BOWIE v. WILSON

In 1861 a series of articles appeared in the Melbourne Argus newspaper which reflected very poorly on Dr. Robert Bowie and his management of the Lunatic Asylum at Yarra Bend. These articles condemned Dr. Bowie, accusing him of cruelty and of using inhumane methods of restraint. Sensitive to criticism and combative by nature, Dr. Bowie took offence at this continuing onslaught and initiated an action for libel in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the proprietor of the Argus for publishing false and malicious comments. However, Bowie made a serious miscalculation in pursuing a Court action which provided a forum in which his management of the Asylum was open to public scrutiny.  The proceedings of the trial were closely reported in the pages of the Argus.

In August 1861, Dr. Callan, assisted by Dr. Bowie, had performed a post-mortem on a patient of the Asylum, Alfred Freeman, who died at the Asylum, apparently from natural causes. A Coroner's inquest was held into the post-mortem, where the jury found that Dr. Callan's evidence was unsatisfactory and recommended that any future post-mortem examinations of persons dying in the asylum should be conducted by medical men not connected with it. [1]

On 10 September 1861, the Argus published a provocative and inflammatory article which referred to Dr. Bowie in highly derogatory terms. The author alleged that this inquest proved that, "with all his weaknesses and incompetency", "Mr. BOWIE is singularly unfit to occupy the position he holds in the Asylum." Furthermore, it was alleged that Dr. Bowie continued to hold his position at the Asylum only by virtue of a personal friendship with Mr. Heales. A Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly had been raised in October 1861 "to inquire into the condition and management of the lunatics confined in the Yarra Bend Asylum." Richard Heales M.L.A., who was then the Chief Secretary, was a member of that committee. [2]

This article in the Argus cited evidence recorded by the Committee as "positively sickening" and refers to certain so-called facts, which were revealed in their "naked ugliness": the author made much of a form of restraint in use at the asylum which allegedly caused "excruciating agony"; a former attendant had described the filth and vermin infestation which existed at the asylum and claimed that bed-bound patients were not washed. The author of the report alerted that more would be revealed on the subject of "Mr. BOWIE and the disgraceful establishment under his charge."

The Argus published a brief statement on 20 November, in which the Asylum was invited to refute "some very ugly rumours prevalent as to a child to which one of the female patients has recently given birth." This rumour was elevated to an assertion of fact in the issue published on 23 November, in which it was claimed that a patient in the asylum had recently given birth. The Argus demanded that the father be named and asked why no report had been made, claiming that an attempt had been made to conceal the crime. The same article also voiced concern relating to a Coroner's inquiry into the case of Patrick Mullens who had been admitted to the asylum from the Western Jail, and had died at the asylum on 17 November 1861. The jury found that Mullens had died from dysentery and from injuries received previous to his arrival at the asylum (reported in the Herald, Wednesday 20 November 1861, page 5). The concern was that the injuries included fractured ribs and the age of these fractures was a point of contention. Whereas Dr. Bowie and his Assistant Surgeon-Superintendent Dr. Callan claimed that the fractures were not recent, three other doctors believed that the fractures were indeed recent. The Argus journalist declared that "the patient was treated either with gross cruelty, resulting in fatal injuries, or with gross neglect." In closing, the Argus urged for the appointment of a Royal Commission into the management of the asylum to clear the colony from "the great disgrace of Yarra Bend."

The minutes of the Parliamentary Committee contain a report from the Board of the Asylum dated 10 December 1861 which reads: "The Board desire to place on record their regret that many statements have appeared in the Argus reflecting on the management of the institution and on the Surgeon-Superintendent. The Board during their monthly visits, or the separate visits of its members, feel bound to say that nothing has come to their observation to warrant such statements; and the conduct of the Surgeon-Superintendent has always evidenced the greatest anxiety for the welfare of those committed to his charge." The board comprised Messrs.  J.T. Smith, Richard Eades, Edward Barker, P.C. O'Farrell, and William Perry.

