Philanthropists and Philanthropy

Home » Philanthropy » The Sydney Female Refuge Society

The Sydney Female Refuge Society

The Sydney Female Refuge Society (SFRS) is an important and major example of philanthropy which falls on at least three points of the philanthropic spectrum being philanthropy as improvement, as relief and as spiritual engagement (See What is Philanthropy?). The SFRS was formed on August 21, 1848, with the Motto ‘GO, AND SIN NO MORE’.[1] Its formation, which was probably patterned on similar overseas institutions such as the Magdalene Society of Edinburgh, arose out of the concern

that some hundreds of unhappy females were crowding the streets and lanes of the populous city, the disgrace of their sex, the common pest of Society, and a reproach to the religion we profess, but which had not led us to attempt anything for their improvement.[2]

The SFRS objectives were

the reclaiming of unfortunate and abandoned Females, by providing them with a place of Refuge in the first instance, and, after a period of probation, restoring them to their friends, or obtaining suitable employment for them.[3]

The three aspects of this philanthropy are clearly seen in its objectives. Prostitutes and women who found themselves pregnant and abandoned were given a place of refuge (relief), restoration to friends, but importantly where at all possible also to God (spiritual), and they were also given employment such as washing and needlework, and positions with families found for them (improvement).

Rosebank The Sydney Female Refuge from 1903

Rosebank, The Sydney Female Refuge from 1903

The labour of the residents of  the refuge was rated according to market value. A small proportion was deducted as a weekly charge for board with the balance, contingent upon good conduct, being handed over to them on quitting the institution. In contrast to its Scottish equivalent, there was no uniform, but simple appropriate clothing was provided by the Institution as necessary. Nor did the SFRS, unlike its Scottish equivalent, shave the heads of the inmates to discourage absconding[4] and the daily work schedule was less than the ten hours in the Scottish Asylums.[5] Strict privacy was to be maintained with the names of the inmates not passing beyond the committee and the matron and not being divulged to anyone unless they had a legal right to know. The SFRS conformed to a common model among nineteenth century charities with a separate ‘ladies visiting committee’ and a ‘gentleman’s committee’ of management.

The voluntary period of residence of each inmate was determined by the Ladies Committee after a full investigation of the inmate’s circumstances, but was not to exceed beyond twelve months.[6] Upon leaving the inmates received a decent outfit and a portion of the money they had earned for their work, but only after they had conducted themselves satisfactorily for six months after leaving.[7] While within the Institution inmates could receive no visitors whatsoever, except from those with a legal right to see them or from such persons as may receive special permission from the Ladies Committee, and then only on Tuesdays or Fridays in the presence of the Visiting Ladies. This was not always easy to monitor as various ‘uncles’ and ‘brothers’ appeared to see the inmates. The matron did attempt to police this rule, but it is obvious from the records of the SFRS that a suspicious ‘uncle’ or ‘brother’ rarely visited twice.

The Society was overtly Christian[8] but, true to its founding principles, it sought not to be sectarian or oppressive as far as religion and instruction were concerned. While an emphasis on the spiritual renewal of the women was certainly at the forefront of the minds of the SFRS as a solution to the issue of prostitution, they acknowledged the need for more to be addressed than the issue of salvation from sin.

In 1883, there was talk not just of employing a second female missionary to deal with the increasing problem of street women, but also of the need for legislation that ‘should be sharp and decided in dealing with those moral pests the dancing saloons … our factories also, where so many are employed of both sexes, need some public oversight and supervision’.[9] The understanding of the causes of prostitution which the philanthropists sought to address bears similarities to the analysis of their Scottish equivalents who saw the issue

in terms of individual character flaws: employment in the ‘public’ sphere; frequenting working-class entertainment; or greed, vanity, and love of finery. Only a passing acknowledgement was paid to contributing social factors like poverty, unemployment, and a lack of education.[10]

Godden is generally correct in noting that the SFRS Committee had a lack of understanding of the economic issues that gave rise to prostitution as they tended to see prostitution ‘as a result of personal vanity, lack of discipline and order and the corrupting influences of the city’.[11] She goes too far, however, when she says that the SFRS never ‘referred to poverty or low wages as being relevant to the problem of prostitution’.[12] While it was not a prominent theme, reference was being made to poverty and the issue of poor housing that necessarily arose from it, as early as the 1860s.

It is to be feared that the evil we seek to combat is fearfully accelerated by the want of proper habitations for the people, so long as there is a disregard to decency in the construction of dwellings, and a neglect of proper sanitary regulations, we shall mourn over the prevalence of this crime among the children of our people: and we do well that if anything unfit for human food is liable to seizure, the hovels unfit for habitation, the slaughter-houses of virtue, should, if public good is to be the theory of government, be at once condemned and destroyed.[13]

The Governor Sir John Young expressed the view when chairing a SFRS annual meeting that ‘he believed in a great majority of cases – they had yielded to the dire importunities of poverty’[14] and Alfred Stephen said that those they sought to reach were the ‘victims of the most grievous poverty’.[15] The SFRS, however, did not see its main role as agitating for societal or governmental change, but rather sought to ameliorate suffering where they came across it, and to seek to give the necessary skills and encouragement for the inmates to change their ways and build a better future. By today’s standards their approach may not have been broad enough to address the issue they faced, but at least they were trying to help through their practical compassion

to educate this unfortunate class, often more sinned against than sinning, in womanly attainments, so that when they leave the Refuge it may be with a training which will enable them to obtain a respectable livelihood.[16]

Two key and long term figures in the work of the SFRS were John and Ann Goodlet who served for 52 and 47 years respectively. The involvement of John Goodlet

Ann Alison Goodlet in later life

Ann Alison Goodlet in later life

with the SFRS probably began with his marriage to Ann Dickson (nee Panton) in 1860 and continued until his death in 1914. In 1856, the then Ann Dickson joined the SFRS,[17] an attachment which she was to maintain until her death in 1903.[18] As the Dicksons only arrived in Sydney in July of 1855, Ann clearly wasted no time in getting involved. She and her family had had a long association with the Dickson family in Scotland prior to her marriage and it is probably from John Dickson’s mother that Ann gained an interest in this work. In Edinburgh, Mary Dickson (John’s mother) had been involved as the Matron of the Edinburgh Magdalene Asylum, an organisation with similar aims to the SFRS.[19] That John Dickson’s mother had such a significant role in the work of the Magdalene may go some way to explaining Ann’s own strong commitment to this work.

In 1861, John Goodlet was appointed a member of the SFRS Committee of Management, while Ann Goodlet was the Secretary of the Ladies Visiting Committee.[20] As Secretary, Ann was closely involved in the running of the facility and in the first instance, she decided admissions, decisions which were then ratified at the next meeting of the Ladies Committee.[21] The matron, who often deferred to Ann and sought her advice,[22] was a key person in the Refuge and she was responsible for the day-to-day running of the establishment. Over a long period of time the SFRS was well served by a number of dedicated and sensible women who with tact, skill, firmness and some humour, dealt with the inmates and various challenging situations.[23]

The work of the Ladies Committee was ‘onerous and time-consuming’[24] and it is clear that the Ladies Committee was the ‘mainstay and prop of the whole Society’. The all-male Committee of Management frankly confessed that had it not been for their well-directed efforts, and steady, plodding perseverance, the Institution would, long ago, have altogether ceased to exist.[25] In turn, Ann Goodlet was the mainstay of the Ladies Committee, and for this reason the Management Committee recorded ‘their high estimation of the indefatigable zeal manifested by Mrs Goodlet, the Secretary of the Ladies Committee.’[26] This probably means that Ann, as the principal voluntary worker, exercised effective control of the charity’s day-to-day functioning.

John’s role within the SFRS was different to that of Ann. The Government had originally given the SFRS use of the Old House of Correction off Pitt Street, but the buildings were in a poor state. A new building was completed and the foundation stone laid by Lady Young on October 3, 1861. By 1865, however, there was a need for additional space to meet the increased demand on the Society[27] and it was more in this area of the maintenance and the development of the Society’s facilities that John Goodlet gave his time and service.

In 1868, through a grant from the government of £1,000, the buildings were repaired and upgraded, debt cleared and finances put in a healthy state.[28] In that year, despite the improved facilities, there were fewer admissions to the Refuge than there had been in the year before. This was attributed to the zeal of the City Missionaries and the excellent working of the Destitute Children’s Act which had removed children at risk who previously had often gone on to become prostitutes.[29] A new building was erected in 1871 which was ‘a commodious structure … plain, it is true, in appearance, but excellent in arrangement, and admirably adapted for the purpose for which it is required.’[30] For the new building to be completed, a loan of £500 had to be taken by the committee for which they were personally responsible. The Refuge had been built in three phases: 1861, 1871, 1873, with a further enlargement being required in 1878,[31] for a total construction cost of £5,112 with the government paying £1,000 and the rest being raised by supporters and bank loans.[32] With John’s practical knowledge of buildings, having him on its management committee no doubt assisted in the expansion of facilities.

