Category Archives: Cheshire Lunatic Asylum

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum 1854-1870 – Part 2.2

As I outlined in part 2.1, for part 2, just as in Part 1, I have again divided part 2 into two posts, 2.1 and 2.2, mainly because of the number of images used, which would take too long to load if I left it as a single piece.  This is the second part of part 2, part 2.2.  Part 2.1 is here.
xxx
xxx

Insights from the annual Visitor and Superintendent Reports for 1854-1870 contd.

Patients and their backgrounds

In the annual reports, patients are largely reduced to numbers.  Without exception the reports never give personal names of patients, only rarely referring occasionally to specific individual cases, such as suicides, escapes or, as in 1857, the birth of a child, and there are only a few clues in the annual report about who these people were.  One of the vital tables in this respect, which always appeared in the annual report, showed the occupations of each of the admissions for each year.  Given that this was mainly an asylum established for paupers, it is not surprising to find that most of the intake was from the lower-paid levels of Cheshire society, but the term “pauper” when applied to asylum patients did not always refer to very poor people. The term “pauper” covers a range of people.  Some were genuinely very impoverished, such as those transferred from workhouses, but others might be fully employed but without sufficient funds for their families to afford asylum costs.  This is probably one reason why there is a wide range of trades and professions represented, partly representing Chester’s diverse economic basis.   The variety of occupations might be more mixed when private patients from middle class families were admitted, or when patients were transferred from other asylums such as Staffordshire and Denbigh.   Two examples are shown below, one from 1855 and another from 1870.

Occupations of patients admitted to the asylum in 1855

The previous occupations of patients admitted in 1870

In every report the numbers of new admissions were listed both the symptoms with which patients were admitted in the tables accompanying the reports, together with the supposed causes in Table IX (until 1868).  The supposed causes are of interest, because they are specific to individual cases, and change annually, although recurring causes inevitably appear from one year to the next.  The following example is from the 1862 report about 1861:

Tables showing the types of mental illness and their supposed causes for 1861

The 1862 report for 1861 reported that the asylum was now capable of housing 500 patients, with the new extra capacity unused, resulting in the decision to charge private patients who were unable to afford more expensive solutions.  It was deemed that the admission of this new class of patients required a set of additional rules that would be applicable to these new more privileged patients.

A page from the 1867 Cheshire Asylum report

Occasionally something related to an individual patient is deemed important enough to report and these give some clues about the circumstances from which these patients came.  For example, in the March of 1862 a “deaf and dumb idiot” was admitted from a workhouse, and within three days had developed symptoms of smallpox.  A second patient soon showed the same symptoms and both had to be isolated from the rest of the asylum patients.  Again in 1862 a female patient gave birth, and this child was “subsequently removed to the Workhouse.”  In 1866 a woman died within six hours of having been admitted and the sad jury verdict determined that the death was due to natural causes “accelerated by ill-treatment, want of proper food and the miserable hovel she lived in.”  In 1867 a female was admitted with advanced Phthisis Pulmonalis,(pulmonary tuberculosis, also referrred to at the time as “consumption”) in a state of extreme exhaustion.  She gave birth a month later to premature baby, and both died. In the same year, a woman was taken to see her dying husband in her home near Middlewich, giving “no small degree a melancholy satisfaction to both, and probably was the means of saving the patient, a melancholic one, considerable subsequent distress of mind.”  One of the female inmates gave birth to a child, which, when a month old, was removed by the Relieving Officer, and delivered to the husband.  In another case of a childbirth within the asylum, both mother and child died.  There are very few other examples listed.

There are plenty of references in the Cheshire Asylum reports to areas outside Cheshire that had asylums of their own, but would send some of their patients asylums outside their immediate areas, including Chester, when they became full to capacity, thereby incurring associated charges.  An example from 1862 is the intake of patients from parishes in north Wales due to the Denbigh asylum being full.  The charges imposed for taking in these patients was used to improve conditions at the Chester asylum, enabling the purchase of “a large portion of the furniture required for the new buildings, but for which the Committee would have been under the necessity of applying for a further sum to supplement the grant of £500 already made by the Court of Quarter Sessions for this purpose.”

An excerpt from the 1855 list of items that were made in-house

It is discussed in part 2.1 (Ideology) how patients were put to work within the asylum partly to control costs, but more particularly to provide them with a sense of self and personal achievement. Women sewed and knitted, and sometimes helped out on the wards.  By 1867 all the clothes, shoes and bedding were being made within the establishment. The report for 1868 shed more light on this.  Of a total population (by the end of the year) of 255 men and 257 women, 120 men and 140 women were employed in productive activities in the asylum.  80-90 men worked in the garden and farm, 8 worked as tailors, 10 as shoemakers, 5 at other trades, and 55 in the wards and offices in unspecified roles.  100-110 women were engaged in sewing and knitting, 22 were in the laundry and washhouse, 9 were in the kitchen and offices and 30-40 assisted on the wards.

In 1870 it was recorded that “an excellent practice has lately been adopted” whereby every patient due to be discharged would be brought before the Committee so that they could be questioned about their treatment and asked if there were any complaints, following which they would have to sign a form confirming their statements.

The overall impression is one in which patients generally came from the lower levels of Chester’s social scale, with a few middle class patients, generally private, and that at the asylum they were integrated into a new community where they were cared for, and to which they could contribute.
xxx

Form of Mental Disorder

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum Report of 1855 showing the main reasons for admission

One of the tables in each report showed the main “disorder” with which patients were admitted, with any complications.  They make for a fairly startling insight into just how varied and potentially difficult patient symptoms could be.  It is difficult to find precise modern analogies for the forms of disorder shown, not only because they were not always precisely defined in the 19th century, but because definitions could differ from asylum to asylum.

Forms of mental disorder with which new admissions were afflicted 1854 – 1867

The four main classes of disorder were Mania, Melancholia, Dementia and Amentia, the latter subdivided into Imbeciles and Idiots.  I have listed Amentia as a single class in the above graph, due to the lack of any clarification on how idiocy and imbecility were distinguished by the asylum.  Other causes could be added to the table as well.  In 1855, for example, intemperance (alcoholism) was specifically noted as a direct and dominant cause of insanity in new admissions:

Intemperance, as usual, appears to have been one of the most fertile causes of the disease, and this was more especially the case amongst the class of skilled artizans who received high wages. As shewn in table 10, in fourteen instances the attack of insanity was directly attributable to it; and undoubtedly in a large number of the other cases, habits of intemperance acted as a predisposing cause. It unfortunately happens that the offspring of such parents are extremely liable to insanity.

However those shown above in Table IX from the 1855 report, were the main categories up until 1867 when the format of the tables changed, and the “forms of disorder” table was changed.  Hill and Laugharne, looking at the Bodmin asylum data suggest that these conditions could be broadly understood as follows, although this is tentative, and reflects the difficulty that was found in categorizing mental illness in the 19th century.  Mania is thought to have represented manic episodes, for which they suggest that a test would be to look at the age at which the symptoms began to manifest themselves, expecting to find it appearing in patients aged between 10-30 years old.  Melancholia was more closely associated with what were later referred to as depression.  They find dementia more difficult to pin down but suggest that it may equate to schizophrenia, but if correct, this too would have manifested itself in younger patients.  Taber’s Medical Dictionary Online describes Amentia as “1. Congenital mental deficiency; mental retardation. 2. Mental disorder characterized by confusion, disorientation, and occasionally stupor,” but it was broadly associated with those who suffered from learning difficulties, described in the Chester asylum reports as “idiots” and “imbeciles.”

As well as the main forms of disorder, complications could have a considerable impact on any chance of recovery.  Although suicidal tendencies accounted for a considerable proportion of each year’s intake, as shown in the chart above, the greatest complication for any possibility of recovery was General Paralysis, which was one of the most common cause of death in the asylum.

Suicide, which is discussed further below, could be guarded against within the asylum, meaning that even when high numbers of patients were admitted with suicidal propensities, there was a very low rate of suicide within the asylum itself.

General Paralysis of the Insane (GPI), to give it its full title, also known as General Paresis, impacted men far more often than women and was the most frequent contributor to the number of deaths recorded in the asylum each year, with much greater numbers usually found among men than women.  As Kelley Swain illustrates, it was not understood in the 19th century, although not through want of speculation:

“Treponema pallidum” (in Swain 2018)

General paresis (or paralysis) of the insane (GPI) was crippling and terminal. It ended in loss of control over mind and body, often accompanied by grandiose delusions of wealth and power and, finally, paralytic death. There was no known cause. Could GPI be caused by overwork? Emotional labour? Mental strain? Sexual promiscuity? Drink? These were possible causes listed by William Julius Mickle in 1880. . . A disease of dissolution and disrepute, GPI was also considered a result of that most Edwardian horror: degeneration

In fact, GPI was the result of undiagnosed syphilis, a bacterial infection usually transmitted sexually, hence its association with disreputable activities.  No cure was found until the early 1900s, when the bacterium Treponema pallidum was discovered in Germany, leading to the manufacture in 1908 of a drug called arsphenamine later renamed Salvarsan.  GPI was a genuine problem for lunatic asylums like Chester’s.  Because it was incurable, and it required constant nursing attention, patients who were admitted with GPI took up vacancies at the expense of those who might be cured.  It was a massive dilemma. 

The seizures associated with epilepsy were originally thought to be outbreaks of madness, and were treated accordingly but by the mid 19th-century there was a much better understanding, particularly as a result of the work by neurologist John Hughlings-Jackson, of the causes.  In 1857 Sir Charles Locock successfully applied the first effective anti-seizure drug, potassium bromide, to epileptic patients.  For much of the later 19th century epileptics began to be treated as a separate class of patient, either in dedicated wards and buildings or in epileptic colonies.

A recurring theme in the reports, which has been mentioned before, was the frustration that patients were not admitted until their conditions were very advanced, considerably reducing the likelihood of recovery and filling the asylum with those who could not be nursed back to health and cured at the expense of those in need.

It too often happens that to save expense, or else from misplaced charitable motives, the patient is detained at home by his friends, with a hope that improvement may take place; and when it is too late for medical treatment to be of any service, he is removed to the Asylum, where he is likely to remain for life, a burden to bis friends, or to the township to which he belongs; whereas, had be been sent as soon as the malady had manifested itself, there would have been every probability of his speedy recovery, and of his being able once more to support himself and family by his own labour.

John Hughlings-Jackson (1835-1911). Source: Wikipedia

In 1857 the report for 1856 reinforced the point, drawing attention to the fact that of the forty seven who had been discharged as recovered, thirty nine of those patients had been admitted within three months of having been declared insane.

The confusion of mental illness with neurological disorders in the 19th century was understandable, and it was only through the work of medical pioneers like John Hughlings-Jackson that the two began to be seen as separate fields of medical research, with psychiatry and neurology both developing into essential branches of medicine.

There is almost nothing in any of the Chester asylum reports about what sort of treatments were applied, so it is not possible to track how treatment might have evolved.  Nor is there any information about how discharged patients were deemed to be “cured” or “relieved.”  Nor is it explained why, if they were not in any way improved, they were discharged anyway.
xxx

General health and disease

The physical condition of patients admitted to the asylum in 1870

A recurring theme in the reports draws attention to the weak condition and general ill health of new admissions that undermined the efforts of the staff to support new patients.  Many of those who died soon after admission were already in a poor state of health, in spite of being provided with good food and other stimuli.  Those referred from workhouses were often in a very bad way.  This was blamed in some reports on the Relieving Officer who was responsible, at parish level, for assessing paupers and their needs, and for delivering any suitable candidates to the asylums.

There was always the risk of a patient being admitted with a dangerous disease.  In 1864 a patient suffering from smallpox was admitted, which lead to a new bye-law authorizing the Medical Superintendent to reject infectious patients.  In 1865 this was acted upon when a potential patient was indeed refused admission.  On the other hand, there is no mention in the 1867 report for 1866 about any patients contracting cholera, which was an epidemic in that year.


Patients transferred from the Workhouse

The Chester Workhouse, on the edge of the Roodee, hemmed in on all sides. Sometime after 1840. Source: ChesterWiki

The relationship between the Chester workhouse and the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum is an important one and needs far more exploration than is possible here.  As Alistair Ritch has highlighted in his study of transfers between Birmingham are workhouses and asylums, there was a great deal of movement in both directions in England.  Following changes introduced by the 1834 Poor Law Act workhouses were required to move certain patients to local asylums:  “nothing in this Act contained shall authorise the detention in any workhouse of any dangerous lunatic, insane person, or idiot for any longer period than fourteen days” (section 45).  They were often in very poor condition by the time the decision was made to transfer them, both before and after 1834, making it very difficult to treat patients both for ill health and for mental illness.  In the other direction, those long-term residents of the asylum who were deemed to be both harmless and incurable might be moved to workhouses to make room for more acute cases.

In the 1857 report for 1856 the problem of workhouse admissions was highlighted, which provides a useful insight into the relationship between workhouse and asylum, and the problems in capacity that this represented for the asylums:

It appears that there are at this time more epileptic, idiotic, and chronic pauper patients in the different Workhouses of the County and elsewhere, than the patients actually
present in the Asylum; and as the Commissioners in Lunacy recommend that all these shall be brought into the public Asylum of a County, and also recommend that at least one acre of land for ten patients should be provided for their occupation, the quantity of land with that now proposed to be purchased would be in about that proportion, viz. 70 acres for 600 patients.

Dr Brushfield commented on the referrals from the workhouse in 1859, and how these were less likely to recover due to the lateness of the referrals, than those admitted early from other sources.  This is a recurring theme, but was raised particularly with reference to workhouse transfers.

It cannot be too often reiterated, that the chances of the patient’s recovery depends in the great majority of cases upon the circumstance whether the removal to the Asylum is early or late after the primary outbreak of the attack. The patients admitted to the Asylum during the past year, were 11s a class, of a worse description than usual; for instance, at the monthly meeting in October, the following extract was read from my Diary:-

“I beg to call the attention of the committee to the bad and incurable type of cases that are now being brought to the Asylum. Of the eleven patients admitted since the last meeting, there is only one where there is much probability of a cure being established, there are two cases of doubtful issue, and the remaining eight are positively incurable.  Seven of the eleven were admitted from workhouses, and four of this number had been the subjects of restraint.”

When a patient is sent to the Workhouse, which practice in some townships is the rule, considerable delay in the removal to the Asylum is too frequently experienced, and as a
sequence, the recoveries amongst those brought from workhouses are proportionately few, and the deaths many. The following table of the cases admitted into this Asylum during the past year, will bear out the correctness of these remarks.

By 1860 concerns about overcrowding at the asylum, there being no more male capacity and only  a few places available in the female wards, lead to a brief exploration of the various options, which included expanding the asylum yet again, shifting patients to other English asylums, and moving others to the workhouse.  Of the latter option it was suggested that workhouses represented the least desirable option, “it being a fact well known to all experienced in the treatment of recent acute cases too often results in retarding the discovery, or in causing the degeneration from a curable into a chronic incurable state.”  In the 1862 report for 1861 Dr Brushfield expanded upon this point:

In several instances where Patients, after having been quiet and harmless for many months, or even years, in the Asylum, have been removed to the Workhouse, they have, in the course of a short time, been sent back to the Asylum as “dangerous” either to themselves or to others, or to both.

In 1866 there were too few spaces for the number of patients referred to the asylum, and the only solutions were to transfer the new patients to other asylums, if any of those were lucky enough to have capacity, or to send them to workhouses.  As none of the asylums approached had any spare capacity, it is assumed that several of the Chester asylum patients were sent to the workhouse in spite of Dr Brushfield’s considerable misgivings.

The subject of the relationship between the Chester asylum and the workhouse would reward a research project in its own right.
xxx

The emphasis on recovery

Duration of insanity prior to admission asylum in 1855

The objective of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum was not merely confinement but cure, although apart from a community and activity based approach to mental illness, it is by no means clear how recovery was to be achieved.  The reports are concerned to record and discuss recoveries, as well as the reasons why some patients could not be cured.  Some patients were too unwell to treat effectively when they were admitted to the asylum:  “It is lamentable to find that in such a large proportion of the cases admitted, medical skill is of no avail.”  There is a clear differentiation between those who have the potential for recovery and those who do not.  In the 1855 report this was because of complications due to epilepsy and general paralysis, a recurring theme in these reports, and also because, in some cases, mental illness was too far advanced into the “chronic stage” for any improvement.  The usual explanation for this is that admission came too late in their illness, as this example from the report, also for 1855, makes explicit:

Table XIII (13) from the 1855 report

It too often happens that to save expense, or else from misplaced charitable motives, the patient is detained at home by his friends, with a hope that improvement may take place; and when it is too late for medical treatment to be of any service, he is removed to the Asylum, where he is likely to remain for life, a burden to his friends, or to the township to which he belongs; whereas, had he be been sent as soon as the malady has manifested itself, there would have been every probability of his speedy recovery, and of his being able once more to support himself and family by his own labour. In table 13 it will be seen that out of the 52 cases discharged cured, 32 left the Asylum within six months from the time of their admission.

The report cites a case of one individual who was only kept alive by a stomach pump that administered food, and who died after five months.

This was reiterated in 1861 when Dr Brushfield wrote:

The proportion is wholly governed by the number of curable cases admitted, as of this
class 70 or even 80 per cent. are discharged recovered, hence the importance and necessity of sending the patients to an institution of this kind before the malady has assumed a chronic incurable form. In too many instances the Asylum, instead of serving the purpose of a hospital for curable cases, has simply become a receptacle for incurables.

The ordinary diet table for females from the 1870 report

In 1867 the 21st Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor was published, for the year 1866.  It listed all the asylums with which it was concerned, showing the data for the total number of inmates in the asylum at year end, and the proportion of those deemed to be probably curable and those deemed to be incurable.  Out of 481 patients (238 male, 243 female) only 13 were “probably curable” (5 males and 8 females) whilst 468 were “probably incurable. ” In the following year, 1868 the percentage of recoveries, 46.5%, was higher than in any previous years but no specific reasons are provided to account for the difference between these two sets of figures.

In spite of this gloomy prognosis, patients were fed well, if unimaginatively, three times a day, and for paupers, many of whom had probably had very little in the way of consistent and healthy diets, the provision of regular meals full of carbohydrates and protein was probably better than many of them had experienced, and was essential for any  hope of recovery.  The fact that the farm, on which many of the men worked, supplied a lot of the daily food supplies must have been a source of some satisfaction to male patients.
xxx

Discharges, deaths and escapes
xxx

Discharges partly reflected the success rate of the asylum, the overall aim of which was to return patients to society rather than retain them, so these were always displayed prominently in the tables and discussed in the text. A distinction was made between those who were considered to have completely recovered, those whose symptoms were relieved and those who had not improved.    Superintendent Brushfield was well aware of how the statistical tables could disguise some of the underlying information about recoveries and in his 1860 report for 1859 attempted to clarify the situation as regards curable versus incurable patients:

Of course the proportion of recoveries must depend upon the proportion of curable cases admitted, which varies much from year to year: for instance, during 1858 the admissions consisted of 43 curable and 47 incurable cases, whilst in 1859 the numbers were much more disproportionate, there having been 49 of the former and 70 of the latter. Of the 49 of the curable class 26 were discharged as recovered during the course of the year, and nearly two thirds of the remaining 23 are progressing favourably towards mental restoration.

Causes of death shown in the 1857 report, including 12 cases of General Paralyis, 10 cases of Phthisis (which sometimes followed General Paralysis) and two suicides

Deaths were inevitable, and were the result of a variety of causes.  In 1854 nineteen men and twenty women had been discharged, and there were a total of thirty deaths, a third of which were put down to “General Paralysis,” which was incurable and was the main cause of death over the entire period that these reports cover.  In 1870 this figure still remained high (15 men and 7 women)  In the 1860 report for 1859, Superintendent Brushfield highlighted the much higher than average number of deaths and some of its causes:

There was a considerable increase in the proportion of deaths and several circumstances contributed to swell the number. The mild winter of 1858, assisted in prolonging the lives of manv of our feeble cases for a few months, thereby lessening the mortality of one year to increase that of the next; whilst the severe weather that occurred during the middle of December last, operated very banefully on those suffering from great prostration of the mental powers, or organic bodily disease. The large number of aged persons admitted tended to produce a similar result. One-third of the number was due to general paralysis.

Tables from 1862 showing ages of patients who have died and the duration of their treatment before death

By 1870 a wider range of causes of death were being reported under different categories

In 1855 and again in 1857 one third of admissions had been recorded as suicidal, but although suicide attempts were occasionally recorded, thirteen years had elapsed before two were successful in the same year, noted in the report for 1857. This is in spite of the fact that some patients had been admitted not only having suicidal tendencies but having made serious suicide attempts prior to admission.  An example from 1857 describes how: “in several the attempts made were of the worst desperate description; and in two instances the patients at the time of their admission had extensive incised wounds of the throat which subsequently healed.”

New admissions with suicidal tendencies into the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum from 1854-1870

 

Overview of suicides in the report for 1861

In 1861 two patients had been admitted who had attempted suicide by cutting their throats, one of whom had been confined within the workhouse for two years previously.  The year’s only successful suicide lead to new measures to prevent a repeat:

 

For special notice is that of a male patient who committed suicide in the day time by strangulation. Every precaution appears to have been adopted with a view to guard against his known suicidal propensity. The open ironwork at the head of one of the old bedsteads, however, afforded him the opportunity he had sought. Nearly fifty of these bedsteads were in use when Mr Brushfield entered upon the duties of Superintendent in 1852. All since introduced have been of wood, and of a safe construction . . . It has, consequently, been deemed right to order an alteration, now in progress, in all the iron bedsteads, by the substitution of sheet iron for open work.

1870 was also a particularly bad year for those who were admitted having actually attempted to commit suicide, although there is no attempt to explain why this should be so, and no new suicide attempts were recorded after admission into the asylum:

Of the year’s admissions it was found that a large number had a strong suicidal propensity, and that several had made desperate efforts to commit self-destruction prior to their being brought here: the subjects of melancholia exhibited this proclivity in the greatest intensity.  Six cases were received into the asylum with their throats more or less severely cut, all of whom however recovered of their wounds,. except one – a male patient – who died five days after admission,  five days after admission, when a Coroner’s inquest was held upon the body, and the Jury gave a verdict to the effect that death was caused by self-inflicted injury.  None but those connected with Asylums for the Insane can form an adequate conception of the anxiety which this class of patients causes to the Medical Officers.

Escapes were only noted in the tables where the person had been missing for over a day.  There were several escapes in 1854, one in 1855, two in 1863, two in 1864 and one in 1870, which is a remarkably low number.  One escape attempt resulted in the escaped man drowning in a local canal; this was considered to be an accident rather than a suicide attempt.  This very good record was put down to the amount of freedom accorded to patients as well as their good treatment.
xxx

Re-admission

Re-admissions are not mentioned in every report but are interesting when they are, indicating that someone who had been discharged back into society had not been successfully reintegrated and needed to return to the asylum for treatment.  It is unclear what sort of medical or emotional support someone discharge might or might nor receive from the asylum, although there was a charitable fund for helping them financially. A list in the 1863 report for 1862 displays re-admissions versus admissions since 1842. The percentages indicate that this was a fairly high annual number:

One of the problems with these figures is that the re-admissions do not correspond directly to the admissions, as some of them were admitted from previous years. Other reports make it clear that some re-admissions were within the year covered by the report, but that others clearly represented lapses after many years, so that the percentage of re-admissions does not relate directly to yearly admissions.  The figures in this table are still interesting for two reasons.  First, they indicate that re-admissions were generally quite low for the 17 years concerned, particularly as there does not seem to have been much in the way of after-care, but they did occur.  Second, these figures had not been recorded in most of the preceding reports, although they must have been recorded somewhere for them to be included in the 1862 report.
xxx

Religion and education

The religious persuasion of admissions in 1867

Access to Christian services was considered important not only for the moral and religious wellbeing of patients, but also to reduce the potential tedium of asylum life.  The 1858 report for 1857 describes how a new residential chaplain was appointed:

The necessity of having Divine Service performed more frequently in the Chapel of the Asylum has recently brought under the attention of the Committee. After investigating the matter very fully, and finding that such services not only broke the monotony unavoidably connected with these Institutions, but exercised a more salutary influence on the patients, they appointed the present Chaplain, the Rev. R. Congreve, to be resident Chaplain, with a salary of £200 per annum, and an allowance of £50 per annum for a house, until the same could be provided for him. Divine Service will now be performed once every week day and twice on Sunday, instead of (as heretofore) once in the week and once on Sunday, and the Chaplain’s whole time devoted to the Asylum.

From 1858 the annual report occasionally included a section contributed by the Reverend Congreve, and it is one one of the aspects of asylum life on which the visiting commissioners of lunacy regularly commented in the annual report.  There were two services on Sundays, one on Fridays, and prayer readings every day in the Recreation Hall, as well as services on Christmas Day and on Good Friday.  A choir was made up of both attendants and patients, and Reverend Congreve reported that “all the Sunday evening when they return to the wards, you will find many of them joining together and singing some of the hymns.”  Holy Communion was also organized four times a year for a small minority of the asylum residents who required it (for example, in 1867 there were 14 who took advantage of this provision, out of a total number of 526 patients at year end).

In the report for 1863 it was noted that church attendances averaged from between 108 to 118.  In 1867 the church had reached its capacity of 300, made up of both patients and attendants, and many had to be excluded.  As a result, in 1868 the pews were reorganized to allow an additional 70 to attend.  During the closure for this alteration, “as many patients as could be trusted” were accompanied to Upton Church.  The average congregation after the reorganization was now 320, still including both residents and attendants.

The establishment of the fund for discharged patients in 1863

Reverend Congreve managed a charitable subscription fund called the Convalescent Fund, which was  contributed to by people from the local community to assist those who were discharged, which was designed to help them to re-establish themselves. There were occasionally concerns about this running very short of funds, but every now and again it received a generous contribution or legacy.  The report for 1867 describes how a a legacy of £100.00 was provided, making a substantial difference to the fund.

The chaplain also managed two voluntary schools, one each for male and female, as a form of leisure activity.  A schoolmaster was provided by the men, but women were taught by two nurses.  Over time as well as Bible study and reading, the school taught writing and basic arithmetic and one of the chaplain’s activities was to deliver books and periodicals to the patients, taking particular effort to make sure that those who had difficulty reading had material with plenty of illustrations.  In 1867 the school attracted 30 men and 30 women.
xxx

Personnel

Staffing consisted of a Superintendent, an Assistant Medical Assistant, a Matron, a number of male and female attendants and nursing staff.  These were supplemented by a bailiff, a head gardener and his staff, workshop artisans, the lodge keeper and his wife, and a porter.  The farm, which included both livestock and crop production, would presumably have been staffed quite extensively.

Within the asylum, efforts were made to ensure that women staff worked in the female wards and that male staff worked in the men’s wards.  Long-term employees were provided with pensions.  In 1854, for example, a resident steward was appointed, a new matron replaced the incumbent matron who was provided with pension after 15 years of employment, the head attendant retired due to ill health after over 20 years of employment.  Both were provided with a pension of £20.00 per annum.  The outgoing Medical Superintendent was granted a pension of 200.00 per annum.

Staffing levels are usually reported on within the report, and in 1861 there is a useful insight into staffing at the asylum at that time:

On the male side there are a, head attendant, 13 ordinary attendants, (there being at present one vacancy,) and a gardener and an engineer, each of whom has charge of patients during the day. On the female side, under the Matron there are 15 nurses employed exclusively as such, and a laundress, a cook, and a housemaid. The above are exclusive of the night attendants, one in each division, whose duties, during one night in about 13, are taken in turn by the ordinary attendants.

There had been a reference in the report for 1866 to note that “in most cases” attendants had maintained good standards, which looked somewhat as though some details were being glossed over.  In 1867, it was not deemed possible to ignore that “on one or two occasions” attendants had been charged with striking patients, although no-one was dismissed.  From this year there were repeated problems in this regard.   The report for 1867 also commented that female attendants were short by two due to the difficulty of hiring suitable personnel.  It was suggested that this might be due to the low starting salaries, and it was recommended that this might be increased.

The Handbook for Attendants of the Insane. Source: Royal College of Nursing, “Out of the Asylum”

In 1865 the problem of training frontline staff, both attendants and nurses, in lunatic asylums was recognized by the medical profession and a manual was produced for their use, the Handbook for Attendants on the Insane. It was known colloquially as “The Red Book.” The book cover on the left shows that this was the sixth edition, a measure of its success.  You can read a copy of it on the Wellcome Collection website here (the 1884 edition).  It was not until the early 1890s that training schemes and examinations were first set up for frontline staff at lunatic asylums by the Medico-Psychological Association (which later became the Royal College of Psychiatrists).

In 1868 “considerable difficulty” was experienced finding “efficient and well-conducted” attendants to fill vacancies.  The loss of the Head Female Attendant in that year due to ill health lead to the combination of her role with that of the Matron (it is not recorded quite what the matron made of this).  These staffing difficulties may contributed to the finding of the Lunacy Commission Visitors in that year that although men presented an acceptable appearance, some of the female patients to be “poorly clad and still more untidy, and as if ill-attended to.”  One woman complained of injuries imposed by the staff, still visible, that had not been escalated to the upper hierarchy for investigation.  Although her bouts of violent epilepsy meant that her injuries may have been accidental or the result of trying to pacify her, the failure to report the incident was a cause of concern.  However, it is clear that there were real problems with some of the staff.  In the same year, 1868, a few of the staff members were dismissed for “misconduct, wilful neglect of patients and incompetency” and the rules for staff were revised to ensure the regulation of conduct within the asylum and to ensure proper attention to patient care, but there were still occasional problems.

In spite of genuine efforts, in 1869 several male attendants were dismissed, one of whom was prosecuted for striking a patient and was fined £10.00 per costs, which he paid rather than being imprisoned for three months (to put this in perspective, the National Archives Currency Converter suggests that today this would be equivalent to around £626.00, or 50 days salary for a skilled tradesman).

The combination of low salaries and increasing numbers of patients apparently made it difficult to hire sufficient attendants who had both the skills and the physical and appropriate personal attributes to care for patients according to the values of the moral treatment approach.  The experience at most asylums was that as patient numbers grew, it became increasingly difficult to maintain this empathetic approach, and it would be interesting to know how Dr Brushfield fared after he moved to Brookwood, which at the time of his new appointment had capacity for 650 patients.

 

Asylum Deaths in Overleigh Cemetery

Family gravestone that includes the name of Ellen McLean Thurston, who died in the asylum at the age of 42. Photograph by Christine Kemp. Source: FindAGrave.com

Without access to the asylum’s records it is difficult to find out information about patients, why they were there and how they died.  I have not yet found out where Asylum patients were buried prior to the opening of Overleigh Cemetery in 1850.  However, a burial dataset from Overleight itself can, in some casesbe matched up to newspaper reports.  The contents of this section have been provided by Christine Kemp’s entries for in the Virtual Asylum Cemetery for Overleigh Old and New Cemeteries on the Find A Grave website, putting names to some of the anonymous statistics captured in the annual report.

Overleigh Cemetery opened in November 1850.  To date Christine Kemp (Friends of Overleigh Cemetery) has found records of 67 patients at the asylum having been buried at Overleigh between 1852 and 1900, as well as 3 from other asylums (Tranmere, St Mary’s Parish and Latchford).  The youngest if these was 15 and the eldest 77.  Two were suicides.  According to Chris’s research on the Asylum Virtual Cemetery, of the 67 known Asylum patient burials, 26 (39%) had no memorials and are in unmarked graves, some of them were buried in common graves (7, or 10.5%), and one of them was interred in a communal cholera grave. In five cases, patient burials are recorded on plots with memorials, but their names are not mentioned on those memorials. Given the size of the asylum and the numbers of deaths recorded in the annual reports, others must remain to be identified or were buried elsewhere.  Cremation was not a possibility in Chester until as late as 1965.

Causes of death are almost never shown on gravestones, but some of them refer to the suffering of the deceased in life.  The memorial for asylum patient Edward Edwards, who died at the age of 69 on the 26th January 1894, is an example of this genre and reads: “His Languishing Head is at Rest / Its thinking and aching are over / His quiet immovable breast / Is heaved by affliction no more.”

The understated gravestone of Edward (Ned) Langtry, husband of actress Lily Langtry. Photograph by Christine Kemp. Source: FindAGrave.com

Chris has managed to track how some of these people were employed in life, and most of those that she had were in fairly modest work, as one would expect from an asylum set up to assist paupers and those whose families could not afford their care. This agrees with the asylum records which show how patients were employed prior to being admitted.  A number were labourers, as well as the wives of labourers. Others are identified as a grocer’s assistant, a tailor, a porter, the wife of a wagoner, a pub landlord and the wife of a pub landlord, a sergeant major, a stone mason, a bricklayer, a mariner, the wife of a coachman, a “gentleman’s gardener,” a painter, a butcher, a fitter, a store and timekeeper, a char-woman, an engine driver, and a collier.

An unusual asylum patient was Edward (Ned) Langtry, the former husband of popular actress Lily Langtry, from whom he had separated in 1887.  In October 1897 he was found wandering after a bad fall in a state of delirium and was referred to the asylum by a magistrate, although he would probably have been better referred to hospital care.  He died in the asylum after nine days, suffering from “inflammation of the brain.”  His gravestone is a very understated affair, but the newspaper records that Lily Langtry sent a very impressive bouquet!  The full report of Ned Langtry’s death was reported in the Chester Courant, which can be seen on Chris’s entry on the FindAGrave website.

The asylum deaths reported in newspapers are useful exceptions, because most of the asylum deaths were not usually reported in any detail in the newspapers, such as the Cheshire Observer and the Chester Courant, unless the story was in some way sensational.  For example, another newspaper story reports on the death of asylum inmate Martha Miller who was buried in Overleigh Old Cemetery in an unmarked grave in 1879, and whose acts against her children makes for grizzly reading:

Grave of Martha Miller. Photograph by Chris Kemp (who marks the position of unmarked plots using bunches of flowers). Source: FindAGrave.com

She was the 3rd wife of Daniel Miller, Innkeeper of the Yacht Inn, Watergate Street, Chester. He had four living children from his previous marriages and two children with Martha, who was expecting their third. Martha had been in delicate health and had ruptured four blood vessels in the last nine months and had become quite despondent. On a Friday night in June she went to bed with two of her children from her present marriage, Alice aged 2½ yrs and Elizabeth Mary (Lizzie), aged 12 months. Shortly afterwards screams were heard by her stepdaughter Emma. Daniel broke down the bedroom door because it was locked, to find Martha had cut the throats of the children with a table knife, one fatally. She then had tried to commit suicide by the same means. Doctors were called for, who assisted with staunching the flow of blood. Martha who had become violent was put in a straitjacket and confined to the County lunatic asylum, Upton, Chester. Lizzie was taken to the infirmary where she recovered. Martha died at the lunatic asylum aged 30 yrs, after giving birth prematurely. At the Coroner’s inquest she was found ‘guilty of wilful murder’ of Alice Miller. Martha was buried on the 16th October 1879. Her baby daughter Martha, who was born prematurely in the asylum died just a few weeks after her mother on the 30th November 1879. (Source:- Cheshire Observer 21st June 1879 and Chester Courant 15th October 1879) [Researched by Christine Kemp and recorded on the FindAGrave website]

Another example is shoemaker Joseph Crawford whose death was reported in the Cheshire Observer on 14th November 1896.  He had been in the asylum for eight years, suffering from “chronic mania” and died suddenly, returning from church.  Interestingly, although the gravestone gives the name of his wife, who had died in 1882, and there was plenty of room for his name, and Chris has found a record of him being buried in this plot, his name is not mentioned on the gravestone.  Either there were no funds to inscribe the stone, or the manner of his death had lead any remaining family to decide to exclude his memory.

It will be very interesting to try to match the cemetery data with the asylum’s own records when the latter become available in 2026.  Although the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies listing of what they hold indicates that there are no burial records for the asylum, they do hold records of deaths, so it may be possible to extract information from the latter to tie in to the cemetery data.

I have assembled all the information that Chris has made available on her Virtual Asylum Cemetery in a 6-page table, which can be downloaded here, with accompanying notes.
xxx

Sample page from the table and notes showing Cheshire Lunatic Asylum deaths buried at Overleigh Cemetery, assembled from data gathered by Christine Kemp.

After 1870

The asylum continued to grow after 1870, and was still operating when it was absorbed into the NHS in 1948.  On 31st December 1870 there were 536 patients in the asylum.  In 1910 this had risen to 1000, 1500 in the 1920s and 2000 in the 1930s.  In 1895 a completely new hospital was added to the site to the north of the original 1829 building, designed by Grayson and Ould, freeing up the 1829 building to be used as the women’s ward.  In 1912 a new dedicated block was built for epileptics, which had a more domestic feel to it.

The former Parkside Lunatic Asylum in Macclesfield, which opened in 1871 as a second Cheshire county asylum, to ease some of the pressure on Chester. Photograph by Colin Park CC BY-SA 2.0. Source: Wikipedia

In the 1860s it became clear that the hospital, catering for the entire county, was simply unable to cope, and the decision was made to build a new asylum to serve the east of the county.  The Second Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, also known as the Parkside Lunatic Asylum opened in May 1871 to accommodate 700 patients, with additional buildings added later to absorb over 1500 patients by 1938.  The Parkside Lunatic Asylum’s architectural style and layout represent a completely different paradigm from that of the original Cheshire Lunatic Asylum building of 1829.  It was  designed by Robert Griffiths, who specialized in institutional architecture and was built of red brick with features picked out attractively in contrasting pale and black stone and dressings.   The design is in the Italianate style, looking rather like a downscaled version of Osborne House (built for Queen Victoria on the Isle of Wight between 1845 and 1851).  Instead of a single building linked by a main corridor, Parkside was built on the pavilion-corridor arrangement, with discrete blocks connected by multiple corridors.

 

Future research potential

The reports used here, the annual Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents, have so many statistical tables that have only been touched on here, and I have simply presented what they contain.  There has been no attempt at analysis.  A well-structured project to analyze this data would reveal much more than I have been able to even hint at for the asylum in the mid-1800s.   In addition, I have not discussed the accounts that are presented in the same reports, and that would benefit from the attention of someone who is familiar with accounting methods.

Cheshire Archives and Local Studies contents listing of records available when the offices open in 2026

There are many untold stories that live outside the reports used here, from the chairmen, the committee members, the visiting committee members, the staff, patients and those local community residents who paid into the voluntary fund for discharged patients.  It will be fascinating to see what is available in the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies office in Chester when it reopens in 2026 so that the earlier and later history of the asylum can be investigated, and it may be possible obtain insights into some of the individual stories of those who worked at, were admitted to and who contributed to the asylum.

It will also be very interesting to try to match Cheshire Archives records with the the Overleigh cemetery and inquest data.  Although the Cheshire Archives listing of what they hold indicates that there are no burial records for the asylum, they do hold records of deaths, so it may be possible to extract information to tie the two datasets together.  For example, it should be possible to match admission and discharge names with those in Overleigh and track back to inquests and newspaper reports.

Screen grab of the header from the Riverside archives list

At the same time, it would be worth investigating the Riverside Museum in Chester, which also has archives that are relevant to the asylum, and although these have not been digitized a listing of its holdings can be downloaded here.   Objects at the same museum may also provide insights into the material culture of the asylum at different times.

Another aspect of the Riverside Museum is that it informs visitors about how nursing became professionalized.  Although this might seem like history from above, as nursing was part of the infrastructure of control, in fact nursing was itself in its very earliest stages.  The role of women in the operation of an asylum is an aspect of how asylums developed.  Each asylum had a matron, and there was one from the beginning at the Chester asylum, but quite what her role was in the asylum, and how many female staff she oversaw is not entirely clear. Female staff would have been needed for female patients.  How much of this was caring and how much enforcement would depend on the nature of the patient and her symptoms.  At what point female attendants became a professional female body of nurses, becoming more expert and informed throughout the 19th century, is unclear, but the professionalization of nursing provided women with the opportunity to take on roles that were not merely menial, although such roles of course existed, but could be increasingly skilled.  If the data is available, and it is a big if, research into the role of women in the Chester asylum might produce some very interesting results when combined with other data and compared with nursing in hospital infirmaries and orphanages.

I originally intended to do a search on the asylum via the British Newspaper Archive, but the reports were so rich that I ran out of both room on this post, and time, so I decided to leave that for now, and perhaps pick it up at another time.  The same can be said for the Reports of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor.

The abandoned Denbigh Lunatic Asylum. Photograph by Steve R. Bishop. Source Everywhere from Where You are Not

Other institutions also related directly to the Chester asylum.  Several asylums had a relationship with the Chester asylum, each exchanging patients when they reached capacity, and this would be worth investigating.  One of those asylums, the Denbigh asylum, would be worth an investigation in its own right, as would the Macclesfield Parkside Asylum that opened in 1871 in east Cheshire.

The role of the clergy in the Chester asylum is interesting, and the role of clergy in other asylums would also be well worth exploring for comparative purposes.  Perhaps most importantly, the relationship between lunatic asylums and workhouses was obviously of fundamental importance to both types of institution, with problems associated with how patients were transferred between them, and this would be a fascinating area of investigation.

Finally, It would also be really useful to tie in the history of Victorian Chester with that of the asylum and see if there is any way of tying the two together to find correlations.

 

Final Comments on the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum

The 1829 Building

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum was built in an era of social reform, and evolved during a period when philanthropy and social conscience were translated, painfully slowly, into governmental intervention and the passing of new laws.  The 1829 Building represents one of many strategies to cope with the multiple challenges of all the symptoms of mental illnesses, which do not have, after all, a single identifiable cause.

One of the buildings once associated with the lunatic asylum, possibly the “villa” built for the treatment of epileptics in 1912.  Never a thing of architectural beauty, it’s still a part of the asylum’s heritage, and very sad sight in this condition.  As of April 2025 it is a hive of activity, and is perhaps being converted for new use

As the 19th century developed beyond 1870, asylums continued to grow and new custom-designed institutions could be absolutely vast.  It is clear that the buildings of the Chester Lunatic Asylum continued to grow and adapt to meet demand.  In the first years of the 1890s the decision was made to add a completely new building, which was built between 1892 and 1898 to the north of the original building.  This housed the male patients, whilst the original building was used for women.  In 1911 a separate building known as “the villa” was established near the chapel for epileptics, and other buildings were established after the First World War.  The site continued to be expanded in the late 19th and throughout much of the 20th century to meet growing demands for its services.   It is by no means clear, without access to the reports, what sort of ethos and approach was taken when the asylum’s population had become so big.

The new NHS took over the hospital in 1948 and in the 1970s it became a department of the new general hospital that combined the Chester Royal Infirmary and the City Hospital.  In 1984 it was renamed the Countess of Chester.  In 2005 its original function was replaced by the Bowmere Psychiatric Unit and in 2016 Ancora House (the latter for young people, shown at the end, a presumably deliberate modern echo of the 1829 Building).

The 2016 Ancora House, just behind the chapel, employs some of the same devices that were used in The 1829 Building, with a central, noticeable and colourful entrance flanked by evenly positioned rectangular windows on a long facade.  Even the sculpture outside is a throwback to attempts to make the surrounding estate more attractive.

The 1829 Building is no longer longer devoted exclusively to mental health care  but contains other departments too. Other parts of the Countess of Chester continue to offer psychiatric support as mental illness continues to be a problem for families, for state and for society.  The modern Ancora House which opened behind the 19th century asylum chapel in 2016 and is shown here has now taken over much of that role.

Chester asylum was an early adopter of many aspects of the “moral treatment approach,” particularly impressive in a public asylum. With access to the airing courts, gardens, and facilities for entertainment and social engagement, the   Its oversight committee and its superintendents seem to have had the interests of its patients at heart, even when the growing numbers of patients was clearly becoming a problem as the century proceeded.  I have not yet been able to follow its fortunes beyond 1870, and I do wonder if, like so many contemporaries, it became swamped with the sheer volume of patients, and began to abandon its attempts to create an empathetic and socializing environment.  That’s a project for another time.

There are several other lines of potential investigation, with many more avenues to pursue, covering a much longer timespan than the sixteen years of 1854-1870 covered here, and there is a lot of work to be done on this very important topic to understand mental healthcare in the 19th century and more recent periods in the Cheshire and neighbouring areas.  It would be lovely to see something like the Staffordshire’s Asylums Project set up for Chester.

 

Final Comments on parts 1 and 2

Cheshire Lunatic Asylum water tower, now on Frost Drive, in the middle of a modern housing estate

It has been an absolute voyage of discovery to learn about the development of lunatic asylums in England and Wales, and often thoroughly hair-raising.  The notoriously punitive asylums of the late 17th and early 18th century became more regulated, and reformist asylum owners introduced new “moral treatment” approaches that were far more empathetic, attempting to work towards cures.  Many of these approaches were incorporated into public asylums, and as early as 1853 the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum had abandoned the use of physical restraints, in accordance with new rules.  These approaches acknowledged that there was no cure-all solution, and that different symptoms required flexibility towards the provision of a range of treatments.

It still seems remarkable to me that as I was reading all the standard texts, as well as first-hand 19th century accounts about lunatic asylums, both public and private, the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum is almost never mentioned under any of its alternative names.  The first thing I do when I get hold of a new book is flip to the index, or if it is a paper saved as a PDF, do a word search, but Chester is almost never mentioned. It seems to have fallen between the cracks in the history of 19th century lunatic asylums, which strikes me as somewhat peculiar.  As a vast county lunatic asylum for paupers, growing every year, and battling to maintain standards with ambitions to restore its patients to society, it seems to have been something of a pioneer.  And yet it is almost never mentioned.

Page 487 from Conolly’s 1830 “An inquiry concerning the indications of insanity : with suggestions of the
better protection and care of the insane”

Reading the original texts of people like Samuel Tuke (1811), John Conolly (specifically his 1830 thoughts) and Robert Gardiner Hill (1838) and even the later reports for the Chester asylum, there is a sense of a brave new world, an innovation of care for the mentally unwell, and a profound interest in helping those who were suffering to find a route back to a conventional and peaceful life. The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum under Dr Nadauld Brushfield was a part of that trend to find answers and help rather than subjugate the mentally ill.

With hindsight, the approaches that seemed so pioneering, the product of real humanity and social conscience, were limited in what they could achieve and they have come under some criticism today.  First, it is suggested that they suffered from a normalizing attitude, failing to differentiate for treatment purposes between multiple possible causes of insanity, whether medical or psychological, treating all forms of mental illness as though they would respond to a single homogeneous approach. These ethically driven asylums have also been accused by influential writers like Foucault of trying to use coercion and incarceration to impose strict behavioural norms as a form of social control to conform to middle class values of decorum and self-control, although this seems to miss the point that patients in many asylums were no longer treated as sub-human but were given the dignity of being treated as coherent, thinking participants in a community and were provided with an opportunity to learn how to re-integrate.  However not all mental afflictions could be approached with those treatments.  As more people entered asylums a significant problem seems to have been one of resources.  The empathetic approach of moral treatment became far more difficult to apply to even those for whom it may well have worked.  At the same time, there was a change of direction to begin categorizing different types of mental illness to make the task of looking for solutions, remedies and cures far more scientific.  It resulted in some truly shocking approaches, most of which have now been abandoned.

There is a sense running through the 16 years of the reports used here that the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, whilst experiencing problems due to overcrowding and occasional personnel issues, was a well-run and compassionate institution that suffered few suicide or escape attempts, and did its best to provide quality of life for its inmates.  Even so, care did not equate to cure and it is obvious that there was a long way to go before treatment was converted to remedies and solutions that endured.

Finally, the uncertainties regarding mental health today mean that the 19th century attempts to address these issues are all the more impressive, even when the challenges of implementation did not live up to what were often, although not always, very good intentions.  As I commented at the end of part 1, and since which time I have done a lot more reading on the subsequent 20th and 21st history of mental health, from the beginning of lunatic asylums governments have struggled to know how to cope with those suffering from mental illness.  Institutional care for patients suffering from mental illness is no longer a prominent feature of state responsibility, specialist institutions having been largely replaced by “care in the community” since the late 1980s when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, responding to an Audit Commission report in 1986, made it a reality.  This potentially deprives the mentally ill from a sense of community and support that institutions dedicated to their care might provide. Some social scientists and sociologists like Andrew Scull argue that apart from a very few exceptions like syphilis and pellagra, absolutely no consensus exists even today on what causes mental illnesses or how to handle most forms of severe mental instability: “A penicillin for disorders of the mind or brain remains a chimera.”  Whilst medicine continues to make advances all the time, and in spite of the fact that “mental health” is now one of the most over-used terms in modern society, the treatment of mental illness is still in need of much more investment and resources.

 

Afterthought – coats of arms associated with the asylum

 

This is the emblem included on most of the Reports of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendent of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, and a version of it appears on the pediment of the 1829 building.  Both versions show the Chester coat of arms at the centre, showing the usual three wheat sheaves, but the mottos differ.

In the report version, the crowned coat of arms has the words “Honi Soit qui mal i pense” around the three sheafs, meaning “shame on anyone who thinks evil of it.”  The text on which the arms rest reads “Antiqui Colant Antiquum Dierum” meaning “Let The Ancients Worship the Ancient Days.”

Pediment of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum

On the pediment there is no text around the coat of arms, but beneath the motto on the pediment the text reads “Jure et dignitate gladii, a phrase often associated with the Chester coat of arms, meaning “by the right and dignity of the sword.” Sorry it’s a bit fuzzy – I took it with my smartphone when I was there for a jab!

Flanking the coat of arms in both examples are two dragons, each with wings and forked tails.  The dragons in the pediment only have two legs.  In  both versions each dragon holds a feather, the meaning of which eludes me, although I believe that this motif is usually associated with the Black Prince (Edward of Woodstock, son of Edward III, who had been invested with the earldom and county of Cheshire in 1333), and was later adopted by Henry VII.  If anyone can decipher this dragon-related symbolism for me, please get in touch!
xxx

Sources:

This second part of the piece on the Cheshire Archaeological Asylum depends almost completely on the annual Reports of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendent of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum Reports for the years 1854-1870.  Thankfully, the Wellcome Collection website has the digitized records of the Reports produced between and 1855 and 1871 (relating to the years 1854 to 1870), which have been digitized and are available for download free of charge.

All other sources are listed on a separate page because of its length, covering both parts of the post, updated at the time of posting part 2 here:
https://basedinchurton.co.uk/heritage/sources-for-cheshire-lunatic-asylum/

 

The rear of the 1829 Building as it is today

 

==

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum 1854-1870 – Part 2.1

Chester Lunatic Asylum in 1831, two years after it was built. From Hemingway’s History of the City of Chester.  Source: Wellcome Institute Library via Historic Hospitals, Cheshire

 

The 1829 Building, built as Cheshire’s first lunatic asylum, as it is today (What3Words ///tiger.manual.waving)

===

When I posted Part 1, I divided it into two (part 1.1 and part 1.2), to prevent page loading problems, and have done the same with Part 2. Both parts are too long for a blog, and when I have the time during the winter I will probably put them on a website of their own. Part 1 introduced the Chester Lunatic Asylum and discusses the general background to lunatic asylums in England and Wales from the 18th century throughout the 19th century, including medical and legal approaches to a growing problem, as well as some scandalous cases of illegitimate incarceration.  Part 1.1 also addressed some of the terminology used in these two parts (such as “lunatic,” “asylum,” “idiot” etc) that are considered pejorative today, but were part of the standard vocabulary of the Victorian period.

Part 2 focuses at the Chester asylum itself, the name of which changed several times since its foundation as the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum in 1829.  Again, it has been divided into two parts, mainly because of the number of images used, which would take too long to load if I left it as a single piece.  This is part 2.1.  Part 2.2 is here.

As I have said in Part 1.1, I first became aware of the Chester Lunatic Asylum when I was doing some research into 19th century suicides in Chester as part of a larger and ongoing project about Overleigh Cemetery, and found that most of the suicides had been deemed to be insane at the time of their deaths.  This lead me to find more about how insanity was handled in the area, and I discovered that there had been a lunatic asylum at Upton in Chester, something that most long-term Chester residents probably already know.  I found that the original asylum building and some of its related structures were still standing, and began to look into the asylum and its history.

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum was a public institution that opened in 1829 to house pauper lunatics as well as a limited number of paying private patients.  The asylum opened on a 10 acre site to accommodate 45 women and 45 men, reflecting the fairly even numbers of both men and women at asylums in the 19th century. The asylum grew throughout the 19th century into the 20th century, and eventually occupied a significant area of over more than 55 acres.  The term “pauper” covers a range of people.  Some were genuinely very impoverished; others were employed but their were unable to afford asylum costs.

The emphasis in the following post is on letting the asylum speak for itself as much as possible.  I have made extensive use of quotations from the annual Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents.  This was a legally required document, produced by every asylum to account for itself in terms of both performance and financial management for the period of the previous year.  There is an immediacy to the original material that provides a vivid sense of the asylum.  The reports used here cover a period of 16 years, between 1854 and 1870.  A new medical superintendent had been installed at the asylum in 1853 following a very negative report by the Visiting Commissioners in Lunacy, so the 1854 report marks the beginning of a new era.

xxx

The location of The 1829 Building. Source: streetmap.co.uk

===
Prosperity and poverty in 19th century Chester

Because the Chester Lunatic Asylum was built primarily to cater for paupers, it seems useful to provide a very brief summary of the nature of poverty in Chester in the mid 1800s, the period in which the reports used for this post were produced.

Chester Railway Station. Photograph by Tanya Dedyukhina, CC BY 3.0. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Victoria History argues that the mid-19th century “was Chester’s most successful period between 1762 and 1914” and Handley describes the 1860s and early 1870s as “relatively buoyant,” unlike other regions in which hunger riots had broken out.  Although the Industrial Revolution did not transform Chester in the same way that it did elsewhere in the northwest, it left its mark.  Although the river Dee had been an important artery connecting Chester to the sea, and had once had a prosperous shipbuilding industry and marine port, silting eventually undermined its important role.  This meant that throughout the 19th century the emphasis on water-borne trade shifted to Liverpool. With the declining importance of Chester as a port and the arrival of the railway in 1840, the Chester canal system became largely redundant. The railway, with today’s station opening in 1848, provided temporary work for both engineers and unskilled labourers and more permanent work for a much smaller number.  A varied economy helped to spread the risk of low industrialization compared to other areas. Light industry was organized mainly in the canal basin and railway areas, expanding south of the river to the Saltney area. Industrial activity was represented by engineering companies, metal manufacturing, steam mills, a lead works, an anchor and chain works, three oil refineries and a chemical works amongst other enterprises.  Craft trades continued to thrive, including tailoring, shoe-making, milliners, dressmaking, bookbinders, cabinet makers, jewellers and goldsmiths.  Domestic service was an important source of employment for the less well off, in both the town centre and the suburbs, as was gardening.  Retail and related services such as banking and insurance grew in importance.  Tourism became an important source of income thanks to the railway, and Chester was a popular shopping destination. Chester’s expansion of commerce and light industry included roles for unskilled workers, but although many of these might earn enough to support themselves and their families, they were able not to afford such luxuries as health care, including private asylums, and it was often difficult to find job security.

Chester’s prosperous image concealed an underbelly of poverty, with dreadful insanitary conditions concentrated in slum areas known as “the courts.”  Whilst St John’s parish became particularly notorious there were patches of poverty in the Boughton, Newtown, Hoole and Handbridge.  The  Irish Famine of 1845-52 drove starving people out of Ireland, and Chester received a large number of impoverished Irish refugees, including entire families, many of whom moved into the poorer quarters of Chester, with a concentration around Steven Street in Boughton.

Population by year in 19th Century Chester. Source: John Herson 1996, Table 1.1, p.14

Unsurprisingly the population grew on the back of all this activity.  Figures have been provided by John Herson as follows, showing how during the period of the asylum the population grew and continued to grow after the Victorian period, as shown in the graph to the right.  Michael Handley points out that pauperism increased at an even greater rate than population growth, with an increase in vagrancy as well, causing problems for all institutions that provided support for the poor.

From the mid-18th century Chester developed a strong line in charitable and philanthropic activities, with a new workhouse, infirmary and various other institutions supporting paupers.  Pauper children could be subsumed into the general population of the impoverished. Although charity and church schools took in some of the poorer children, the most impoverished and vulnerable, sometimes the children of criminals and certainly in danger of becoming criminals themselves, were not at first provided for.  Some of them entered the workhouse, and others were taken into the lunatic asylum, but the problem of pauper children was eventually recognized by Chester philanthropists and three free schools for known as “ragged schools” were built.  In 1900 a children’s home was built just outside Chester on Wrexham Road, which still stands, now converted to residential use.

The Chester Workhouse on the Roodee. Source: Chesterwiki

One of the last-resort solutions for those who were out of work and unable to support themselves was the workhouse. The workhouse was not an intentionally punitive institution before the New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, but afterwards became a means of driving the able-bodied poor back into employment, becoming notorious for their harsh policies and conditions.

The first Chester workhouse was established in 1575 just outside the Northgate and more parish workhouses were established after the Workhouse Test Act of 1723. From 1793 and 1869 poor relief was administered by the Chester Local Act.  In 1790 nine Chester parishes joined forces to become an incorporation governed by the mayor, justices of the peace and a large committee of guardians, and took control of the workhouse from the city council under a 99 year lease at a fixed annual rate.  The workhouse was on the Roodee, with the river in front of it.  It was flanked by a gasworks on one side and a timber yard on the other, with the the railway eventually built behind it.  The New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 imposed new rules on workhouses, but the Incorporations like Chester’s were largely exempt and Chester refused to release control of the workhouse, maintaining its independence. After 1845 workhouses  were subject to inspections in the same way as lunatic asylums, and there were frequent negative remarks in the reports.  As Handley put it, the Chester workhouse “deteriorated from inadequate to calamitous as the population rose by 66% from 1831 to 1871, accompanied by increased pauperism,” and there had been no new accommodation added since 1834.  The Incorporation only gave up its right to run the workhouse in 1869, and at that time the Incorporation became the Poor Law Union.  In 1871 it absorbed the Great Boughton Union.  Between 1874 and 1878 a new union workhouse was built in Hoole with a separate infirmary and school, and the old Roodee building became a confectionery works. The entire Hoole establishment was eventually converted to use as a hospital in 1930, and became the Chester City Hospital in 1948.
===

The medical-institutional context in Chester in the 18th and 19th centuries

The Bluecoat School, Chester, which became temporarily became a hospital in 1755. By Dennis Turner, CC BY-SA 2.0. Source: Wikipedia

By 1829, when the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum opened in the Upton area of Chester, the city was becoming well supplied with institutions that took in the poor, the sick and those suffering with mental illnesses.

The Victoria History for Chester lists a number of medical institutions from the 18th century.  In the early 18th century a charity dispensing medicines to the poor was set up in 1721.  In 1753 an endowment enabled the establishment of the General County Infirmary. It was temporarily based in the Bluecoat School at Northgate, receiving out-patients in 1755 and in-patients from 1756, moving to its new site facing City Walls Road in 1761, with fever wards added in 1784 and remodelling carried out in 1830.  A dental surgeon joined the hospital in 1853 and an ophthalmic surgeon was added in 1885.  Nearly all the positions were unpaid, with work being carried out on a charitable basis.  The hospital also began to treat patients from beyond the city parishes, as well as paupers from other institutions including the county gaol, the workhouse and those being held in police cells.

In 1798 Dr Griffith Rowland funded the Benevolent Institute, a subscription charity that provided midwives for poor women.  Temporary isolation wards for infections diseases were established for outbreaks of cholera in 1832, 1849 and 1866 but in 1899 a permanent isolation hospital was opened for 46 patients, supplemented by temporary accommodation during outbreaks.  A homeopathic institute was established in Lower Bridge Street in 1855 followed by a free homeopathic dispensary in 1878.

Table from the 1868 “Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor” 1868 showing Chester pauper lunatics not in asylums. It is not surprising, looking at this, that in 1871 a new asylum was opened in Macclesfielld in 1871.

Workhouses inevitably admitted those who became sick or experienced injuries, as well as the insane and those with learning difficulties.  At the Chester workhouse, the sick were either visited by Chester Infirmary medical staff or were admitted to the infirmary itself.  In 1861 the Poor Law Board published a record of the names of 29 adult paupers who had been inmates for a continuous period of five years or more, of whom 9 had a weak mind (31%) and 2 were subject to fits (5.9%).  Fits could be a sign of epilepsy, but were treated as bouts of madness.  There was no strategy for dealing with the sick and the mentally ill.  Handley’s verdict is that the board “simply responded to the pressure of circumstances,” not adding a an infirmary until 1842.  The new Chester workhouse at Hoole provided a ward for imbeciles and lunatics in its own block in the late 1870s.   After 1834 workhouses were supposed to send their mentally ill patients, and those with learning difficulties, to the local asylum, but this did not always happen as the cost of referring patients could be higher than retaining them, particularly when an infirmary or a lunatic ward had been built.

According to the Victoria History, two private asylums are recorded on Foregate Street in 1787 but otherwise the only provision for the mentally unwell was the workhouse,Lunatic asylums for paupers had been built elsewhere in England, after the County Asylums Act of 1808 which permitted the use of county funds and the raising of rates to pay for them.  Few asylums were built at this time but they included Norfolk in 1814, Lincolnshire in 1820, Cornwall in 1820 and Gloucester in 1823.  The County Asylums Act of 1828 gave county magistrates the right to take out loans to help pay for asylums, and tightened up administrative procedures and overall accountability.  The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum followed in 1829.  It was not until 1845 that the Lunacy Act of that year made county asylums compulsory.  Andrew Scull, having ruled out a direct correlation between industrial cities and large asylums, suggest that expanding market economies and commercialization were more influential, and this does seem to mesh with conditions in Chester, where prosperity was on the rise of the merchant class and new light industries.

Sketch of the original plan of the Chester workhouse at Hoole. Source: Chester – A Virtual Stroll Around the Walls

In 1837 the Poor Law Commissioners estimated that there were 2780 (20%) “Pauper Lunatics and Idiots” in pauper lunatic asylums, 1491 (11%) in private asylums and 9396 (69%) in workhouses or on outdoor relief (figures assembled by Alistair Ritch).  Mentally ill patients, and those with learning difficulties were frequently exchanged between asylums and workhouses, as well as between different asylums.  In Chester, the workhouse sent its violent and difficult mentally ill patients to the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, but also received those who were deemed to be long-term and incurable but harmless in return.  This was nearly always due to over-crowding and although there were guidelines and criteria for what sort of patients should be held in each institution, it was not always possible to follow these, and decisions were often based on what was needed at the time, rather than being informed by laws, regulations or specific strategies.  The New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 determined that dangerous patients were to be sent to the asylum, along with those who might be cured, and incurable harmless patients could be retained in the workhouse, but beyond these broad distinctions, the criteria for which patients should go to the workhouse and which the asylum, and who was in charge of the decision-making process, were never fully delineated.  The Lunacy Amendment Act of 1862 lead to many workhouses building new wards for the intake of lunatics and those with learning difficulties.

 

The opening of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum 1829

The 1829 Building at the Countess of Chester Hospital, the former lunatic asylum

The Cheshire County Lunatic Asylum opened in 1829 as a public treatment centre for those with mental illnesses, catering for the entire county. It had capacity for 90 patients, half of them men and half of them women, consisting of 70 paupers and 20 private patients.  When I first looked up the asylum online to see what it had looked like, I was surprised that the exterior had the appearance of an elegant and stately neoclassical building, looking very much more like a property attached to a country estate than the intimidating prison-type establishment that I had been expecting.

The number of new admissions at the asylum from 1829 to 1870

The asylum had been built as the result of the County Asylums Act of 1828, which gave county magistrates the right to build new asylums.  The Act did not make building of county parishes obligatory, and many counties did not bother until the 1845 Lunacy Act, which did make the building of county asylums compulsory.  This makes the Chester lunatic asylum of 1829 something of a pioneer, built only a year after the 1828 Act.   The need for the asylum was proved as patient numbers rose and the asylum itself began to expand to meet a demand that grew throughout the period.

The annual rates could be used to pay for asylums, and rates could be raised to absorb the cost.  Ongoing costs were paid for, per patient, by the parishes, townships and unions from all over Cheshire whose Relieving Officers sent patients to the asylum.  Relieving Officers were responsible for the managing the relief of the poor in parishes.  Sometimes asylums were additionally supported by town council grants and charitable donations, and the Chester asylum benefitted from both.  Small numbers of private patients were also included, and these contributed to the asylum’s overheads.  The patients who worked in the asylum as part of their treatment eventually helped move the asylum towards self-sufficiency, with both men and women making most of the clothing and bedding in-house.  Men additionally helped with building alterations, whilst the asylum farm in which patients worked helped to provide the patients with food.  A charitable fund was eventually set up to help those who were discharged from the asylum to re-establish themselves.

Listing of asylum departments provided by Hemingway in 1831, p.229

The former editor of the Chester Courant newspaper and author of History of the City of Chester, from Its Foundation to the Present Time, Joseph Hemingway, writing in 1831, two years after the asylum opened, describes the institution as follows:

A short distance from the road on the left, stands a large building, erected under the direction of the county magistrates, as a county lunatic asylum. This benevolent institution was raised at the expense of the county; to which that never failing source of revenue, the river Weaver, materially contributed. It occupies, with its gardens, airing grounds and roads, ten statute acres of land, which was purchased from the late Revr. Sir Philip Egerton, Bart. The terms for maintaining lunatic paupers belonging to the county are 7s.6d. per week; and – those beyond its limits, 10s. The unfortunate inmates of a higher class are provided, for by special agreement. . . . Ll. Jones M.D. is the physician, Mr. W. Rose, medical superintendent, and Mrs. Bird, matron of the institution.

Plan of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum 1828. Source: A History of the County of Chester: Volume 5, Part 2

The Chester lunatic asylum was a brick-built 17-bay building with stone dressings retains its elegant neoclassical exterior.  It was designed by the County Architect, William Cole jr., and bears a strong resemblance to the 1751 St Luke’s Asylum in London. It was started in 1827 and completed in just two years.  There were three main arrangements chosen for asylum designs: the single corridor type, in which individual wards and rooms were connected by one main corridor in the same building, centralized star-corridor arrangements where a central building was connected to outer buildings by a series of corridors, and pavilion types in which separate buildings were all built on the same site.  The Chester asylum was of the first type, built with a main corridor that drew the two sides together, with men on one side and women on the other, divided by the central administrative block.  Additional separate buildings were added on the site as required.

A suggestion of the extent and dating of the asylum as it grew from 1839 to 1936, with the red section including the original 1829 building. Source: History of Upton-by-Chester

The resemblance to wealthy country estates on the outside was merely aesthetic.  Interiors were modelled on institutions like workhouses and hospitals, combining a dignified and attractive external appearance, representing civic pride, with the requirements of large and complex institutional operations.  Requirements included food acquisition, preparation and production; cleaning, sanitation and laundry; exercise indoors and out; entertainment and sport; supply of clothing and bedding; furnishings; specialized areas for treatment and segregation; confinement; medical oversight including the provision of drugs; the sourcing and accommodation of management, supervision, nursing personnel and attendants (also known as keepers); and on-site religious guidance.  It is clear that whoever employed William Cole or was very familiar with the current thinking about asylum design and building requirements for patient treatment.  Cole’s layout was based on long corridors connecting both sides of the building with the central area and two wings (known a return ranges).

