DR. BARNARDO'S CASE.
AN ‘' arbitration " seldom ends as satisfactorily as a suit, and Dr. Barnardo's case is no exception to the rule. The Arbitrators, Canon Miller, Mr. J. B. Maule, and Mr. W. Graham, all men of character and ability, have sat for months, have ex- amined witnesses by the dozen, and have produced an award— since very widely circulated—which leaves the minds of all who depend upon it for information and are without preconceived opinions very nearly as doubtful as before. The admitted facts appear to be simple enough. Mr. Barnardo, n Irish medical student, who never took a degree, started a series of Homes for street children, the little waifs and strays of London, where they were to be clothed, fed, taught trades, and brought up under religious influences. Mr. Barnardo appealed for help to the public, and the public responded to his appeal with unusual eagerness. Very few things are certain in the work of philanthropy, but it is certain that if children are fed, taught, drilled, and sent to church, they will be a little better than if they are totally neglected. The Homes were widely advertised, photographs of the children before their rescue and after their rescue were circulated broadcast, and the Sunday- school teachers of the Kingdom taking up the cause, subscriptions flowed in in very large sums. We question if there is a Sunday school in the country which has not heard of Dr. Barnardo. In a single year upwards of £20,000 was subscribed and earned, and Mr. Bernardo became a power iu the philanthropic world. He assumed the title of " Dr.," either on the strength of a diploma from Giessen—which, however, he has torn up—or as seems more probable, because his friends conceded it, and he thought it convenient in his position ; he increased the number of his Homes—which, it is admitted on all hands, are real institutions and very useful—and, as we judge from the whole tenor of the evidence, he posed rather too decidedly as a benefactor to the human species. As the trea- surers of benevolent Societies well know, and will know this year by most painful experience, the benevolent fund of Great Britain, though extraordinarily large, has very well-defined limits, and any great amount attracted to a single charity depreciates, though not in quite the same proportion, the amount available for other undertakings. Business philanthropists look therefore a little closely after each other, and Dr. Barnardo's very great success, and perhaps something obtrusive about his success, created enmity, and irritated, among others, Mr. Reynolds, a Baptist minister, and Mr. Charrington —the philanthropic brewer, we presume, of that name—very much indeed. Not contented with his Homes, Dr. Barnardo had poached on their philanthropic manor, the super- session of gin.shops by coffee-shops with equal attractions. Mr. Reynolds, in particular, grew very bitter indeed—he actually, according to the Arbitrators, offered to withdraw all charges if Dr. Barnardo gave up his " Coffee Palace "—and Dr. Barnardo was charged with mismanagement of the Homes, with cruelty to their inmates, with issuing fictitious photographs showing his waifs and strays in much worse plight than they were, and with deriving pecuniary advantage out of his subscriptions. After a furious row, in which Dr. Barnardo lost his temper and judgment altogether, and assisted some friend to abuse Mr. Reynolds in a very gross way in letters signed " Clerical Junius "—a row in which the whole religious world grew interested—it was agreed to submit the charges, as charges between Mr. Reynolds and Dr. Barnardo, to arbitrators sanctioned, and enabled to hear evidence on oath, by a Rule of Court issued from the Exchequer Division, One of those arbitrators, Canon Miller, is known to the whole country, not only as a good man, but as a singularly efficient organiser. The Arbitration broke down. Dr. Barnardo refused peremp- torily to answer a material question as to whether ho had written the letters signed " Clerical Junius," and Mr. Reynolds's counsel therefore, in spite of a remonstrance from the Arbitrators, with- drew altogether from the case. The effect of both these extraordi- nary proceedings was that Dr. Barnardo's witnesses were never cross-examined, a process quite essential to the full satisfaction of the Arbitrators, who complain of it over and over again as fatal to the inquiry. As, however, very heavy interests were involved, as a great amount of money had been spent on the case, and as a great body of evidence had been collected, they proceeded to deliver an admittedly imperfect Award, which, of course, for most of the public must be the sole guide. With regard to the most im- portant charge of all, it is a complete though guarded acquittal. The Arbitrators find that the donors of money to Dr. Barnardo's charities receive receipts ; that they are asked to compare their receipts with the annual lists; that the accounts are declared perfect by professional accountants of the first class ; and that there are " no traces of any part of these donations and earnings, or of any other such funds, having been, as suggested under this head, ex- pended by Dr. Barnardo in his own house and in household expenditure, or improperly appropriated to his own personal use and benefit." This acquittal is absolute, supposing the accounts not to be cooked,'—that is, supposing the outlays put down to be really made ; but upon this point the Award is totally silent. It is probable, however, we are bound to add, that the Arbitrators were satisfied, for fraud in this direction would involve accom- plices, and as we imagine, connivance from the superintendents of the Homes, which in some cases at all events, is morally impossible,—Dr. Barnardo receiving often assistance of the highest kind. It seems to us, therefore, upon the face of the evidence, and on a consideration of probabilities, most unfair to attribute, even in thought, peculation to Dr. Bar-