In 1903, the Society moved to an enlarged and renovated premises in Glebe Point Road, Glebe, which was able to house 80 people. This relocation was possible due to the decision of the State Government in 1901 to demolish the buildings in Pitt Street occupied by the Refuge and to use the land for the railway. The Government handed £16,000 to the Management Committee to find a new house. After some difficulty the committee purchased, at considerable cost, ‘a palatial building, standing in extensive grounds, and known as ‘Rosebank’ situated in Glebe Point Road’. John Goodlet supervised the additions to the building[33] which were designed by Albert Bond[34] and on July 7, 1903, the new refuge centre was opened.

The inmates came to the refuge from a variety of sources and with different problems: some from the jail, some prostitutes, others pregnant or escaping husbands, and others simply wandering the streets. They were referred by the female missionary employed by the refuge, ministers, family, or magistrates, and many simply came of their own volition. The members of the Society were under no illusion as to how difficult a task they had set themselves if they wished to achieve their aims:

The previous training of the Inmates, with habits sensual and debasing, and feelings blunted by the most demoralizing of lives, makes this work not only one of the most difficult of all philanthropic efforts, but one also where success is to be little expected; for in many instances these victims of misplaced confidence, deserted by betrayer and friends, and stung with a sense of wrong, harden their hearts against all influence for good.[35]

Nevertheless, the Society tackled its task. Godden says, using figures from only two years, that the Protestant refuge’s failure rate was 72 percent,[36] however, when using the same criteria the figures of the SFRS for the period 1849 to 1912  indicate a failure rate (‘left of their own accord’ which probably meant absconded) of 41.8 percent.[37] [See Figure 1]

table outcomes SFRS

Though the SFRS had new premises, it had been experiencing significant financial difficulties since 1897. The total income of the SFRS had been declining for some time, but it did so quite markedly in the period 1891 to 1897.[38] This decline was due to the general depression and some keen competition from steam laundries,[39] as well as the existence of similar institutions that called upon the public for support. The financial situation of the SFRS had become so difficult by 1899 that, with much regret, the services of the female missionary (or ‘Bible woman’) were discontinued.[40] By 1905, during the chairmanship of John Goodlet, the SFRS was finding it difficult to survive, as were other Christian charitable organisations, and the withdrawal of Government subsidies of some £200 did not make the situation any easier.[41] As the Rev E Moore of the City Mission said

it was their duty to try and win some of the women from their evil ways. It had been a most difficult task for many years to get money in Sydney for Christian institutions. The trouble was that there were so many doing the same kind of work, and something should be done to prevent such multiplicity.[42]

O’Brien says that the function of the home of the SFRS was largely punitive and that of all the homes of this sort ‘it seems colder and more horrible than most’.[43] Godden’s assessment is that the Sydney refuges for the prostitutes run by the Roman Catholics and the Evangelicals were repressive and harsh, but that

perhaps the greatest imperviousness to change was at the Protestant Sydney Female Refuge. It was rebuilt in 1903 on the same prison-like lines adhered to in 1848 and inmates were still addressed by number and not name.[44]

Such claims made about the functioning of the SFRS home do not seem to be justified by the evidence. In terms of the buildings, the rebuilding and renovating that had occurred to the premises given to the society in 1848 was considerable with a new building constructed in 1871 with further additions in 1873 and 1878. These improvements prompted RG Reading, a committee member, to comment that the improvements since 1870 had in fact changed the character of the buildings for ‘he remembered the chilling effect the different parts of the building of that time had upon a visitor. They were in a very dilapidated condition. Since then a great change had taken place’ it was now, as its name implied, a refuge where ‘formerly it seemed more like a prison’.[45] The new buildings of 1903, required because the government had resumed their former building, were not prison-like either. The committee had purchased and renovated existing premises in Glebe that stood within substantial grounds and this had been done at considerable cost.[46] The new laundry facilities had the most up-to-date equipment[47] and all this was done when the SFRS was facing considerable financial challenge with falling subscriptions and income.[48]