The central 3-storey section of the building under the brightly coloured pediment contained the administrative offices, a chapel, and housed the medical superintendent, the matron and the bedrooms of senior staff.  The design in the pediment consists of a central coat of arms  showing the three sheaves of Cheshire  The rest of the building was 2-storey and stretched either side of the central block.  The interior consisted of wards and rooms that were connected by corridors, with men on one side and women on the other.  Basements ran the full length and as well as containing functional areas like the laundry, bakery and kitchens, also housed some of the more uncontrollable patients.  Flanking wings (return ranges) were parallel to the main drive that extended to Liverpool Road and either side of the drive were “airing courts” where patients could walk and benefit from fresh air and carefully chosen plantings.  There was provision within the building for a hierarchy of administration and nursing, food storage and kitchens, a bakery, a laundry, spaces for recreation and exercise, secure rooms and equipment for restraint (abolished at the asylum in 1854) and isolation, areas for specialized treatments as well as nurses’ accommodation, a boiler house and a splendid brick-built water tower (the latter recently restored, located on Frost Drive, in the middle of a housing estate, indicating just how much the asylum’s footprint has now been reduced).   There were two lodges, one at the main road where the head gardener lived with his wife, the latter working as entrance keeper.  Another lodge was located in front of the great court and its main gates, and was managed by the head porter.

Every year the the annual Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents recorded details of repairs to the interior and exterior of the building, and on the whole the building seems to have been well built and maintained, with both practical considerations and quality of life being taken into account.

As the asylum expanded several times to meet the growing needs of growing inmate population other architects were brought in develop it.  It was first extended to the rear in 1849 and again between 1857 and 1863. The 1863 development was designed by Thomas Penson and unlike the original building was gothic revival in style, reminiscent of Penson’s earlier 1858 Crypt Chambers on Chester’s Eastgate Street.  Most of the additional buildings have now been demolished and replaced by both newer hospital buildings and housing, but the asylum building that opened on 25th August 1829 and the former 1856 Grade II listed 6-bay chapel have both survived, now in use for other functions, as well as the later water tower that replaced the hand-operated pump.  One of the former epileptic treatment villas dating to around 1912 is still standing, but boarded up and fenced off.

The rear of the 1829 Building

The annual Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents for 1854 comments that following the appointment of a new medical superintendent in 1853, improvements were required for the care of patients and these were of a very basic nature.  Essential improvements, for example, included clothing, bedding and cutlery.  That raises questions about the standards of care and the attention to patient environment between its establishment in 1829 and 1853, but after that it seems clear that the emphasis was very much on the approach advocated by William and Samuel Tuke, Robert Gardiner Hill and others, who developed the “moral approach” that attempted to treat patients as individual members a community, reducing punitive treatments and eliminating mechanical restraints.

Reflecting its complex history, the 1829 Cheshire Lunatic Asylum underwent a number of name changes. The  National Archives list them as follows:

  • 1855 Cheshire Lunatic Asylum
  • 1899 Cheshire County Lunatic Asylum
  • 1921 Cheshire County Mental Hospital (when Cheshire County Council assumed responsibility, for the first time dropping the word “asylum” in favour of hospital, reflecting a change in attitude to care for the mentally ill)
  • 1948 Upton Mental Hospital (when the new NHS assumed responsibility)
  • 1950? Deva Hospital
  • 1965 West Cheshire Hospital
  • 1984 Countess of Chester Hospital

It should be noted that different sources list different dates and names.  The annual Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents, for example, does not record a change of name between 1855 and 1869.  In 1870 however, in the report for 1869, the name was changed from the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum to the Chester County Lunatic Asylum.

Thomas Nadauld Brushfield in later life. He was appointed in 1853 and remained at the infirmary until 1866.  Source: Wikipedia

Far more nebulous in the records than name changes are the different regimes that operated throughout the asylum’s history, under different superintendent, physicians, matrons and the body of staff responsible for supporting patients and handling patients directly.  The ideological lead of a superintendent in any asylum was all-important, but so was the availability of resources and the willingness of those financing an institute to make them available at different times for repairs, expansion, new equipment, better quality food and medicines, and higher salaries.  These annual reports demonstrate how oversight by the Committee, its Chairman and the visiting Lunacy Commissioners were important to the maintenance of standards.

A number of different superintendents were employed at the asylum between 1854 and 1870, the period that this post covers.  In 1853 Thomas Nadauld Brushfield M.R.C.S. (Member of the Royal College of Surgeons) (1828 – 1910) was appointed, remaining in the office for thirteen years until 1866, becoming the first resident Medical Superintendent.  Having completed his university studies in medicine, he worked for a period at the Bethnal House Asylum in London, the conditions of which horrified him.  From his Chester Asylum reports, it seems that the experience encouraged him to become a follower of the moral treatment ideology, which he implemented in numerous ways at the Chester asylum, including the implementation of a regime of treatment without mechanical restraint.  Beyond the asylum, he made a significant contribution to the understanding of Roman Chester, recording and publishing the hypocaust of the aisled exercise hall and hypocausts belonging to the Roman fortress baths in 1863, when the Feathers Inn was demolished.  His 106 page report in the Chester Archaeological and Historial Society (founded 1849) accompanied by photographs that have been He left in 1866 to become the Medical Superintendent at the new Brookwood Lunatic Asylum in Woking, Surrey, which opened in 1867 with a capacity for 650 patients.

Dr Brushfield was replaced by H.L. Harper M.D. who had been Assistant Medical Officer for the asylum and was now promoted to Medical Superintendent at the asylum for 1866 and 1867.  Harper resigned in 1867, although it is not stated why in the relevant report.  Harper was replaced by John H. Davidson M.D. in 1868, the former Assistant Medical Officer for the previous 12 months, who was still in the position when the online reports end in 1870.  Davidson’s promotion left a vacancy for the Assistant Medical Officer, which was filled in 1868 by Dr Arthur Strange of the Gloucester Asylum.  Davidson is notable for his 1875 publication A Visit To a Turkish Lunatic Asylum, when he was apparently still Medical Superintendent at the Chester asylum.

Two dragons, each clutching a white feather and supporting the Chester coat of arms.

 

Primary Sources

Records consulted in this post

Most of the documentation for the Chester asylum is held by Cheshire Archives and Local Studies, which has not yet digitized the asylum’s records and which is closed until 2026, so for the time being the records are unavailable.  Fortunately, there are a set of the Reports of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents available for download on the Wellcome Collection website, covering the years 1854 to 1870.  Considered both individually and together, these do have some very interesting information to impart.

Also available are the Reports of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor collated and reported on by the commissioners responsible for public asylum oversight, which were sent to the Lord Chancellor.  Not all of these are available for the period in which the Chester asylum was operating in the 19th century, and not all of them mention the asylum, but there are some useful references in those reports that I have located, dating from 1854 to 1870.

Use has been made of records of deaths at the asylum from Overleigh Cemetery provided by Christine Kemp’s research, which she has recorded on the Find A Grave website. Chris’s research into Overleigh Cemetery has provided information about some of those asylum patients who were buried from when the Cemetery first opened in 1850.  This includes information inscribed on graves, plot details, and newspaper reports about some of the deaths concerned.
xxx

Records that have not been consulted

Title page of the of the 21st Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor 1867 (for the year 1866)

This overview of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum is obviously incomplete without access to other records.  The most important are the Asylum’s own records, which are held at the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies and will not be available until 2026.  In addition, I have not yet managed to gain access to the data held by the Riverside Museum in Chester where other archives that have not yet been digitized are held.

The majority of this post has been based on the Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendents, but as mentioned above I have only have only been able to access the records for the years 1854 – 1870, and this means that it is impossible to make any statements about long-term trends from 1829 to the end of the 19th century.  Given how much data is in these reports, to which I have barely been able to do justice, it is probably just as well!  In addition, although the reports include accounting information, I have not attempted to tackle this source of data, because accounting is not one of my skill-sets, although I have included a few screen grabs to show what sort of data is available.

Originally I had intended to use both Reports of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, in which the reports submitted by individual asylums and the visiting inspectors were collated into a single annual report on the state of lunatic asylums. I had also planned to use newspaper reports from online archives. Unfortunately, this post is already very long, so that plan has been shelved for the time being.

Doubtless records from other institutions will also come to light, such as workhouse and other asylum archives that detail patient transfers to and from the asylum.

 

Information available from the annual Visitor and Superintendent Reports

In 1845 the new lunacy laws required that the Commissioners of Lunacy should report to the Lord Chancellor on the state of every public asylum.  Reporting requirements were therefore standardized at the same time.  Part of this reporting process included a report made by every asylum for the Lunacy Commission and this was collated into an overall report for the Lord Chancellor.  Accordingly, each year the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum produced its Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendent of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, presented  to the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace and submitted to the Lunacy Commissioners.  The chairman of the asylum’s committee, the medical superintendent and the two visiting lunacy commissioners, as well as sometimes the chaplain, all contributed to this annual report.  As most of this post is based on these reports from 1854 to 1870, below is a brief description of the format of these reports.  I have used the earliest as an example, which was published in 1855, but covered the year 1854, twenty five years after the asylum first opened.  Although the reports could presumably be massaged to provide an acceptable face, after the Lunacy Act of 1845  the combination of record-keeping and oversight by the committee responsible for the asylum, together with visits by the Lunacy Commission, helped to make public asylums more accountable than they ever had been before.

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum report for 1854.

The title page changed very little from year to year.  It shows that the report is made to the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, and that this took place at Chester Castle on the 2nd July 1855.  The General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, usually abbreviated in reports to to “the Quarter Sessions,” were local courts in England and Wales presided over by Justices of the Peace and held four times a year.  The PRESENTED BY stamp was signed by the incumbent medical superintendent for the asylum, and was counter-stamped by the Royal College of Surgeons.  Later, the county arms were added to the bottom of the report.

The report goes on to present narrative accounts of the state of the asylum for 1854. After the reports for 1854 and 1855 these were standardized to include a statement by the Chairman of the committee that oversaw the asylum, another by two commissioners of the Lunacy Commission and an account of the main points of the year by the Medical Superintendent.  These are followed by a series of statistical tables, including information about patient numbers and activities, and accounting information.  None of the patients are mentioned by name in either the accounts or the tables and there are very few references to individual patients unless one had escaped, committed suicide or was otherwise a particularly notable case.

The running order of the individual contributions to the report changed from year to year, although the format of the statistical tables was very rarely altered.  In the 1855 report for 1854 the first of the reports was by the Committee of Visitors, which gave an overview of what they believed to be the most important aspects of the year’s main findings including building works and the associated costs.  A number of personnel retirements were also associated with costs for pensions.   Concerns were expressed about the number of admissions during 1854 and the fact that the building would have to be further expanded if numbers were to continue rising.  In future reports the Chairman made a separate statement, but in this report the Committee of Visitors report was countersigned by the chairman.

An excerpt from Dr Brushfield’s 1855 report for the year 1854

This was followed by the Medical Superintendent’s statement.  For 1854 this went into some detail under 16 side-headings: Admissions; recoveries, deaths; general health; suicidal cases; general paralysis; restraint; escapes; employment; amusements; exercise beyond boundaries; diet; dinner and services; clothing and bedding; night attendants; and removal of heavy guards (the latter referring to window guards).  The headings could change slightly from one year to the next depending on what was deemed to be the most important information for a given year.  In some years accounts were very much shorter than in others

To give a flavour of the superintendent’s statement, Dr T.N Brushfield notes that at the beginning of 1854 there were 102 patients, 52 men, 50 women; by the end of 1854, counted on January 1st 1855, there were 254 patients (108  men and 146 women) as well as 102 new admissions of which there were a greater number of men than women.  Interestingly Brushfield comments the importance of a speedy referral to the asylum of mentally ill patients so that they could be treated effectively.  This reflects a widespread view in the alienist community that speedy referral was key to any hope of a cure.  Brushfield adds that many of the new admissions were in such a poor physical state that both dietary improvements and stimulants had to be employed but that even when there was bodily improvement, in the cases of patients admitted in such poor physical condition “the mind remained in an impaired condition.”  Only 64 patients were discharged, and 30 died.  Of the deaths, representing 8.92% of the patients under treatment, 30% of them were victims of “general paralysis,” far more common in men than women, and on which more later. 42 suicidal patients had been admitted, 26 of which had actually attempted suicide, more of them men than women, and in several cases unsuccessfully attempted again after admission.  “Several” patients had escaped, but all had been recaptured in less than a day.

Dr Brushfield goes on to comment on the general conditions of the asylum.  He reports, for example,  that “the clothing has been much altered in character and made warmer and more cheerful looking.  The bedding has been considerably improved; the number of straw beds diminished; the straw pillows altogether disused, those stuffed with flock or coir have been substituted.”   Other fundamental improvements included improved diet “of a less liquid nature” (but including the introduction of beer for women as well as men!), and improved dining equipment:  “Dinner and Services:  Earthenware plates, crockery, cups and metal spoons, knives and forks have been supplied to the whole of the inmates in place of the tin plates, horn cups and wood spoons which were in use until the early part of the year.”

These were very basic improvements in the quality of everyday life for patients, but would certainly have been appreciated.  There was a matter of pride in the fact that restraints of all forms had been “entirely abolished.”  Although this had been actioned in 1853, this was in accordance with new rules rather than an independent initiative.  However, the approach that was taken was very much the initiative of the asylum.  Instead of being restrained, patients were given a new sense of direction.  Men were employed in activities relating to the maintenance of the building and the grounds, whilst women took over from tradesmen the making and repairing of clothing and similar needlework.  One of the subsequent tables lists the works undertaken by both men and women.

The first of the statistical tables in the 1854 report

Next, there are 18 numbered tables that record key details about the asylum, its patients and accounts.  These are particularly useful as they can be compared from one year to the next.  Even when the template changed slightly, most of the tabulated data was retained in much the same format, with data separated for men and women:  I) Admissions, discharges and deaths during the year; II) Admissions, discharges and deaths relative to the month of the year; III) Civil State – Admissions; IV) Ages at time of admission; V) Duration of insanity prior to admission; VI) Occupations of those admitted; VII) Religious persuasion – Admissions; VIII) Bodily condition – Admissions; IX) Form of mental disorder – Admissions; X) Supposed cause – Admissions; XI) Analysis of suicidal cases – Admissions; XII) Suicide attempts; XIII) Duration of residence of those discharged and relieved; XIV) Causes of death; XV) Ages of patients who have died; XVI) Duration of treatment of patients who have died; XVII) List of articles of clothing made and repaired during the year;  XVIII) Extract from daily account of patients.

Finally there are a set of unnumbered tables that related to the asylum’s accounts.  These tended to vary from year to year, but their intention was to capture income and expenditure for the period.  Tables that floated from one year to the next were The Average Cost Per Head Per Week of Patients and the Balance Sheet.
===

The Balance Sheet for 1854

 

Insights from the Visitor and Superintendent Reports for 1854-1870

I have divided this section into some of the themes discussed in the reports, although by no means all, to give a sense of what sort of things were important both to the visiting inspectors and to the superintendent who was in charge of trying to secure more resources for the asylum.
===

Ideology

Robert Gardiner Hill. Source: Wikipedia

Statements in many reports address the ideology of the asylum and indicate that aspects of the moral treatment approach were incorporated from at least since 1854, as per the report for that year:  “it may be stated as an axiom, that everything within the bounds of an Asylum which tends to create a cheerful impression on the minds of the inmates, is certain to have a highly salutary effect.”   Most impressively, according to the report of 1855 all forms of restraint were abolished by the new Medical Superintendent, Dr Brushfield, from 1854 in accordance with new rules, and “nor has there been the slightest reason to regret such a step having been taken; it is certain that its disused has been a beneficial effect on the minds of those patients who, at an time, had been the subjects of it.”  This followed in the footsteps of pioneers in the care of patients with mental illnesses like William and Samuel Tuke and (1732-1822 and 1784-1857 respectively) and Robert Gardiner Hill (1811-1878).

In line with this ideology, in 1854 a team of artisans was employed to work with patients, and various entertainments were arranged including weekly dances, a daily newspaper, periodicals, and a library that was occasionally updated with new titles.  As Laura Blair explains on the Asylum Libraries website:

Within nineteenth-century asylums, attitudes towards reading were expressed as medical directives, framing reading as both a potential cause of, and cure for, mental illness. As the print culture of the era rapidly developed, with a massive increase in periodicals and newspapers following the mid-century period, asylum professionals sought to facilitate an ‘ideal’ engagement with texts. Preliminary research indicates that reading was considered an important part of patients’ leisure and was often regarded as medically therapeutic.

Suitably calm patients were accompanied on walks outside the asylum, on local roads and lanes, giving them both exercise and a wider view of the world and sometimes were even taken to local events.  The range of in-house activities was extended in 1855:

Late 1890s painting “The Retreat” by George Isaac Sidebottom, showing patients at leisure in the asylum founded by William Tuke in 1796. Source: Wellcome Collection

ln the summer months bowls, skittles, quoits, bat and ball, &c., are enjoyed by the males; and on fine clays parties of both sexes, accompanied by attendants, have frequently taken long walks beyond the Asylum boundaries. Reading, and various in-door games have been encouraged as much as possible. The weekly ball has been kept up regularly throughout the year; and while serving to relieve much of the monotony of residence within the walls of an Asylum, it has also tended in many instances to produce a great amount of self-control. By a large number the weekly gathering is invariably looked forward to with much pleasure

Patients were engaged in a very wide range of tasks that supported the asylum, indoors and out, both helping the asylum’s financial burden and giving patients a real sense of purpose, such as working in the gardens and farm, or sewing clothes and bedding.  The 1857 report for 1856 expressed real concern that as the building works came to an end, to which male patients had been contributing,  there would be a hiatus in very beneficial activity:

As the alterations and additions to the building are on the point or completion, a great source or employment will soon be lost to the patients, and although the laying out of the airing courts, remaking roads, &c., may afford work for the next few months, yet when these are finished the present quantity of land is by no means sufficient to keep in active employ the increasing number of inmates, and us no form of labour conduces so much to the recovery of a patient as that derived from ordinary farm and garden operations, it is highly to be desired that more land should be obtained as early as possible.

Examples of the types of employment engaged in by male and female patients at the asylum, from the July 1855 report, over two pages. Source: Wellcome Collection

Accordingly, in 1859 the provision for outdoor employment was significantly expanded, providing work for many of the patients and additional produce for the Asylum kitchens:

The additional land, now under cultivation, has not only increased the means of employing the patients in healthy outdoor work, but has caused a greater variety of employment – a matter of as much importance as employment itself. A sufficient quantity of potatoes has been grown to furnish the requirements of the Asylum until the next crop comes in; hitherto, a large quantity has always had to be purchased. In addition to several acres of beans, peas, mangolds [Swiss chard], etc: 5 acres of grain crop, and l l acres of grass have been harvested by the Patients without any extraneous help. The hay-field contributed materially to afford for a time recreative employment for all the patients and attendants, ordinarily engaged in artizan employments of a sedentary nature; and some of our best haymakers were to be found amongst the Tailors and Shoemakers.

The area employed for the gardens and farmland continued to expand throughout the reports, until this report at the end of 1870, which gives a good idea of the scope of the operation:

Garden and Farm accounts from the 1870 report

In 1862 plans were revealed to establish a voluntary school and bible classes for those patients “who are in a condition to profit by such instruction,” and in 1863 a schoolmaster was appointed to attend twice a week,” with the most beneficial results.”  The school was operated by the chaplain and was divided into two, one for men and one for women, and was operated as a leisure facility, rather than an enforced activity.  It was quite popular, and for those discharged paupers who had had minimal education, if any, would provide them with addition skills such as reading, writing and basic arithmetic.

The report for 1863 contains the usual update from the visiting Commissioners In Lunacy and is a useful example of how they were always searching for improvement in patient conditions:

The state of the inmates of the old wards in both divisions was less satisfactory. Their clothing was not good; and there was an absence of tidiness and comfort.  The proportion of feeble, helpless, and paralysed cases, is unusually great; and they require a larger amount of individual care on the part of attendants. Their sluggish faculties should be stimulated by continuous efforts to rouse and occupy them. There should be reading aloud among them. A few of the more intelligent patients who might not object to help in amusing this unfortunate class should be brought into their wards, and others of the more capable who are here should be removed to No.6. We learn from Dr. Brushfield that a considerable additional supply of pictures for the walls, and of games and objects of amusement, are in preparation for the wards of the old building. The patients to whom we have been adverting require a better provision of this kind.  In both infirmaries, which are not cheerful rooms, the furniture is poor, and a small well-directed expenditure would go far to brighten them up.

At the same time, however, 1863 was also the year in which a croquet lawn was established, a billiard and several bagatelle tables were added to the indoor entertainments and the Prince of Wales’s wedding day on March 10th was celebrated with a fete and a display of fireworks “so arranged as to he witnessed by nearly every patient in the Asylum.”

Similarly, the 1865 report for 1864 described the continued support of Dr Brushfield’s work to provide better conditions for patients.  This included  the enlargement of the Recreation Hall, as well as the domestic offices underneath.  The Recreation Hall was now very spacious and well ventilated, could hold up to 400 people and during the day could be divided into two, so that one part could be used for daily prayer led by the chaplain as well as other sundry activities; the other was used for sewing activities of the women patients.  During the evenings, the entire space could offer large scale indoor activities for the patients.

Title page of the 1870 report

In 1870, in spite of the rising numbers, the asylum appears to have continued with attempts to keep its patients busy and, for those for whom it was possible, entertained:

Numbers of the patients of both sexes have been steadily employed in such work as they have been capable of performing, or which has been considered likely to conduce to the improvement of their bodily or mental health. Excluding those under medical treatment in the Infirmary wards, nearly two-thirds of the patients have been regularly and industriously employed. In addition to their ordinary amusements and recreations, which, with some slight variations, were much the same as those alluded to in my Report for the preceding year,-many of the patients of both sexes were, at my request, kindly permitted by Signor Quaglieni to visit, free of charge, his Grand Italian Hippodrome when in Chester last Spring. About sixty men and an equal number of women, both under the care of Attendants, were also at the Regatta on the River Dee, where they conducted themselves with remarkable decorum.