nardo. There is no trace of evidence of the kind, and there is a violent improbability besides, and the insinuations still made on this head strike us, as mere spectators, knowing absolutely nothing of the chief disputants, as utterly unfair. All the rest of the charges do not drop through so easily. It seems certain that the Homes exist, and that they are most useful, and as the Arbitrators agree, deserving of support ; but it seems also certain that discipline is a little too strict, and that on occasion a rough-and-ready system of black-holing has been adopted better suited to a prison than a Home. That, however, is a charge affecting Dr. Barnardo's judgment rather than his character ; and the general management of the Homes, though rougher than subscribers are induced to think, is not cruel or unwise. The idea that the children should
not "be raised above their situation" is perhaps pushed a little too far, but that is all. They are really taught, fairly fed, and carefully trained, if not in religion, in religious observances. On
the other hand, the issue of the fictitious photographs is made out, to the deep displeasure of the Arbitrators, who say :—
" This use of artistic fiction to represent actual facts is, in our opinion, not only morally wrong as thus employed, but might, in the absence of a very strict control, grow into a system of deception danger- ous to the cause on behalf of which it is practised. Nor has evidence boon wanting in this inquiry that in one or two eases it has been applied to an extent that we, the Arbitrators, strongly reprobate. Of the several eases specially named above under those five heads of charges, that under letter / is a typical case. The girls of Mrs. Holder were sent by her to the Home, poorly but decently clad. The eldest girl has been represented in photography in strong contrast with another representation of her as she appeared in the Home. In the first of those she is made to appear with bare foot and head, dishevelled hair, and tattered dross, selling newspapers in the street. In this condition and employment she never was. Her youngest sister's head is photo- graphed on a collecting box, and underneath is printed a description in these terms A little waif six years old, taken from the streets.' If by waif is here meant a child lost in the streets and not claimed, such was not her condition at any time. Under letter o the photograph on the cover of ' The Children's Treasury' for 1876, called ' Pitch and Toss,' represents five bop engaged in that game, The subject reproduces very nearly a scene in which some of them had previously been known to take part. Under letter p, the photograph called ' The Raw Material as we find it,' shows five boys huddled together, being so found at night by the boys' beadle, with his lantern. They were not so found together, but separately, though under circumstances not very unlike. This is made the frontispiece of the volume called Rescue the Perishing,' published for the year 1874-75, and beneath it is printed, In the photograph given above, be (the boys' beadle) may be seen at night in conversation with a miser- able group of boys, all of whom were admitted next day.' This state- ment is not according to fact, save in so far as that those boys were admitted to the Home."
It should be added that Dr. Bernardo's secretary, in a circular
of 1876, stated that some of the photographs are typical, i.e., " not intended so much to represent the individual boy or girl
whose face is depicted, as a whole class of street children, of
whom very many have been rescued, but from some one or other of the following causes could not at the time be photographed in the condition in which they were received." The very object, however, of using photographs instead of sketches is to create an impression of actuality ; that impression was created, and the whole system upon this point is obviously rotten, so bad as to e raise far more strongly than any other incident in the trial a doubt of Dr. Barnardo's good-faith. He might just as. well
make false statements about his children as publish these false photographs.
We must, nevertheless, in justice, finish by saying that, on the whole, judging by the evidence contained within the four corners of the Award, and with a distinct reserve as to the possibility of further evidence, we do not, as most commentators have done, deny that good-faith. The whole history of his career, road by the light of the use of the photographs, the assumption of the Doc- torate, whether obtained from Giessen or not, and the Arbitrators' statements about the letters of " Clerical Junius," raise in our minds the impression that Mr. Barnardo is a genuine philanthropist enough, who wants to benefit the waifs and strays of London, but who has the advertising ability and occasional recklessness of
exaggeration characteristic of his countrymen, and a strong touch of that disposition to charlatanerie and self-approval which
has existed in a good many philanthropists of more eminence than himself. It is natural in such a man, though highly blamable, when attacked, to lose his self-control, to abuse op- ponents in any terms that occur to him, and to refuse out of temper evidence indispensable to the complete clearing of his character. Nobody, as far as our experience goes, is so utterly and hopelessly unreasonable as your one-idead philanthropist. There is, we should say, no reason whatever why the public should ruin most useful institutions out of distrust of Dr. Barnardo's personal honesty, and great reason why he should either take his degree or drop his title, adhere strictly to facts in circulating his photographs, and appoint official Visitors whom the public know, to examine and report annually on all his philanthropic under- takings. And there is great reason also why, when he is next attacked, he should face his adversaries in a Court where neither he nor they will be allowed to retire at their discretion. In fact, we take Dr. Bernardo, on the showing of the Award, not to be one of the greatest of philanthropists, but an ordinary man of business engaged in philanthropy, not above very blamable business-tricks, but not corrupt, and not cruel.
Previous page