As to the regime being harsh it was certainly less so than its Scottish equivalent. Inmates were given employment such as washing and needlework and it is suggested by O’Brien that they were paid ‘very little’ for this work.  As recorded by the SFRS their labour was rated according to market value, with a small proportion deducted as a weekly charge for board, the balance to be handed over to them on quitting the institution contingent upon good conduct. There are no records about the levels of payment made to those who had left the home, apart from 1854 when £18 pounds was paid to an undisclosed number who left, and so there is no evidence to support or contest the contention that they were paid very little. If they were paid very little, and they may well have been, it would not seem to be due to mean spiritedness on behalf of the SFRS, but rather more likely due to the parlous financial situation of the home. For most of the SFRS’s life it struggled financially to deal with recurrent expenses, let alone the cost of building new buildings for which the government provided little help. Furthermore, the contention that the main function of the SFRS was punitive is not supported by the stated aims of the society which was to reclaim and restore,[49] nor is it supported by the existence of the educational program pursued within the SFRS.  Those who could not read or write were given instruction to improve their literacy, a singing teacher was engaged,[50] and 2pm to 5pm each day was dedicated to teaching the residents while at night they could read and do needlework for themselves.[51] In contrast to its Scottish equivalent, upon which the SFRS was modelled, there was no uniform, but simple appropriate clothing provided by the Institution as necessary. Nor did the SFRS, unlike its Scottish equivalent, shave the heads of the inmates to discourage absconding.[52]

Strict privacy, which was a benefit to the inmates as well as their families, was to be maintained with the names of the inmates not passing beyond the committee and the matron, and not being divulged to anyone unless they had a legal right to know. Godden points to the rules of the SFRS requiring the use of numbers instead of names within the Refuge as an example of its harshness. There is, however, no evidence that the practice of using numbers was ever adhered to within the Refuge[53] and in the only evidence as to what took place in the Refuge, the matron’s journals and the minutes of the Ladies Visiting Committee, only names were ever used.

Many inmates found the SFRS premises and its approach not to their liking and left, but numerous others left to go to a job or married and had families and regarded the Refuge as a very positive step in helping them move forward in their lives. While these were the successes, their testimony is not one of harshness and repression:

I have been married for three months. My husband is kind to me, we are very happy; we have a nice little house and a bit of ground of our own, and he is in work constant, and we have got a few pounds in the bank put by for a rainy day, and I don’t think we could wish for more, &c. &c. I think it was a lucky day that I went in the Refuge, for it has made a good girl of me all my life time. Give my best love to all the girls, and tell them for me that I hope they will do good.[54]

I am now nearly six years a wife, and have a kind and good husband, and am the happy mother of two dear children, and all this I owe to the Refuge. I found kind friends while I was there, who not only studied my interests then, but never lost sight of me since I left … My kind friends, I could mention many cases of girls who were in the Refuge while I was there, who are now happy wives and mothers … mention this to you, to let you know there has been more good done in the Refuge than comes to your notice.[55]

Such expressions of regard for the work of the SFRS were selected by the committee to encourage their subscribers that the work, despite its difficulty, did have some successes. These views were certainly not the views of all the former residents, but they must not be disregarded as irrelevant in assessing the nature of activities of the SFRS. Godden, who is generally critical of the practice and limited social views of the female philanthropists of the SFRS, says that

there is an aspect of women’s philanthropy, particularly applicable to the Refuges, that should not be forgotten. No matter how self-interested, how repressive philanthropists were, they invariably offered services and help that were in great demand and otherwise unavailable. Refuge life was harsh but neither institution experienced any shortage of inmates. Inmates judged that life outside the Refuge, without the guarantees of food and shelter was even harsher.[56]

Godden further notes that the

Refuge Ladies championed the cause of prostitutes as did few others. To the public and many philanthropists, prostitutes were not considered ‘deserving’ because the commonly accepted theory was that once a woman ‘fell’ she was corrupted forever’ …  the Refuge Ladies sought to counteract such views.[57]

Ann Goodlet was the leading committee member of the SFRS who, in such a role, must have set the tone for the interaction of the members of the committee with staff and inmates of the Refuge. The description of the SFRS as ‘colder and more horrible than most’ and the philanthropists as ‘self-interested’ and ‘repressive’ does not fit well with what is known of the actions and attitudes of Ann in other philanthropic contexts. When she died it was said of her, and of her work at the SFRS, that ‘she discharged her duties in a manner which won for her the respect and love of all the officers’ and far from being cold and repressive it was said of her attitudes and actions towards to the inmates that ‘she was ever kind and sympathetic, wise in counselling, and gentle in reproof.’[58] What view those inmates who ‘left of their own accord’, and for whom the SFRS was not a positive experience, had of Ann is not recorded. It may well not have been as positive as Ann’s obituary was about her for they did not see their own situation in the same terms as the philanthropic women of the SFRS.

