Maryhill Industrial School

Items of general interest

Moderators: Global Moderators, Pandabean

Post Reply
anner
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Maryhill Industrial School

Post by anner » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:57 pm

Hi Everyone,
I was wondering if anyone knew anything about Maryhill Industrial School. Rumour has it that I had a relative there at about 1881. She would have been about 2/3 years old.

Regards
Anner
Researching Wilson, Reid, S(c)later and Ross in Glasgow. Mcgregor, Ross, White, Pirie, Gaffney, and Math(i)e(w)son and Ross in Dundee and Perth.
Yorkshire: Butterworth, Todd, Angell, Bearpark and Nutbrown. To name but a few.

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by LesleyB » Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:00 pm

Hi Anner
This article may be of interst.
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/haynin/haynin0211.htm
Also Maryhill listed here as a residential industrial school:
Glasgow Industrial School for Girls, Rotten Row. (Later at Maryhill.) March 10, 1855, and February 23, 1882.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/ ... land.shtml?=

I'd also not be surprised if there were records for schools such at this, perhaps at the Mitchell Library...?
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/ ... chives.htm
Maybe best to contact them to find out if they hold records for that specific school.

Best wishes
Lesley

Currie
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
Location: Australia

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by Currie » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:59 am

From the Glasgow Herald, Tuesday, December 6, 1881.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MARYHILL INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.

Sir,—in common justice to myself at this time, kindly permit me to make a few explanations.

1st. Why there were so many changes among the officials? Before I went to the Industrial School in Rottenrow in April, 1878, there had been much quarrelling and striving for power among the officials, so much so that the matron complained, and a meeting of directors was called to inquire into it and repress it; and on this account, when an assistant matron was wanted, I, a stranger, was brought in. This made matters worse, so far as the officials were concerned, the old hands bitterly resented it, and did all in their power to ignore me, but I kept my place, and stood by the matron, whom they spoke against as wrongfully then as they do against me now. The matron resigned at the end of that same year, and I was appointed in her stead. This increased the jealousy of the officials, and from then till now that old spirit has rankled in the house, and as one left and others came in on trial or otherwise, they soon caught up the spirit of the others, which has come down to the present day. While maintaining my place as head of the school, I did all in my power to make them comfortable, and conciliate them; but this was utterly impossible with some of them, who had been for years in the house. While I have been matron, my words and actions have been viewed through this spirit by the officials, and can evidence from such be relied on?

2d. With regard to punishments. I never punished a girl without fully inquiring into the fault, whatever it might be, and satisfying myself that punishment was necessary; and made the characters and dispositions of the girls my constant study, so that I might best know how to deal with each case. At the same time, I treated them all with uniform kindness, and never punished a girl hastily, or showed her the slightest feeling afterwards; on the contrary, we were invariably better friends. No girl was ever bodily the worse of any punishment I gave her. I never broke the skin on a girl's body, but I have always known girls much improved morally by a punishment after every other means failed. My experience has taught me that what would be a severe punishment for one girl would be as nothing to another for the some offence, and hence the necessity for a matron having discretionary power. No official or parent of the girls ever complained to me, and I am not aware they ever complained to any of the directors that I punished girls too severely, but the officials have often been dissatisfied that I merely reproved a girl who had been in fault, but whom they had brought before me for punishment. No official or hands on trial came in or went out of the house without the knowledge and consent of the chairman, who knew all their reasons for their coming and going. He also knew of every severe punishment that was required to be given, and the reasons for giving it. During the summer of this year I removed that large school, with over 200 girls, from Rottenrow to Maryhill, and started four cottages on the Cottage Home system, and from the time I entered the school in 1878, until last November of the present year, no fault had been found with my management by any of the directors or chairman, but I had always received their commendation. "The tawse" used in school were the ordinary three-tailed leather tawse, such as may be used in any dwelling-house.

I annex a copy of the Government Inspector's report for the past three years:—
February 14, 1879. —I have this day examined and inspected the school, without giving any notice, and found everything in perfect order, the children looking well, and evidently well treated. They passed a very good examination.
June 7, 1880. —I have this day inspected and examined the school, and am very much pleased with my visit. The children are looking well, the premises are in good order, and on every side I see evidences that the comfort and well-being of the children are carefully considered. I am very glad to hear a very good report of the health and conduct of the children.
June 14, 1881.—Official inspection of the school. —My visit to-day, after an interval of five years, has given me much satisfaction. I find the school going on well in all respects, and the children in sound health. And after referring to the proposed removal of the school, the Inspector continues: —The behaviour of the children to-day deserves a word of appreciation. I do not wish to meet with children of better manner and conduct. The institution appears to be managed with care and discretion. The children are kindly and judiciously dealt with,—I am, &c.,
JESSIE H. WALLACE.

