Recently,
I attended the “Rethinking the Institution” conference at Liverpool John Moores
University. At the conference, I gave a paper detailing some of the research I
have been undertaking for my wider PhD thesis on the Garlands Lunatic Asylum.
The focus of the conference was to view the nineteenth century institutions
that came to dominate so much of the Victorian landscape in a new light. I
hoped to present the county lunatic asylum in a different way to which we seem
to consider it in our contemporary mindsets. Through this blog post I will set
out some of the main points from my paper in rethinking the way in which the
asylum was run, and how the pauper patients responded to it.
Through
my research of the pauper patients of the Garlands lunatic asylum, it has
become apparent that the common view of the institution – i.e, that it was incarcerating,
repressive, and an all round awful place – is one that was not borne out in
practice. Following the work of Jane Hamlett,[1]
it is clear from asylum records that these institutions attempted to emulate
the domestic framework of the family home. This was an attempt to bring order
to patients whose mental faculties were particularly disordered at the time of
committal.
Asylum
construction was particularly accelerated during the latter half of the
nineteenth century. Legislation enacted in 1845 made it mandatory for each
county and borough in England and Wales to have its own lunatic institution for
pauper patients. Prior to this, the main receptacle of care for the mentally unwell
was the family home. With the advent of a network of county asylums, a great
shift occurred from where was considered “best” to treat a mentally ill
relative. Therefore, it is no great surprise that the domestic rituals in the
family home were also transferred over to the new county institutions. Creating
a familiar, calming environment in which to conduct treatment, was key to the
recovery of an individual’s mental affliction.
The
regimes set out in these establishments followed the rhetoric of “moral
treatment”, a practice set out earlier in the century by the Quaker run York
Retreat, and by pioneering figures such as John Connolly from Hastwell Asylum.
Garlands was no different. Built in 1862 to house 200 paupers, it followed the
moral treatment regime. Central was advocating a routine of exercise, a good
diet, recreational activities, religion and useful employment. Naturally, patients
could respond well to this. Dr Clouston, on of the early medical
superintendents, reinforced the value of a regime that was free of locks and
restraint. It was important the patients did not feel like prisoners, and were
regularly encouraged to walk in the open countryside beyond the asylum
boundary, albeit with attendant supervision. IN some cases, patients were so
comforted by the domestic environment and curative regime in the asylum that
they were unwilling to return to their former lives. Dr Campbell noted in the
1887 Garlands annual report; “the disinclination many patients have shown to
leave the asylum, shows that the efforts made to treat the inmates justly and
kindly, and to render their life here pleasant and enjoyable, have been
successful’.
The lunatic
asylum was also physically modelled on the family framework. The medical
superintendent was the head of the institution, and played a patriarchal role
in the regime. Thus, the patients took on the submissive role of the
‘children’. Underpinning this was the fact that the superintendent resided in
the asylum grounds full time, often alongside his wife and children. The asylum
as a whole functioned as a domestic ‘whole’, as everyone had a vested interest
in its upkeep. As mentioned earlier, useful employment of the patients was an
element involved in moral treatment. The patients were assigned work-based
tasks around the asylum according to their gender. Typically, men carried out
manual jobs, cultivating farm land and building items to be used within the
institution. Women were employed in the domestic jobs of the asylum, carrying
out laundry, cleaning, cooking, sewing and knitting. Occupying the patients in
such a way was believed to be beneficial in distracting them from their various
conditions. The products ascertained from the work of the patients were vital
in easing the ‘financial burden’ they placed on the poor law rates. In several
of the Garlands annual reports, the doctors noted how the commodities of the
patients were used in the establishment. For instance, in 1863; “all the
carpenter work required in the house has been done by ourselves”, and in 1866;
“one of the dormitories in the female division was entirely papered by the
women themselves”. Thus, everyone was instrumental in the maintenance of the
asylum, just as all the members of a family had a vested interest in the
survival of the domestic unit.
The
furnishing of the asylum was also modelled on the family home. They were keen
to emulate the setting of the Victorian middle-class home in an attempt to
extol some of the Victorian middle-class values on the patients whilst in
recovery. The importance of domestic decoration was frequently referred to in
the Garlands annual reports. In 1894 Dr Campbell stated that: “The wards have
been kept clean, bright, and well decorated with flowers, and the airing courts
while the weather allowed of it, were lovely with well trimmed grass, and beds
of tastefully assorted flowers”.
Interestingly,
what led patients to be admitted to the asylum in the first place was often a
disruption to the family home. Destructive behaviour in the domestic
environment can be linked to the indications of insanity provided on a
patient’s admission documents. For example, Jacob C’s wife stated on admission
that he; “wanders about all day, and comes home generally very dirty and
without his shoes and stockings…this morning a man fetched him home having
found him in a midden heap…he has torn up his clothes…and has set fire to
articles of value.”
Similarly,
patients who attacked the homely furnishings of the asylum during bouts of
violence, associated with several mental conditions, were seen as attacking the
structure of the asylum and resisting its restraints it placed upon them. One
example is Sarah F, who throughout her treatment in Garlands during the 1890s
was continually described as destructive and violent. She frequently struck out
at other patients and destroyed the furnishings of the asylum. In September
1893 it was stated that she was “very destructive to her clothes and plants”;
and in June 1894 that she, “often strikes and interferes with other patients,
breaks glass and is very unruly”. However, it was noted that on occasion Sarah
could respond well to the moral regime, as in April 1894 it was stated that she
was more settled and had begun to work in the laundry, where she “does fairly
well”. This interchangeable behaviour continued throughout Sarah’s treatment,
and she remained in Garlands until her death in May 1911.
The
asylum could also offer a familial context to those who otherwise lacked a
supportive network of relatives on which to depend for care. Mentally ill
patients often fell into the asylum system, not due to a lack of family
support, but due to a lack of relatives with the finance to support them
outside of the institution. One example is Mary M, who came to rely on Garlands
due to an absence of family members willing and able to care for her. Mary was
first admitted to Garlands in April 1883, aged 20, suffering with congenital
imbecility. She was transferred from Fusehill workhouse in Carlisle, where she
had been resident for the previous seven years, since the age of thirteen, due
to the death of both of her parents. Her case notes described her as having an
imperfect education, and that whilst in the workhouse she was allowed to grow
up as a “street waif”. Mary was stated as being “weak-minded and silly” since
birth, but her condition had been manageable in the workhouse until the three
months preceding her admission. Interestingly, an aunt is named on her
reception order as her next of kin, but as Mary was institutionalised for such
a long period, we can assume that she was either unwilling or financially
unable to care for Mary. She remained in Garlands for the rest of her life,
until her death in April 1922. The presence of a familial framework in the
asylum was important in stabilising Mary’s condition, even if a recovery was
not possible, the convalescence of such patients was valuable to the curative
environment of such institutions.
Viewing
the asylum as providing a domestic, ritualised regime of care which, in some
cases, sought to act as a surrogate family environment, is important in
dispelling the myths of contemporary opinion of the Victorian lunatic asylum.
Looking back through the patient records, it is apparent that they adapted to
life in the asylum, helped in part through its domestic routine.
This
blog post is part of a wider PhD thesis based on the patient records of the
Garlands lunatic asylum Carlisle, which will seek to recount history from the
perspective of those who experienced it first hand. Any stories, memories or
any questions you may have relating to the Cumbrian institution, please do not
hesitate to get in touch caradobbing@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment