said Mr. Allnutt, “ this proves the statement to be incorrect 
 that we have seen in the advertisement so often repeated in 
 Saunders Newspaper about Mary Callaghan.” (See page 23.) 
 For instance : — 
 
 Interns and externs, on paper laid before this meeting 31 
 
 Number of externs therein - - -[subtract 3 
 
 28 
 
 Women just entered this year (Anne Burnett, Ellen 
 
 Devlin, and Mary Callaghan) - -[subtract 3 
 
 25 
 
 l 
 
 One little girl died in last year (Mary Walsh) [add 
 True number in the past year 
 
 26 only, not 28. 
 
46 
 
 The following is a list of the twenty-six inmates (interns) in 
 the Molyneux Asylum, 1855, also showing the externs, and the 
 three women who last election entered the Institution : — 
 
 
 Name of Inmates. 
 
 Yes or No, 
 when asked 
 if the charges 
 was true ? 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 
 years in 
 Asylum. 
 
 Age. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1 
 
 Letty Lawless 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Not examined beingill, con- 
 fined to her room. 
 
 2 
 
 Mary M ‘Donnell ... 
 
 Yes 
 
 40 
 
 57 
 
 
 3 
 
 Margaret Roberts . . . 
 
 Yes 
 
 35 
 
 52 
 
 
 4 
 
 Susannah Jenks ... 
 
 Yes 
 
 35 
 
 42 
 
 
 5 
 
 Martha Bidwell . . . 
 
 Yes 
 
 30 
 
 54 
 
 
 6 
 
 Anne M‘Goey 
 
 Yes 
 
 20 
 
 30 
 
 
 7 
 
 Mary M‘Goey 
 
 Yes 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 
 8 
 
 Catherine Maguire 
 
 Yes 
 
 32 
 
 43 
 
 
 9 
 
 Mary Tremble 
 
 No 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 
 10 
 
 Bridget Murphy . . . 
 
 No 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 
 11 
 
 Mary Mason 
 
 Yes 
 
 27 
 
 33 
 
 
 12 
 
 Susan Groves 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 On a visit to her friends. 
 
 13 
 
 Alicia Morgan 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 On a visit to her friends. 
 
 14 
 
 Rebecca Sheridan. . . 
 
 Yes 
 
 16 
 
 27 
 
 
 15 
 
 Jane Scott 
 
 Yes 
 
 22 
 
 31 
 
 
 16 
 
 Jane M‘Kee 
 
 Yes 
 
 13 
 
 28 
 
 
 17 
 
 Ellen Whitley 
 
 Yes 
 
 23 
 
 33 
 
 
 18 
 
 Ellen Crawford ... 
 
 Yes 
 
 17 
 
 36 
 
 
 19 
 
 Margaret M‘ Donnell 
 
 Yes 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 
 20 
 
 Ann Graham 
 
 Yes 
 
 3 
 
 31 
 
 
 21 
 
 Anne Joyce 
 
 ' — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 On a visit to her friends. 
 
 22 
 
 Kate Hooley 
 
 Yes 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 
 23 
 
 Elizabeth Nelson ... 
 
 Yes 
 
 23 
 
 35 
 
 
 24 
 
 Eliza O’Brien 
 
 Yes 
 
 27 
 
 36 
 
 
 25 
 
 Olivia Walsh 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Not examined- -very young. 
 
 26 
 
 Mary Walsh, 
 Entered 1856 
 
 Deceased 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Died in November, 1855. 
 
 26 
 
 Anne Burnett 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Elected, 15th April, 1856. 
 
 27 
 
 Ellen Devlin 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Elected, 15th April, 1856. 
 
 28 
 
 Mary Callaghan,... 
 Extents 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Put in, without an Election. 
 
 29 
 
 Margaret Kenagh* 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 An Extern. 
 
 30 
 
 Charlotte Lodge ... 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 An Extern. 
 
 31 
 
 Kate Read . . 
 
 * Or Keane. 
 
 Yes 
 
 
 
 An Extern. 
 
 We have been very careful in showing the number of years 
 each of the inmates have been in the Asylum, for persons at a 
 distance may suppose the inmates to be young girls and therefore 
 easily worked on to join in a conspiracy. 
 
47 
 
 The advertisement says there were twenty -eight women in 
 the Asylum in the past year . — (See page 23.) 
 
 Mr. White, the Matron’s legal adviser, instantly took up the 
 matter, and said “ Oh! what is the date of the newspaper T 
 Mr. Allnutt and others instantly asked him what the date of 
 the newspaper had to do with the question. The advertise- 
 ment says — “ number of inmates during the past year twenty- 
 eight ,” and from this number the average cost of individual 
 maintenance is calculated. This is not the only erroneous 
 statement to be found in that advertisement. We have 
 spoken of one of the externs having only £5 a year from the 
 Asylum, and another having half the cost of her keep paid by 
 a lady ; in short the cost of the three extern is about £25 a year, 
 viz. —Kate Read, £5, Margaret Keane, (or Kenagh,) about £12, 
 Charlotte Lodge, about £8. We say about, for although Mr. 
 Harris has been written to for the exact cost, he has not given 
 any information on the subject. Well, if £25 is taken from 
 £560, the cost of maintenance, including washing, there remains 
 £535, which being divided by twenty-six, the true number of 
 inmates, it appears that £20 12s. is the individual cost of 
 maintenance ; and even in this, bear in mind that some of the 
 inmates go and see their friends for a period of one and two 
 months at a time. 
 
 We say this error in the number of inmates is not the only 
 erroneous statement in the advertisement. Mr. Fleury, (as Chap- 
 lain and Secretary,) is responsible for the truth of the contents, 
 says that Mary Callaghan is totally blind ; is this true ? (she 
 is also said to be totally blind in the voting paper). Anne 
 Burnett is said to be partially blind, which is true ; and Mary 
 Callaghan totally blind, this is not true — Mary Callaghan has 
 been out to walk constantly since Mr. Fleury put her into 
 the Asylum and Anne Burnett not. The reason assigned for 
 it was — that Burnett was not yet able to walk with the other 
 women — (when will she be if she is never taken out ?) — for 
 that Mary Callaghan could see a little ; indeed she could tell that 
 a lady had red or pink stripes on her dress. Here is error the 
 second, and now we proceed to the third error, which is far worse 
 than the others. It says — that the Visiting Ladies were present , — 
 the Trustees know how strenuously at the first meeting Mr. 
 Fleury endeavoured to make it appear that the Visiting Ladies 
 were all in being and in action. This has been proved again 
 and again to be utterly untrue — the Visiting Ladies have been 
 done away with for about nine years. The Trustees themselves 
 now admit that there have been no Visiting Ladies for years ; 
 
48 
 
 true it is, there are Readers — a few ladies who read between the 
 hours of twelve and two o’clock, but they have no power what- 
 ever to interfere. Mr. Fleury not only permits an erroneous 
 statement to appear again and again before the public, but he 
 induces one of his friends to attach his name to the advertise- 
 ment, who knows nothing whatever respecting the Asylum. The 
 Rev. C. S. Stanford should know what he is doing before he puts 
 his name to documents ; he may as well sign a blank cheque, 
 and be entirely ignorant of the amount for which it will be 
 filled up, as to attach his name to a statement of which he has 
 no personal knowledge whatever. 
 
 EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. 
 
 Friday , August 8 th. 
 
 Alicia Green — has been house-maid for six and a-half years ; is a Roman 
 Catholic ; was tormented by Margaret Ring ; was not asked what religion she 
 was when engaged. She attends the Matron early and late, has constant inter- 
 course with her. The cook always takes up the Matron’s dinner about four 
 o’clock, and takes up filtered water . Has an opportunity of seeing the Matron at 
 her dinner — she always drinks water at her dinner — she never saw the Matron 
 take ale, or porter, or spirits, or wine since she was in the house — the Matron 
 could not take wine without her knowing it. Never observed her under the in- 
 fluence of strong drink. Remembers two years back ; never knew the Matron 
 to be assisted up to bed. She (Alicia Green) has never attended confession 
 since she has been at the Asylum. [She asserted that Margaret Ring had tor- 
 mented her. It could not be discovered in what way she was tormented by 
 the late Assistant Matron ; she said distinctly that Margaret Ring had not 
 insisted on her attending the Asylum Chapel, neither had she prevented her 
 going to a Roman Catholic chapel.] On asking the housemaid if Lilly, the 
 sexton, dined at the Institution, the Chairman would not allow her to answer 
 the question. She proceeded to say she had not ever spoken to anyone excep- 
 ting on last Friday, when Mr White asked her the same questions as to-day — 
 the Matron never said a word to her ; she said a gentleman would call and ex- 
 amine her. This was her first situation. She did not attend confession, because 
 she thought she was not going to stay in the Asylum. Never asked the Matron 
 (six and a-half years) to let her go. No one prevented her going to confession. 
 
 Catherine Toler — has been cook at this Institution above four years ; is 
 a Protestant ; attends the Matron constantly ; she takes up her dinner on a 
 tray : never takes up a glass ; never saw port wine or ale since she came into the 
 Asylum. There is a filter kept in the house, but the Matron never has any filtered 
 water at her dinner. There are no glasses kept in her room. She has never 
 anything to drink at her dinner. The Matron is strictly sober as she sits 
 there now. She (Catherine Toler) proceeded to say that while she was at 
 the door she overheard Eliza O’Brien say to the inmates she had told Mr. All- 
 nutt that Mary Tremble dragged the Matron up to bed drunk, she was asked 
 by him if that was the truth, and she said it was. She added that some of 
 the inmates would stand to what she was saying, but not all. She (Catherine 
 
49 
 
 Toler) has not drank for some time past, but she has taken more than she 
 should have done. The Matron only observed it once. She (Catherine Toler) 
 has drank often, but was not incapable of doing her work. Never knew the 
 house-maid (Green) help the Matron up to bed ; knew Margaret Ring, the 
 late Assistant-Matron, she said if ever she was Matron “ she would make 
 Dungarvan shake /” Cannot say whether this was said before or after the 
 notice to leave. The Matron never mentioned that she was to be examined this 
 day. In answer to a question put to the cook by Mr. Allnutt as to the cost of 
 the buttermilk on a Monday, she said it was threepence ; and on Mr. A. say- 
 ing something about the fact that the Matron had much more than three- 
 pence set down ; she began to prevaricate, and stated that perhaps the man 
 might have paid for more. 
 
 John Lilly , the Sexton and Messenger, sees the Matron early and late, and 
 very frequently after four o’clock in the afternoon. Never saw anything 
 remarkable about her ; always understood what she was reading ; 
 never observed any thickness in her voice, never observed her to be intoxicated. 
 He did not think it could take place without his knowledge. In answer to 
 some questions from Mr. Allnutt as to whether he did not have his meals at 
 the Asylum, Lilly admitted he had some food at the Asylum, but not his 
 dinner. He did not think it wrong his taking it, if he had he would not have 
 had anything. When Mr. Allnutt offered him money for a Report of the 
 Asylum he thought there was something wrong about Mr. Allnutt. [Lilly 
 having volunteered this statement, Mr Allnutt stated to the meeting that it 
 was quite true he had offered a few shillings for some old Reports of the 
 Institution, (he still offers ten shillings for a complete set of the thirteen 
 Reports.) This man Lilly has a peculiarly nice idea of what is right and wrong ; 
 he can eat and drink at the expense of the Asylum, but to offer any money 
 for an old Report of the Molyneux Asylum is, in his opinion, a sin of the 
 deepest dye. At this stage of the proceedings we observed the Rev. Dr. 
 Stanford (a Trustee) ask one of the other Trustees whether the Reports were 
 not sold. Poor man ! in his total ignorance of everything connected with the 
 Institution, he had yet to learn that no Report has been given to the sub- 
 scribers for many years past but that of last March, and that Mr. Fleury says 
 he will not favour us with another for five years.] Lilly proceeded to say 
 that he supplied the Asylum with coals and shoes, and that he lived in his 
 house rent free. 
 
