The original 'Stanbrook House' was in the parish of Powick, near Worcester. The St James's Chronicle of Tuesday 24 December 1811 reported "On Sunday last a fire broke out at Stanbrook House, in the parish of Powick, belonging to Dr. Briggs. The house had been under repair and improvement, and was nearly ready for the occupation of the family. The accident is attributed to the neglect of workmen employed in the house."
In 1835, with the encouragement of Bernard Short of Little Malvern, later the abbey chaplain, a community of English Benedictine nuns bought Stanbrook Hall at Callow End, Powick. This was a country mansion, built in 1755 by Richard Casean, of Worcester. The nuns had an abbey building built which was ready in 1838. It was named Stanbrook Abbey and the nuns remained there until 2009.
As a Roman Catholic, Emily would have been well aware of Stanbrook Abbey, but it is just possible that she was also aware of 'Stanbrook House', in Atlingworth Street, Brighton.
'Stanbrook House' in Cathedral Road, Cardiff, first appears in the press in the South Wales Daily News on Tuesday 22 September 1891. This is an advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook as General Servant; also general to take housemaid's duties". Whether or not the post was filled, another advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook; must assist in general housework" appeared in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 8 December 1891.
The following day, 8 December 1891, the South Wales Echo carried an advertisement which made clear the nature of 'Stanbrook House':
STANBROOK HOUSE,
CATHEDRAL ROAD, CARDIFF.
TRAINED NURSES' INSTITUTE AND PRIVATE HOME FOR PAYING PATIENTS.
HOSPITAL TRAINED NURSES SUPPLIED
To private families for all classes of case, at shortest possible notice, on application to the Matron.
Telegraphic address—"HUMANITY, CARDIFF."
The same advertisement appeared roughly on a weekly basis until October 1892. On Friday 14 October 1892 the South Wales Daily News had news of a residential vacancy:
"There is a Vacancy as Boarder for an Invalid or Elderly Lady requiring special care and attention for permanency or otherwise; every home comfort.—Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff"
It last appeared on 23 November 1892 and then the usual advertisement resumed.
The beginning of the end was reported in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 9 May 1893:
Notification of infectious Diseases.
CHARGES AGAINST CARDIFF NURSES.
At the Cardiff Borough Police-court this afternoon, the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr T. W. Lewis, Dr. Paine, Mr Spencer, and Mr R. Bird on the bench) two cases were heard having reference to the measures taken by the corporation for preventing the spread of contagious diseases.
In the first case Miss Annie Elliott, a nurse at the Nursing Institution, Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff, was summoned for conveying an infectious case in a public vehicle without giving due notice to the driver, while in the second case Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of the institution, was charged with refusing to give up to the sanitary authorities certain infected clothing.
Mr F. C. Lloyd, deputy town clerk, appeared for the prosecution. He said the summons against Miss Elliott was taken under the 126th section or the Public Health Act, charging her with exposing a child suffering from a dangerous infectious disease in a public conveyance without notice to the driver.
The section in question provided that "any person who while suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease, wilfully exposes himself without proper precautions against the spreading of the said disease in any street, public place, house, shop, or conveyance, or enters any public conveyance without previously notifying to the owner or driver that he is so suffering; or being in charge of such person who shall expose such sufferer."
The defendant was alleged to have been in charge of the person suffering. The infectious disease in question was diphtheria, which was one of a number of infectious diseases scheduled in the Act. It was of a somewhat dangerous character, the proportion of deaths of persons attacked being even as great as 30 per cent. The most important preventative measures are isolation and disinfection.
In this case the person attacked was a child who, while in a highly infectious condition, was removed in a public conveyance without the slightest intimation that she was infectious. The cabman when he was hired was told that he was required to fetch a gentleman, whereas it was a child who was removed. The cab had not been disinfected for a week after by reason of no notice having been given to the driver.
The child was not taken to an isolation hospital, but to a nursing home, where persons were received suffering from all the diseases.
The defendant was not an ignorant person—she was a trained nurse, and therefore should understand the danger to which she was exposing persons who were subsequently using the cab.
Wm. Henry Matthews, of Ryder-street, said he was the father of the child Beatrice Matthews, who was four years of age. On the 17th April, while suffering from diphtheria, she was conveyed from Green-street to Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, in a cab by the defendant. He did not tell the defendant that the child was suffering from diphtheria, but from the general tone of the con-versation he led her to believe that the case was one of an infectious character.
The Stipendiary: Did anyone tell Miss Elliott the case was one of diphtheria?
Witness: I have no doubt in my own mind that she knew it was an infectious case.
Samuel Davies, a foreman driver to Mr T. H. Webb, cab proprietor, Cathedral-road, deposed to driving the child in charge of the defendant from Queen-street to the Cathedral. No intimation whatever was conveyed to him that the child was suffering from a contagious disease.
Mr Edward Walford, medical officer of health for the borough of Cardiff, stated that diphtheria was a dangerous infectious disease.
The Stipendiary: If any person suffering from diphtheria were driven in a cab is the next person using the cab liable to become infected?
Dr. Walford: Yes I think so.
Mr Edward S. Smith, surgeon, practising in Cardiff, deposed to attending the child Beatrice Matthews, who was suffering from diphtheria.
The Stipendiary (to defendant): The case has been clearly proved against you. I take it you do not deny the facts of the case?
Defendant: I did not know it was against the law. Had it been scarlet fever I should have given notice, but being diphtheria I did not think it was necessary to mention it.
A fine of £5 and costs was inflicted, or in default defendant was ordered to prison for one month with hard labour.
A similar summons had been issued against Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of Stanbrook House Nursing Institution, but on the application of Mr Lloyd this was withdrawn, and she was proceeded against for refusing to give up the clothing of the sick child to the sanitary authorities.
In answer to the bench, Mrs Boddington admitted the charge, but said the articles were disinfected in the house, where they had every possible convenience for doing so.
Mr Lloyd said this was a charge which he must press. It was taken out under the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, which had been adopted by the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority. By section 6 it was enacted that any local authority, or the medical officer of health for such authority, might, by giving notice in writing, require the owner of any bedding, clothing, or other articles which had been exposed to an infection or any infectious disease to cause the same to be delivered over to the officer of the authority for removal for the purpose of disinfection and any person who failed to comply with the requirement should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.
George Thomas, inspector of nuisances to the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority, stated that, acting under instructions from the medical officer of health, he proceeded to the Nursing Institution, Cathedral-road, on the 13th April, and asked for the clothing of the child, Beatrice Matthews. Defendant refused to give the articles up. She said she would not allow anything to be taken out of the house, urging that they were quite capable of disinfecting their own things.
The facts of the case were not denied, defendant being fined £5 and costs.
