PDF (Whole thesis) - UTas ePrints - University of Tasmania

J. Doughty
E. S. Hall
245
£1.1.0.
£2 .2.0.
The prospect of Hall in this position horrified Benson and Bedford who
decided to prevent it at any cost.
As he had done once before at the
Royal Society, Bedford took the floor immediately the meeting was declared
open in an attack which was aimed at negativing the sympathies of members
tm-1ards Hall.
Although the Chairman and Crowther tried to soften and
dismiss the matter , Bedford would not be quietened and accused Hall of
uttering abominab le slanders against him in his ab sence and of attacking
the Superintendent , Headmaster and others too.
defended Hall in his absence ;
Both Hunter and Crowther
Hunter maintained that his disinterested
zeal for the well-being of the chi ldren gave him the right to be considered;
Crowther asserted that there would be no conflict if Benson would not set
his face against every suggestion that Hall might. make .
There was a common end m serve and he (Crowther) believed
that Dr Hall was repeatedly misunderstood; moreover, he
was deaf.
However; ?peaking strongly against Hall's conduct towards Benson and himself,
Bedford swayed the vote , four to three, against Hall, who thus lost the
opportunity to care personally for the sick children. l8
Not unnaturally, the whole of Hobarton anticipated a stormy
meeting of the Board of Management of the Queen 's Orphan Schools on
July 23.
All the preparations for a 'row' were duly made ,
wrote the Mercury in its leader on July 25,
A forewarning was given that the meeting would be of a very
exciting character, and the performance quite equalled the
expectations 'thus raised.
Before the business of the meeting commenced, Hunter, a
Catholic, repudiated a report circulating in the city that he wa
influenced by Hall's leadership, insisting that the Catholics acted fairly
and conscientiously as individuals.
Coming quickly to his support , Hall
challenged Bedford, claiming that everything had been done to prevent him
protecting the children;
members of the Board in the Legislative Council.
moreover, he accused Bedford of denouncing the
Hall moved a resolution
that Bedford he required to justify the "outrageous epithets" applied to
him and to show cause why he had passed over the five meetings intervening
between May 21 and July 11, and reserved his .attack for the only occasion
1 8 Mercury, July 12, 1861.