 The Matron — Has been fourteen years over the Institution ; drinks water 
 and sometimes wine at her dinner — a quarter of a glass. Goes to the work- 
 room to read. No former Matron ever read — she does it for the improvement 
 as well as the amusement of the inmates. Dr. Cusack attended her in 
 1851-52 ; she is not strong ; in 1849 she suffered from fatigue. She retires 
 about ten o’clock ; she had selected Mary Tremble from the first ; she at- 
 tached herself to her ; she could not shake her off. She frequently goes to 
 Claremont to see her mother, who has been dying for the last three years. 
 Mr. Ferrier gave her leave to go away for the benefit of her health some 
 time back, and as it was more convenient for her to go out weekly than at a 
 stated time, she was allowed to make that arrangement. [Mr. Ferrier 
 having resigned, no application could be made to him as to the nature of the 
 leave of absence given to the Matron. It may be said that one Trustee had no 
 power whatever to give such a permission ; the Trust Deed requires not less 
 than three Trustees to form a quorum to conduct the business, and we beg 
 to add that even if it was true that Mr.Ferrier gave the Matron permission to 
 leave the Asylum for a month or so, perhaps six years ago, that could not bo 
 construed into a permission to leave the Asylum two days every week.] The 
 Matron proceeded to say that she was not present at the death of Jane Ryrne, 
 one of the inmates, for she was not at the Asylum that night. She admitted 
 she had given Margaret Ring the character which had been produced and 
 read, but that Margaret Ring was insolent. [Mr. Allnutt asked the Matron 
 
 Dl 
 
50 
 
 how she could reconcile the evidence of her two servants, for Alicia Green, 
 the house-maid, had stated that the Matron drank nothing but filtered water 
 at dinner, whereas the cook, Catherine Toler, had distinctly declared that the 
 Matron had never any water, or in fact any drink whatever at diuner, and yet 
 the Matron stated that she had both wine and water. We do not remember 
 that she endeavoured to explain this discrepancy in the evidence of the ser- 
 vants.] 
 
 In reference to tlie items in the book of incidental ex- 
 penses, which was again produced, the Maton said, that instead of 
 putting down too much, “ she was sure she had set down 
 too little for buttermilk ,” and, after much questioning, it came 
 out, although the various items were set down as having 
 been purchased on a certain day, this was not the case ; 
 the dates were as nothing ; for instance, that if 6d. or 9d. was 
 set down for buttermilk on Monday, the 13th June, only 3d. 
 might be spent on the 13th, but that the balance had been 
 expended during the week. In like manner, the charge of 
 about 2s. for bread regularly every Monday, was not the ser- 
 vants bread, although it was entered immediately after the 
 weekly money given to each servant, but this 2s. was bread 
 bought at various times through the week. Now this kind of 
 excuse, lame as it was, would in some degree acquit the Matron 
 of the charge of erroneous entries, if it was correct, (we shall speak 
 again of this presently) ; and Mr. Allnutt remarked to the Matron 
 “ well, you have in this particular instance brought such 
 charges on yourself, for you have no right whatever to put 
 down dates for the various purchases, unless those purchases 
 have been made on the days specified; the dates are, in 
 fact, nonsense, and if this is your practice the whole 
 quarter’s accounts, from 1st April to the end of June, could 
 easily be written out at one and the same time. Why do 
 you put dates unless to doctor your accounts. It should 
 especially be remarked that, although it was now the 8th of 
 August, yet the account books had not been totted up since 
 the end of March last , when Mr. Harris was supposed to have 
 examined the book of incidental expenses. And even here, as 
 in everything connected with the Asylum, a check was wanting. 
 Mr. Harris never even signed the book at the end of the 
 quarter, so that really there was nothing to prove that the 
 accounts had been examined so far by him. We ask how 
 is it possible for any one to know what they are expending, 
 and how they are going on without balancing their accounts ? 
 and how* can they balance unless their books are totted ? It 
 may be said that the accounts may have been totted, but 
 not entered as such. If this had been the case, without 
 
51 
 
 doubt mention would have been made of it. The mere writing 
 in the amount does not occupy a moment, the totting up is the 
 difficult part, if any difficulty exists. In the loose way in 
 which this book of incidental expenses is kept, there is nothing 
 whatever to prevent a person setting down the whole quarter’s 
 expenses the last day of the quarter , to make it come up as 
 near as possible to the amount received. Much was said at this 
 period of the examination about the collections, and although 
 great reluctance was exhibited by the Trustees to produce the 
 book of the Sundays’ collection, yet, as Mr. Sutton, and other 
 gentlemen, declared they would not give another penny 
 unless this book was produced, the Trustees were obliged to 
 bring it forward, and on Mr. Sutton looking over it, he instantly 
 remarked on the singularity of there always appearing a deficit 
 in the amount of the entries in the Matron’s book, when com- 
 pared with the entries made in the Vestry of the Chapel; four- 
 penny pieces had it appeared been mistaken for sixpences, or 
 threepenny pieces for fourpenny, but a mistake did not ap- 
 pear to have occurred the other way ; when they counted the 
 collection over a second time they made it amount to LESS 
 than the first time. This was certainly a curious fact; some 
 how or other the gentlemen 'who first counted the money 
 made a mistake, and made too much ! 
 
 The amount of the Sundays’ collections is ascertained after 
 service, it is then entered in a book, and the cash is put into 
 a box, of which the Matron has a key — the box containing the 
 money is taken charge of by the Matron. This was invariably 
 the practice. The Matron makes use of this cash in the pay- 
 ment of the incidental expenses. We have no means whatever 
 of knowing whether the whole or part only of the Sundays’ 
 collections is paid away for incidental expenses by the Matron ! 
 The Trustees appeared to know nothing, or at all events they 
 would not condescend to give us (the subscribers) the least 
 information — in short, we were teaching these gentlemen the 
 very rudiments of their education, as far as concerns their duties 
 as Trustees to the Molyneux Asylum. 
 
 Mr. Allnutt asked the Matron if she could account for the 
 extra quantity of porter that was consumed in the Asylum ? 
 Having had a copy of the grocer’s account for the quarter, from 
 1st January to 29th March last, amounting to £25 14s. 8d., it 
 appeared there had been 28 dozen of porter, 2 dozen 10 bottles of 
 ale, and 13 bottles of wine used [see p. 56] . Now if only seven of 
 the elder women had one bottle of porter amongst three of them , 
 it would give 18 dozen of porter consumed in the quarter. 
 
52 
 
 What became of the 10 dozen of porter and the 3 dozen of 
 ale, to say nothing of the wine, which the women had declared 
 they never tasted? We are not aware that an attempt at any 
 explanation was offered. The housemaid is a teetotaller, and 
 never drinks porter ; so there remained the cook and assistant- 
 matron to drink the 13 dozen of porter and ale, it may be, 
 with the assistance of Lilly. Attention was also called to 
 the almonds and raisins , figs , citron , currants , that appeared in 
 the said bill, but some of the gentlemen thought this nothing. 
 We have heard that, in uniformity with all the other subse- 
 quent proceedings of the Trustees, that the grocer has been 
 changed. We suppose it was a grievous, unpardonable of- 
 fence to let us have a copy of the quarter’s account ! Some 
 parties may suppose that the wine might have been obtained 
 for the clergyman, and also used in the ordinances of the church. 
 This is not the case. The wine used at the Sacrament is ob- 
 tained from another wine merchant in Stephen’s-green. For 
 copy of the grocer’s bill, see page 55. We may add that, 
 during the examination of the Matron a request was made 
 to the chairman that two of the inmates should be pre- 
 sent, but such w T as not allowed. We think that as she had 
 heard what the inmates had to say, that two of the blind 
 women should have been allowed by the Trustees to hear 
 her examination, and we beg further to say, that im- 
 mediately after this meeting, we applied to Margaret King 
 as to whether it was true bread was purchased continually 
 during the week? She replied “Oh no! How could such 
 be regularly the case, when the baker calls three times a 
 week.” True it is that a loaf of bread may sometimes be 
 required, but the entry for bread is regularly to be seen in 
 the book of incidental expenses every Monday. Then, again, 
 with respect to buttermilk, Margaret King asserts that it is only 
 purchased on Monday, and that threepence is about the charge 
 which should be set down. 
 
 We have rather digressed, but still the statements we 
 have entered into are true, and required to be dwelt on. To 
 proceed — 
 
 Thomas Evans was examined — Has been eleven years as collector and 
 assistant-secretary to the Asylum ; previous to the last three years was in 
 the habit of frequenting the Asylum morning, mid-day, and evening ; had 
 seen the Matron suffering from ill health, but not of evenings ; saw her hoarse 
 a long time ago ; never saw the remotest sign of tippling ; never called dur- 
 ing the last three years on any other evening than Saturday, not later than 
 four o’clock ; did not notice the hoarseness more than four times during the 
 eleven years ; never heard her reading ; so far as he had seen, she was of 
 strictly sober habits. 
 
53 
 
 Dr. Churchill is attendant physician to this Institution ; is here two or 
 three times a week if there are any inmates sick does not come unless he is 
 sent for, except in the event of illness ; has no fixed hours ; the Matron has con- 
 sulted him about her health ; when any of the inmates are ill he has been 
 at the Asylum after dinner, but as a general rule he attends in the morning ; 
 never observed any appearance of drink on her ; sometimes orders wine 
 to be given to the inmates ; it is not necessary to order them wine fre- 
 quently ; there is no wine taken regularly by his orders ; keeps no entry of 
 his calls, or the wine ordered ; has attended at the Asylum about twelve 
 times after six o’clock in the evening for the last three years. 
 
 Mr. Clarke, tlie superintendent of Claremont Institution, 
 of which Asylum Dr. Stanford, we believe is, or was, on the 
 Committee, gave his evidence in favor of the party (the 
 Matron is his sister-in-law). We do not understand how 
 he could be supposed to know what was going on in the 
 Molyneux Asylum. Be that as it may, he spoke of the 
 Matron’s strictly temperate habits, and gave the same kind 
 of negative evidence as Lilly, Evans, and Dr. Churchill — 
 evidence of but little value in any court of justice, when 
 put in opposition to the clear testimony of people who 
 saw the Matron in the state she was accused of by Margaret 
 Ring, Kate Read, and Maria Franklin, the assistant-matron, 
 coupled with the touching, affecting, and truthful evidence of 
 eighteen blind women (out of twenty who were examined). 
 The evidence for the defence reminds us forcibly of the ex- 
 clamation of a poor man on his trial for some offence, who 
 cried out to the judge as he was about to sentence him — “ Ah ! 
 sure your worship will not sentence me on the evidence of 
 three boys, when I can bring forward a hundred who didn’t 
 see me do it.” Yes, after these blind inmates were urged 
 by the Trustees (especially Mr. Armstrong, the chairman) to 
 speak the truth, and not to fear , after they most reluctantly 
 told what they had endured so patiently for the last six or 
 eight years, they were then branded with the stigma of lying, 
 not singly, but in combination. The Trustees appeared deter- 
 mined to cushion everything ; for they but too well knew the 
 greatest blame would most justly be eventually thrown on 
 themselves. No ; this would not do. How could the 
 Trustees submit to have the accounts examined. Would 
 they like the public to pry into their affairs, and see how 
 they had fulfilled their plain duties? It is in the recollection 
 of the gentlemen who were present at the examination, that 
 one of the poor women being very anxious to know who 
 (amongst the Trustees) was in the room, asked “ is Mr. Moore 
 here?" “ Yes,” said that old gentleman, with great com- 
 placency, for the women added, “ we love Mr. Moore." Did he 
 merit this compliment ? Pause for a moment to hear this question 
 
54 
 
 answered. “ Pray, how long is it since Mr. Moore spoke to 
 you?” said Mr. Allnutt. “ Oh I about twelve years!” We subse- 
 quently asked the women why they liked Mr. Moore? “ Oh !” 
 said they, “ a long time ago when we complained to him about 
 our milk being bad, he spoke of it to the person, and we had 
 far better.” So, although he had not spoken to them for about 
 twelve years, still these poor inmates loved him ! As to the 
 other Trustees, not one of them ever troubled himself to go 
 near the women. The truth must be told, the easiest way of 
 managing the Molyneux Asylum was, first to get rid of 
 all the Visiting Ladies ; they were troublesome (some one 
 said) ; and, secondly, as there then remained no one to inter- 
 fere with the Trustees, they quietly handed all the manage- 
 ment to Mr. Fleury, the chaplain and secretary, and he in his 
 turn handed over the concern to the matron, a most convenient 
 arrangement — it has gradually come to this result. Some 
 of the Trustees flatter themselves that they, at all events, 
 cannot be accused of negligence. One of these gentlemen met 
 Mr. Allnutt in Dawson-street after the first meeting (which 
 this Trustee did not attend), and he accosted Mr. A., and asked 
 him how they got on. “ Oh,” said Mr. Allnutt, “ you should 
 have been there; I suppose you have heard what charges 
 have been preferred against the matron ?” ‘* Oh, yes, I 
 have,” said Mr. Bickerstaff, and, furthermore, “ 1 know them 
 to be true. You know I have been a Trustee only about two 
 years , and 1 have frequently brought forward reformations , 
 but have been always put down .” Mr. Allnutt asked him if 
 he had ever read the Trust Deed. “ No, I have not,” said 
 this gentleman. This was a pretty admission; he had been 
 a Trustee for two years and had never read the Trust Deed ; 
 and yet Mr. Fleury says in his letter (see p. 6) “ That the 
 Trustees are very thoughtful men, and regulate everything by a 
 Trust Deed.” Mr. Allnutt lent Mr. Bickerstaff a copy of the 
 Deed and he had it copied. Well, to proceed, before the meet- 
 ing broke up, the chairman was heard to say that the matron 
 left the room perfectly innocent of the charges ; and yet, at 
 the same time, although Mr. Armstrong expressed himself in 
 this manner, he very gravely gave us to understand that the 
 Trustees would come to a decision shortly , and the result 
 would be communicated to us. Before we parted, the Rev. 
 Dr. Stanford announced that he was prepared at any time to 
 give the Matron a written testimonial. He was quite as ready 
 to do this as to support his friend, Mr. Fleury, as respects the 
 method of getting Mary Callaghan into the Asylum without 
 any election. 
 
55 
 
 After the publication in the “ Statement” containing the corres- 
 pondence that passed between the Committee and the Trustees, it 
 will not be necessary for us to repeat those letters, more than to say 
 that the Trustees sent to Dr. Bigger a communication, dated the 
 14th August, stating that they had deliberately weighed and con- 
 sidered the evidence given before them on the 6th, 7tli, and 8th 
 inst. (how can they call this four days ?), and it was their opinion 
 that the charges were not substantiated. 
 
 Before we proceed to the subsequent proceedings, we beg to give 
 a copy of the Grocers’ account, for the first quarter of the 
 year 1856 
 
 The Governors of the Molyneux Asylum , Francis Falkner, Tea and Wine Merchant , 
 78, Grafton-street , Dublin. 
 
 1856. 
 
 Jan. 1. 
 
 „ 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 
 15. 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 io. 
 
 19. 
 
 25. 
 
 it 26. 
 
 29. 
 
 Feb. 1. 
 
 5. 
 
 9 
 
 13. 
 
 16. 
 
 ii 
 
 22 . 
 
 ,i 29. 
 March 4. 
 
 8 . 
 
 11 . 
 
 15. 
 
 18. 
 
 22 . 
 
 26. 
 
 29. 
 
 1 lb. arrowroot, 2s. ; 1 stone sugar, 7s. ; 1 doz. porter, 4s. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; £ doz. ditto, 2s. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 1 lb. tea, 3s. 8d. 
 
 2 lb. sugar, Is. 2d. ; £ stone lump, 2s. 4d. ; 1 bottle Cayenne, Is. ; 
 £ lb. pepper, 9d. 
 
 £ lb. mustard, lOd. 
 
 1 lb. coffee, Is. 8d. ; 1 stone sugar, 7s. ; 9th, 1 doz. porter, 4s. vine- 
 gar, 4£d. ... 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 1 stone sugar, 6s. 5d. 
 
 10 lb. tea, £1 12s. 6d.; £ lb. arrowroot, Is. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 1 lb. tea, 3s. 8d. ; 2 lb. sugar, Is. ; 2 lb. figs, 2s. ... 
 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. ... 
 
 3 bottles porter, Is. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; § doz. ale, 2s.; 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. .. 
 
 1 lb. tea, 3s. Sd. ; 2 lb. sugar, Is. 
 
 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 2 lb. raisins, Is. 8d. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. ; £ lb. mustard, Is. 
 
 4 bottles porter, Is. 4d. ; 10 lb. tea, £1 12s. 6d. ; £ lb. Hyson, Is. 8d. ; 
 2 lb. raisins, 2s. 
 
 Almonds, 4d. ; citron, 2d. ; 1£ lb. currants, Is. 6d. 
 
 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. ; 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d. 
 
 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 1 pint of malt liquor, Is. 8±d. ; | lb. pepper, 9d. .. 
 
 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. ; 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 8th, 3 bottles porter, Is. ... 
 1 stone sugar, 5s. lOd. ; 18 bottles porter, 6s. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. 
 
 1 lb. tea, 3s. 8d. ; 2 lb. sugar, Is.; 2 lb. raisins, Is. 8d. ; mace, 8d. ... 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 14th, 1 stone sugar, 5s. 3d.; 1 doz. porter, 4s. 
 Ginger, 4d. ; 1 stone sugar, 5s 3d. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 3£ lb. lump, 2s. 
 1 doz. porter, 4s.; 20tli, 10 lb. tea, £1 12s. 6d. 
 
 I doz. porter, 4s. ; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 1 stone 
 sugar, 5s. 3d. 
 
 1 lb. tea, 3s. 8d. ; 2 lb. sugar, lid. ; 26th, 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 14 lb. 
 sugar, 5s. 3d. 
 
 1£ doz. porter, 6s.; 141b. sugar, 5s. 3d. ; pepper, 9d. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d. ; 1 bottle port, 3s. ; 14 lb. 
 sugar, 4s. 8d. 
 
 1 lb. tea, 3s. 8d. ; 2 lb. sugar, lOd. ; 8th, 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 4 bottles 
 ale, Is. 4d. 
 
 1 stone sugar, 4s. 8d. ; $ lb. mustard, Is. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 10 lb. tea, £1 12s. 6d ; 14th, 1 stone sugar, 4s. 8d. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s.; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d.; 1 bottle port, 3s.; 1 lb. 
 tea, 3s. 8d. 
 
 2 lb. sugar, lid. ; 2 lb. raisins, 2s. ; vinegar, 4£d. 
 
 1 stone sugar, 4s. 8d. ; 1 doz. porter, 4s. 
 
 1 doz porter, 4s. ; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d. ; 1 bottle port,' 3s. 
 
 14 lb. sugar, 4s. 8d. ; £ lb. pepper, 9d. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s. ; 1 stone sugar, 4s. 8d. 
 
 1 doz. porter, 4s.; 4 bottles ale, Is. 4d.; lib. tea, 3s. 8d. ; 21b. sugar, lOd. 
 1 bottle port, 3s. ; $ lb. tea, Is. 8d. ; 34 lb. lump sugar, Is. ild. ; 
 10 lb. toa, £112s. 6d.... 
 
 £ s. d. 
 ». 13 0 
 - 12 8 
 
 -53 
 - 0 10 
 
 - 13 5 
 1 13 6 
 
 - 10 8 
 
 - 5 10 
 
 - 1 0 
 - 12 10 
 -40 
 - 11 10 
 -48 
 -48 
 - 10 10 
 
 1 17 6 
 -20 
 - 11 2 
 
 - 5 54 
 
 - 10 10 
 
 - 14 10 
 -70 
 
 - 13 3 
 
 - 10 8 
 1 16 6 
 
 - 13 7 
 
 - 13 10 
 
 - 15 0 
 
 - 13 0 
 
 - 9 10 
 -58 
 
 2 12 
 
 - 12 0 
 
 - 3 3J 
 
 - 8 8 
 -84 
 -55 
 -88 
 - 9 10 
 
 1 19 1 
 
 £ '25 14 8 
 
56 
 
 ANALYSIS OF FALKNER’s (THE GROCER’s) ACCOUNT. 
 
 QUANTITIES. 
 
 ARTICLES. 
 
 AMOUNT. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 23 stone 
 
 Sugar 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 6 9 5 
 
 25 lbs. weekly, or 3| lbs. daily. 
 
 28 doz. 4 bot. 
 
 Porter 
 
 5 13 4 
 
 26 bottles weekly, or almost 4 bottles daily 
 
 2 doz. 10 bot. 
 
 Ale 
 
 - 11 4 
 
 Nearly 3 Bottles weekly. 
 
 13 bottles ... 
 
 Port Wine 
 
 1 19 0 
 
 1 Bottle weekly. 
 
 58f lbs. ... 
 
 Tea 
 
 9 15 2 
 
 4£ lbs. weekly. 
 
 1 lb. 
 
 Coffee 
 
 - 1 8 
 
 1 bottle 
 
 Malt Liquor 
 
 - 1 8| 
 
 
 Is lb. 
 
 Arrowroot ... 
 
 - 3 0 
 
 
 
 Pepper, Mustard, &c. 
 Figs, Raisins, &c. ... 
 
 - 7 8£ 
 
 - 12 4 
 
 8 lb. Raisins, 7s 8d, included in this item. 
 
 
 Total Amount £ 
 
 25 14 8 
 
 or £102 18s. 8d. per annum. 
 
