So far my posts have focussed on the
experience of pauper lunatics admitted to Garlands from its opening in 1862 and
onwards throughout the nineteenth-century. This time I shall explore what
happened to those who required specialist treatment before Cumberland and Westmorland provided its own lunatic institution.
I shall present some examples of pauper patients who received treatment elsewhere
to demonstrate some of the responses that existed.
With the implementation of the 1845 Lunacy
Act, all persons classified as of unsound mind had to be regularly inspected, by
the local Poor Law relieving officers, who reported to the Commissioners in
Lunacy, a nationwide body who presided over the care of the insane. Whether
people were living at home under the care of relatives, in a workhouse or
asylum, they had to be regularly visited to ensure they were not a risk to themselves
or others. For patients in institutions, they would also be frequently inspected
by the Commissioners in Lunacy, to ensure the establishments were providing acceptable
levels of care, and the outcomes of these visits were recorded in their annual
reports.
For those in Cumberland and Westmorland,
pre-1862, there was no specialist provision in either county. Therefore,
paupers needing asylum treatment would be sent to county institutions over in
the North East. Most commonly used was the Dunston Lodge private Asylum just outside
Gateshead. Usually, only the cases requiring constant supervision were taken
such a distance to receive treatment, and they were sometimes the ones who posed
the greatest risk to themselves or others.
One example, found in the Cockermouth Poor
Law Union correspondence of January 1860 (The National Archives -TNA,
MH12/1631) was Joseph L, who had been resident in Dunston Lodge since January
1855, at a charge to the Union of 10 shillings and sixpence per week. He was
described as a lunatic, aged 45 from Keswick, and was listed along with thirteen
others chargeable to Cockermouth Union that were present in Dunston Lodge.
There were also a small number of others under treatment in Gateshead Fell and
Bensham Asylums.
If cases were not classed as requiring
asylum treatment, then individuals could be admitted to the local workhouse to
be treated in their infirmary wards. Alternatively, for people who had willing,
and able, relatives to look after them, they could reside at home, and the
families would receive a small sum of money from the Poor Law Union to help
with their upkeep, if they required it. For instance, in the Penrith Poor Law
Union lunatic returns for January 1860, Mary B, aged 32 from Plumpton was
listed as living in Penrith with her mother, who received five shillings per
week to assist with her maintenance. The cases who typically resided with
relatives were those classed as an ‘idiot’, which was used to denote life-long,
incurable mental disabilities, and they were often cases who posed little risk
to themselves or others.
In some cases, the returns list details
individuals classed as mentally unsound who were living on their own and receiving
maintenance. For instance, the East Ward Union returns for January 1858,
details Alice W who was listed as living alone in Kirkby Stephen. She was 73,
classed as a lunatic who had been of unsound mind for the previous 30 years,
and was receiving maintenance of 2 shillings and sixpence per week. There seems
to have been a little concern for her ability to reside at home, but a follow
up inspection concluded: ‘She has resided
in the same cottage for the space of 36 years which she keeps very clean and
tidy and she appears to be very comfortable…she is quite safe alone.’ (TNA,
MH12/13566)
Finally, individuals could also reside in
the Union workhouse. One case which sparked some interest in the East Ward
Union was that of an old man in the workhouse at Kirkby Stephen who was noticed
on a visit by the inspectors in March 1858 to not be clothed in the workhouse
dress, and was instead wearing his own clothes. This attracted attention
because on admission, workhouse inmates would be given union clothing to wear,
mainly so that their own garments could be de-loused. Therefore, the Poor Law Board
inspectors found this quite odd. Further correspondence provided the explanation:
‘James R…the old man in question, was
formerly a farmer in the township of Waitby…subsequently of his giving up his
farm he lived alone in a cottage in the village of Waitby. But the 20th
of June 1856 on which the Relieving Officer received information that he was
not in a fit state to take care of himself and was wandering on a moor some
miles from his home. The Relieving Officer went in search of him and found him
in a state of imbecility and brought him to the Workhouse…the old man had a sum
of money concealed upon him…Forty pounds…the old man’s nearest relatives…agreed
that the money should be placed in a bank and if the Guardians would allow him
to remain in the workhouse, he would pay for his maintenance’ (TNA,
MH12/13566). Thus, as he was paying his own way, he was allowed to stay, and in
his own clothes. As he was incapable of looking after himself, the workhouse
was a viable option for his care, and ensured that he did not have to be removed
and treated a great distance away from his home and his relatives.
If you have enjoyed reading this post, and
the rest of my blog, my thesis about the Garlands Asylum and it’s patients is
available to view freely by clicking this link - https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/44377.
It begins by recounting what happened once the Asylum opened, as patients
previously sent large distances to be treated could be cared for much closer to
home, allowing relatives to maintain contact. The main focus is analysing how,
and why, patients were frequently transferred between some of the responses to
insanity discussed in this post, and the effects it had on those who
experienced it.
Also available to buy/download is the volume
I co-edited – Family Life in Britain,
1650-1910. Chapter 7 centres on how the family remained in contact with
relatives who were under treatment in Garlands, and explores their role in the
process. Other chapters of interwst look at varying aspects of family life throughout
history and attempts to reconfigure our understanding of the family unit and
their coping mechanisms in times of strife. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Family-Britain-1650-1910-Carol-Beardmore/dp/3030048543/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=family+life+in+britain&qid=1565371658&s=gateway&sr=8-2
No comments:
Post a Comment