By modern standards the SFRS was limited in its social vision and restrictive and did, unintentionally perhaps, perpetuate society’s double standard on sexual morality that dealt more disapprovingly with prostitutes than with their clients. On the evidence available, however, it does not deserve to be regarded as punitive, repressive, self-serving, cold and horrible. The SFRS sought to do what they could for these women and many were grateful for their help.

Dr Paul F Cooper, Research Fellow, Christ College, Sydney.

 


The appropriate way to cite this article is as follows:

Paul F Cooper The Sydney Female Refuge Society 4 May 2016 available at

https://phinaucohi.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/sydney-female-refuge-society


 

[1] This motto is derived from the incident in the Bible where a woman is accused of adultery and Jesus refuses to judge the woman and instead grants her forgiveness and calls upon her to leave her current lifestyle of sin. Gospel of John 8:1-11.

[2] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The First Annual Report, (Sydney: Kemp and Fairfax, 1849), 7.

[3] Rules of the Sydney Female Refuge Society in Sydney Female Refuge Society, The First Annual Report, (Sydney: Kemp and Fairfax, 1849), 4.

[4] Olive Checkland, Philanthropy in Victorian Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1980), 238.

[5] Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes – Prostitution in the nineteenth century (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), 79-80.

[6] SMH, May 15, 1866, 2. The Scottish Magdalene Asylums usually had probation period of three months before a decision was made to permit a women’s continued stay in the Asylum. Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes, 78.

[7] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Fourth Annual Report, (1852), 10.

[8] The religious motivation of the self-consciously Christian Society was plain and overt. ‘Let us, therefore, seek more diligently and faithfully to recover those for whom Christ died, and to whom He graciously sends His kindest invitations, that they, like Mary Magdalene, may bathe Christ’s feet with their tears, and wash away their deep sins in His precious blood, and let us ever cherish that compassionate spirit which prompted Him to say, ‘Go, and sin no more.’ Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Tenth Annual Report, (1858), 7. See page 307 for further comment on sectarianism in regard to the SFRS.

[9] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Thirty Fifth Annual Report, (1883), xv.

[10] Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes, 54-55.

[11] Judith Godden, ‘Sectarianism and Purity Within the Woman’s Sphere: Sydney Refuges During the Late Nineteenth Century,’ Journal of Religious History 14:3, 1987, 302.

[12] Judith Godden, ‘Sectarianism and Purity,’ 303.

[13] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Sixteenth Annual Report, (1864), 12.

[14] SMH, May 24, 1861, 5.

[15] SMH, June 11, 1872, 6.

[16] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twenty Eighth Annual Report, (1877), 14.

[17] Sydney Female Refuge Society, Ladies Committee Book, March 1903.

[18] ‘The members of the Ladies Committee desire to place on record their sense of the great loss, sustained by them through the removal by death of their late secretary Mrs J. H. Goodlet. Her association with the institution dates from 1856 during which time she served the Institution with zeal and wisdom, and has left the stamp of her influence on all branches of the work. As secretary she conducted the business in a methodical and thorough manner and won for herself the respect of all who labored (sic) with her.’ Sydney Female Refuge Society, Ladies Committee Book, March 1903.

[19] She held this position from at least 1831-1834, Caledonian Mercury (Edinburgh, Scotland), January 27, 1834; February 13, 1832; February 26, 1831. A book from the Goodlet Library, The Psalms of David in Metre according to the version approved by the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Sir D Hunter Blair and H.T. Bruce, 1832) is inscribed ‘Presented to Mrs Mary Dickson by the inmates of the Edinburgh Magdalene Asylum, as a small token of their respect and gratitude.’ It is now housed in the Ferguson Memorial Library, Sydney; Edinburgh Almanack and Universal Scots and Imperial Register for 1833  (Edinburgh; Oliver and Boyd, 1833).