 This is the only account we have been enabled to look over, and 
 assuredly it. presents some very remarkable features. The bottle of 
 wine regularly supplied for years, of which the inmates scarcely 
 ever had any, but which the Matron admitted she had in addition to 
 her good salary, although the Asylum was so much in debt ; com- 
 pare this item of port wine with the 1J lb. of arrowroot and 8 lbs. 
 of raisins, the latter was not made into puddings, for the only 
 pudding they had was once a year — namely, on Christmas-day. 
 We understand ^lb. of tea was used daily, which, for the quarter 
 of the year, would be 45 J lbs. ; add to this, 3 lbs. for the Matron, 
 it would make 48J lbs. consumed ; and yet there was 58^ lbs. used 
 in the quarter of the year. We calculated the porter, as spoken 
 of in page 51, and 18 dozen should have been used in the quarter 
 of a year, instead of which 28^ dozen were had, besides 2 dozen 
 and 10 bottles of ale. Bear in mind, this Grocers’ bill was only one 
 account , and, after this specimen, what might we expect to see in 
 other accounts ? 
 
 Now, as respects Mr. Falkner’s bill, of course no one could 
 blame him in the slightest degree — he only supplied what was 
 ordered by the Matron ; but the Trustees, we repeat, thought it 
 an unpardonable otfence to have furnished a copy of the account to 
 any Subscriber ; and as we heard that the custom was withdrawn, 
 we wrote and asked Mr. Falkner if the report was true. The 
 following is his reply : — 
 
 “Dublin, November 28, 1856. 
 
 “ Sir — In reply to your enquiry as to whether I continue to supply the 
 Molyneux Asylum with goods, I have to say that since the month of Sep- 
 tember I have had no order to send any goods to that Institution. 
 
 “ I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 “Francis Falkner.” 
 
 It will be observed in the u Statement” that the following Sunday 
 after the investigation, Mr. Fleury would not allow the inmates to 
 partake of the Holy Communion (the Matron attended), and yet on 
 
57 
 
 the next occasion the inmates were permitted to attend, although 
 they made no recantation of their evidence. And now, after this 
 arbitrary conduct, and after the Assistant Matron had been dis- 
 missed, and the stipend of £5 per annum withdrawn from Kate 
 Read,* the Rev. II. Y. White, residing as Domestic Chaplain 
 in the Asylum, received a letter from Mr. Fleury, full of the 
 warmest protestations of friendship, and expressing the great 
 pain he felt at being ordered to give him notice to leave the 
 apartments he occupied in the Molyneux Asylum within a 
 fortnight. The Rev. H. Y. White called on Mr. Bicker- 
 staff, a Trustee, with Mr. Fleury’s note, at which he expressed 
 great astonishment, being ignorant of the order, but said that 
 perhaps it might have been given after he left the meeting of the 
 Trustees. He recommended Mr. White to write and ask whether 
 the Trustees had given the order, and if so, on what grounds, and 
 after the lapse of some time the Rev. H. Y. White obtained an in- 
 terview with the Trustees, when he was informed that he would be 
 permitted to remain if he would promise not to receive any visits from 
 Mr. Allnutt! 
 
 Mr. White replied, that he believed his friend Mr. Allnutt to 
 be a Christian man, who had the welfare of the Institution at 
 heart, and that as long as he remained in Dublin, he would always 
 be most happy to see him ; that, if he acceded to such an un- 
 reasonable requirement, it would give some colour of truth to the 
 false charge made against him, of having stirred up Mr. Allnutt to 
 the course he had pursued, with regard to the reform of the 
 Asylum. Mr. White added, that, if he still resided in the Asylum, 
 he claimed to be quite unfettered as to the friends he chose to see. 
 Much was said at this meeting that we do not care to repeat ; 
 one of the Trustees, Dr. Stanford, declared that Mr. Allnutt 
 
 * We really have not time to enter fully into the persecution that this 
 late inmate has been made to endure, because she gave evidence against the 
 Matron. A Lady applied to the Trustees for the quarter’s stipend of £1 5s., 
 and requested that Kate Read might resume her visits to her old and dear 
 friends at the Molyneux : the trifling stipend was refused, as well as liberty 
 to see her old companions; the former was refused on the most absurd 
 grounds ; the Trustees said it Avas mentioned in their Minute Book that 
 Kate Read’s annual stipend should cease as soon as she got into a situation ! 
 She has played the Seraphim at Clontarf Church, receiving a salary of £16 
 per annum, which could not be sufficient to sustain her. The Trustees and 
 Mr. Fleury must have known this for the last four years, and they con- 
 tinued the payment of £5 per annum, until as we say, Kate Read gave evi- 
 dence against the Matron. We also know for a fact, that Miss Jackson very 
 kindly requested Mr. Fleury to allow her to take two of the inmates to 
 see Kate Read at the Meath Hospital (where she is very ill), and she 
 offered to pay the car hire ; but Mr. Fleury refused to permit their going, 
 even in the company of one of his Visiting Ladies! We call them his 
 Visiting Ladies, for they are not properly appointed ; their hands are tied, 
 and they can do nothing independent, or Avithout Mr, Fleury’s guidance. 
 
58 
 
 and all the inmates appeared to him quite possessed; Mr. Fleury 
 also said he believed Mr. Allnutt was a Christian man, but that he 
 was quite gone , putting his finger to his forehead. The Rev. H. V. 
 White told the Trustees, that lie believed the inmates were inca- 
 pable of acting in the false and malicious manner imputed to them . 
 He was, after this, permitted to keep his apartments, until the cir- 
 cumstance occurred mentioned in the “ Statement ,” page 29. We 
 cannot avoid expressing our great regret that the Rev. H. Y. White 
 undertook to be the bearer of any communication to the Secretary 
 of the Committee from any person, especially that he should have 
 bound himself by a promise not to divulge the name of the party ; 
 the very fact of anyone wishing Mr. White to make such a promise, 
 was sufficient to show the nature of the whole proceeding. 
 
 In case some of our readers may not have the “ Statement ,” at 
 hand, we will give the propositions that the Rev. H. Y. White, 
 was deputed by some one to communicate to the Committee, 
 desirous for Reform, from page 29 and 30 of the “ Statement” : — 
 
 “ 1st. If the Molyneux Eeform Committee would give up all inquiry into 
 the accounts, then that Miss Hines should be dismissed, provided that nothing 
 she said after her dismissal should be credited. 
 
 “ 2nd. On same condition that the Rev. Wm, Craig should be invited as 
 co-Chaplain, with equal rank and power with Mr. Fleury for some time, till 
 Mr. Fleury could retire, and leave him in full possession of the Chaplaincy. 
 
 “ 3rd. That the Guardian and Committee of Visiting Ladies should be 
 re-appointed. 
 
 “ 4th. That Kate Read should be restored the little annuity of £5, of 
 which she has been deprived.” 
 
 To return to the communication which the Rev. H. Y. White 
 was induced to make to the Hon. Secretary of the Committee, it 
 appears he had another interview with the Trustees, and as he 
 would not give up his authority, he was required to leave the 
 Asylum. After Mr. White’s summary dismissal, three months have 
 elapsed , during which the inmates were without any religious in- 
 struction from a Clergyman — the morning and evening prayers 
 being conducted by the Matron, or, in her absence, totally neglected. 
 We again observe, had the name been known, the singular message 
 could have been traced to its originator — a father it doubtless had ; — 
 if this had been done, perhaps' the Trustees would have dis- 
 covered that the proposition came actually from Mr. Fleury. The 
 Rev. H. Y. White was sacrificed to his sense of honor, and he truly 
 kept his promise, much to his own hurt. Although we know 
 much, we will not enter into the reasons, that some people think 
 themselves justified in injuring innocent parties , as long as they 
 can succour a friend. We do not envy the feelings of the 
 man who deputed Mr. White to make the proposals to the 
 Committee. We must be allowed to add, that there cannot be a 
 doubt the Rev. H. Y. White did really receive this communication, 
 
59 
 
 and we believe that he has entirely satisfied His Grace the Arch- 
 bishop on this point. 
 
 We must now turn to the kind of u manifesto ” issued by the 
 Trustees, dated 24th Nov. last, and, in addition, to what the 
 Committee have so ably written, we have a few words to say 
 on the subject. First, the Trustees reiterate the assertion we 
 have before alluded to, viz., the assembling together a few blind 
 women is, that there may be a Church in that locality. We beg to 
 deny this proposition most decidedly ; if it was true, it might form 
 an argument for keeping the Asylum to as low a number of in- 
 mates as possible. 
 
 We beg our Christian friends not to come to the conclusion that 
 we do not recognise the importance of having a Church connected 
 with the Asylum, but to assert that the Blind Inmates are as it 
 were tolerated and supported only, that a Church may exist in 
 Bride-street, Dublin, is a false position, and to prop up and tell 
 absolute falsehoods to support this view, and to put down fair 
 enquiry as to the expenditure of the Funds, is not the way to 
 bring down a blessing on any object. If we imagine we can bring 
 glory to God by committing evil, we are in the situation of Saul, 
 when the Prophet of the Lord met him, and said : — “ hath the 
 Lord as great delight in burnt offerings, and sacrifices, as in obey- 
 ing the voice of the Lord ! Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, 
 and to hearken than the fat of rams.” — 1 Sam. xv. 22. 
 
 If any one wishes to peruse a copy of the Trust Deed, by which 
 the Trustees should have been guided , let him call at Mr. Allnutt’s 
 office, 61, Middle Abbey-street, Dublin, and he will read that the 
 Aslyum for the Blind is the first object to be upheld. Bead what 
 Mr. Crosthwaite, the son of the founder, writes as follows : — 
 
 “21, Mount Pleasant Avenue, May 13, 185G. 
 
 “ My dear Sir — The more I have considered your laudable zeal in behalf 
 of the original intention of the Molyneux establishment, the more I find in it 
 to command attention and respect. I had a conversation since we met with 
 Mr. M‘Calley, and I am glad to be able to say, that my impressions of the 
 founding of the Asylum were correct. The deed of trust will fully set forth 
 that the primary intention has not been as fully kept in view as it should. 
 There were several inmates before there were any place of worship for them ; so 
 much for the accuracy of the information of others. In my father’s time, I 
 am informed, everything was reported in print. There is a very worthy man, 
 rector of Ballinrobe, the Rev. James Anclerson, who can, perhaps, give some 
 assistance in the inquiry. I am persuaded that, under Providence, the welfare 
 of the Institution is now in the balance, and that your exertions may be the 
 means of bringing it fairly under public notice, from its foundation to the 
 present hour. Wishing you every success, I remain, yours very truly, 
 
 “ Davenport Crosthwaite.” 
 
 Mr. Allnutt then wrote to the Rev. James Anderson, and he also 
 corroborated Mr. Crosth waite’s statements. 
 
 Secondly, the Trustees say they have carefully examined the ac- 
 
60 
 
 counts, and that the balance-sheet of 1855 has their entire sanction. 
 We dare say, the Trustees flatter themselves that no one ought to 
 question the accuracy of the accounts, when they have sanctioned 
 such. 
 
 Railway Directors and other bodies should take the hint from 
 the Trustees of the Molyneux Asylum, and whenever their sub- 
 scribers require the accounts to be audited, they can adopt the 
 words of the Trustees, and exclaim, “ The accounts have been ex- 
 amined by us , and have received our entire sanction in fact, it appears 
 to be the opinion of the Trustees, that Auditors are very unne- 
 cessary gentlemen. Insurance Companies, Banking Companies, 
 and all Societies, why do you employ auditors to examine your 
 accounts ? do it yourselves , and your subscribers must be satisfied with 
 your entire sanction ! 
 
 Thirdly — The Trustees declare that the management of the 
 Asylum has never been entrusted to any other person. This is 
 positively untrue, for every one in Dublin who knows anything 
 of the Asylum, is perfectly aware the Rev. C. Fleury was every- 
 thing ; indeed he managed the whole concern. That its pecu- 
 niary affairs have been invariably administered, through their 
 Sub-Treasurer, by the Trustees themselves. This also is not fact, 
 if the body of Trustees include Mr. Harris and the Matron, we 
 fully admit that the Trustees are correct in what they state ; but if 
 Mr. Harris and the Matron are not Trustees, where can be the 
 truth in this statement? The practice for years has been, that 
 Mr. Harris should pay and keep the accounts, and attend the 
 Matron every quarter of a year, to look over her accounts, and 
 take from her any balance that she may have in hand, after pay- 
 ment of a host of things mentioned in her book of incidental 
 expenses. The Matron attended every Sunday, and took the 
 Chapel collections, amounting, in 1855, to £315 5s. 3d. ! She 
 paid with this cash the incidental expenses — she paid Kate Read 
 every quarter. The Matron and Mr. Harris cannot belong to the 
 body of Trustees, for the trust deed limits the number to five ; 
 other people, it thus appears, have administered the funds of the 
 Asylum. 
 
 Fourthly — The Trustees say they were four days investigating 
 the charges against a certain party ; we have disposed of this before 
 — the 6th, 7th, and 8th of August cannot make four days, but only 
 three. Then again, they say they were two days reviewing the 
 evidence — we do not wonder it took them two days to get rid of 
 such a mass of clear and direct evidence ; — they laboured for two 
 days , and were at last unanimous. What could occupy them two 
 days, if the combination and conspiracy amongst the poor inmates, 
 and also the innocency of the party, was so apparent ; besides, we 
 beg to remind our readers, that, before the investigation broke up, 
 the chairman pronounced the party innocent, and Dr. Stanford, 
 
61 
 
 offered to give a testimonial whenever requested (see page 54). 
 The meeting for two days was, consequently, quite unnecessary. 
 
 There appears nothing more to be particularly noticed, excepting 
 the signatures of the Trustees to this document, stating that every- 
 thing has been and is correct. It is extraordinary that Dr. Stan- 
 ford should have signed this paper, as he admitted at the meeting 
 he knew nothing of the Asylum. Mr. Bickerstaff, one would have 
 supposed, might have excused himself, for he has made no secret, 
 in telling others that he has been desirous of putting affairs in the 
 right course, but has always been put down by Mr. Fleury. 
 We are really very much surprised that Surgeon Smyly should 
 have added his name ; he only became a Trustee about one month 
 before he signed the paper; he might with equal reason have 
 given a certificate of a man’s health, and yet have never examined 
 the party. Did each Trustee really sign the document ? See how 
 this was managed as respects the ladies in the following page. 
 
 Now we cannot conclude this review of the Trustees’ document, 
 without speaking of the visiting ladies. We would not desire to 
 have said one word respecting the ladies, had not their name's 
 appeared in print, stating that, u from their past and present expe- 
 rience, they do hereby certify, that the management, food, clothing, 
 and comfort of the inmates are, in every respect, carefully provided 
 for.” Signed by : — 
 
 1 . Maria Anne Moore. 7. Mary Jackson. 
 
 2. Caroline Lloyd. 
 
 3. Mary Wilson. 
 
 8. Mary fingers. 
 
 9. Louisa Gaskin. 
 
 10. Jane Conolly. 
 
 11. Sarah Peters. 
 
 4. Elizabeth Boileau.* 
 
 5. Mary Queale. 
 
 6. Jane Smith. 
 
 Now we beg emphatically to assert, that not one of these eleven ladies 
 attended the Asylum as Visiting Ladies in 1855, and, with the ex- 
 ception of only three, none of them are known at the Asylum. 
 Mrs. Moore was one of the visiting ladies nine years ago ; Mrs. 
 Boileau has been a reading lady for some years, not a Visiting 
 Lady, but is on the most intimate terms with the Matron ; and 
 it is said that this lady has been in the habit of looking over the 
 Matron’s accounts, if so, she must know something about the extra 
 quantity of Porter and Tea, the Raisins, &c., &c. Her evidence 
 will be important to us if the matter is brought in a Court of Law. 
 One of the ladies mentioned is the expectant New Matron. Miss 
 Jackson, another reading lady, as she perfectly well knows, could 
 not well decline signing the paper, because she was under a great 
 obligation to Mr. Fleury , in getting Mary Callaghan taken into the 
 Asylum without an Election. We assert that all the other eight 
 ladies knew nothing whatever about the internal affairs of the 
 Asylum, and we believe some of them were scarcely ever in the 
 
 * We are requested to state that, to prevent mistake, this lady is Mrs. John Thcophilus 
 Boileau. 
 
G2 
 
 place before that day. Amongst all this appearance of putting 
 forward the names of eleven parties as Visiting Ladies, when 
 these parties know right well that they never attended one meeting 
 in the whole of the year 1855 ; amongst all this pretence, we are 
 thankful to be able to say, that one lady was found to refuse to 
 sign this certificate. We know not how to express our respect 
 for such a witness for the truth. The Committee alludes to this 
 fact in “ Statement ,” page 37 ; and we beg to apologise to Miss 
 Pollock, should she feel annoyed by having her name mentioned ; 
 indeed this lady has been a most kind friend and reader (not a 
 visiting lady), to the inmates of the Asylum, for the last six 
 years : and we should be happy beyond measure, if Miss Pollock 
 and fourteen ladies in a similar position in life, would form the 
 Committee of Visiting Ladies. When two clergymen presented the 
 paper for the ladies to sign, they did as they were requested , but Miss 
 Pollock declined — all honour is due to her. These two Clergymen 
 were Dr. Stanford and Mr. Fleury. Miss Jane Conolly was not 
 present at the meeting, but Dr. Stanford said Mr. Fleury could 
 sign for her as she was his first cousin, and he knew that she would 
 have no objection. 
 
 Some may ask, where is the difference between a Visiting Lady 
 and a Reader ? Why the greatest possible difference ; the Visiting 
 Lady is appointed for life by the Trust Deed, of equal power with 
 the Trustees, she may really be termed a female Trustee ; she has 
 power at any time she pleases to look into everything connected 
 with the clothing, food, comfort, and conduct of the inmates. 
 Whereas a mere reader, attends only between the hours of 12 and 
 2 o’clock in the day to read a chapter in the Bible, as it were 
 spontaneously of her own accord ; she is there by sufferance only ; 
 she takes on herself no responsibility whatever, and she has no 
 right to interfere ; she never attends any Committee of ladies ; in 
 short, if the inmates were starved, no one could blame a reading 
 lady. What can she know of their food ? She leaves the Asylum 
 as soon as the chapter is read before or when their dinner bell 
 rings ; it is of course a kind act on her side, but no more. 
 
 There are so many tricks and falsehoods to be exposed, that 
 as fast as we demolish one, another rises to the surface. We 
 have been doing an injustice to the ten other ladies, who we 
 have said signed the certificate; it now appears that Mr. Fleury 
 himself signed all their names ; the ladies were present, and it may 
 be said by Mr. Fleury and Dr. Stanford, that they gave their 
 assent. That may be true, but the ladies (with the exception 
 of Miss Pollock), expressed their approval of the 'present arrange- 
 ments. The certificate Mr. Fleury signed says, “ past and pre- 
 sent !” If this matter is brought into a Court of Justice, we shall 
 get to the bottom of the whole of this, and other transactions. Dr. 
 Stanford brought into the room two certificates ; we beg to 
 
63 
 
 acquaint him, it is very possible we know far more than we have 
 patience to write. One word of caution, we have heard of 
 vein) wicked things which are said to have been spoken of the 
 Chaplain and his sons, by some of the inmates, and we have been 
 enabled to trace these reports to a relation of Mr. Fleury ; we say 
 to this person, beware, for the poor blind women have friends 
 who are both able and willing, to bring an action on their behalf 
 against him for slander. 
 
 If the inmates are such bad characters as Mr. Fleury’s friends 
 would have us believe, why has not Mr. Fleury, the Chaplain, 
 brought the case forward before the Trustees, and caused the in- 
 mates to be expelled who have been guilty of such an offence ? 
 Could Mr. Fleury have believed these reports to have emanated 
 from the inmates, and at the same time, say nothing to them about 
 it ? and would his son ask the women to go into the Chapel and 
 practice singing with him (which they declined) ? and would Mr. 
 Fleury allow his son and some young men to take possession of 
 the Organ Loft, and officiate on Sunday evening, the 22nd of Feb- 
 ruary last (see page 42) ? We tell the friends of Mr. Fleury, that 
 they themselves have circulated and spread abroad the aspersions 
 against him, and then they get people who are not aware of the truth , 
 to pull down the very shams stuck up by Mr. Fleury’s friends ! 
 The “ gross fabrications ” are their own offspring ; at all events we 
 are not the authors of the “ fabrications .” 
 
 The manufacture of the manifesto of the Trustees, is also a 
 specimen of the length to which people will go, to gain their ends. 
 We all know that the certificate of the Trustees, and also that from 
 the ladies, was printed on one and the same piece of paper ; in fact 
 these two certificates occupied one side of a letter sized sheet of 
 paper, to appear as though the Trustees and the ladies executed 
 the document in each other’s presence. We feel ashamed for the 
 parties who have been guilty of such a mean subterfuge — nothing 
 of the sort took place, the facts are as follows. The Trustee’s 
 certificate was on a separate piece of paper, and it was read to 
 the ladies before the Trustees signed it, of course for the purpose 
 of influencing them to allow their names to be added to the Ladies’ 
 Certificate. The Ladies were informed that the Trustees would 
 attach their signatures afterwards to the second paper or certificate. 
 Whether the Trustees allowed Mr. Fleury to follow the same 
 course, and sign the documents for the Trustees, or whether each 
 Trustee signed the document for himself, we do not know ; but 
 both papers were put together, and appeared in print as one docu- 
 ment. 
 
 We know perfectly well that after the first meeting, when the 
 management of the Asylum became the subject of conversation, 
 the Chaplain wa3 most anxious to make it appear that the visiting 
 ladies had not ceased to be. We arc quite aware that applications 
 
G4 
 
 were made to various ladies to become the Visiting Committee, 
 We are also aware that a lady of eminence, residing in Dublin, 
 was applied to for the purpose of being Guardian, but all declined, 
 and they still hold back until the management of the Asylum has been 
 put in some sort of respectable order. 
 
 We will now turn to a more agreeable topic, namely, a visit 
 Mr. Allnutt has lately made to the London School for the Blind, in 
 the Avenue Road, near Regent’s Park, and we will give it in his 
 own words : — 
 
 On entering the hall, I noticed a Visitor’s book on the table, 
 with a box for contributions ; and after being shown over part of 
 the house, which need not here be referred to, I walked into the 
 large sitting room, in which I found about twenty females knitting, 
 and at the same time they were receiving singing lessons from a 
 lady presiding at the piano. I could not but see the advantage and 
 great convenience of having an instrument in the warm room of 
 the inmates, instead of compelling those who wish to practice to go 
 into the vestry room, as in the Molyneux. 
 
 There were two fires in this room ; and there stood a fine large 
 globe, about three feet in diameter, with the boundaries of the 
 various countries raised, and the cities were marked with metal 
 studs, so that the blind inmates, or pupils (as they are here called), 
 were soon enabled to know the situation of various countries. 
 
 My attention was then drawn to the excellent and extensive 
 library of embossed books, printed in the house , which were 
 in constant use, twice a day. A regular school mistress was 
 always engaged, besides a music mistress frequently attending. 
 After I was in the room a short time, reading was commenced, 
 and I counted fourteen so employed, whilst four continued working, 
 and another was practising on the organ. The following are the 
 school arrangements : — 
 
 MORNING. 
 
 9 
 
 94 
 
 10 
 
 11 to 12 
 
 o’clock — Open with prayer. 
 
 „ Learning Scripture. 
 
 „ Lucas’s system for reading to be repeated. 
 
 „ Reading lessons ; the whole school. 
 
 „ Working hour. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 2 o’clock — Open with prayer. 
 
 2 \ „ Reading lessons. 
 
 3 ,, Working hour. 
 
 4 „ History, grammar, spelling. 
 
 4f „ School closes with prayer. 
 
 During the working hours, arithmetic is taught ; and on Mondays 
 and Thursdays, writing lessons are given. Tuesday, Wednesday, and 
 Friday, Geography, by embossed charts or maps. 
 
 Music lessons are given by a master^ to seven pupils on the Organ, and 
 to five on the Piano-forte. 
 
65 
 
 Presently one of the Visiting Ladies came into the room, and pre- 
 pared to read to the inmates ; in a few minutes four ladies and a 
 gentleman entered, and after hearing some of the girls read, they 
 had the gratification of seeing one little girl work a sum in arith- 
 metic, by Lucas’s method ; she put down the various figures told 
 her, four rows of four figures each row, and she proceeded to add 
 them up, which she accomplished without an error. It is fact 
 that a blind woman taught the arithmetic. Another girl then 
 exhibited her knowledge of Geography, by means of a kind of 
 thick piece of mill-board, about eighteen inches long, by a foot in 
 width, on which the boundaries of countries were raised, as in the 
 globe we have alluded to. 
 
 As the ladies expressed the pleasure they felt in witnessing the 
 interesting acts of these blind girls, I could not avoid reflecting in 
 my mind on the neglect in which the inmates of the Molyneux 
 were living. What a delightful thing it would be to see several 
 of the women in our Asylum sitting down with their books to 
 read ; (how could they now when only two New Testaments are to 
 be found amongst nearly thirty inmates ?) and would not those who 
 are fond of music enjoy the benefit of lessons every week on the 
 Organ and piano-forte. 
 
 The dietary of the London School for the Blind is as follows : — • 
 
 Monday. — Boiled mutton and potatoes ; boiled rice with sugar. 
 
 Tuesday. — Roast beef and potatoes ; plain suet pudding. 
 
 Wednesday. — Roast mutton and potatoes ; pudding. 
 
 Thursday. — Mutton and veal ; greens and potatoes ; pudding. 
 
 Friday. — Beef steak pie and potatoes ; pudding. 
 
 Saturday. — Mutton and potatoes ; bread pudding. 
 
 Sunday. — Cold roast beef and potatoes ; hot plum pudding. 
 
 Meat, and often soup, bread, potatoes, and greens, with pudding, is the 
 dinner each day of the week. 
 
 Breakfast. — Tea, Coffee or Cocoa, with bread and butter. 
 
 Tea. — T ea, bread and butter. 
 
 Supper. — Bread and cheese. 
 
 (See dietary of the Molyneux, in page 20, very different to the above). 
 
 The cost of maintenance was £13 7s. 8d. (see page 19), con- 
 siderably under that of the Molyneux Asylum, which was £20 12s 
 each inmate. On referring to the last Report of this London Blind 
 School, we find the average cost of maintenance to be about £11. 
 
 In the room where the organ stood, a neat glass case attracted 
 my attention, filled with various articles made by the blind in- 
 mates. I had a long conversation with the Matron, and the Assis- 
 tant Secretary, who invited me to attend a public performance of 
 music, which takes place the first Monday in the month. The ad- 
 mission is free, by tickets, obtained (postage free) from the Secretary. 
 
 On leaving the Institution I was requested to enter my name in 
 
 E 
 
GO 
 
 tlie visitor’s book, and I then departed, exceedingly pleased with 
 what I had seen, but still much cast-down, in reflecting what 
 an amount of hard work the friends of the Molyneux Asylum have 
 before them, if they desire that Institution to be conducted in 
 similar manner. 
 
 I forgot to mention that the London School for the Blind has a 
 managing committee of Gentlemen, as well as of Ladies ; that the 
 former body choose amongst themselves a finance committee, who 
 meet every month, and make their report to the managing com- 
 mittee at their monthly meeting, and I think the Trustees of the 
 Molyneux Asylum would do well to adopt the rules of the London 
 Society, as they have admitted they have no rules of their own (page 
 18). I would further beg leave to suggest, that Lucas’s system 
 should be adopted in teaching the blind to read, as it is acquired 
 with the utmost facility. 
 
 PUBLICATIONS 
 
 OP THB 
 
 LONDON SOCIETY FOB TEACHING THE BLIND TO READ; 
 
 IN T. M. LUCAS’S EMBOSSED STENOGRAPHIC CHARACTERS. 
 
 SOLD, BOUND IN HALF CLOTH, BY THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN 
 KNOWLEDGE, LINCOLN’S-INN FIELDS ; BY THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE 
 SOCIETY, 10 EARL STREET, BLACKFRIARS ; AND BY MESSRS. NISBET, BERNERS 
 STREET; AND AT THE INSTITUTION, AVENUE ROAD, REGENT’S PARK. 
 
 Genesis, in two volumes 
 Exodus ditto 
 Leviticus 
 
 Numbers, in two volumes ... 
 
 Deuteronomy, ditto 
 Joshua ... 
 
 Judges and Ruth ... 
 
 1 Samuel 
 
 2 Samuel 
 
 1 Kings ... 
 
 2 Kings ... 
 
 1 Chronicles 
 
 2 Chronicles 
 
 Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther 
 
 Job ... 
 
 Psalms, in two volumes 
 
 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon 
 
 Isaiah, in two volumes 
 
 Jeremiah and Lamentations, ditto ... 
 
 Ezekiel, ditto 
 
 Daniel, Hosea, and Joel 
 
 Amos to Malachi ... 
 
 Matthew (third edition) ... 
 
 Mark (second do.) 
 
 Luke (Ditto) 
 
 s. d. 
 8 0 
 8 0 
 4 8 
 8 0 
 6 8 
 4 0 
 4 0 
 4 8 
 4 8 
 4 8 
 4 4 
 4 4 
 4 8 
 4 8 
 4 0 
 8 8 
 4 8 
 
 7 4 
 
 8 8 
 8 0 
 4 0 
 4 8 
 4 4 
 
 3 8 
 
 4 8 
 
67 
 
 s. d. 
 
 John 
 Acts 
 
 Romans ... 
 
 Corinthians to Ephesians, inclusive 
 Philippians to Hebrews, ditto 
 James to Revelation, ditto ... 
 
 Liturgy ... ... 
 
 Occasional Services 
 Prayer-book Psalms, in two volumes 
 Prayers, Meditations, and Hymns ... 
 
 Hymn Book, embossed by the Blind Pupils in 1845 
 Scripture Lessons ... 
 
 The Church Catechism, with Scripture References 
 An Inquirer and the Bible : A Tract 
 
 I give the following extract from the last report of the London 
 School for the Blind, on the value of Lucas’s system : — 
 
 “ Every one is aware, that, with those who see, the eye glances instan- 
 taneously over many lines at a time, whilst for the blind, who can only feel 
 by the touch, it is desirable that the characters should be of the simplest form, 
 and such that the momentary touch of the finger should distinguish tho 
 diffe rence, and, at the same time, they should occupy the least space possible. 
 In every other known system the characters selected consist for the most 
 part of more than one stroke, as horizontal and vertical, or two or more 
 diagonals, combined in one letter. In Lucas’s system every letter is simply 
 a straight line, or a semicircle in four different positions : by attaching a dot 
 or crochet head to the right or left, at the top or bottom of each character, 
 every variety needful for the alphabet or double letters is obtained : the 
 finger instantaneously detects the difference by the position of the dot, and 
 recognizes the letter : the characters are thus brought into closer space, and 
 many are able to read with one hand, while the other, held at the beginning 
 of the line, enables the finger to return to the next line without danger of 
 omission or repetition.” 
 
 Our readers must pardon our having digressed so far from the 
 subject of the Molyneux Asylum, Dublin, and we must now be 
 allowed to return to that Institution, and at once to submit to their 
 consideration the chief features of the Trust Deed of 1815 : — 
 
 COMPARISON OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST DEED, 
 
 WITH THE ACTUAL STATE OF THINGS AT THE MOLYNEUX 
 
 ASYLUM IN 1855-6. 
 
 IMPORTANT EXTRACTS. FACTS. 
 
 1. Dated 15th May, 1815, by and 
 between Henry Wilmot, William 
 Pasley, Alexander Ferrier, William 
 L. Guinness, and William C. Hogan. 
 
 . 4 8 
 . 2 8 
 . 4 0 
 . 4 0 
 
 . 4 0 
 
 . 4 8 
 
 . 5 0 
 . 8 8 
 . 4 8 
 . 1 4 
 
 . 0 6 
 . 1 4 
 
 . 1 4 
 
 2. The Institution to be an Asy- 
 lum for Blind Females advanced in 
 years, and a school for the instruc- 
 tion of younger females labouring 
 under the privation of sight. 
 
 2. No one can pretend for an 
 instant that a school has been carried 
 on! Where are the teachers? the 
 scholars ? the books ? 
 
68 
 
 3. Provides that the donations, 
 subscriptions, together with the Chapel 
 collections , to be made during and 
 after Divine Service, shall be paid 
 into the hands of the Treasurer of 
 the said Institution, who must also 
 be a Trustee (see No. 7). 
 
 3. The Matron has received the 
 chapel collections, and Mr. Harris 
 (not a Trustee), has attended to the 
 accounts. 
 
 4. That the Collections shall be 
 entered in a book, and this to be 
 signed by one of the Collectors and 
 the Chaplain. 
 
 4. Has this been actually done? 
 For further particulars of the entries 
 in this Book, see page 51. 
 
 5. When the Collections amount 
 to £10, the amount must be lodged 
 with the Treasurer of the said Asy- 
 lum. 
 
 5. Has this also been the practice ? 
 How could the money be lodged with 
 the Treasurer, and yet at the same 
 time, remain in the Matron’s hands ? 
 
 6. Trustees must meet at least 
 every three months. 
 
 6. Has this been done? At least 
 we mean a Quorum ! 
 
 7. One of the Trustees must be 
 appointed Sub-Treasurer on the 1st 
 of May, each year, who is bound to 
 keep all the accounts ; and these 
 must be vouched every quarter. 
 
 7. See observation to No. 3, where 
 it will appear Mr. Harris (not a 
 Trustee) has kept the Accounts. 
 
 8. The duty of the Secretary is to 
 issue all notices for all meetings, and 
 call together the Trustees, Guardian, 
 and Visitors. 
 
 8. The Guardian and Visiting 
 Ladies have not been in existence 
 for at least nine years ! Had Mr. 
 Fleury constantly sent out notices, 
 would he have used printed forms 
 last April, signed by Dr. Marks , who 
 has left the Asylum about ten years ? 
 — see page 29. 
 