The approach to the management of the asylum, which sought to treat patients as members of a community by providing them with useful occupations and amusements, almost certainly helped some of the asylum members to regain their stability, but this largely depends the nature of the mental illness.  Although certain health issues might be addressed, mental health was still very poorly understood, and although kindness and activities were certainly an improvement on punitive institutions, there was a very long way to go before many mental illnesses could be alleviated or remedied.
xxx

Upgrades to the asylum during the period 1854-1870

One of the most important aspects of daily are of patients was the maintenance of the buildings and facilities, and the expansion of both to meet increased demand throughout the period.  The increase in new admissions annually meant that in nearly every year alterations had to be made and new extension had to be added.

The 1855 Report of the Committee of Visitors and Superintendent of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum for 1854 submitted by Superintendent T.N. Brushfield is of particular interest as it is a year in which policy changes occurred, and gives an impression of a much less comfortable regime before this year.  The report notes the successful completion of “alterations and additions paid for by a grant of £6500” (to put this into perspective, according to the National Archives Currency Converter, this is equivalent to about £521,209) in today’s money.  This included enlargement of kitchen and workhouses, newly erected laundry, washhouse, workshops and stables.  There is also mention of “an ample supply of water” but no explanation as to what the problem with the existing water supply might have been. There was also an increase of attendants and nurses from 15 to 23, as well as the addition of a night watch in the women’s wards.

In spite of the improvements, in 1854 more patients required treatment than the asylum had capacity to take, which is probably not surprising given that the asylum was taking in patients from all over Cheshire.  The decision was made to further enlarge the building to take 300 patients, to add a new chapel (the existing one was both too small and deemed to be unsafe) and, now that the law required that a medical superintendent be resident, to add a new superintendent’s house near to the main building.  New furnishings would also be required for all these improvements.  For all this work £12,000 was required, nearly double the work that had just been completed, for which a grant was obtained from the Quarter Sessions, with the intention of ensuring that the asylum should be “equal to most of the modern institutions in the kingdom.” 

In the 1856 report for 1855 there was bad news about the state of the building, but at the same time progress was also made:

The Committee regret to have to state that on proceeding with the alterations, the dry rot was discovered to have entered the flooring of several of the wards, and the additional expense incurred thereby will be considerable. Steps were immediately taken to stop its progress, and they hope the funds placed at their disposal by the Quarter Sessions will be sufficient to cover the entire expenditure. The want of additional land principally for the purpose of more fully employing the patients having long been felt, the Committee made application to Sir Philip de Malpas Grey Egerton for a portion of his land adjoining that of the Asylum, and succeeded in obtaining about six acres on the north side, and which they have taken at an annual rental of £8 per acre. The several workshops erected during last year have also afforded increased facilities for employing the patients so that the whole of the male and female clothing is now made up by them, articles of furniture manufactured for the use of the establishment, and some of the ordinary repairs clone to the building. This employment of the patients bas been attended with the most beneficial results to the parties so occupied, as well as of considerable advantage in a pecuniary point of view.

Even with these improvements, the report for 1855 expressed the concern that the asylum would soon be unable to accommodate the numbers of patients that might, on the basis of the experience of asylums across England, be expected in the coming years.

The chapel built in 1856 to serve the lunatic asylum

In the 1857 report for 1856, the Chairman of the Committee of Visitors was particularly pleased with the end to four years work:

In submitting a report of the proceedings of the past year in connection with this Establishment, your Committee have much pleasure in stating that the various alterations and additions which have occupied a period of nearly four years, have at length been brought to a close, and it is gratifying to them to observe now that the arrangements are quite complete, that they consider the Building has been made equal to most of the more modern Institutions, and appears well adapted for the care of the Insane, according to the recent and improved methods of treatment.

The most recent upgrades included:

      • A Chapel, capable of accommodating 300 persons
      • A commodious house for the Superintendent
      • Carpenters and shoemakers shops and coal Stores
      • Enlargement of the wash-houses and launderette with the addition of a dining room
      • A Steward’s Office, and spacious Store Rooms
      • Reboarding of 4 yards in the new wings, occasioned by dry rot
      • Reboarding of old Chapel, and conversion of the same into a Recreation Hall
      • New bathrooms and lavatories in four wards

The original estimate of £6000 was found to be insufficient, and a further £2000 was applied for.

Admission numbers 1849-1855

In 1856 the report for 1855 had commented on the rising numbers of re-admissions from 1849 onwards, recording how increases in patient numbers represented a considerable challenge to the capacity of the asylum, and recommending more alterations to prevent overcrowding, and listed the previous years’ admissions to make the point.  These concerns about increased patient admissions and re-admissions were vindicated in the 1857 report for 1856 when it was noted that although the asylum was now capable of holding 300 patients, it would actually be “full to overflowing,” had the committee not issued a notice to the unions and parishes that referred patients to the asylum to notify them that “no cases could be admitted except those which were curable or of recent origin.”  The question was posed, in the same report, whether a new asylum should be built at the other side of the county (i.e. east Cheshire) to address the problem of incurable patients, or whether, instead, yet another expansion be made in the existing asylum.  It stated that a decision was now a matter of urgency.  At this stage, the proposal for a new asylum was clearly rejected because Parkside Asylum near Macclesfield did not open until 1871.  Instead, in October, a grant of £6,000 was obtained for the purchase of 21 acres of land from Samuel Hill, Esq. “at which time it wi1s stated that probably a further application for a similar sum, and for the same purpose, would shortly be made.”  Sure enough, the Committee offered the asylum “around 45 acres of land, together with the house and buildings on the same, at £250 per acre, being £50 per acre less that that recently purchased, part of which belongs to Sir Philip Egerton and part to S. Hill, Esq., and to enable them to buy which an application will be made for a grant of £11,500.”  This enormous expenditure was deemed to be “highly desirable” when presented to the Court of Quarter Sessions.

The 1858 report for 1857 described some streamlining activities.  For example, the erection of a new chimney shaft, the provision of a water supply in case of fire, and the conversion of “several small inconvenient airing courts into larger ones” were undertaken.  At the same time, the problem of under-capacity was again considered.  Although new admissions had decreased, this was only because capacity was at its absolute maximum and there was nowhere to put new patients.  It was concluded that the extension of the Chester asylum would be much more cost-effective than the building of an entirely new asylum:  “new Asylums generally cost from £150 to £200 per Patient, whereas the new buildings proposed to be erected will only cost £40.”  Accordingly, £10,000 was requested for the erection of a building to accommodate 100 male patients, another to accommodate 100 women, the ventilation of the wash-house, and alteration of drying closets as well as a house for the chaplain and a wall to enclose the land purchased from Sir Philip Egerton.

In 1860 it was identified that there was an urgent need for more hot water for bathing and washing laundry. A new steam engine and boiler was installed at a cost of £1353.00 in the same year, and was reported to be a success.  The 1862 report for 1861 noted that the asylum was now capable of housing 500 patients, the works including the enlargement of both the Steward’s House and Entrance Lodge, and the erection of additional farm buildings.  The extra capacity at the asylum actually resulted in unused space, and the decision was made to make the most of the unused capacity by seizing the opportunity to charge private patients who were unable to afford more expensive solutions, with the addition of a new set of rules that would be applicable to these new more privileged patients:

After due deliberation, it was deemed desirable to offer the advantages of the Asylum to patients which are to be found, in considerable numbers, among the middle classes,
but whose means will not permit them to pay the high terms of respectable private establishments where, alone, the same advantages of skill and care can be obtained as are afforded in County Asylums.

Excerpt from the 1862 asylum report

In 1862 alterations were minimal but “a new and commodious staircase in the male division” replaced one “which was exceedingly dark, and to a certain extent dangerous,” and a new dwelling was built for the head attendant at the end of the new female wing.  In both cases, male patients helped to carry out the work as part of the asylum’s policy to keep patients busy and entertained, and to enable to to practice existing skills and learn new ones.  The asylum was not full to capacity, and this gave Dr Brushfield the opportunity to take in patients from other asylums, for which he could charge a healthy markup.  40 patients were taken in from Stafford, for a period not less than one year, and others were transferred from asylums in north Wales due to the Denbigh asylum being full to capacity.  The charge made for each patient was 14s per week, “while the weekly cost per patient only amounts to 8s.2d.,” and this actually paid for much of the furnishings in the new building.

1864 saw the erection of a new dedicated gas works, built by Messrs. Porter and Co., of Lincoln, at a cost of £754, actually coming in just under budget, and in 1864 the Recreation Hall and the domestic offices beneath it were expanded, increasing the capacity of the Hall to 400 persons, which was considered very important for supporting patients during the winter, as well as providing a work space for the female patients.

Temporary buildings were erected to meet the need in 1867 to provide additional accommodation for 50 paupers.  At the same time the high numbers of residents 481 at the beginning of the year, with 156 admissions over the course of the year, with only 59 discharges) required considerable improvements to the engine and pumps that supplied water to all the buildings of the asylum.  In 1868  the report claimed that “in no former year has so much been done to repair, make better, embellish and render convenient the interior of the building” including refitted water closets and the addition of gas purifiers.  Outdoors a walkway around the boundary was extended, aiming to make a mile-long walk for patients, and a new orchard was planted.  More alterations were made in 1869 with “additional store-rooms, slop-rooms, bath-rooms, urinals and water-closets”.  Adding to the quality of life were objects that might provide interest (“statuettes, pictures, birds, plants etc” as well as chintz valances fixed to window openings).

In 1870 the report demonstrated how ongoing work continued to be required, including new measures to improve the asylum.  Points 1-6 are shown in the report below.

1870 asylum report bullet point improvements first page.  Two other points, 7) and 8) add that the door locks between male and female wards had been changed, formerly having been the same on each side, and that machinery in the laundry room had been overhauled, resulting in considerable improvements to overall efficiency.

===
These various excerpts demonstrate how the asylum was improved from year to year between 1854 and 1870, not merely in terms of repairs to the building, but also in terms of attention to the quality of life of patients.
xxx

Admission numbers into the asylum

A table from the 1855 Cheshire Lunatic Asylum Report covering 1854

During the year of the  1854, the year following Dr Brushfield’s appointment, it was reported there had been an average of 255.75 inmates, with 102 admitted in that year, 52 men and 50 women, of whom 42 were reported to be suicidal, with 26 having made suicide attempts prior to admission.  The age range of new admissions included two children between the ages of 5 and 10 (the youngest), and up to five adults between the ages of 60 to 70 years old (the oldest).  Eight of the new cases were complicated with epilepsy and nine with “General Paralysis.”  The total number of patients had risen at one point to 266, which had exceeded the capacity of the asylum, and never fell below 240, so the report recorded the decision to extend the building, to build a new chapel (which was built the following year) and, in order to conform to the latest Lunacy Act which required that the Medical Superintendent should be resident, a new house was to be built on the site to house him. These measures would remove the chaplain and superintendent from the asylum itself to provide more room, and the new building works would further increase capacity.  The figure for those remaining in the asylum on January 1st 1855 was 254, made up of 108 males and 146 females.

The report for 1855 similarly notes down numbers, including a patient’s escape:

On January 1st, 1855, there were in the Asylum 254 patients (108 males and 146 females); 125 were admitted in the course of the year – 52 were discharged as recovered, 29 as relieved, 5 as unimproved, 1 escaped, and 31 died, leaving in the Asylum on 1st January, 1856, 26l inmates, of whom 119 were males, and 142 females.

The report adds that because of the building works, which required some wards to be vacated, the asylum was often “inconveniently crowded,” but the decision was made not to refuse admissions of any new cases.  The 1855 intake was broken down as follows, by age:

Ages at time of admission in 1855

xxx
Admission numbers varied from one year to the next, but the overall trend was one of rising admissions.  Where these apparently fall in some years, this was usually not due to any lack of demand but because the asylum was full to capacity.  By the mid 1860s there was now a great deal of focus on the growing patient numbers and how best to accommodate them, and the greater part of the 1864 report is dedicated to this serious issue.

The number of admissions in 1864 was greater than during any previous year since the Asylum was opened. . . The Committee, at their Monthly Meeting in September, finding that the female division was more than full, having then 256 inmates, and being capable of accommodating only 250, gave notice to the Authorities of the Stafford County Asylum to remove, as soon as they possibly could, their female patients. Since then, ten of them have been taken away; and it is expected, that in a very short time all the Staffordshire patients, both male and female, will be removed to the new Staffordshire Asylum, now ready for their reception. Supposing, then, the whole of the Staffordshire patients to be removed, and those belonging to the City of Chester continue to be accommodated, there will then remain 209 males and 222 females in the Asylum. But if the increase of the Cheshire patients go on in the same ratio as in the past year, and the City of Chester patients remain as now, in one year the female wards will be filled, and in another the male wards also. It therefore becomes a question for the Court of Quarter Sessions to take into their consideration, and that without much delay, what further accommodation shall be provided for the Pauper Lunatics of the County; and to the consideration of this question the Committee are desirous of calling the especial attention of the Court.

Marital status of patients at the time of admission in 1861

Dr Brushfied put this down not to a growth in population but to the Poor Law Removal Act of 1862, which changed how patient maintenance was paid for.  Instead of separate Townships footing the cost, it was imposed on Parish Union funds, meaning that more patients were sent to the asylum rather than to private asylums or the workhouse.  These concerns were shown to be valid.  In the 1867 report on 1866, for example, the male wards were too full to take any new cases.  It had been attempted to find spaces for them in the asylums at Denbigh, Stafford, Heydock Lodge (the latter a private asylum established in 1844 and licensed to hold 450 patients), and other asylums in the region, but no spaces were found.  It was only with the discharge or death of patients that new places became available, and these were filled instantly.  The Chairman that year was pessimistic:

Taking 40 as the average increase of lunatics per annum remaining in the Asylum, and calculating that it will take three years to erect and finishing the new building, there will be at that time 120 patients ready to occupy it.

It was concluded that if no provision could be found at Chester, excess patients would have to be moved to other asylums (if available), at extra expense, or to transfer them to workhouses.  In 1865 Dr Brushfield was so worried about admission numbers that in July he felt the need to  issue a special report to consider whether additional accommodation should be supplied.  In 1868 admission numbers were down, but only because the Committee had refused to admit certain patients due to overcrowding.

By 1870 the new Medical Superintendent, John H. Davidson, recorded that the number of patients in the asylum at the start of the year had reached 526 patients, of which 255 were men and 271 were women.  During 1870 a further 165 patients were admitted, of whom 91 were men and 74 women.  The total number of patients admitted in 1870 was 691, of whom 346 were male and 345 were female.  On the 1st of January, 1871, 536 remained, of whom only 17 men and 30 women were judged to be curable.

Other sources indicate that from 1870 the numbers continued to rise, even after Parkside Asylum in Macclesfield, east Cheshire was opened  in 1871, in part to provide relief to the Chester asylum.

CONTINUES IN PART 2.2

==

Cheshire Lunatic Asylum: The development of lunatic asylums – Part 1.2

Cheshire Lunatic Asylum 2024

This is the second part of my post about the background to English lunatic asylums, prior to focusing on the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum in Chester.  To make the pages manageable, I have divided part 1, looking at the mental health background to the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum and other lunatic asylums into two.  Part 1.1 was posted here a few minutes agoPart 1.2 carries on below, following directly from part 1.1. A version of parts 1.1 and 1.2,without images, can be downloaded as a single PDF here  (27 pages of A4)   Sources and references for all posts can be found here.

Part 2 will focus on the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum at Upton in Chester and will be posted in the next month or so, when I’ve sorted out the images.

Timeline of reform after 1830

After the opening of a number of public asylums in the early 1800s, including the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum in Chester in 1829, several others began to be erected, including those in Dorset, Leicestershire, Shropshire and Montgomery and Devon, all by 1845, the year in which the County Asylums Act was passed.  Private asylums still outnumbered county and charity asylums, some small and catering for a handful of patients, whilst others like and Ticehurst in Sussex (opened 1792) the purpose-built Brislington House near Bristol (opened 1806) were fully comparable in size to county asylums.

The First Middlesex County Asylum, Hanwell. Source: London Historians’ Blog

The most important innovation in the early 19th century had been the “moral treatment” that had been introduced by Philippe Pinet in Paris and by William Tuke in York, was influential on other asylum owners and designers.  One of the most innovative of these was Methodist Dr William Ellis.  Having learned the practice of moral treatment at the Sculcoates Refuge in Hull, in 1817 he was employed as superintendent at West Riding Pauper Asylum at Wakefield, with his wife Mildred as matron, where he practised the same approaches. His successes led to his appointment at the new Hanwell Asylum in Middlesex in 1832, with his wife again employed as matron.  In each case patients were exposed to conditions that emulated family life and the manners of polite society, with treatment consisting of activities, entertainments and employment both indoors and out, using physical restraints only where strictly necessary. Social reformer Harriet Martineau, was impressed with how, when she visited, she saw a patient going to a garden to work with his tools in his hand, how a cheerful patient rolling in the grass with two other patients had been chained to her bed for seven years before arriving at Hanwell, and in shed in one of the gardens patients were cutting potatyes for seed “singing and amusing each other.”  Ellis resigned in 1838 in a disagreement with the overseers of the asylum over their decision to extend the asylum for a much greater patient intake, convinced that his methods could not be successful in a much larger institution, as well as their plans to change how the asylum was managed.

In 1832 the Royal Commission carried out a survey of how the Poor Law was generally implemented throughout all counties, and who benefitted.  The findings were published in 1834, and concluded that existing workhouses and almshouses were too sympathetic and generous, as well as too costly, to be sustainable. The report contained a long list of recommendations that set out to deter paupers from claiming relief by redefining the workhouse as a tool for reducing the costs of caring for the poor.  The survey formed the basis of the new 1834 poor law.

In terms of social reform the new Poor Law, which was introduced to replace the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, represented a backwards step.  The Act, adding to the 1723 General Workhouse Act and the 1774 Madhouse Act, lead to even more lunatics being absorbed into workhouses, where all inmates were treated far more punitively then before. According to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act (“the New Poor Law”) workhouses of a new type would be built to deter vagrancy and the dependency of able-bodied men, women and children on handouts, ensuring that only those who were suffering from desperate necessity would seek a workhouse place. The Act was introduced to reduce the cost of the poor by putting them to work in fixed indoor locations, removing beggars, vagrants and itinerant paupers from the streets, its main mechanism of which was the workhouse. However, although orphanages and infirmaries were also built, the workhouses were punitive places, built to discourage the idle from attending them.  They provided deliberately uncomfortable living conditions, splitting of husbands from wives and parents from their children.  To enable parishes to finance the new workhouses, the new poor law allowed for the creating of parish unions.  Over 350 new workhouses were built within five years of the Act to cope with those who were unable or unwilling to find work.

The 1834 Act also laid down that dangerous lunatics, insane people and imbeciles were not to be kept in workhouses and should be moved to new asylums that should be built without delay, as per the Act of 1828, to receive them.  In practice, however, partly because it cost less to house lunatics in workhouses than asylum, and partly because asylums were often overcrowded, an alarming number entered workhouses.  In some workhouses special wards within workhouses for the insane were added, and these were often used as repositories for the mentally ill, as well as imbeciles and idiots, the debilitated elderly (particularly those suffering from dementia) and the physically disabled.

The Chester Union Workhouse in 1861, recorded on workhouses.org, included 29 long-term inmates (continuous living for five years or over) of whom nine (31.03%) were deemed to be of “weak mind” and two (6.9%) were “subject to fits” (the latter relevant because epilepsy was considered to be a form of insanity until the late 19th century).  Interestingly, the incorporated union of Chester’s nine parishes was exempt from the 1834 act, and Chester did not accept a Chester new Poor Law Union until 1869.  There is clearly a lot more work to be done in Chester between the lunatic asylum and its workhouses.

The 1820 Lincoln Asylum. By Elliott Simpson, CC BY-SA 2.0. Source: Wikipedia

New reformist practitioners continued to make their mark in the treatment of lunatics, mainly in private asylums for the wealthy, but also in the county asylums. In 1820 the subscription-funded Lincoln Lunatic Asylum was opened, and in 1837, under Edward Parker Charlesworth and Robert Gardiner Hill, became notable for being the first English asylum to formally abolish the use of mechanical devices for restraint, with the results recorded in  the asylum’s annual reports. This approach was influenced by the death at the asylum in 1829 of patient William Scrivinger, who was strapped to his bed overnight in a straitjacket and was found dead from strangulation in the morning.   In 1838 Robert Gardiner Hill, who became house surgeon at the asylum, delivered a lecture to The Mechanics’s Institute, Lincoln, advocating the care of the mentally ill without recourse to restraints, which was subsequently published and circulated and became influential on other asylum superintendents who were interested in treating symptoms rather than merely detaining patients.

Tabulated records of restraint from the Lincoln Lunatic Asylum in 1830 (click to enlarge).  Wellcome Collection.

===
In 1839 John Conolly moved to Hanwell Asylum in Middlesex to take over from William Ellis as its third superintendent.  As superintendent he took Ellis’s policy of only using restraints when unavoidable even further, following Robert Gardiner Hell, and in his first report from the asylum claimed that the banning of restraints, replaced by “kindness and firmness” had produced a much better environment for patients. He believed that supervision by specially trained attendants and nurses, consistent regimes and pleasant surroundings were essential.  His treatment regime was reported by The Times on several occasions, an the asylum was visited by influential figures in society. Although many other alienists were sceptical about non-restraint, the positive publicity soon influenced other asylums who began to follow the lead originally set by Robert Gardiner Hill, but publicized by Conolly. Following his resignation from Hanwell in 1844, after a disagreement with the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy, Conolly published his latest opinions on the subject of managing lunacy.  These included his 1847 The Construction and Government of Lunatic Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane and his 1856 The Treatment of the Insane without Mechanical Restraints.  His 1849 A remonstrance with the Lord Chief Baron touching the case Nottidge versus Ripley clearly stated his belief that eccentricity, excessive passion, signs of moral failure, gambling what should not be tolerated, and any person’s behaviour that was “inconsistent with the comfort of society and their own welfare” were sufficient to merit certification and committal to an asylum.  This position was one of intolerance to any behaviour that might contravene strict ideas of social conventions.

Male and female patient employment records at the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum for the year 1855 (click to enlarge) (Wellcome Collection).