[20] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twelfth Annual Report, (1860); Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Thirteenth Annual Report, (1861), iii-iv.

[21] Sydney Female Refuge Society, Matron’s Journal, November 16, 1864.

[22] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Seventeenth Annual Report, (1865), 13; Sydney Female Refuge Society, Matron’s Journal, December 7, 1864.

[23] Sydney Female Refuge Society, Matron’s Journal, March 6, 1868.

[24] Judith Godden, ‘Sectarianism and Purity,’ 294.

[25] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Fourth Annual Report, (1852), 18.

[26] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Seventeenth Annual Report, (1865), 13.

[27] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Seventeenth Annual Report, (1865), 14.

[28] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twentieth Annual Report, (1868), 5.

[29] The SFRS applauded the Act, ‘extensive powers …. [were] given therein to deal with the depraved, removing others from the control of vicious parents and the force of bad example. The law had stepped in to the rescue of such, and provided a place for their protection, where, absent from contaminating influences, and under better guidance, beneficial results may be expected.’ SMH, July 22, 1869; Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twentieth Annual Report, (1868), 6.

[30] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twenty Third Annual Report, (1871), 12.

[31] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Thirtieth Annual Report, (1878), 13.

[32] SMH, April 19, 1880, 7.

[33] Renovations of Sydney Female Refuge Society Rosebank cost £9,000 and accommodated 80. The Sydney City Mission Herald, November 16, 1903, 14.

[34] Bond was associated with Goodlet in the building of the Thirlmere Consumptive Home and the extensions to the Presbyterian Ladies College, Croydon.

[35] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Thirty Second Annual Report, (1880), 11.

[36] Judith Godden, ‘Sectarianism and Purity,’ 305. Godden uses figures from the 1870 and 1876 Annual Reports which rate ‘taken into service’, ‘taken home by friends’ and ‘taken home by husbands’ as successes.

[37] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Sixty Fourth Annual Report, (1912), 11.

[38] Falling from £1,001 in 1891 to £458 in 1897.

[39] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Forty Ninth Annual Report, (1897), 12. The laundries referred to were commercial ventures which competed with the SFRS for laundry business.

[40] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Fifty First Annual Report, (1899), 11.

[41]  The Messenger of the Presbyterian Church in NSW (Sydney, NSW), August 18, 1905.

[42]  The Messenger of the Presbyterian Church in NSW (Sydney, NSW), April 14, 1905.

[43] Anne O’Brien, Poverty’s Prison, The Poor in New South Wales 1880-1918. (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1988), 203.

[44] Godden ‘Philanthropy and the Women’s Sphere,’ 346.

[45] SMH, April 19, 1880, 7.

[46] In excess of £8,949 15s (over $1 Million, 2008 value) was spent on the upgrade and renovation. SMH, July 21, 1903, 3.

[47] SMH, July 21, 1903, 3.

[48] The Messenger of the Presbyterian Church in NSW (Sydney, NSW), August 18, 1905.

[49] Rules of the Sydney Female Refuge Society in Sydney Female Refuge Society, The First Annual Report, (Sydney: Kemp and Fairfax, 1849), 4.

[50] Sydney Female Refuge Society, Twenty Fifth Annual Report, (1873).

[51] Sydney Female Refuge Society, Thirtieth Annual Report, (1878).

[52] Olive Checkland, Philanthropy in Victorian Scotland, 238.

[53] Rule 7, Rules of the Sydney Female Refuge Society in Sydney Female Refuge Society, The First Annual Report, (Sydney: Kemp and Fairfax, 1849), 6.

[54] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twenty Third Annual Report, (1871), 12.

[55] Sydney Female Refuge Society, The Twenty Seventh Annual Report, (1875), 14.

[56] Godden ‘Philanthropy and the Women’s Sphere,’ 126.

[57] Godden ‘Philanthropy and the Women’s Sphere,’ 127.

[58] SMH, July 2, 1903, 2.

Advertisements
Follow Philanthropists and Philanthropy on WordPress.com

© Dr Paul F Cooper.

All articles are the
Copyright of Paul F Cooper.

Feel free to use them but please acknowledge their authorship.

Please use the citation which is displayed at the end of each article.

Follow Philanthropists and Philanthropy on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: