When Roz asked for evidence to support sniffer's claim that "Louise House was built for the training of orphaned and impoverished girls to improve their chances of earning a respectable living as independent individuals", I suggested where she might find that evidence. Roz has now made several assertions based upon grounds such as "more likely than not" and "as I understand it". I don't believe there is any evidence for these assertions but, like her, would certainly consider revising my views if evidence were provided.

This is quite untrue. Places at Louise House had to be applied for; usually it was a parent who applied but it might be another relative or somebody in the community who felt a particular child might benefit. Each application was considered and children were often refused admission either because they were too old, "not destitute enough" or because it was felt the home could not help them. Furthermore although "wholly destitute" children were admitted free, where relatives or friends were able to contribute, they were expected to do so.

The reasons for admission to the home were recorded. Most frequent was the death or disability of the father, for example: "Father dead; Mother works hard charing", "Father killed in street accident", "Father dead; Mother extremely poor, but respectable; struggling hard to maintain a home".

This is also untrue. The children attended Holy Trinity School and, later, what is now Kelvin Grove. They also sat annual examinations, to ensure that they (and the home) were achieving adequate standards. They were tested in reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic and composition. Amongst other subjects taught, but not tested, were history, geography, singing, grammar and industrial work (laundry, cooking and needlework for the girls and farm work and boot making for the boys). It is clear that "industrial work" was no more significant than any of the other subjects they were studying. Both boys and girls studied the same subjects and were expected to achieve the same standards.

Additionally, Louise House retained a doctor, a dentist and a hairdresser to help care for the girls.

I have been contacted several times by people who had ancestors at either Shaftesbury House or Louise House and not one of them has suggested that the homes offered anything other than a good start in life for their relative. Indeed one respondant's great grandfather, instead of leaving when his training had finished, decided to remain at the home to help train other children.

As for evidence, much of the above is from the Annual Report of the Boys & Girls' Industrial Homes, 1911 and Minutes of the General Committee Meetings, 1911 as they are amongst the few documents I have access to at home.

I must just correct something in my previous post; the home was "non-sectarian" rather than "non-secular".