 9. The person appointed, Minister, 
 or Chaplain, shall reside in the 
 Asylum, in order that he may the 
 better attend to and discharge the 
 several duties of his office and situa- 
 tion. 
 
 9. The present Chaplain has never 
 resided in the house; nor would he 
 allow the Minister whom he ap- 
 pointed to reside in the Asylum, 
 to interfere in the slightest degree 
 
 10. Provided always, and it is 
 hereby declared and agreed, that the 
 Minister or Chaplain of this Institu- 
 tion, shall not use or exercise any 
 other lucrative situation, profession, 
 or employment whatsoever. 
 
 10. Also flagrantly disregarded by 
 the Trustees. The Chaplain has a 
 large school; it is against the po- 
 sitive directions of the Trust Deed. 
 
GO 
 
 11. That a lady must be appointed 
 as Guardian, and also fifteen ladies 
 as a body of Visiting Ladies. 
 
 11. Certainly as utterly disregar- 
 ded and lost sight of as Nos. 2, 3, 5, 
 7, 8, 9 and 10. The Visiting Ladies 
 now alluded to are mere children , as 
 respects the time they have been 
 in existence as such, but still on re- 
 ferring to page 62, they pretend to 
 look into the past, and declare all 
 has been excellent. 
 
 12. Trustees and Guardian, and 12. There has been no Guardian, 
 remaining Visiting Ladies, to fill up and no Visiting Ladies could legally 
 vacancies. have been appointed without her ! 
 
 13. The Trustees, Guardian, and 
 Visiting Ladies to manage and 
 superintend the Asylum for Blind 
 Female Adult, and the School for 
 the Blind Female Children, and 
 shall in conjunction appoint, control, 
 and revise as often as occasion shall 
 require, all such offices — Matrons, 
 Mistresses, and Servants, as may 
 from time to time be deemed ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 13. Nothing of the kind could 
 have been done, as there has been 
 no Guardian and Visiting Ladies for 
 years ; in fact the Matron alone has 
 had sole authority for engaging and 
 dismissing the Assistant Matron and 
 Servants, who are consequently com- 
 pletely under her control. The 
 Matron dismissed Margaret Bing, 
 and also Maria Franklin, which acts 
 are contrary to the Trust Deed. 
 
 14. Three Trustees at least shall 
 at all times be necessary to render 
 valid and effectual any order, direc- 
 tion, rule, or regulation, or other 
 matter or thing to be done ; it being 
 intended that not less than three 
 Trustees shall form a Quorum for 
 the transacting of any business. 
 
 14. Very important clause. The 
 Trustees u Minute Book " will show 
 whether this has been attended to. 
 
 15. A Trustee wishing to resign 
 must give three months notice in 
 writing to his Co-Trustees, through 
 the Secretary ; and upon the death 
 or resignation of a Trustee, another 
 must be unanimously appointed, so 
 that the number of five Trustees 
 may always be kept up. 
 
 15. We have no means as yet , of 
 knowing what notice Mr. Ferrier 
 gave his Co-Trustees when he left 
 them. Dr. Bigger received a letter 
 from Mr. Ferrier, stating he would 
 meet the Committee only about two 
 days prior to Dr. Churchill's note — 
 see page 13. 
 
 TEN out of Fourteen stipulations of the “ Trust Deed'' can be proved to 
 have been utterly disregarded by the present Trustees, viz., Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 
 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13 ! 
 
 This Trust Deed gives no power whatever to the Trustees to add to, 
 or increase their number ; consequently without the intervention of the 
 Court of Chancery, the five Trustees had no power whatever to elect 
 their Clerical Trustees by a Deed they executed ten years afterwards, 
 dated 18th February, 1825. Dr. Stanford being a Clerical Trustee, and 
 having been appointed by virtue of the Deed of 1825, has no standing 
 
70 
 
 right, or title whatever to act as a Trustee, in any way ; and as we believe 
 he now stands in the light of some of the Trustees attempting to do what 
 is right, we beg to point out to them, that Dr. Stanford lias no real right 
 or title to over-awe, nullify, or obstruct any Trustee in the exertions 
 of his duty. 
 
 We know all about Mr. BickerstafFs efforts to remove the Matron, and we 
 are also fully acquainted of Dr. Stanford’s protesting that no motion shall be 
 brought forward for her removal. Every one understands a protest being 
 made when a motion is carried, against the wish of certain parties ; but to 
 prevent a motion being put, is a new doctrine of Dr. Stanford’s own invention. 
 If a Layman acted as he does, he would be considered somewhat of a bulli / — 
 but we suppose when a Clergyman adopts such a course, it is quite a dif- 
 ferent thing — we presume it must then be said that the Rev. Dr. Stanford is 
 energetically persuasive. 
 
 CONCLUDING- REMARKS. 
 
 We are really advocating or insisting on one great principle, 
 which is, “ That the Managers of any Society or Institution, no 
 matter for what object it is established, are bound to render an 
 annual account to their Subscribers, of the monies they have 
 received and disbursed.” This is the chief matter at issue between 
 us and the Trustees — we have not charged the Chaplain, the Rev. 
 Charles M. Fleury with any offence, excepting a want of civility in 
 certain instances ; but it has clearly transpired that he has grossly 
 neglected his duty, and we will plainly give our reasons. First, he 
 the Chaplain has not resided in the House (see the 9th requirement 
 of the Trust Deed, page 68). Secondly, before Mr. Fleury allows 
 another Clergyman to occupy the apartments (he should dwell in 
 the Asylum), Mr. Fleury binds him down not to interfere in the 
 least degree. Thirdly, the Chaplain of the Asylum, Mr. Fleury, 
 becomes the Principal of a boy’s school (see the 10th Section of 
 the Trust Deed, page 68), and Fourthly, Mr. Fleury, as appears 
 by the evidence of the Inmates, never attends the Asylum to give 
 them religious instruction beyond his duty in the Chapel on Sun- 
 days and Tuesdays (see the evidence, page 86, &c). The Rev. C. 
 M. Fleury receives £400 per annum for his services, and yet it is 
 apparent he has not complied with the requirements of the Trust 
 Deed ; and however the Trustees may try to excuse themselves for 
 not having acted according to the Trust Deed, we know not how 
 Mr. Fleury, the Secretary of the Institution could be ignorant of 
 the plain provisions of the Deed, by which this Asylum exists. 
 
 Somehow or other, whenever we attempted to make the Trustees 
 accountable, Mr. Fleury stood between us and them, and it seems , 
 as though we cannot speak to the Trustees but through the 
 Chaplain, and if so, we simply ask, is it because a man is a 
 Clergyman, that he is to be exempted from giving an account ? 
 
 By referring to page 28, Mr. Fleury declared to us at the elec- 
 tion last April, that no one wanted an account , and that the Trustees 
 
71 
 
 would not publish another Report for five years ; he might as well 
 have said five and twenty years. We are both Protestants, but 
 we have yet to learn, that when a body of men are Protestants, 
 and become Trustees to a Charitable Institution, they cease to be 
 accountable beings ; they are but mortals, and when the receipts 
 amount to £1,500 per annum, it looks, to say the least of it, ex- 
 ceedingly strange the Trustees should be so unwilling to have a 
 proper annual printed report, and duly audited accounts. 
 
 As to what was said at the large meeting, that was intended 
 to put the extinguisher on all our efforts; to settle us as well 
 as the righteous cause of the poor blind women. Why we 
 care no more about the meeting or the speakers, than if they never 
 existed. Our cause has acquired an hundred fold greater strength 
 from all the bluster, for this simple reason, that it was no answer ! 
 We will however ask the Right Hon. Joseph Napier, Q.C., a few 
 questions, he is reported to have said at the meeting referred to 
 (we copy from “Saunder’s News” of the 31st December, 1856). 
 “ I am not one of those who, if any charge be pointed against a per- 
 son, would rashly say that I acquit him in the first instance, and then 
 try him afterwards, because I had a complete communication with 
 those who sifted and tried this matter to the utmost, and not only 
 had every charge been proved upon investigation, to be totally un- 
 founded, but I am assured there is the clearest evidence that they 
 sprung from malignant fabrication (hear, hear).” We ask Mr. 
 Napier was it prudent for a soun.d lawyer to arrive at conclusions on 
 ex parte evidence? On examining the subject, who does he allude 
 to as those who sifted and tried this matter to the utmost ? Why, 
 the Trustees and their supporters. We consider Mr. Napier has 
 indeed been very rash in making the above declaration at a public 
 meeting, and we believe he will live to acknowledge that he did not 
 act wisely ! Did he, in any way, seek or ask for information from 
 us or the Committee desirous for Reform ? No indeed, he did not, 
 he joined the Hue and Cry without considering that there are 
 always two sides to a question. If he has been assured there is the 
 clearest evidence of malignant fabrication, why does he not expose 
 it to the public ? The first fabrication he can commence on is that 
 of the blind boy, Owen Dowell, being in the Molyneux — it would 
 be a very nice subject for the first experiment ! 
 
 One word more about the meeting in the Rotundo, and the pre- 
 sentation of the piece of plate to the Rev. C. M. Fleury. No one 
 seemed to care or say a word about the poor blind inmates of the 
 Molyneux ; their grand object was to exculpate Mr. Fleury at all 
 hazard. As to the blind women no one cared one jot or tittle. 
 These poor inmates, if they had been present at the meeting, could 
 have said in the words of Joab to David : — 
 
 “For thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither 
 princes nor servants ; for this day I perceive that if Absalom had 
 
72 
 
 lived, and all we liad died this day, then it had pleased thee 
 well.” — 2 Sam. xix. 6. 
 
 And in short the proceedings of that meeting and the conduct of 
 the Trustees especially, from first to last, in all this painful business, 
 is best met by the words of our Lord to the Pharisees : — “ Ye are 
 they which justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your 
 hearts : for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomina- 
 tion in the sight of God.” — Luke xvi. 15. 
 
 We have so much to advance as to the truth of our complaints, 
 that were we to write all we know of the proceedings at the 
 Molyneux instead of a small pamphlet, we have ample materials 
 for a couple of volumes ; unfortunately so many schemes have been 
 adopted to smother the enquiries as to the management of the 
 Asylum, that it is utterly impossible to lay bare all the falsehoods 
 without entering into much detail ; however, we imagine we 
 have said enough ; yet, little facts turn up day after day — here 
 is one of no little importance. Through the kindness of a friend 
 we have just had placed in our hands a Report of the Moly- 
 neux, dated 27th April, 1818. It is a very interesting state- 
 ment, and the accounts are actually audited by two gentlemen, 
 whose names are, Hugh Dick, and John Barton, Mary-street. The 
 Trustees of the present day, as we have shown, do not like to trouble 
 anyone to audit their Accounts. Well, this Report alludes to the 
 School in these words, page 8 — “ Three vacancies were filled, and 
 in place of the two old women who died since the opening of the 
 Asylum, two pupils were added to the School, so that two women 
 are now in the Life Asylum, and fourteen in the School of the Institu- 
 tion , being an increase of two to the former number upon the Estab- 
 lishment.” We think the ladies and clergymen in Dublin will 
 see in this short sentence very much matter for reflection. The 
 intention of the Founders, was, as we have said again and again, 
 to have an Asylum for the old, and a School for the young ; there- 
 fore, without any hesitation, we acquaint them that the Molyneux 
 Asylum should afford instruction to a number of blind children, as 
 far as the funds will allow ; they should attend the School from 
 any part of Dublin they can be found. Oh ! what a blessed object 
 to contemplate ! how our hearts are warmed when we think what 
 the Molyneux should be ! — but how our spirits sink when we reflect 
 how the Institution has fallen from its first estate, not for want of 
 funds , but from the total neglect of its Trustees. We believe the time is 
 now arrived when Trustees must be forced to cast away the garment 
 of indifference and sloth, and gird themselves with another costume ; 
 but how can it be expected that Trustees, who have cared so little, 
 can be depended on to change their habits? We do not expect it 
 in the least degree. We have no confidence whatever in them ; 
 some people have announced a grand discovery, that the Trustees 
 have at last made an effojt. There has been an evident advance, 
 
73 
 
 an improvement ! — what is it ? why, Potatoes now are provided 
 for the inmates on five days in the week ! And another reforma- 
 tion has been made — the salt fish is now the Thursday’s dinner 
 instead of Friday’s — what a very important change ! ! We have 
 heard that Mr. Fleury said it looked too Popish ! Perhaps it was 
 not he but the Trustees made the remark, but it was rather strange 
 they did not discover this years back ! 
 