Hope that’s interesting,
Alan

anner
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by anner » Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:49 am

wow, LesleyB and Currie thank you so much, will be looking at all links when I get in from work, Currie that makes really interesting reading.

Many Thanks again
Regards
Anner
Researching Wilson, Reid, S(c)later and Ross in Glasgow. Mcgregor, Ross, White, Pirie, Gaffney, and Math(i)e(w)son and Ross in Dundee and Perth.
Yorkshire: Butterworth, Todd, Angell, Bearpark and Nutbrown. To name but a few.

Currie
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
Location: Australia

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by Currie » Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:46 am

I thought I would revisit this to see what it was that had prompted Jessie H. Wallace to write the letter to the Glasgow Herald. It turned out to be in connection with a matter headlined in New Zealand on 21 April, 1882, as ‘A Glasgow Horror.’
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bi ... 20421.2.16

The story had broken the previous November. This was how it was reported in the Daily News, London, on Tuesday, November 22, 1881.

THE GLASGOW INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL SCANDAL.
The Home Secretary has telegraphed to the secretary of the Girls' Glasgow Industrial School that a copy of the evidence taken by the directors should be immediately sent to the Home Office. Major Inglis, the Government inspector, will arrive in Glasgow this week to inquire into the whole case. The Scotsman says:—
"The evidence taken by the directors has not yet been made public, but some details which have been published reveal cases of shocking ill-treatment. A prominent case in this respect is that of Mary Jane Park, 14 years of age, who had absconded from the school in August last. Mr. Cross, an inspector, and Miss Greenhill, the assistant matron of the institution, went to the house of the girl's parents, and finding her there urged her to go back with them, promising that she should not be punished. The girl returned to the school on the faith of this promise, but Miss Wallace, the matron, failed to supplement it. The girl was taken into the laundry with only her chemise and petticoat on, and held by the assistant matron and a girl while the matron flogged Park with the tawse. The girl's garments got twisted in the struggle, and, it is stated, came off, leaving her naked during most of the time the punishment was being inflicted. After the flogging, the girl was put under the spray bath "to cool her down and revive her." Miss Wallace, the matron, on being questioned as to this affair said the girl after this was put upon a mattress and placed in the surgery, being unable to state how many days she was kept there. She assured her questioner, however, that the punishment was salutary, as the girl had been a different child since. That night she visited her in the surgery, and told her she had been punished for her good. She taught the girl a little prayer, and then prayed with her. The punishment inflicted on the girl was not entered in the punishment book, because it did not form part of the ordinary discipline of the school. Miss Greenhill, the assistant matron, also stated that she had stripped several girls naked and then flogged them by laying them across the bed. She could not see anything wrong in such punishments, and did not think of calling the attention of the directors to them. Another young woman in the school gave particulars of the manner in which several scholars had been flogged. Annie M’Gowans, eight years of age, a pale little girl, was flogged so severely that marks of discoloration resembling "black eyes over her person" were seen a week afterwards.—A sub-committee of the directors of the institution have agreed to recommend the acceptance of the resignation of Miss Wallace, the matron, which she had tendered in consequence of the allegations made against her management. —The investigations into the management of this establishment are not yet completed."

Archibald Park, the child’s father, claimed damages, and the hearing was reported in the London Times on Friday, Jan 06, 1882.

THE GLASGOW INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CASE.
Proof was laid before Sheriff Lees yesterday in Glasgow in the action at the instance of Archibald Park on behalf of his daughter, Mary Jane Park, against Jessie H. Wallace, matron of Lochburn Industrial School, Maryhill, concluding for £50 in the name of damages for the alleged ill-treatment of the girl during her stay in the school. Mr. J. H. A. MacDonald, Q.O., was counsel for the pursuer; Mr. David Rodger, writer, appeared for the defender. Janet Buntine, a girl of 15, was the first witness. She deposed that Miss Wallace, one day in August last, said to the girl Park that her father had sent her to the school as he was tired of thrashing her, and that she would now begin and continue thrashing her till she too was tired. She then told the girl Park to lie over a chair. The girl refused. Miss Wallace then gave her 13 lashes. Miss Greenhill and witness helped to hold the girl down. Miss Wallace next pulled the clothes off the girl, including her chemise and petticoat. Park went down upon her knees, asking Miss Wallace's forgiveness, but Miss Wallace said, “No.” Park got about 50 blows altogether. Her body, particularly the left side, was all red flesh. Park was quite naked. She was weak after the flogging. Park asked for a drink of water, saying she was dying. Miss Wallace, instead of giving the girl water, dashed it in her face, and ordered her to get a spray bath. Mary Jane Park, the female plaintiff, spoke to running away from the school, and being taken back by two of the officials, who promised her that if she returned she would not be punished. That promise was ignored by Miss Wallace, who, she said, caused her to be held over a chair, and lashed her till she was out of breath, a good part of the flogging being on her bare body. She received about 50 lashes. She was after-wards put into a spray bath for 20 minutes, and next locked up in the surgery for four days. Part of the time she was kept on bread and water and had to lie on the floor, as there was no bed. Miss Wallace told her that if she mentioned the flogging to her father she would get more. Other witnesses were examined, among them being Dr. Johnston, who deposed that the marks on the girl's person were strong proof of undue severity. He was not surprised that the flogging produced in the girl a depressed state of mind. To put the girl under a spray bath for ten minutes after a severe flogging with the leather tawse produced was gross inhumanity. The only witness for the defence was the defender herself. She said that of 220 girls in the school Park was the worst behaved. She had been warned that if she ran away she would be punished. The punishment in question did not exceed 12 stripes. It was without her knowledge that the girl got bread and water, and when she heard of it she ordered her to receive the regular diet of the house. The spray bath was used for sanitary purposes. The girl was not of purpose flogged naked, but in the struggle her clothing fell off. Judgment was deferred.

The Dundee Courier of Tuesday, January 10, 1882, had this to say:

THE GLASGOW INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL SCANDAL.
The late matron of the Glasgow Industrial School has, by the decision of Sheriff Lees, given on Friday, to pay £20, and all expenses, including Counsel’s fees, for her unfeeling treatment of the little girl, Mary Jane Park, who had been consigned to her tender mercies. The Sheriff’s comment on the case in his note will be read with much interest. He characterises the assault as peculiarly revolting. Not satisfied with the amount of torture inflicted with the heavy tawse, Miss Wallace ordered the girl to be put under a spray of cold water, where she was kept for twelve or fifteen minutes. From beginning to end of the evidence there was not one word of justification offered by any witness for what the defender did. Then the forbidding of the girl to tell her parents how she had been treated, and the failure of the Matron to enter the punishment in the books, according to rule, are bad features in the case. The Sheriff’s decision will be generally approved, and will teach persons of Miss Wallace’s stamp that they cannot inflict any punishment they like, however brutal, on a child merely because its parents are poor, and that child happens to be in a charitable institution.

In the Glasgow Herald, Tuesday, February 7, 1882, there’s a very lengthy report of the judgement of the Sheriff Principal following Miss Wallace’s appeal. It mentions that harbouring escapees from Industrial Schools, whether parent or not, is a very serious offence punishable by a fine of up to £20 or two months hard labour, and concludes:

“if I am right in these views, it would seem that the defender exceeded her authority and functions when she took upon herself to deal with and punish the pursuer for desertion at her own hand and on her own responsibility. Yet as this seems to have been in accordance with the practice of the school, it would be hard to make it a ground of decision against the present defender. Nor is it necessary to do so. It is quite a sufficient ground for awarding damages that whether the defender was authorized to punish the pursuer or not, she plainly exceeded the amount and kind of punishment which, under any circumstances, and by whomsoever ordered or inflicted, would be justifiable.”

The Sheriff thought that, considering the actual injuries, the damages of £20 was sufficient. It seems that harbouring a girl escaping from such brutality was thought of as being much more serious.

That’s just a small selection of what was reported. There were additional claims that there was more than one tawse used in the hand to administer the flogging and that the tawse used at Maryhill was of a heavier grade than that considered acceptable for use in prisons. I saw somewhere that the administrators, amidst a flood of self-praise, were critical of the newspaper publishing the story rather than coming to them first and keeping the matter private.

Perhaps that will give an idea of what life could be like for a child in a 19th Century Industrial School.

Alan

anner
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by anner » Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:48 am

Hi Alan
and thank you, i had heard about these things happening but to read it makes it so real. Bit scary and makes you realise what a dreadful time some of these youngsters had. Certainly an eye opener.

Regards
Anne
Researching Wilson, Reid, S(c)later and Ross in Glasgow. Mcgregor, Ross, White, Pirie, Gaffney, and Math(i)e(w)son and Ross in Dundee and Perth.
Yorkshire: Butterworth, Todd, Angell, Bearpark and Nutbrown. To name but a few.

impis
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:15 pm

Re: Maryhill Industrial School

Post by impis » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:17 pm

Do you suppose the school kept records that are still saved somewhere? Information on the backgrounds of the girls, that sort of thing? My husband's great grandmother was there in 1881, aged 11. We don't know anything of her life before that, or who her parents were.

Post Reply