The new forms of treatment that attempted to return people to society put great emphasis on the value of manual work, much like the influential 6th century Benedictine monastic ideal, so some asylums built and managed home farms in which patients worked, and indoors encouraged involvement in art, crafts, sewing of clothes and other items of use within the asylum, and help with the maintenance of the asylum buildings.  Airing courts provided leisure access to fresh air and vegetation, and sporting activities were arranged.  Indoor leisure activities included games, indoor sports, reading material, the ability to engage in art, music, dance and theatre, and there was in-house provision for access to religious guidance

The 1842 Poor Law Commissioners Act introduced by social reformer Lord Ashley (later Lord Shaftesbury), extended the authority of London’s Metropolitan Commissions in Lunacy to the entire country and expanded its staff. Its remit was extended for a trial three-year period to all types of care institution in all parts of England and Wales where lunatics might be held, and this in turn led to the 1844 report of the Metropolitan Commission to the Lord Chancellor.  This report described poor conditions and treatment, and expressed concerns about illicit certification and the continued incarceration of those who had recovered.

Portrait of Harriet Martineu. Source: Wikipedia

An indication of how much work still needed to be done to care for the insane was an article published in 1834 by Harriet Martineau, one of Britain’s first sociologists, who asked whether lunatic asylums really needed to be as dreadful as they so often were, contrasting it with the pioneering attitude of Dr William Ellis and his wife Mildred at the new Hanwell Lunatic Asylum, which opened in 1831:

It is commonly agreed that the most deplorable spectacle which society presents, is that of a receptacle for the insane. In pauper asylums we see chains and strait-waistcoats, – three or four half-naked creatures thrust into a chamber filled with straw, to exasperate each other with their clamour and attempts at violence; or else gibbering in idleness, or moping in solitude. In private asylums, where the rich patients are supposed to be well taken care of in proportion to the quantity of money expended on their account, there is as much idleness, moping, raving, exasperating infliction, and destitution of sympathy, though the horror is attempted to be veiled by a more decent arrangement of externals. Must these things be? (my italics).

A two year investigation by the Metropolitan Lunacy Commissioners was followed by the 1844 Report to the Lord Chancellor which, like its predecessors, highlighted the abysmal conditions in many of the establishments that  that housed lunatics:  “Twenty-one counties in England and Wales had neither public nor private asylum. Profiteering was rife in the private sector; such public asylums as existed were often defective in terms of site, design or accommodation” [Mellett 1981]. The 1844 report seems to have had rather more significant impact than some of its predecessors, timed as it was with Lord Ashley’s continued and vigorous campaigning to provide for pauper lunatics.  The Socialist Health Association records that in 1844 there were around 20,600 lunatics in some form of institution or private care in England and Wales, of whom only 3800 were private patients.  Over 16,800 were classified as paupers.

Edward Wakefield’s 1815 statement about the value of recommending a change to the law to make new asylums compulsory. Source: Wellcome Collection

In 1845, following the 1844 report, Lord Ashley was able to push through the important Lunacy Act and the County Asylum Act.  Importantly, every county was given compulsory responsibility for the provision of a county asylum funded by rates, instead of making it optional as in the 1808 Wynn’s Law.  This was a measure that Edward Wakefield, reporting to the 1815 Select Committee had suggested be implemented, and it had taken 30 years for the recommendation to be acted upon.  The Act required the transfer of mentally ill people (defined as lunatics and idiots) from workhouses, where over 6000 were recorded in 1847, to these new or existing asylums.  It became a legal requirement that both a new Board of Commissioners for Lunacy and regional Justices throughout England and Wales should regularly visit places where lunatics were held, in prisons and workhouses as well as hospitals and both the old and new asylums, for both private and public institutions.  Locally appointed Committees of Visitors would oversee the ongoing operation of asylums, and an annual report would be submitted to the Lunacy Commissioners.  It was now also a legal requirement that asylums record admissions with basic demographic information about the patient, the reason for admission, details of the disorder, treatments and ultimate outcomes (i.e. discharge or death, including suicide).  These were to be inspected at least annually by the Commissioners and regional Justices.  In practice, the Act was not supported with funding or resources, and many of its measures proved difficult to implement and enforce, although it was responsible for the growing number of asylums throughout England and Wales.  Again, improvements to certification processes were made.  In 1847, reporting on their progress, the Commissioners noted how their workload had expanded, emphasising their role as a central resource for asylums:

Excerpt from the Table of Contents for the Further report of the Commissioners in Lunacy 1847

We have found it necessary to carry on an extensive correspondence with numerous parties, some demanding· the interposition of our authority, in reference to cases of supposed abuse; many requiring information, and many others neglecting or misinterpreting· the salutary provisions of the Acts of Parliament; and in the course of this correspondence, numerous questions (some of much nicety and difficulty) have been submitted to us;  we have also found it necessary to enter into long and difficult investigations.

The commissioners were undoubtedly patting themselves on the back in this piece of text, demonstrating the value of their new role, but the rest of the report suggests that since the passing of the 1845 Act they had been very busy assessing the network of public and private asylums for which they were now responsible, gathering extensive amounts of data to inform their decisions.

In 1853 John Bucknill (1817–1897) became the first editor of the Asylum Journal, which became the Journal of Mental Science.  Bucknill held the position until 1862.  The Journal eventually became the British Journal of Psychiatry and is still publishing today. This provided a forum for interested parties, mainly those connected with asylums, to put forward their ideas and instigate discussions.  Ideas about madness and lunatic asylums also filtered into the British Medical Journal.

Asylum Journal 1855. Source: Internet Archive

===
Another set of laws were introduced with the intention of improving matters throughout the second half of the 19th century.  The 1853 Lunacy Amendment Act outlawed hearsay evidence from the process of certification, meaning that doctors were no longer able to depend on the accounts of those who were asking for patients to be admitted to asylums.  The certification process required that doctors only included behaviour that they had themselves observed at first hand, another measure towards prevention of wrongful confinement.  The 1862 Lunacy Act enabled patients who had received care for mental illness in the past to enter asylums on a voluntary basis to receive treatment.  Special permission had to be sought from two lunacy commissioners, but this recognized that the treatment of mental health should not be exclusively enforced and custodial.  It also allowed for greater fluidity of transfer of patients between asylums and workhouses.  The Annual Report of the Lunacy Commission for the same year noted that physical restraints were no longer in common use and that isolation was preferred as a viable alternative.  In 1867 the Metropolitan Poor Bill was designed to recognize harmless “imbeciles”, those with learning difficulties in London workhouses and asylums, and to provide them with specialized establishments. In 1874 the rising costs of asylum management were recognized by the government who introduced a grant allocating 4 shillings per week per person sent to the asylum. This presumably also assisted with moving appropriate inmates from workhouses to asylums.

Unfortunately none of the above measures were successful in introducing genuine state-sponsored social responsibility and reform.  As late in the 19th century as 1873 the British Medical Association expressed its views on the existing state of asylums:

There are no public institutions which lie so open to attack as lunatic asylums.  They are necessary evils; they interfere with the liberty of the subject; they are costly in erection and maintenance; and they are, as a rule, managed with doors more closely shut than those of other hospitals.  There also hangs about them in the mind of the public an air of mystery, and the memory of bygone evils is by no means erase.  When all these factors of unpopularity are taken into account, it is not difficult to see why the complaints of those who have been subjected to their discipline are listened to with avidity. [BMA August 2nd 1873, p.120]

Sadly, as the century advanced and passed into the 20th century, the number of admissions into asylums increased and the earlier idealistic and more personalized approaches became impossible to implement.  The 29th Annual Local Government Report of 1900 stated that in 1860 50% of insane paupers were in county and borough asylums, and 25% of them in workhouses.  By 1900 there were 75% in asylums and just under 20% in workhouses.
xxx

Public anxiety about lunatic asylums in the mid-late 19th century

Louisa Lowe, incarcerated even though later judged to be completely sane. Source: a digitized copy of Blighted Life, in the Wellcome Collection

Whilst the role of lunatic asylums was widely discussed in Victorian medical journals and works produced by alienists, each promoting certain methodological and ideological approaches, there were also publications that spoke to the general public, representing concerns with the alienist profession and describing clear infringements of what we would now think of as the human rights of those who had been illicitly incarcerated.  Wrongful incarcerations fell into two main categories.  First, there were those individuals who had been incarcerated forcibly when sane, sometimes as the result of collusion between family members and medical professionals.  Secondly there were those who had been admitted to an asylum under a legitimate certificate, but continued to be detained long after they had recovered their senses.  Part of the problem lay in what did or did not qualify as sanity but, as discussed above, there were also cases of malicious incarceration and corrupt collusion for financial advantage.

There were two primary channels of information about such cases  to the general public.  Both national and local media took up the stories of those who had been illicitly confined in lunatic asylums, whilst some of the victims published their own accounts. Examples of the latter are John Perceval’s  A narrative of the treatment experienced by a gentleman during a state of mental derangement (1840), Rosina Bulwer-Lytton’s A Blighted Life (1880) and Louisa Lowe’s The Bastilles of England, Or The Lunacy Laws at Work (1883).  Some publications were anonymous, former mad-house inmates fearing derision or stigma.  One author, “A Sane Patient,” wrote My Experiences in a Lunatic Asylum (1879), and another was written by “A Clerical Ex-Lunatic:” The private asylum: how I got in an out: an autobiography (1889). As well as describing the circumstances under which they had been admitted and in which they lived, some also urged government change to existing laws.

News article excerpt about Lawrence Ruck in The Leader, no.440, August 28th 1858, p.862. Source: Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition

Although there were exceptions, the means by which the media became aware of such cases was largely via formal inquisitions. In 1858-1859 there were four cases that caused a media sensation and a public panic about illegitimate certification: Rosina Bulwer-Lytton, Mary Jane Hepworth, Reverend William Leach and Lawrence Ruck.  Inquisitions were legal mechanisms by which those held in private asylums could apply for permission to take their cases in front of a judge and jury to attempt to prove their sanity.  Witnesses could be called to give testimony for or against a patient’s sanity, both personal and professional. These were very expensive and the cost fell on the applicant, so was available only to the very wealthy.  Because these people often belonged to elite families or were associated with public figures, they could be of great public interest.   Inquisitions were held in public, in any venue large enough to accommodate them, in coffee houses, bars and taverns, and any member of the general public or media was free to attend.  Juries were men, often magistrates or others who were sufficiently educated to assess both medical and legal arguments.  In the cases of Bulwer-Lytton, Hepworth, Leach and Ruck, all four had been confined in asylums, but during inquisition had been judged sane.  Rosina Bulwer-Lytton had a particular gift for publicity and succeeded in winning many newspaper publications to her side to publicize her grievances.  The highly publicized scenario where a family member, colluding with an asylum owner and sent attendants to bundle a sane victim into a carriage to be locked up, their basic human rights denied them, caused real public anxiety.

Report of the Alleged Lunatics’ Friend Society 1851. Source for report: Wellcome Collection

The newspaper publications and first-hand accounts about individual cases were supplemented by the work of pressure groups. Three groups were formed to promote the causes of patients in asylums, more or less consecutively, all started by those who had direct experience of illegal detention in lunatic asylums: The Alleged Lunatics’ Friends Society (an informal grouping until 1845 when they became organized), the Lunacy Law Reform Association, and its splinter group The Lunacy Law Amendment Society.  At the same time, Georgina Weldon attracted many followers in her campaign against illegal incarceration and detainment in asylums, having gone into hiding when her estranged husband attempted to have her committed. Whist in hiding she was declared sane by two independent physicians. All these activists wrote letters to influential people, took out newspaper adverts, distributed pamphlets and spoke extensively in public in attempts to influence government action to reform lunacy laws.  Although they were rarely successful at pushing through legal reform, they were very good at generating publicity for their causes, drawing attention to the financial motivations of both those who might benefit from certifying a relative and the asylums admitting them, and the callous tyranny of some of the asylum owners and staff.  They also acted to take up individual cases where sane people remained locked up in asylums.

Inevitably, in spite of attempts to force through legal and social reform, changes in the law always lagged behind the need for reform.  For every energetic reformer there were many more places that continued to follow easier, less labour-intensive means of confinement, and although individual reformers and medical representatives attempted to improve asylum care, there were continuing problems of unnecessary and illegal incarceration and detainment, sometimes as a result of collusion between relatives and asylum owners, causing ongoing anxiety in contemporary society.
xxx

The criminally insane

Lithograph by JR Jobbins in 1840 showing the assassination attempt by Edward Oxford on Queen Victoria. Source: Meisterdrucke

In 1800 when James Hadfield attempted to assassinate George III in the belief that the death of the king would initiate the Second Coming of the Messiah, he was charged with treason. However he was judged to be non compos mentis (not in his right mind) due to severe head injuries incurred during his service as a soldier.  This verdict of insanity was followed by the the Criminal Lunatics Act, which required that criminal lunatics should be detained in county jails, and lead to the addition of a new criminal wing be Bethlem to house the criminally insane.  A number of high profile cases followed, and in 1840 Edward Oxford fired a pistol at Queen Victoria and Prince Albert as they were travelling in an open carriage on Constitution Hill in London, and although he was tried for high treason, was found not guilty by reason of insanity.  He was sent to the criminal wing at Bethlem.

Daniel M’Naghten photographed by Henry Hering in around 1856. Source: Bethlehem Hospital Museum Archives via Wikipedia

A decisive case was that of Daniel M’Naghten who, in 1843, attempted to kill Prime Minister Robert Peel, but mistook Peel’s secretary for the Prime Minister, shooting and killing him.  M’Naghten suffered from paranoid delusions, thinking that the Tories were persecuting him and were planning to murder him. He was acquitted on the basis of insanity and confined to Bethlem asylum.  This lead to the M’Naghten Rule (or M’Naghten Test) which provided criteria for assessing whether or not someone was insane at the time that a serious crime was committed, to assess whether or not someone was criminal liable.  Only when the test has been completed in all its parts can a person be deemed to be criminally insane.

One of the best known 19th century inmates of both Bethlem was was the remarkable professional artist Richard Dadd R.A., who was incarcerated first in the ward for the criminally insane in Bethlem in 1843.  Dadd, after exhibiting signs of violent and delusional behaviour when travelling in the Middle East went to stay with his parents to recover but, believing that he was acting under the orders of the Egyptian God Osiris, murdered his father whom he was convinced was possessed by the Devil.

Richard Dadd, painting whilst incarcerated in an asylum in 1856. Source: Wikipedia

These cases paved the way for the establishment of the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, which opened in 1863 in Berkshire, and which remains in use today.  Oxford, M’Naghten and Dadd were all transferred to Broadmoor in 1864.  M’Naghten died in 1865 but Dadd continued to paint throughout there until his death in 1886 at the age of 68.  Edward Oxford, who showed no ongoing signs of insanity, was offered the opportunity to be relocated to Australia in 1867, and duly took up the offer, settling, marrying and living out his life in Melbourne, later publishing a book about the city.

Much of the intention of earlier laws in this respect was re-formalized in the Trial of Lunatics Act of 1883, in which any offence committed whilst a person was deemed to be insane, and therefore according to the law not responsible for his actions at the time when the act was committed, a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should be returned. This law was updated several times, most recently in 1991.

Day room for male patients at the Asylum for Criminal Lunatics, Broadmoor, Sandhurst, Berkshire. Source: Wellcome Collection

A broken system

Excerpt for a page from the 21st Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy for 1866, published in 1867. Source: Wellcome Collection

In the later half of the 19th century, it was becoming clear that the optimism of both medical and legal professions the 1840s was dwindling fast, and that the asylum system was failing to keep up with demand.  The 21st Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy in 1867 indicated that 90% of patients in public asylums were considered to be incurable.  Writing only three years later in 1870, Dr Andrew Wynter, former editor of the British Medical Journal, commented that “Our whole scheme for the cure of lunatics has utterly broken down.”  Although it was convenient to hold large numbers in facilities where they could be dealt with in a consistent and organized way, the numbers of those who entered far exceeded the numbers of those who left.  Overcrowding was a serious problem for most public.  The emphasis inevitably shifted from treatment and cure to containment, order and bureaucracy.  This succeeded in dividing lunatics from society, but did not address the root cause of the the problem – the analysis and cure of mental illness.  Those who might have been treated and restored to their families were lost in the sheer volume of inmates who required maintenance and management.  Wynter referred to this as “brick and mortar humanity.”

Plan for Caterham and Leavesden 1868, both serving the London area. Both were opened by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in 1870, and within five years demand far exceeded capacity, requiring new building works to accommodate the influx of new patients . Source: Wellcome Collection

There were only two practical solutions to overcrowding in asylums.  The first was to return non-violent patients to their families or to send them to workhouses.  The second was to expand existing asylum buildings and facilities and to build new asylums.  Although workhouses continued to take in lunatics and idiots, expansion and new building were the most frequently adopted solutions.  It is to this period that the first of the vast dedicated developments were built, with their own water and gas works, their own fire brigades, cemeteries and other urban-type facilities.  These were located in rural locations, where asylums could be conveniently separated from the rest of society, and where land was relatively cheap. The earliest examples of these vast enterprises were built to serve London and its environs, and include Colney Hatch in Middlesex (opened in 1849 for 1000 patients), Leavesden and Caterham (both opened in 1870 for 2000 patients each), Caterham, and Claybury County Asylum (opened in 1894, also for 2000 patients).

Claybury County Asylum, now converted into apartments. Source: Wikipedia

It was not until nine years later that the 1886 Idiots Act created specialist asylums for individuals with learning difficulties beyond the London area.  Important distinctions were made between lunatics on the one hand and harmless idiots and imbeciles (those with learning difficulties) on the other.  The intention was to take the opportunity to care for them and provide basic education and training so that idiots were treated neither as lunatics that needed to be confined nor as indigent vagrants.  Following this, the 1890 Lunacy Act the certification of alleged lunatics was moved to the jurisdiction magistrates as well as doctors.  It also made the provision of free mental healthcare available, but as the majority of the population could only access free psychiatric care if they were certified insane and agreed to be admitted to an asylum, the stigma of certification and the requirement for confinement were significant deterrents to people volunteering to receive the help they needed.  More than any previous law, the 1890 Act helped to prevent medical collusion to incarcerate patients wrongfully.  Whereas only medical certification had been required before, a civic official such as a magistrate or Justice of the Peace was now required to certify madness.  The Act also took measures to prevent the licensing of new asylums, aiming to inhibit the further licensing of private asylums, which it was hoped would lead to the eventual demise of the private asylum.

An inspection of the formerly progressive Hanwell in 1893 described depressing conditions, concluding that it would be surprising if any of the patients were to recover given the type of care they were receiving in fairly dismal surroundings.  Even more regrettably, the untested idea that mental illness could be passed from one generation to the next fed into the horrible theory of eugenics.   New surveys continued to be carried out, reports continued to be submitted and new laws continued to be introduced, modified and implemented, but it is a sad fact that neither medicine nor the government, via changes to the law, managed to provide convincing support for a growing section of society that was still not well-understood.
===

After the Victorian period

Graphic to accompany the one-man play Shell Shock, performed at the National Army Museum to mark Mental Health Awareness Week in 2019. Source: National Army Museum

I have not ventured into post-Victorian approaches to mental health in this post, but it was very far from a story of continual improvement of care and cure.  There was still a very long way to go to even begin an understanding mental illness, and to standardize, in a scientific way, the treatment mental illness in psychiatric units. Sigmund Freud’s end-of-century theories of psychology were squabbled over for decades.  The First World War’s executions for “shell shock” as a judgement of cowardice remain deeply shaming.  In the inter-war years psychiatrists began to take a more experimental and interventionist approach to treating mental illness. Several new so-called “heroic” physical therapies were introduced, based on the belief that mental illness had a physical basis in the nervous system or the brain. These included insulin coma, chemical shock, electro-convulsive shock therapies and, most radically interventionist, lobotomization.  Egas Maniz’s experiments with prefrontal lobotomy remain profoundly disturbing.

The abandoned Denbigh Lunatic Asylum. Photograph by Steve R. Bishop. Source: Everywhere from Where You are Not

It will come as no surprise to those who follow the news that there are still serious problems, not merely in official provision of mental health care, but in care homes for the elderly, including those recuperating and convalescing, and those who had been persuaded to hand over power of attorney.  There were dreadful examples of people being released from long-term incarceration in the 1950s and 60s who had been admitted for minor criminality and socially disruptive behaviour, and although they had become institutionalized were found to be completely sane.  The use of vast repositories for the mentally unwell was abandoned without, however, a clear strategy for handling those who still needed help.  This was followed by a policy of caring for the mentally unwell within the community, pushed through during the 1980s, which often failed to provide families and local care centres with sufficient resources to make this fully viable, placing great strain on families and support mechanisms.  The tyranny of some institutions was revealed in a number of scandals and was a theme explored in relatively modern times in the 1975  film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  Documentaries in care homes in recent times demonstrate how this problem still persists in some places.

Ancona House. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester

Today the madhouse or lunatic asylum has become a psychiatric hospital or a psychiatric unit in a general hospital for those with manageable symptoms, or a specialist secure facility for the violent and criminally insane.  In the Victorian period medical understanding and psychiatric ideas were only beginning to be proposed and tested, and this continued well into the Edwardian period and beyond, with medicine and the law both playing  important parts in how mental illness and suicide were understood, diagnosed and treated.  The research remains ongoing.  There is still no viable solution, or set of solutions, to the problem of coping with mental illnesses. The subject of how to care for those suffering from mental illness is far from resolved.
===

Final Comments on parts 1.1 and part 1.2

William Tuke’s “The Retreat” in around 1796. Source: Wikipedia

In spite of being divided into two parts to make it easier to digest, this quick and dirty summary of the state of mental healthcare in the 18th and 19th centuries inevitably smooths out some of the kinks in that often convoluted story, over-simplifying some of the many subtleties.  This account represents a very short summary of a very complex topic.

From the late 18th century mental illness represented a growing issue for a society that was developing a broad social conscience. In spite of many reforms to poor laws and a number of new Acts of Parliament to govern asylums, governments were slow to respond to either public pressure or their own specially commissioned reports, and stories of unlawful detainment in some places and frightful conditions in others failed to produce change that was both meaningful and timely.  The role of workhouses in the handling of the mentally ill continued to be important, with patients shared between workhouses, workhouse infirmaries and asylums, in spite of legislation designed to make the responsibilities of each much more transparent, which is an area that needs to be much better understood.  It was only towards the end of the 19th century that those with learning difficulties, termed imbeciles and idiots, were seriously treated in the law as a separate problem requiring different types of care.  The topic of children in lunatic asylums is not much discussed, but records show that at least some were admitted, as they were to workhouses.

