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

ca1·e , and to allow for their cost.
256
\'lhen he replied to Bedford's opinions on January 15 .
Hall summed up the situation simply
l'lny will not Dr Bedford try to keep pace with the age, and
cease his vain efforts to stem the advance of sanitary
improvements. It is never too late to mend, and no one
Hould rejoice more heart ily than myself to enlist my
professional junior in the good cause in the honourable
corps of sanitary reformers and work with him harmoniously
as brothers, members of the same col lege, for the common
good of every class of our fellow men.
Of course3 Hall slashed Bedford's statement to shreds , detail by detail.
Never .;as it more app arent how different the two men were in outlook and
professional development ;
for instance, Bedford appeared to regard the
orphan children as nuisance objects to be supporte.d by the Government at
a minimum cost;
Hall called them "the innocent little ones" orphanized
by the death, destitution or depravity of their parents .
Indeed, he
considered Bedford1s views were in direct opposition to the teachings of
Holy Writ.
Do as you would be done unto is a golden rule applicable
to all times, persons , places and charitable institutions
and makes no limitations to the amount of relief to be
afforded, according to the sources from which the funds are
raised.
Although in his view Boards of Maagement were completely satisfactory if
properly composed, purposefully motivated, and efficiently and loyally
served, as in the case of the Benevolent Society and the Servants 1 Home ,
Hall, unlike Bedford, was not really concerned with the type of organization
under which charitable institutions functioned. Like Florence Nightingale ,
the l-1isses Twining and Carpenter , and Dr G. Balfour, who se ideas and work
in England he enthusiastically followed, his emphasis was individualistic,
liberal and humanitarian, his role always that of the physician. Kindly ,
compas sionate, sensitive to the suffering of others , and in the vanguard
of modern social theory , he despised Bedford1 s calculated parsimony and
outdated ideas restricted to the concept of Poor Law Guardianism.
With
ardour and scorn he banished Bedford1s accusations of Board extravagance
in 1861 to the realms of inhumanity.
Butter comes next in Dr Bedford 1 s category of the Board 1 s sins
of extravagance though he forgot to inform the public that it
is limited, I am sorry to say, to the children in the infant
school , constituting only one-third of the strength of the
estab lishment . All the other boys and girls have their pint
of sweetened milk and water - one-third milk, two-thirds water -
with a homeopathic flavouring of tea therein night and morning,
"'ith dry bread the year through. So much for their 1 large
allowance of milk1 and 1luxu r ies 1 at two out of their three
. .
.
' '
I