The final report of the Select Committee was tabled in May 1862 (reported in the Age 28 May 1862 page 5): The Committee addressed charges of ill-treatment and mismanagement which had been raised. With respect to the use of restraint in certain dangerous or suicidal patients, the Committee recognised that there were conflicting views within the medical community and made no recommendation about the canvas bags then used at the Asylum.  The Committee reported to the House on 14 May 1862 "that they believe the surgeon-superintendent has at all times, and under all circumstances, conducted the institution to the entire control of which he was appointed by letters patent from the Crown, with credit to himself and with advantage to the lunatics committed to his care."(Victorian Government, Parliamentary Papers 1862 Part 2, page xiii) During the course of the libel trial, reference was made to the report of the Committee, but the Chief Justice would not allow the report to be used in evidence.

Dr. Bowie had an ally in the Melbourne Age which issued a scathing commentary on the Argus (Age, Monday 5 May 1862, page 4): "At this very moment our contemporary is defendant in an action for a libel on the Superintendent of the Yarra Bend Asylum; and so utterly defenceless is it as regards the calumny, that the case has been allowed to go by default. Not a shadow of an excuse could be found for the grave offence charged on Dr Bowie. All this comes of having a so-called leading journal, with non-resident proprietors, and conductors with non-resident sympathies." And on 28 May, the Age wrote: "The report of the select committee of the Legislative Assembly appointed some time since to inquire into the condition and management of the Lunatic Asylum, was last evening laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly. We reprint it in another column. It entirely exonerates Dr Bowie from all the charges brought against him."  [3]

No doubt buoyed by this support, Dr. Bowie embarked on his quest for retribution. Exonerated by the report of the Select Committee, Bowie proceeded with his libel action against Edward Wilson, the proprietor of the Argus, seeking damages of £3000.

THE TRIAL

Dr. Bowie's action against Wilson for libel commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Wednesday 28 May 1862 and ran for nine days. Chief Justice William Stawell (1815-1889) presided. Bowie engaged as his counsel the Attorney-General Richard Ireland, who had defended the Ballarat rioters, supported by Messrs. Fellows and Billing. Archibald Michie (1813-1899) acted on behalf of the defendant, supported by Mr. Wood and Mr. Wyatt. Michie had been a member of a Select Committee which was appointed by the Legislative Assembly in December 1859 to "enquire into the condition and management of the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum."

The services of the Attorney-General came at a cost to Bowie of £80 with an additional £20 per day. [4]

Michie defined libel as "an unjustifiable publication, without reasonable cause or excuse, reflecting on the character or conduct of another." Three articles published by the Argus were cited as libellous. The first article, which related to the alleged unfitness of the plaintiff, was published on 10 September 1861, in which the Asylum is described as "a den of horrors" and Dr. Bowie is denounced as incompetent and unfit to occupy the position he held in the Asylum. The second libel related to an article which appeared on 20th November 1861, and announced "ugly rumours" regarding to a patient of the Asylum who had given birth. The third count related to an article published on 23 November 1861 which repeated that rumour as a matter of fact, and cited also the case of Patrick Mullins who died in the Asylum with multiple injuries.

As the proceedings unfolded, it soon seemed as if it were Dr. Bowie himself who was the accused on trial. For the defence, Michie detailed a number of "justifications" for the alleged libels, and in support of these pleas of justification, he called a number of witnesses, including patients and former employees of the Asylum who may have been disaffected with their experience in the asylum. Michie detailed eleven such pleas which included the claim that Bowie had concealed the fact that a patient of the asylum had become pregnant to his coachman. These pleas are not all clearly defined in the published report on the trial, but other alleged "justifications", all supported by "reputable witnesses", included the following: the case of Charles Hibbert, a patient who was cruelly restrained for a prolonged period "day and night"; the case of Alfred Yates Carr, who was subjected to "atrocious torment" when placed in restraint as punishment after making a complaint; the case of Patrick Mullens, who died in the asylum with injuries, allegedly sustained in the asylum, which were treated with indifference and that in failing to address these physical injuries Bowie was guilty of either "gross cruelty" or "gross neglect". Other justifications related to a lack of cleanliness, alleged "plagues" of lice and bugs, the careless administration of medicines, and to the general care of patients.

The defence made much of Bowie's use of a body bag in restraining certain difficult patients. It was alleged that the bag was used as a form of punishment in the case of the deluded and violent patient Carr. Dr. Bowie was in fact quite proud of his "invention" of a restraining sack which he considered more humane than other methods such as the straight jacket. He had first used this method when he was in practice in Scotland and maintained that it was used for warmth and protection against injury. Michie contended that Bowie's bag was a form of torture and Bowie was made to look foolish under intense cross-examination when he was forced to admit that he had never tried the bag himself.

The woman who had become pregnant, a Mrs. Steele, was in fact a former patient of the asylum. From her own evidence, she had been discharged from the asylum and she later became pregnant when she was working there as a laundress. Michie was unnecessarily contemptuous of this witness in his summation, dismissing her as a person deficient in intellect.

Evidence of one prominent citizen, James Stewart Johnston (1811-1896), who was the Commissioner of Public Works at the time of the trial, reflected poorly on Dr. Bowie's personality. Johnston observed that Bowie did not take kindly to suggestions which he regarded as criticism and he exposed Bowie as "obstructive and impracticable". However, Johnston may not have been entirely unbiased. It was Johnson who initiated the Parliamentary enquiry into the management of the Asylum in 1859 and, after the libel trial, he would become a co-proprietor of the Argus with the accused, Edward Wilson. [5] [6] Johnston's observations reinforced Michie's contention that Bowie was employing outmoded methods and had failed to adapt to the contemporary requirements of medical practise.

Archibald Michie delivered a marathon monologue to the Court which lasted nearly three hours and which was received by the public gallery with resounding acclaim. The Attorney General, however, responded with a pedestrian address to the jury which was acknowledged by a little polite applause. Chief Justice Stawell's instructions to the jury reveal that he was far from impartial. He demonstrated a distinct bias against Dr. Bowie. Notably, he directed the jury not to make a judgement in favour of Dr. Bowie based on any sympathy they may have for an elderly man. Admittedly, however, Dr. Bowie's counsel had invited the sympathy of the jury in describing his client as "an old man, the father of a family, whose foot was now on the brink of the grave."  Stawell construed the inane ramblings of one witness, the insane patient Dr. Carr, as "a most touching tale"; furthermore, Stawell was forthright and unequivocal in pronouncing his own opinion that the bag Bowie used for restraint was "cruel".  Stawell proceeded to reiterate almost verbatim the words of the Argus in expressing his hope that the matter should be referred to a Royal Commission "so only can the colony be cleared from the great disgrace of Yarra Bend as hitherto conducted."

Given the sheer weight of evidence which indicated there was at least some factual basis to the Argus articles it is understandable that the jury followed Stawell's directions and found in favour of the defendant on the important matters relating to the fitness of the plaintiff. These concerns notwithstanding, there can be little doubt that the jury arrived at the correct decision in the face of overwhelming evidence of maladministration at the asylum which was presented to the court. The jury found in favour of Dr. Bowie only in relation to the matter of the unfortunate former patient who became pregnant at the asylum, for which he was awarded a mere £100.

The Argus gloated that the trial "was concluded in a manner which must give all but universal satisfaction to the public" and that the "triumphant acquittal of The Argus is something for which the public have reason to be exceedingly grateful", and went on to demand "Dr. Bowie must be removed from his post, and a more efficient man put in his place." "The aged superintendent, untrained to the peculiar duties of his office, ignorant of the more recent, discoveries of science in the department of mental pathology, unfitted by nature for a position of unrestrained authority over his fellow-creatures (inasmuch as he is fretful, obstinate, and impracticable); who can put a limit to the mischief that such a man in such a position might commit, or the unnecessary suffering he might entail upon the poor creatures committed to his care." [7]  

Dr. Bowie was not without his friends and supporters, who were appalled at the outcome of the trial and after the publication of a description of the trial in pamphlet form, they released a rejoinder of their own. Rebutting some of the individual charges, they claimed that the trial had been stacked against Bowie, who had "not only to contend against a partial journalist, a given-to-change Lawyer, a jury deficient in knowledge and acumen, but his counsel had to submit to improper dictation by the Chief Justice." [8] 

Bowie was also supported by The Illustrated Melbourne Post: "Dr Bowie will find the thinking and unprejudiced portion of the public, ready to accord him the character of a humane and conscientious public servant ... a large amount of clap-trap and exaggeration was brought to bear against him." [9] 

Thereafter, Bowie was informed “the Government have come to the decision that it is essential to the interest of the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum that you and Dr Callan the Assistant Superintendent should be relieved from the duties of your respective offices”. [10]  

By 1865, Dr. Bowie was before the Insolvent's Court. The causes of his insolvency were stated as "Cost of law suit against the Argus, heavy losses sustained by the removal from appointment as resident medical officer at the Yarra Bens Asylum, and pressure of creditors." His liabilities totalled £658 14s, and his assets amounted to only £346 8s. [11] [12]  Insolvency was no stranger to Dr. Bowie- he and his brother William had been declared bankrupt in 1840 when they were partners in a General Practice in London. [13] In 1866 his daughter Helen had to take action in the County Court to retrieve a loan which he had made to William Symington, his brother-in-law. [14] In 1869, his eldest son, Robert, a pharmacist in Daylesford, was also declared insolvent. [15]

When he died in October 1869, Dr. Bowie's total assets amounted to less than £100. [16]  

[1] The Argus 28 August 1861 page 5

[2] Tabled in May 1862; reported in the Age 28 May 1862 page 5; Third Progress Report from the Select Committee on the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum together with minutes of evidence' published on 9 April 1862 Government Printer, Melbourne; Report from the Select Committee on the Lunatic Asylum: together with the proceedings of the committee, and minutes of evidence and appendices. Printed on 20 May 1862, Government Printer

[3] The Age, Wednesday 28 May 1862, page 5

[4] The Age, Wednesday 28 May 1862, page 5

[5] Progress Report from the Select Committee upon the Lunatic Asylum. Printed on 18 May 1860  

[6] Johnston's Obituary, The Argus 11 August 1896 page 5

[7] The Argus Friday 13 June 1862 page 7

[8] A companion to the 'Argus' report of Bowie against Wilson, right versus might, 1862, William Robinson, Melbourne page 9

[9] Illustrated Melbourne Post 25 June 1962

[10] PROV VPRS 1095/P0

[11] Leader (Melbourne) 16 September 1865 page3

[12] PROV VPRS 759/P0/9271

[13] The Times (London) Friday 7 March 1840 page 3

[14] Australasian (Melbourne), Saturday 2 June 1866, page 23

[15] PROV VPRS 759/P0/12314

[16] PROV Probate and Administration Files VPRS 28/P0/8/228

REFERENCES

A Report of the Enquiry into the Management of the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum, as detailed in the nine day's trial of the action for libel BOWIE v. WILSON. Held in the Supreme court, Melbourne, from Wednesday, May 28, to Friday, June 6, 1862. Melbourne 1862

Brothers, C.R.D., Early Victorian Psychiatry 1835-1905

The Melbourne Argus 10 September 1861, page 4

The Melbourne Argus 20 November 1861, page 4

The Melbourne Argus 23 November 1861, page 4

Third Progress Report from the Select Committee on the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum together with minutes of evidence, published on 9 April 1862. Government Printer, Melbourne. 

Report from the Select Committee on the Lunatic Asylum: together with the proceedings of the committee, and minutes of evidence and appendices. Printed on 20 May 1862. Government Printer, Melbourne.

A Companion to the "ARGUS" report of BOWIE AGAINST WILSON. Right versus Might.  The mutilated state-supported record; Michie's Speech in Defence of Dr. Bowie Delivered in the House of Assembly on the 19th January, 1859, and a few remarks on the Pleas of Justification and the Incomprehensible Verdict. By an Unbeliever in the "Argus".   Melbourne 1862