 Now we should believe what the Trustees assert, and if you refer 
 to their manifesto, you will find they acknowledge they have done their 
 best / “ They have endeavoured hitherto, as they hope to persevere , 
 
 (in doing nothing) to fulfil the obligations connected with their trust, 
 conscientiously and efficiently, fearlessly and impartially.” We do 
 not agree with them as to their idea of having done their duty, and, 
 therefore, the best way of settling the dispute is, to apply to the 
 Court of Chancery without any more delay, and pray the Lord 
 Chancellor to examine the Trust Deed, and see if the Trustees 
 have fulfilled its provisions — if they have, we are in the wrong ; if, 
 however, they are in the wrong, we must pray his Lordship to 
 relieve the present Trustees of their responsibility, and appoint five 
 other Trustees, and also we shall pray his Lordship to appoint the 
 Guardian and fifteen Visiting Ladies, and furthermore, we shall 
 endeavour to have the Trust Deed amended or improved, so as to 
 admit of the appointment of three Clerical Trustees, and a Com- 
 mittee of Management of about 9 gentlemen, to assist the Trustees 
 in carrying out the intentions of the Founders of the Molyneux 
 Asylum for Blind Females, and School for children suffering under 
 the privation of sight. Of course we must pray for an examination 
 of the amounts from 1830, up to the present time . 
 
 In all our doings \Ve would hope and pray to be guided by God, 
 We have no rancorous feelings towards any person or party ; if, in 
 the warmth of the controversy, we have spoken a sharp word, we 
 beg for forgiveness. Our Blessed Saviour said, “If ye love me, 
 keep my Commandments ; and my Commandment is, that ye love 
 one another.” We have taken up the cause of the blind women, 
 and will not abandon it or them until we see the dawn of another 
 day, a complete and as far as human efforts go, a perfect eradi- 
 cation of the old system, (if it is worthy of such a title), and the 
 substitution of new life where apathy will be cast aside, and each 
 Trustee, Chaplain, and Matron will do his or her duty. We 
 humbly pray that the blessing of God will rest on our cause, with- 
 out which nothing is holy, just, and good. 
 
74 
 
 THE LATEST INTELLIGENCE TO THE SUBSCRIBERS, 
 
 SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE TRUSTEES ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL 
 MEN, AND REGULATED BY A TRUST DEED IN ALL THINGS (PAGE 6). 
 
 Mr. Allnutt knowing that his subscription would be due at the 
 end of the present month, sent one of his clerks to Mr. Thomas 
 Evans, the Assistant Secretary, Rutland Square. The following 
 is the very curious result of the interview. 
 
 Upon calling on Mr. Evans, and telling him I wished to pay 
 Mr. Allnutt’s subscription to the Molyneux Asylum, he replied 
 that he could not receive it, that Mr. Allnutt should either enclose 
 it to the Trustees at a meeting of the Board, or speak to Mr. 
 BickerstafF, who was their Sub-Treasurer, also a Trustee ; and 
 further, that he, Mr. Evans could not receive a subscription from 
 any of the gentlemen who signed* the “ Statement” without the 
 sanction of the Trustees, but if directed by Mr. BickerstafF to 
 give Mr. Allnutt a receipt, he would of course do so. I then 
 applied to Mr. BickerstafF, telling him the same as to Mr. Evans, 
 he also stated that he could not receive it, that he was not the 
 receiver, nor had he any receipts. I informed him that I had been 
 to Mr. Evans, who had directed me to apply to him for his autho- 
 rity ; he then repeated his former statement, distinctly refusing to 
 receive the money. (Signed T. G.) 
 
 Mr. Thomas Evans afterwards called at Mr. Allnutt’s Office, 
 and this Gentleman again tendered Evans the guinea; he expressed 
 himself in the same word as above, viz., that without a meeting of 
 the Board of Trustees, no subscriptions would be taken from any 
 of the gentlemen who are connected with the movement for the 
 reform of the Molyneux Asylum. Mr. Allnutt then asked Evans, 
 whether he would refuse a subscription from Mr. Frederick Sutton, 
 he declared that he must refuse it, by order of the Board. 
 
 The Trustees of the Molyneux Asylum, are determined to be 
 very eccentric characters ; they won’t have their Accounts Audited, 
 and they won’t take money to support the Asylum. Strange 
 things happen now a days ! 
 
 THE VERY LATEST INTELLIGENCE! 
 
 This day, the 11th March, 1857, Mr. Thomas Evans, the 
 Assistant Secretary of the Molyneux (the same who refused 
 Mr. Allnutt’s subscription yesterday), called this morning on 
 the clerk who attempted to pay the money ; and amongst 
 other unfortunate revelations , he said Mr. Allnutt did not go the 
 right way to work yesterday, to pay his subscription. Mr. 
 
 * Mr. Allnutt’s name is not put to the “ Statement." On the same grounds, the Income Tax 
 Commissioners will assuredly refuse money from the “ Repealers ,” when they hear of the heroic 
 determination of these thoughtful Trustees ! The gentlemen who signed the “ Statement 
 the Hon. L. H. King Harman, John F. Aylmer, John Hogan, G. L. Cathcart, William Farker, 
 Frederick Sutton, and William Higginbotham. 
 
75 
 
 Evans did not however enlighten any one as to the true method 
 Mr. Allnutt should adopt, to force the Trustees to accept Money ! 
 
 In reference to the brief notice (page 9), which Mr. Allnutt read 
 to Evans yesterday afternoon, u stating that the Trustees direct all 
 communication between the visitors and the inmates must he made in the 
 presence of the Matron .” Mr. Evans, the Assistant Secretary, 
 clearly explained that “ the Trustees were compelled to issue such 
 an order, to prevent certain ladies running in and out of the 
 Asylum, and tampering with the inmates. The Assistant Secretary 
 did not leave Mr. Allnutt’s clerk in doubt as to who the ladies 
 were, but he without any hesitation, mentioned the names of Miss 
 Blackburne and Miss Peile ! These ladies must remember we are 
 only giving the words of Mr. Evans, the Assistant Secretary. 
 Oh ! how true are the words of Scripture, “ Out of thine own mouth 
 will I judge thee.” The Trustees and their Chaplain and Assis- 
 tant Secretary, cannot open their mouth for one minute, without 
 uttering words that rise up in accusation against them ! 
 
 What superlative insolence, that two ladies of such known 
 worth, should be accused of tampering with the inmates of the 
 Molyneux ! Mr. Evans, is a very civil man, he only acts according 
 to his orders. Surely, he added, “ you would not like any one to 
 tamper with your clerks !” 
 
 The Veil is but partly withdrawn. Further communications 
 are held over for pamphlet No. 4, which will appear if necessary. 
 
 Oh ! ye prudent Trustees ! had ye been wise when the oppor- 
 tunity was given you, all would have been well / 
 
 THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE MOLYNEUX ASYLUM MAY BE THUS 
 CLASSIFIED. 
 
 Class A. — Parties who pay their subscriptions like Lambs ! are 
 perfectly satisfied with every thing anyone does or says ! and 
 carefully abstain from asking the Trustees or the Chaplain any 
 questions ! 
 
 Class B . — Ill-natured people in their hearts, (however smiles 
 may grace their countenances), who are dissatisfied, and who are so 
 unreasonable as to wish for audited accounts and explanations ! but 
 who at the same time stifle all their feelings, and pocket the 
 affront ; they also never give a hint of their opinions to other 
 men, but pay their subscriptions like real gentlemen, as if they 
 are fond of the present system. 
 
 Class C. — People who wish to pay their subscriptions, “ but 
 won't be let ” by the Collector, or Assistant Secretary, without a 
 certificate from a Trustee, that “ all's well.” The motives of Class 
 C, must be evil, they entertain sentiments as Class B, but have the 
 audacity, and presumption to speak out boldly ! Rebels, of this 
 stamp, must be put down by Monster Public Meetings , and with 
 all the rigour of the Law. 
 
LETTER RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLICATION 
 OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THIS PAMPHLET. 
 
 The Glebe, Ballinrobe, Co. Mayo, 
 
 March 16, 1857. 
 
 “ Dear Sir, 
 
 “ I have to thank you for the Pamphlet respecting the Molyneux Asylum, 
 
 “I am glad indeed that you are making an effort for its restoration, and 
 the carrying out the intentions of my former friend the Rev. John Crosthwaite, 
 whom you justly speak of as the Founder of the Institution. 
 
 “ I had the privilege of residing with him, and of witnessing his great 
 exertions to advance the temporal and spiritual welfare of the poor blind 
 females. 
 
 “ In my time the Trustees, three at least attended divine service in the 
 Chapel, and the Collections were invariably locked up in two boxes, one 
 inside the other, while a key of each was kept by a different party, a Trustee 
 and the Chaplain. 
 
 “ I sincerely hope that the Trust Deed will be laid before the Chancellor 
 or proper authorities, if need be, and the Chaplain obliged to restrict himself 
 to the care of the Asylum and Chapel Congregation, without embarking in 
 other pursuits contrary to the letter and spirit of his appointment. He has 
 doubtless an adequate salary, and an Assistant beside also paid. 
 
 “ Very differently were Mr. Crosthwaite’s services requited, but ‘ he had 
 respect to the recompence of the (great) reward,’ and ‘ was not chargeable 
 to any one.’ He served the Institution (founded by his own exertions), 
 gratuitously for years, with the exception of the advantage of the residence 
 ( for he did reside ), and gave to the Chapel an organ, which he told me cost 
 liim £200. 
 
 “ The Visiting Ladies too attended in daily rotation, and every thing 
 went on happily for a long time ; while the comforts of the inmates were 
 most carefully attended to, as of primary importance. 
 
 “ By your account a thorough reformation is much needed. 
 
 “ I am, Dear Sir, 
 
 “ Your’s very faithfully, 
 
 H. Allnutt, Esq. “ James Anderson. 
 
 P.S. — I can have no object in wishing success to your efforts, but that the 
 interests of the Institution may be served thereby, if possible, and the 
 memory of my late friend, Mr. Crosthwaite respected, in the full execution 
 of the Trust Deed. 
 
 J. A.