John Conolly, looking rather self-satisfied. Source: Wikipedia

Sometimes those who were supposed to represent the pinnacle of care and reform are described with a rose-tinted filter.  For example, Edward Long Fox and his sons, running one of the most expensive private asylums in the country, were accused in the writings of patient John Perceval, son of the murdered prime minister Spencer Perceval, of incarcerating their more troublesome patients in truly dreadful conditions where they were subjected to beatings, threats, manacles, strait-vests, freezing water baths and other punishments and indignities.  The alienist John Conolly, a national figurehead of ethical and human approaches, was found guilty in court of taking money for signing legally binding certificates that retained patients in private asylums to which he was employed as a paid consultant.  One of these patients was found, by jury to be sane and the investigation highlighted the risk of consultants being paid by asylums for certifying patients.  He also often took credit in public for introducing non-restraint in England, in fact an innovation of Robert Gardiner Hill at Lincoln, and at Hanwell asylum had a very low cure rate.  Another example is Lord Ashley, later Lord Shaftesbury, generally and fairly acknowledged as an important voice for mental healthcare reform but sometimes remarkably intransigent. He often blocked or delayed changes that would have made important differences that would have lead to improved quality of life and greater transparency and justice in the asylum system.  This was a particular problem given that Ashley had been elected the lifetime head of the Commission for Lunacy, a position that he did indeed hold until his death in 1885.

By the end of the century the dream of personalized care of the mentally ill by engaging them in social activities within attractive contexts was largely abandoned.  The “moral treatment” approach had depended not only on sufficient numbers of attendants to manage patients with kindness and empathy, but those who had a genuine interest in caring and treating.  The 1870 Annual Report of the Lunacy Commission recorded that 122 attendants had been dismissed in 1869 for manhandling patients roughly or violently, and it is not at all surprising that as new patients were admitted in increasing numbers, the sheer volume proved difficult to manage:

The number of people certified as ‘insane’ soared.  The asylum created demand for its own services.  Less and less people ever left, and more and more arrived.  In 1806 the average asylum housed 115 patients.  By 1900 the average was over 1,000.  Earlier optimism that people could be cured disappeared.  The asylum became simply a place of confinement. [Disability in Time and Place, Historic England, Simon Jarrett]

Leavesden Hospital in Abbots Langley, Herts., opened 1870. Source: Leavesden Hospital

Governments as well a local organizations began to invest in creating larger institutional solutions for paupers whose symptoms indicated the sort of social deviance and/or danger to self that could not be countenanced without intervention.  However. the recognition of mental illness and the acceptance that it should be handled by the state caused its own problems as more people were incarcerated and management of mental illness became, like contemporary prisons, more of an issue of how to maintain order than how to provide cures.  Unlike most prison sentences, there was no release date for mental patients, who could be held indefinitely and sometimes were.  An indication of how urban areas in Britain were overwhelmed by demand was the new Metropolitan District Asylum built between 1868 and 1870 as Leavesden Hospital in Hertfordshire, which was designed to house 1500 patients, after which it continued to expand to cope with the ever growing need to provide care for the mentally ill.  Like other asylums of this period, it is more like a small town than a hospital.  Sadly, many asylums once again became associated with confinement and bureaucracy rather than attempts at cure and rehabilitation.

The perception of mentally ill people changed over the course of the Victorian and Edwardian periods as psychiatry developed as a specialist branch of medicine, swinging between biological, congenital and neurological explanations on the one hand and emotional-psychological explanations on the other. The degree of subjectivity lead inevitably to disagreement and contradictory opinions, with very little indication of how to choose between the variety of different ideas held in different asylums.  The legacy of 19th century mental health medicine, law and care seems to be one of a continued struggle to fully comprehend the complexities of mental illness or to devise suitable ways of treating them sustainably.  As Mike Jay says in his book This Way Madness Lies, “While the asylum as an institution is now largely consigned to the past, many of the questions it struggled so hard to address still persist.”===

Click here for the references for this post

 

Full 1-hour documentary about the situation within mental asylums at the time of the closure of many of them

Out of Sight, Out of Mind – The Leavesden Asylum Story
Leavesden Hospital History Association

 

Cheshire Lunatic Asylum: The development of lunatic asylums – Part 1.1

The 1829 Building, built as Cheshire’s first lunatic asylum

 

Beginning with nine voluntary institutions, the asylum movement rolled across the 19th century English landscape like an avalanche gathering pace. The ‘mentally unsound’ were moved in ever greater numbers from their communities to these institutions.  From 1808, parliament authorised publicly funded asylums for ‘pauper lunatics’, and 20 were built. From 1845 it became compulsory for counties to build asylums, and a Lunacy Commission was set up to monitor them. By the end of the century there were as many as 120 new asylums in England and Wales, housing more than 100,000 people.

Historic England:  The Growth of the Asylum – a Parallel World

==

 

Introduction

As part of my ongoing series looking at Overleigh Cemetery, I asked Christine Kemp of the Friends of Overleigh Cemetery about the suicides she knew of in Overleigh Old and New Cemeteries.  In the 19th century suicide was more often than not deemed to be the result of temporary insanity.  Looking into how suicide was handled in the 19th century lead me to the discovery, probably very familiar to most Chester residents, that there had been a “lunatic asylum” where the enormous site of the Countess of Chester Hospital is now located at Upton.

The rear of the 1829 Building today

The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum was a public institution established to house pauper lunatics as well as a limited number of paying private patients in 1829.  The asylum opened on a 10 acre site in 1829 to accommodate 45 women and 45 men, reflecting the fairly even numbers of both at asylums in the 19th century.  It grew throughout the 19th century and eventually occupied a significant area of over more than 55 acres.

The exterior of the earliest building remains in situ, and has the appearance of an elegant and stately Georgian-style building with a small Classical portico, looking very much more like a the remnant of a country estate than the intimidating prison-type establishment that I had been expecting.  An elegant façade was typical of 19th century asylums.  Today the asylum building is still an active part of the Countess of Chester Hospital, officially named “The 1829 Building” (Grade 2 listed), housing a number of departments including Adult Mental Health, Physical Health and Brain Injury Services, as well as the GP Blood Test DepartmentWhen I was sent to the Blood Test department last year it was some consolation that I was being jabbed in the arm in a place of significant history.

The chapel (Grade 2 listed) was built in 1856 to serve the lunatic asylum, and still on the site although used for a different purpose

Most of the other buildings associated with the asylum have now been demolished, but nearby are the asylum’s 1856 chapel (Grade 2 listed) and the fenced-off and boarded-up remains of what I believe was “the villa,” the 1912 building for treating epilepsy (which had been treated as a mental illness up until the early 20th century). The recently restored water tower also remains.

Although it would have been great to jump into the story of the Chester Lunatic Asylum without delay, the background information was absolutely necessary to make any sense of that story.  In part 1, I have tried to do provide a sufficiently detailed background to give a sense of how the Chester Lunatic Asylum fits into the full history of mental health care in the 19th century.  In part 1 (split into part 1.1 and part 1.2 to make it easier to manage, but both posted on the same day) I look at the background history of what were known as lunatic asylums in the 18th and 19th centuries, with some additional brief comments on how this overlapped with workhouses.  Sources and references for all parts can be found hereA version of parts 1.1 and 1.2,without images, can be downloaded as a single PDF here (27 pages of A4)

In part 2 (also split into two parts) I discuss the Chester asylum itself, built in 1829, the name of which changed many times over the period of its use as an establishment for treating mental illness. Part 2 has been written and will be posted as soon as I have added in the images, probably next week.

Many thanks to historian Mike Royden for sharing his knowledge about the Tudor and Victorian Poor Laws and workhouses.  You can find out more about Mike’s research on his History Pages website.
===

18th and 19th century terminology and its limitations

From at least the 17th century the terms “madhouse” and “lunatic asylum” were terms employed to indicate a place that confined the mentally ill.  These institutions were differentiated from hospitals that dealt with more conventional medical problems where attempts were made to treat rather than confine patients.  The term “asylum” was originally used to refer to places of refuge, retreat and sanctuary, but up until the late-18th century the lunatic asylums were generally custodial in character, often keeping inmates in very poor conditions, and were usually referred to as mad-houses. By the 19th century an asylum was generally an establishment that made claims to treat as well as confine inmates.

Terms such as “mad” and “lunatic,” as well as “idiot” and “imbecile” are now considered to be pejorative, as well as imprecise, and are no longer used in medical, psychiatric, sociological, legal or political contexts today.  In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, however, these were the standard terms used for those who suffered from some form of mental illness that incapacitated them emotionally or cognitively, temporarily or permanently, along a continuum from violent or otherwise harmful behaviour to mere learning difficulties.  The term “insanity” was also in common usage, but has not been entirely excluded from modern usage.  All terms are used throughout this post, reflecting the usage of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Insanity in the 18th and 19th centuries could include a vast array of conditions including delusions, paranoia, self-harm, hysteria, mood-swings, visions, speaking in tongues, irrational violence against others, senility, alcoholism, epileptic fits, dementia, mania, depression and suicidal behaviour. Even eccentricity, such as spiritualism or unconventional social behaviour, was sometimes interpreted as incipient lunacy and could lead to illicit confinement.

The earliest owners and overseers of mad-houses were known as “mad-doctors,” a term from which 19th century asylum owners attempted to distance themselves.  The later specialists in mental illness who claimed (and in some cases did) focus on treatment and cure, who were the predecessors of today’s psychologists and psychiatrists, were known as “alienists.”   The term derives from the idea of mental alienation.

When the only practical solution to lunacy was incarceration, it should have been a priority to establish a set of universal definitions for the unmanageable symptoms of lunacy, but without a centralized approach to this problem, none were forthcoming.  This lack of agreement about what did and did not constitute madness is exemplified by the case of Mrs Catherine Cumming who was abducted from her home and taken to York House Asylum near Battersea in London.  After a period of incarceration and a long legal battle, she was declared sane by a jury, and released.  When Thomas Wilmot, who had signed her lunacy certificate, was asked what he thought lunacy was, he replied that he had never seen a reasonable definition. One of the most notable features of the Cumming case was the number of medical experts called as witnesses, nineteen of them, including such notable names as John Conolly, Sir Alexander Morison and Dr Edward Monro.  As Sarah Wise summarized:

After the Cumming case, it was once again noted by most commentators how unsatisfactory it was that nineteen eminent medical men could give widely differing opinions of what constituted soundness of mind, tailoring their learning according to what ‘side’ in the dispute had hired them. One alienist had claimed that Mrs Cumming was a monomaniac, another that she was an imbecile, and yet another that she was perfectly sane. . . How safe was anyone when the experts had such divergent views of insanity? [Inconvenient People, p.177]

Individual conditions now required names so that patients could be labelled, statistics logged and cases discussed.  For example, research by Hill and Laughurne, based on 1870s records from St Lawrence’s Asylum in Bodmin (Cornwall), identified the most common conditions suffered by those admitted at the asylum.  Although the main reasons for admission were recorded as mania, dementia, melancholia, moral insanity and the combination of manic behaviour and dementia, it is not at all clear what these terms represent.  Hill and Laughurn tentatively apply the following attempts to suggest modern equivalents:  mania probably representing overactive episodes; dementia, which appeared to  include loss of cognition, memory loss, intellectual deficit, schizophrenia and losses of concentration; melancholia, which seems to have mainly indicated underactive episodes relating to depression; moral insanity (unspecified) and the combination of manic behaviour and dementia, which possibly describes bipolar disorder.

Similarly, a table from the 1855 report for the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum, for both males (M) and females (F), shown below, records that the overarching symptoms in that year were mania, melancholia, dementia and amentia (defined as idiocy and imbecility), and these were further sub-categorized by the presence of epilepsy, general paralysis (also known as general paresis), and suicidal propensity.

The “Committee of Visitors and Superintendent of the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum Report” of 1855, showing Reasons for Admission. Wellcome Collection

Unfortunately, the terms for mental illnesses are not used consistently from one institution to another, meaning that mapping them on to modern conditions can be very difficult.  The term dementia, for example, covered a variety of symptoms relating to mental illness at St Lawrence’s and Chester, but has become rather more precisely defined today.  Epilepsy was subsumed into the general category of mental illness until the later 19th and early 20th century when special epilepsy treatment centres were introduced, intended to be more domestic and less institutional.  Suicidal behaviour, with the multiplicity of potential causes and symptoms, even now sits in a somewhat liminal area between mental illness and the ability to make coherent decisions, blurring boundaries.

Admissions, Discharges (Cured and Relieved) and Deaths for Cheshire County Asylum, 1860. Source: Wellcome Collection

Another of the many challenges to understanding how lunatics were assessed was that there were no criteria for how a successful cure could be identified.  In York the Tuke’s compassionate asylum The Retreat, it was assumed that anyone who had been released was cured if they were not readmitted, but not only could this represent wishful thinking without additional data, but it sidestepped the task of creating behavioural or other measures that might be used in asylums to determine whether or not someone ought to be released or detained.  Like other asylums, the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum annual records show that each year a number of patients were released from the asylum, but it is impossible to know what this actually means, as there are no recorded criteria for determining whether or not a patient had been cured or, for example, sent home because they were not necessarily cured but were not dangerous to themselves or others (usually referred to as “relieved” rather than cured). The failure to define criteria to measure the success of treatment and recovery was a serious problem once patients were certified insane and committed to an asylum, because there was no universal agreement about how recovery could or should be recognized.  As well as being imprecise, the lack of clear definitions and criteria was potentially an invitation to corrupt or merely sceptical asylum owners to hold patients indefinitely.

For more on these and other terms see Historic England’s Glossary of Disability History.
===

Practical problems associated with early mental illness

Engraving by T. Bowles 1735. “In a lunatic asylum, and in the company of a variety of other deranged individuals, a half-naked Ramble Gripe, his wrists chained, is restrained by orderlies.” Wellcome Collection Reference 38347i

Depending on its severity many forms of mental illness, and conditions like epilepsy that were interpreted as occasional bouts of madness, could be intensely distressing for the families and friends concerned.  Not only were the symptoms apparently incomprehensible and might seem  to be completely random, but they contravened social norms and conventions in a society that placed great value on normative behaviour.  It might be very difficult to manage the situation if symptoms were particularly acute, requiring physical intervention. Mental illness drew unwanted attention, could attract derision and social stigma, and might prevent family members from marrying due to fears of hereditary contamination.  Depictions of insanity in drama, literature, art, newspapers and magazines only inflated stigma and misunderstanding.  Unfortunately, until the 18th century there was very little official support for mental illness.  In rural locations families who could not keep a mentally or otherwise disabled family member at home could pay for their mentally ill relatives, including those with learning difficulties, to be cared by villagers or at local farms in need of income, sometimes providing indigent widows with a means of generating income. There was no official record of mentally ill people cared for at home.

Wealthy families could either hire an appropriate person to join the household to care for the afflicted individual, or send them to a private home or a privately run asylum where a frequently unqualified person would charge a fee to take the problem off a family’s hands.  Families with middle class and reliable working class incomes might depend on any home-based family members, usually female, to provide care, but less expensive privately run houses might again provide a solution. Private mad-houses only began to become prevalent from the 17th century, and operated as lucrative businesses, unlicensed, unregulated and without oversight, there were mad-houses priced for most pockets.  They were often owned or managed by individuals with no qualifications and run without any medically qualified person in attendance.  Even when operated by physicians or surgeons, these titles covered a multitude of sins and might mean anything from someone who was genuinely attempting to treat ailments to a quack doctor who was little better than a profiteering snake-oil salesman.

At the main gates to Bethlem at Moorgate were two sculptures, which just about say it all: “Melancholia” and “Raving Madness” (in chains) in 1689 by Caius Gabriel Cibber. Source: Wellcome Institute via Wikipedia

For pauper families, a lunatic family member was an even greater burden.  Lunatics whose families could not support them were forced to resort to begging.  These were amongst the most isolated and vulnerable people in society. The pauper insane were undifferentiated from other paupers, including vagrants, tramps, beggars.  Many found themselves in workhouses, and workhouses continued to have a role housing those will mental illnesses well into the 19th century.  Other less fortunate pauper lunatics would be incarcerated in prisons, particularly when violent.

The first charitable mad-house was the 1247 Priory of Our Lady of Bethlehem in London, which had taken in the insane from the early 15th century as a monastic duty.  For most of its life it was a small institution, with a capacity of few more than 40 individuals, but by the mid 19th century it was suffering from overcrowding.  Following the Great Fire of London in 1666 the largest public asylum investment in dealing with lunacy was the 17th century was in the new Bethlehem (also known as Bethlem and Bedlam), which opened in Moorfields on the edge of London in 1676 for 120 patients, with additional extensions added as it reached capacity.  Conditions were notoriously dire until the early 19th century.

Outside London care was organized under local parishes in a highly decentralized way, and these would sometimes provide accommodation for those who, through no fault of their own, were unable to support themselves.  Charitable asylums began to appear throughout England in the early 18th century, first in Norwich and London, then in Newcastle and Manchester by the middle of the century and, towards the end of the 18th century, others in York, Leicester, Liverpool and Hereford.
===

Perceptions of lunacy in society in fiction and theatre

Gustave Doré illustration of Don Quixote in 1863. Source: Wikipedia

Accounts of madness appear in both Old and New Testaments, where they often provided a moral allegorical aspect to  religious narratives.  As literacy and theatre became increasingly popular, insanity became a major literary device in drama and poetry from the Elizabethan period.  This helped to spread an idea of insanity that was something both alien and dark, but at the same time eerily recognizable in the real world, creating both curiosity and fear.  The dramatization of madness appealed to the same sense of  fascination, aversion and suspense that horror and science fiction genres generate today.

Many playwrights used madness to add dramatic emphasis to a number of their plays including Christopher Marlowe’s Dr Faustus (first performed c.1594), Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy (first performed 1587), Shakespeare’s Hamlet (first performed c.1601), King Lear (c.1606), and Macbeth (first performed c.1611),  Webster’s Duchess of Malfi (first performed 1614) and John Fletcher’s The Pilgrim (first performed 1621).  The novel Don Quixote (c.1605) by Miguel Cervantes, which depicted outright insanity as the main subject matter, was first translated into English in 1612, with a more popular version in 1700.   In the 18th century Tobias Smollett also translated Cervantes but also offered his own treatment of madness in Sir Launcelot Greaves (1760). Samuel Richardson explored his own versions of female madness in Clarissa (1748) and Sir Charles Grandison (1753).  In the late 18th and early 19th century George Crabbe’s poetry makes frequent reference to madness, and his poem Sir Eustace Grey (published in his collection of 1807), set in a “mad-house” and framed as a conversation between a patient, a doctor and a physician, examines the decline of a sane person into insanity. 

The more he felt misfortune’s blow;
Disgrace and grief he could not hide,
And poverty had laid him low:
Thus shame and sorrow working slow,
At length this humble spirit gave;
Madness on these began to grow,
And bound him to his fiends a slave.

Engravings of a series of William Hogarth’s The Rake’s Progress paintings, published in 1735, include this scene from a lunatic asylum, with wealthy female visitors looking on. Source: Wikipedia

Visual depictions are dominated by William Hogarth’s famous Rake’s Progress, which included a scene showing the Bethlem the asylum as a deranged and frenzied environment viewed by two wealthy ladies visiting the asylum to enjoy a spectacle of curiosity.  Although painted in the early 1730s it was engraved in 1755 after which it was widely distributed.  Satirical cartoonists, building on the work of Hogarth, became very popular in the 18th century, of whom James Gillray is by far the best known, although there were many others.  The satirical publication Punch shared many of these, and it was by no means unusual for them to depict politicians and other senior figures as madmen, some of them chained up in lunatic asylums, showing slapstick, scatological and often puerile visions of a flawed society.  As Cartoonist Martin Rowson says:

Bethlem Hospital, London: the incurables being inspected by a member of the medical staff, with the patients represented by political figures. By Thomas Rowlandson 1789. Source: Wellcome Collection Ref 536228i

Personally, I believe satire is a survival mechanism to stop us all going mad at the horror and injustice of it all by inducing us to laugh instead of weep. . .  That’s why, if we can, we laugh at both those things, as well as being disgusted and terrified by them. Beneath the veil of humour, there’s always a deep, disturbing darkness. [The Guardian, March 2015]

References to behaviour that seemed ill-suited to the rational world, particularly amongst politicians and the social elite, were easily ridiculed by reference to lunatic asylums, which played on the fears of society as well as on its inclination to deride the sane.

The Woman In White by Wilkie Collins, first serialized in 1859 before being published as a book. Source: Wilkie Collins Information Pages

Madness was a recurring theme in 19th century literature and British Victorian fictional literature continued to offer insights into how society perceived lunacy.  Works include Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë (1847); The Woman in White (1859) and the short story Fatal Future (1874) both by Wilkie Collins; Charles Reade’s Hard Cash (1863); Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (1886), and Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891), to name but a few.  Insanity also finds its way into many novels and stories by Charles Dickens including the short story A Madman’s Manuscript (1836, from The Pickwick Papers) and the novels Bleak House (early 1850s) and Great Expectations (1861).  

Madness was also featured in opera, particularly adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays, and those by Gaetano Donizetti who made particular use of madness as a device. Donizetti’s Anna Bolena of 1830, in which Anna (Anne Boleyn) goes mad in the Tower of London as she awaits execution, suffering delusions) was premiered in London 1831. Donizetti’s 1838 Lucia de Lammermoor, based on Sir Walter Scott’s 1819 novel The Bride of Lammermoor, in which the eponymous heroine goes mad when her brother forces her into a loveless marriage, was first performed in London in 1836, with a famous Eccola! mad scene.  Lucrezia Borgia, dates to 1833 and was premiered in London in 1839.  Other well known operas that feature insanity are Vincenzo Bellini’s I Puritani, in which the heroine goes mad when she is abandoned at the altar and in Wolgang Amadeus Mozart’s Idomeneo win which the vengeful Elettra, another woman unlucky in love, goes splendidly mad with grief and rage at the end of the opera.

