THE WELLINGTON ASYLUM.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 480, 1 March 1881, Page 2

THE WELLINGTON ASYLUM.

The enquiry into certain grave charges against the management of this asylum is still proceeding. A great deal of the evidence is of a most revolting character, and, if uncontradicted, displays a most lamentable state of affairs within the walls of the institution in question.

Last Friday Mr Henry Anderson, lately editor of.the Wellington Chronicle was examined, and his eTi'dencj is a fair specimen of what is being given by the witnesses against the inst'tution. The following is the Post's report of Mr H. Anderson's evidence :—

Henry Anderson, journalist, eaid—l have a nephew in the Asylum. He has, been there 2£ years. Formerly I was in the habit of visiting him frequently. He is a perfect idiot. I remember visitthe Asylum on one occasion. Wliitelaw said my nephew was not in a fit condition to } c seen. I insisted on seeing him. My nephew was in a horrible condition. His eye: were bun ,ed up, and his cheeks and other parts of h s lace were a mass of bruises andextravasated blood. His appearance, in short, reminded me of that of a principal, who had -icen beaten in a prize-fight' l of' inirty '■ rounds. I asked, "How'the'deVildid my nephew get that? ,5 ''W'Mtfelaw at the poor fellow'^ad r walked ;tip and down the corridor in"lns-paroxysms, and hat! knocked his head up ajainst the' wall and door posts. I retbr'ed, " That cannot le." The blood-shot condition of his eyes suggested n goo'! " poundir ;." Then they brought'a powerful lunat'c of 14st., and got him to tell me that he and my nephew were fighting. My nephew was no more able to offer resistance than a 1. .ok, he was utterly helpless; and unable to communicate with the outer world. Being the editor of a newsp per at t" ; c time, I cauld have made things unplersant for the authorities ; but on considering the matter I found I found I was unable to prove anything, so I remained silent—so far as the newspaper was concerned.

Cro' -examined—Traces of the bruises were visible for t'iree or four w;3ks. My nephew must have got an awfr 1 hammering. I consider he must have been most damnably ill-treated. Whitelaw seem; 1

;o.ry for the fellow's appearance. For myself, I am an expert in the way of inflicting bruises, but I could not hare painted a man's tnce like 'it\t ualess I had him under operation for several minutes.

It appears that the mother of the superintendent, a Mrs Kettle, was engaged as matron, and it is alleged thnt Whitelaw drew her salnry and appropriated it. This is what transpired on flint he.ad :—

The Chairman : You 1 * allocation, sapported by p.vMence. .itn nnfcs to this: Lliat Mr WhitcLiw has in c jmio way ill-treated Mr* Kettle

Mr Chapman : Afc pr the only allegation I have to make is thnt hr> has drawn Mrs Kettle's money and kept it.

The Chairman : Well, that is very bad treatment I should sivy, it true. To put it plainly, if a man will rob his mother he will rob anybody ; so it will be within the scope of the Commission to inquire into the matter. For Wh'tclaw's own sake I think it would be better to go on with it. On the following day the enquiry was proceeded with, when soniw further most extraordinary evidence was given. Mrs Kettle, the mother of Mr Whitelaw.

who until lately held the pos'iion of

matron, swore positively that she had never authorised her son to draw her salary or to sign h<*r name to the receip s.

She had occasionally received small sc. is from him, either in cash or by his own cheque, but not by Government cheque. This is in direct contradiction to Mr Whitelaw's own evidence. Further evidence as to acts of cruelty of a most shocking nature was also adduced. A clerk from the Audit office deposed that in the Audit office they had always believed the to the receipts for Mrs Kettle's salary to be in Mrs Kettle's handwriting ; they pU' ported to be such, and it was only upon making enquiries recently that they were found not to have been signed by Mrs Kettle. Relative to the management of the Lunatic Asylum, Dr Gillon gave evidence as nn expert, stating that he never knew of any asylum in England, Scotland or Wales, in which there was no resident medical superintendent. Mr Shaw, R.M., detailed to Dr Gillon certain acts of cruelty sworn to in evidence, and which the defence claimed to have been inflicted for sanitary purposes. Dr Gillon, in reply, was very explicit in explaining that in the treatment of lunatics, while restraint and even correction of -a certain character were sometimes necessary, anything like "punishment "in the sonse in which it is applied to criminals, was abhorrent and contrary to all modern practise. The Court was j crowded riming , the enquiry, and there were frequent murmurs of indignation as the more shocking portions of the evidence, wore adduced. Public feeling is thoroughly aroused on the subject. This morning's Times censures the Gcvennent for not suspending Mr Whitelaw pending the result of the enquiry, and a letter in to-night's Post, 'writ*3ll by a well-known Justice of the Peaca, protests against Mr Woodward, & visiting officer of the Asylum, and censpquently responsible in a certain degree for its manngememt, sitting on the Commission.

(The latest particulars to hand of this most painful enquiry appear in our telegraphic news.]