The mad Bertha Mason as envisaged by F. H. Townsend for the second edition of Jane Eyre, published in 1847. Source: Wikipedia

The above-mentioned functional works by Charlotte Brontë, Wilkie Collins and Charles Reade dealt with wrongful detainment, either at home or in an asylum, bringing a new risk to public attention.  The impact of these fictional works were considerably exacerbated by real-life incidents of wrongful detainment.  Sarah Wise’s book Inconvenient People provides many examples of illicit incarceration and how these were handled.  An early 19th century example is the case of one Mrs Hawley.  It is worth quoting James Peller Malcolm’s 1808 account in Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London during the Eighteenth Century Including the Charities, Depravities, Dresses, and Amusements etc to give an example of how the sort of accounts that the public were reading:

Amongst the malpractices of the Century may be included the Private Mad-houses. At first view such receptacles appear useful, and in many respects preferable to Public; but the avarice of the keepers, who were under no other control than their own consciences, led them to assist in the most nefarious plans for confining sane persons, whose relations or guardians, impelled by the same motive, or private vengeance, sometimes forgot all the restraints of nature, and immured them in the horrors of a prison, under a charge of insanity.  Turlington kept a private Mad-house at Chelsea: to this place Mrs. Hawley was conveyed by her mother and husband, September 5, 1762, under pretense of their going on a party of pleasure to Turnham-Green. She was rescued from the coercion of this man by a writ of Habeas corpus, obtained by Mr. La Fortune, to whom the lady was denied by Turlington and Dr. Riddle; but the latter having been fortunate enough to see her at a window, her release was accomplished. It was fully proved upon examination, that no medicines were offered to Mrs. Hawley, and that she was perfectly sane.

This incident lead to a Select Committee investigation appointed by the House of Commons to investigate wrongful detention in private asylums, and lead to Madhouse Act of 1774 (on which more later), which recognized the problem and although it did not do nearly enough to tackle it, set a useful precedent for applying legal measures to madhouses.  Legislation throughout the 19th century attempted to prevent wrongful certification, but there were four highly publicized scandals on illegal incarceration in 1858 that fuelled public fear and even as late as 1890 laws were being introduced to prevent collusion between those attempting to admit sane patients and certain medical men incentivized to receive them.

Introduction to Nellie Bly’s account of her undercover work in an American asylum. Source: Internet Archive

The requirements for committing the poor in public asylums were less stringent.  This was not an elitist measure.  The wealthy were far more vulnerable to family manipulation for self-gain, and as Sarah Wise has demonstrated, men were just as vulnerable in this respect as women.  Pauper lunatics whose families had little financial incentive to incarcerate impoverished relatives, except to reduce the pressure on household costs.  On the other hand the wealthy were universally treated far more kindly than the poor.

In America, Nellie Bly’s late 19th century journalistic account of the ten days she spent on an undercover assignment, incarcerated in an American women’s asylum caused a public outcry similar to that attached to the repeated scandals at Bethlem, the York Lunatic Asylum scandals in 1790 and 1814 and the four highly publicized cases of 1858.  Bly’s experiences were published and widely distributed in book form in 1887.  Nellie Bly, the pen-name for Elizabeth Cochrane Seaman, was a correspondent on The New York World, and her articles and book served to raise awareness of the true horrors that still existed so late in the 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic.

All these different types of medium demonstrate that madness was a powerful artistic and dramatic device, eliciting feelings of both fascination and dread.
===

Approaches to lunacy before 1830

The 1676 front page from “The Anatomy of Melancholy” by Robert Burton, first published in 1621. Source: Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

One of the earliest non-fiction books to be published on the subject of mental instability was Robert Burton’s (1577 – 1640) startling and difficult 1621 The Anatomy of Melancholy which ranges freely through all aspects of religion, the Classics and literature to discuss, in a somewhat tangled narrative, a variety of behaviours that he brings together under “melancholy” that he generally equates to madness:

That men are so misaffected, melancholy, mad, giddy-headed, hear the testimony of Solomon, Eccl.ii.12. “And I turned to behold wisdom, madness and folly,” &c. And ver.23: “All his days are sorrow, his travel grief, and his heart taketh no rest in the night.” So that take melancholy in what sense you will, properly or improperly, in disposition or habit, for pleasure or for pain, dotage, discontent, fear, sorrow, madness, for part, or all, truly, or metaphorically, ’tis all one. Laughter itself is madness according to Solomon, and as St. Paul hath it, “Worldly sorrow brings death.” “The hearts of the sons of men are evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live,” Eccl.ix.3. “Wise men themselves are no better.” Eccl.i.18.

This is one of many publications that demonstrate that there was no science-based medical understanding of madness before the later 19th century, partly because there was little understanding of human anatomy or neurology, and partly because of the existence of well-honed model of human biology.  In the late 11th century the published research of Arab scholars came to the west, where it had a colossal impact on how the world was understood and interpreted, offering new explanatory models that were not dependent on Christian conventions or traditional folklore, but were still woefully inaccurate.

The Four Humours and their characteristics. Source: National Library of Medicine

The dominant medical model from the medieval period, echoes of which lasted well into the 19th century, derived from Greek thinking was medical, based on Hippocrates and modifications of Hippocrates by Galen.  Forming the foundation of medieval ideas of biology and the treatment of ailments, these beliefs were based on the theory that humans were were made up of four basic elements called humours, which were characterized by specific properties that had to be kept in balance in order for health and well-being to be maintained. Failure to balance these humours was thought to result in illness and/or mental instability.  This was a powerful explanatory model that appeared to offer solutions but although it avoided some often unpleasant divine, magical and superstitions approaches, with which it lived side by side, it represented a complete lack of understanding of human biology and anatomy.  Various often painful and harmful techniques were employed in attempts to restore equilibrium to these imaginary humours. Some of the treatments were quite literally torturous, intended to draw out or counteract imbalances. Together with explanations citing demonic influence, the humours were an important part of medieval belief that leaked into the 18th and early 19th centuries.  Treatments included restraints long periods of isolation and so-called treatments including purging, bloodletting, food deprivation, hot and cold water immersion and beating to attempt to treat madness with physical measures, and presumably to enforce better behaviour.

The issue of whether or not madness could be treated to reduce or eliminate symptoms became a matter of considerable importance to the royal family and the government at the end of the 18th century.  Beginning in the 1780s, King George III (1738-1820) experienced phases of severe mental disturbance.  This brought with it an interest in research into symptoms of madness at state level.  The king’s medical team included Francis Willis, a former clergyman who owned an asylum in Lincolnshire.  Willis’s treatment of King George indicates that the treatments employed in both private and public asylums were genuinely believed to have a beneficial impact because the king was subjected to the same type of treatment practised to rebalance humours, and which Willis used in his own asylum, including ice baths, purging, enforced vomiting, burns, denial of food, and restraints.  King George appeared to improve after treatment, and Willis was well-rewarded, but the king’s condition worsened again in the early 18900s.  In 1810, perhaps because his illness was exacerbated by the death of his daughter Princess Amelia, he withdrew from official duties, although lived for another 10 years.

By far the most common solution for non-royal lunatics was some form of containment.  As Lucy Series puts it: “A key tenet of the law of institutions is that some people belong in ‘institutions’ (at least some of the time) and others do not.”  Those institutions were designed to separate the mad from their homes and communities “spatially, legally and socially.”  It was  from the late 17th century in London and the 18th century elsewhere in Britain that the problems associated with madness began to be approached by both private enterprise and, more slowly, charities.  Private asylums were unlicensed and unregulated, operating completely outside any legal framework, and as early as 1728 Daniel Defoe (writing under the pseudonym Andrew Moreton) referred to the “vile practice” of incarcerating family members for personal advantage.  Operated as commercial ventures, and often very profitable, they grew in great numbers.  The new 1676 public Bethlem hospital for 120 patients, was designed by Robert Hooke along impressively grandiose lines but it was poorly constructed and deteriorated rapidly, requiring extensive maintenance and repair.  It has become infamous for charging tourists a fee to view the mentally disturbed, a practice not stopped until 1770.  It treated the mentally ill as sub-human, barely better than chained animals, and conditions became notoriously dreadful, not tackled until a new reformist superintendent was installed in 1815.

Seven vignettes of people suffering from different types of mental illness. Lithograph by W. Spread and J. Reed, 1858. Source: Wellcome Collection, Ref. 20076i

As the 19th century proceeded, lunacy or madness was interpreted in different ways, both medical and philosophical, drawing together the brain, the body and the mind in new exploratory but untested directions.  In Britain, as well as elsewhere, physical examination of the skull (phrenology) and the face (physiognomy) were approaches that attempted to find the source of madness in visible physical details, but there was little attempt to develop a scientific understanding of madness or how to treat it.  Britain’s alienist German counterparts, were more closely affiliated with universities and adopted academic approaches, and developed new ideas towards mental illness in laboratory environments where hypotheses formed and tested.  It is in Germany that the term “psychiatry” was first coined in the early 19th century, and from where  many of the innovations in understanding mental illness started to emerge.  In the late 19th century Emil Kraepelin, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Heidelberg, recognized and described the mental illness dementia praecox, later renamed schizophrenia.  This type of research began to influence some British researchers, some of whose own work was recorded in the Journal of Mental Science.  Linkages between pathological conditions (such as infectious disease), and mental conditions were only recognized in the later 19th century.  For example, the connection between the sexually transmitted infection syphilis and its late-phase symptoms (including mood swings, antisocial behaviour, delusions and seizures) was only recognized in the late 1880s.

There were no medicines available to treat the causes of mental illness.  The only medications available were for the treatment of symptoms, not causes.  Tranquilizers, a certain amount of pain relief and the treatments for fever were the only available forms of relief for patients.  For very violent patients the only measures were sedatives, restraints and isolation.
===

The growth of the lunatic asylum 1751-1834

Sketch of the original plan of the Chester Union Workhouse. Source: Chester – A Virtual Stroll Around the Walls

The Old Poor Law (officially the Act for the Relief of the Poor) of 1601 had been instigated during the reign of Elizabeth I was modified but largely changed until the 1834.  It classified paupers as the able-bodied who were unable to find employment, the able-bodied who refused to find employment, and those who due to illness, old age, disability or other infirmities, including lunacy, were unfit for employment and needed relief.  In the 18th century the institutional mechanisms available for the mentally ill who had no family assistance were mainly hospitals, workhouses, almshouses, and prisons each set up to cater for different types of problem and accompanying symptoms.  Some parishes paid for lunatics to be housed in private house, where they could be confined, but public funding of lunatic confinement was unusual.

The problem of poverty and paupers is well represented by the multitude of poor laws that were introduced throughout the Tudor and Jacobean periods.  The church and charitable organizations might assist with payments and household supplies, and even housing for the poor, providing a accommodation and food in return for labour, but such resources were few and far between and did not apply to lunatics.  A much more familiar solution for the pauper insane became the workhouse, an early institution initially set up with the laudable intention of helping the poor on a parish by parish basis, partly funded by the “poor rate”, and which also took in the pauper insane.  Charitable public lunatic asylums, some raised by subscription, were introduced at the end of the 18th century, and became more important as workhouses became more penal in character, but workhouses were still acknowledged places of detention and safekeeping for the insane and the imbecile well into the 19th century.

The 1713 and 1744 Vagrancy Acts distinguished between lunatics and criminals, imposing much less severe treatment on the former, but providing for their detention.  In practice, this meant incarceration in a jail or Bridewell rather than a death sentence.  In 1723 the General Workhouse Act, intending to reduce the ongoing costs of maintenance of unemployed paupers, allowed parishes to erect a workhouse, and judge whether those who were out of work should be sent to the workhouse and to labour for their shelter and food.  They were built all over Britain in their 100s.  Paupers with learning difficulties or mental illnesses were regularly subsumed into the workhouse system due to the lack of any practical alternative. Although anyone could leave, at least in theory, the workhouse was not a place of rehabilitation, and was designed to be sufficiently ghastly to deter people from seeking state help.  Some workhouses had a wing for lunatics, but the conditions were very poor.  Whilst it probably did lead some to seek work, the system penalized those who were genuinely unable to work.

St Luke’s Hospital, Cripplegate, London: the facade from the east. Engraving after T. H. Shepherd. Source: Wellcome Collection, ref. 26120i

A new model of lunatic asylums is represented by St Luke’s Hospital for Lunatics, founded on Old Street in Cripplegate (London), which opened in 1751.  The neoclassical façade favoured by was emulated by several later institutions.  Its first head physician was Dr William Battie, who set himself up in opposition to the barbaric and punitive regime at Bethlem, and published his Treatise on Madness in 1758, describing his contrasting approach.  He distinguished between un-treatable congenital madness and that caused by a social environment, which might be treated.  He was unusual in preferring treatment to constraint, and although his methods were interventionist, his belief that mental illness was treatable and even curable was influential.  He ran a school at the hospital in the hope that this would disperse his teachings and approaches.  Although he took in pauper lunatics, Battie ran the hospital as a profitable commercial venture.

The 1774 Act for Regulating Private Madhouses (and sometimes referred to as the Lunacy Act or the Madhouse Act ) was an early attempt to regulate and manage private madhouses. Public asylums were not regulated by this Act. One of its achievements was the appointment of five Commissioners who were Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians who would inspect private asylums, and although these were only in the London area it was a step towards certification and licencing.  Another important measure was designed to ensure that anyone committed required two referrals by qualified doctors to ensure that individuals were not wrongfully confined by their families.

In 1782 The Act for the Relief and Employment of the Poor (also known as Gilbert’s Act) allowed parishes to form themselves into groups for the purpose of building workhouses exclusively for those unable to work. No able-bodied people were to be admitted.  Although this was not a successful measure, being entirely optional with a poor take-up, it did acknowledge a real need for providing for the physically and mentally infirm.

As William Battie had demonstrated, real change lay as much in philosophical, ideological and humanitarian ideas as medical and legal ones.  The Quaker movement had a strong influence on this idealized way of treating mental illness, and this grew partly out of the death of Quaker Hannah Mills in 1790, less then a month after being admitted to the York Lunatic Asylum (opened 1777), suffering from melancholy.  She was one of some 300 inmates who died there in the 37 years between 1777 and 1814.  Her case came to the attention of the Quaker and wholesale tea trader William Tuke (1732-1822).  Horrified by the facts of the matter, decided to raise funds to build an asylum in which members of the Quaker community suffering from mental health problems could be treated in a new and civilized way.  The result was his own asylum called The Retreat, which opened in 1792. His approach, referred to as the “moral” treatment, was altogether more compassionate and empathetic, based on the belief that a positive physical and emotional environment and good food were key to mental recovery.   A nurturing and therapeutic approach to care was adopted.  Instead of being treated as sub-human or bestial, those who entered the asylum were encouraged to lead lives emulating social norms.  Restraint was only used when strictly necessary, and although patients were confined within an institution, the Retreat attempted to reproduced ordinary home living and encouraged socializing amongst patients to help patients to recover. William Tuke’s son also worked at the asylum, and his grandson Samuel Tuke (1784-1847), published a description of The Retreat in 1813, describing the philosophy and activities of the asylum.  This publication helped to inform other mental illness reformers.

Depiction of “The Retreat,” established by William Tuke in 1792, by George Isaac Sidebottom, a patient at the retreat in the late 19th century. Source: Wellcome Collection RET/2/1/7/5

Following the 1808 County Asylum’s Act known as “Wynn’s Act” after Charles Williams-Wynn, the politician who did much to promote it, Justices of the Peace were given the authority to build county asylums, and to raise finance to do so.  This was optional, not compulsory, and local councils were under no obligation to build asylums. Although some new asylums were subsequently built to enable paupers with mental illnesses to be removed from workhouses and placed in appropriate establishments these were slow to arrive.  Many who suffered with mental illnesses or learning difficulties continued to be taken into workhouses and prisons.  The treatment of the poor continued to be a story of failure to respond to a serious need, whilst the rich were still regularly deposited in private institutions of very variable quality.

York Lunatic Asylum. Source: Wikipedia

In the meantime, the York Lunatic Asylum, first under physician Alexander Hunter, and after his death in 1809 under his assistant Dr Charles Best, continued to take a custodial, punitive and disgustingly neglectful approach to its patients, a fact that Tuke and other York philanthropists attempted to address, partly by reporting cases to the media and partly by infiltrating the board of governors and using this to demand access to the asylum to inspect patient care, finding that although wealthy patients were usually well treated, pauper lunatics were kept in dreadful conditions.  Godfrey Higgins, one of a number of social agitators in York at the time, who had taken a particular interest in the treatment of the insane, used his influence to demand an inspection in March 1814.  When he found locked doors he insisted that they be opened, threatening to break them down himself.  Inside one room he found female patients in what he referred to as “a number of secret cells in a state of filth, horrible beyond description . . . the most miserable objects I ever beheld.”  In another part of the asylum he found “more than 100 poor creatures shut up together, unattended and unsuspected by anyone”.  The case went to court, and a new committee was appointed in 1814, but problems continued to be reported.

Bethlehem (Bethlem) Hospital by William Henry Toms for William Maitland’s History of London, published 1739. Source: Wikipedia

The dire conditions at Bethlem in Moorfields continued to be a disgrace to London.   Even though a decision had been made to replace the Moorfields building with a new one, south of the Thames at Southwark, matters might have gone on as before if not for Edward Wakefield, a Quaker, like the Tukes, an advocate of lunacy reform whose mother had been confined in an asylum.  He had visited the Moorfields site in 1814 and reported on the inhuman conditions that he witnessed there.  Wakefield’s insights were an important part of the Select Committee investigation of 1815, which reported on the appalling conditions that Wakefield had found.

A sample of Wakefield’s contribution to the 305-page report is as follows, which is by no means the most distressing: In the early 1800s it was determined that the Bethlem Lunatic Asylum building in London was no longer fit for purpose, and it was demolished, replaced by a new building in Southwark (which today houses the Imperial War Museum).

American sailor James (sometimes called William) Norris as found in Bethlem in 1815, where he had been detailed for over a decade. Source: Wikipedia

We first proceeded to visit the women’s galleries: one of the side rooms contained about ten patients, each chained by one arm or leg to the wall; the chain allowing them merely to stand up by the bench or form fixed to the wall, or to sit down on it. The nakedness of each patient was covered by a blanket-gown only; the blanket-gown is a blanket formed something like a dressing-gown, with nothing to fasten it with in front; this constitutes the whole covering; the feet even were naked. One female in this side room, thus chained, was an object remarkably striking; She mentioned her maiden and married names, and stated that she had !been a teacher of languages; the keepers described her as a very accomplished lady, mistress of many languages, and corroborated her account of herself. The Committee can hardly imagine a human being in a more degraded and brutalizing situation than that in which I found this female, who held a coherent conversation with us, and was of course fully sensible of the mental and bodily condition of those wretched
beings, who, equally without clothing, were closely chained to the same wall with herself
. . . .
In the men’s wing in the side room, six patients were chained close to the wall, five handcuffed; and one locked to the wall by the right arm as well as by the right leg; he was very noisy; all were naked, except as to the blanket-gown or a small rug on the shoulders, and without shoes; one complained much of the coldness of his feet; one of us felt them, they were very cold. The patients in this room, except the noisy one, and the poor lad with cold feet, who was lucid when we saw him, were dreadful idiots ; their nakedness and their mode of confinement, gave this room the complete appearance of a dog-kennel.
[First report from the Committee on the State of Madhouses, 1815, p.46]

 

The new Bethlem of 1815. Source: BBC Culture

===
Wakefield himself was appointed as the new superintendent of the new Bethlem in Southwark and he introduced similar values as those employed by the Tukes at The Retreat.  The new Bethlem opened in 1815 with a wing for the criminally insane, the same year as the Select Committee report on the condition of lunatic asylums.
======

Excerpt from Committee Appointed to Consider of Provision Being Made for the Better Regulation of Madhouses in England, Parliament, House of Commons 1815-16. First report from the Committee on the State of Madhouses. London.  Source: Wellcome Collection

The 1815 First report from the Committee on the State of Madhouses of the House of Commons Select Committees highlighted the lack of oversight of lunatics, and the dismal conditions in which patients that pertained in far too many asylums, workhouses and other institutions where lunatics and imbeciles were confined.

The report’s findings are elegantly phrased, but make it abundantly clear that asylums, amongst them some of the most successful institutions of the day violated basic human rights.  The conditions for paupers and even those of better social standing who lacked visitors to make complaints were frequently filthy places of restraint, beatings and both physical and mental cruelty, with overcrowding, freezing cold conditions, lack of sufficient attendants, and poor admission procedures.  Some of the accounts make for really harrowing reading.  The most truly depressing aspect of the report is that although the committee had made heartfelt recommendations for improvements, matters remained largely unchanged because these did not pass into law.

A page from Mitford’s “Crimes and Horrors in the Interior of Warburton’s Private Mad-House at Hoxton.” Source: Internet Archive

Unsurprisingly, matters had not much improved seven years later in 1822 when John Mitford published his eye-opening A Description of the Crimes and Horrors in the Interior of Warburton’s Private Madhouse at Hoxton.  Mitford’s assessment of Mr Warburton, unqualified and cruel, concludes that “[on] a careful exposure of this diabolical establishment, I doubt not all will agree with me in opinion, that these ‘lawless houses under the law’ should be done away with entirely, as a disgrace to human nature. The angel of death moves through them with secret and murderous strides.”  As with Edward Wakefield’s earlier expose of Bethlem in 1815, it is a truly shocking read.

It took another decade before another Select Committee was appointed in 1827, partly due to a scandal concerning conditions and illegal incarceration at Warburton’s Mad-house in Hoxton, and partly due to campaigning by both social reformers M.P. Lord Anthony Ashley (as from 1851 Lord Shaftesbury), and Dorset magistrate Robert Gordon.  This time the Committee’s reports were taken into account and two new acts were passed in 1828. The Act to Regulate the Care and Treatment of Insane Persons in England (also known as The Madhouse Act) appointed a new Commission in Lunacy to improve centralized control over asylums, not merely in London but throughout England and Wales in an attempt to provide consistent oversight.  The Act attempted to tighten up the certification required before a person, either private or pauper, could be admitted to a lunatic asylum, and the Commission was given much greater powers to act in respect of private asylums.  The admission of pauper lunatics now required certification by a Justice of the Peace as well as a physician.  The County Lunatic Asylums (England) Act again encouraged counties to build asylums from ratepayer contributions, and also required that county asylums should send detailed reports on an annual basis to the Home Office.  The Act was updated in 1832, again to attempt to improve the certification process and prevent illegal detainment, making false or inaccurate certification a misdemeanour.

Following the 1808 and 1828 Acts, several new county asylums had been built.  Early examples were Nottingham, Bedford, Norfolk, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Gloucester and Suffolk all before 1830.  It is at this point, to slot it into its chronological context, that the new Cheshire Lunatic Asylum was built, in 1829.

Please click here to go to Part 1.2, the second part of this background to the Cheshire Lunatic Asylum.  The Cheshire Lunatic Asylum itself is discussed in Part 2.
===

The Tukes’ Retreat, a private asylum delivering “moral treatment” in York, which opened in 1792. Source: Wikipedia

 

Chester Lunatic Asylum 1831, a public asylum established for paupers, and a few private patients, which opened in 1829. Source: Wellcome Institute Library

====