Case Study: Prosecution under the 1845 Lunatics Act

Culturally, when we think of the lunatic asylum, we think of dark, haunting sites of abuse and neglect. More broadly, when we consider mental illness in the past, images are conjured up of ‘mad’ neighbours left to their own devices, or individuals confined away by relatives out of the gaze of the local community. Overwhelmingly, there is a sense of shame and maltreatment in these cultural depictions. But how true are they? In this post I delve into one case in 1873 of a family concealment of mental illness, and the consequences this had.

Recently, my research has taken me to examine the misdemeanours that resulted in prosecutions brought under the 1845 Lunatics Act. This legislation created the central regulatory body, the Commissioners in Lunacy, who had the power to inspect all residences and institutions that housed people certified as ‘insane’ to ensure they were being correctly treated in a humane and supportive manner. They also had the power to instigate prosecution proceedings against anyone who breached the law. Misdemeanours ranged from keeping an individual classed as insane without the correct certification and order, to severe neglect and abuse. Those prosecuted could be staff members of asylums found to have mistreated patients, or could be the general public guilty of some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the ‘insane’.

The case I want to highlight is that of Joseph E, of Brackenthwaite, Wigton, prosecuted in…1872 for keeping his 73 year old mother in his house illegally, as she was insane, and wilfully neglecting her whilst under his care. Detailed in the Commissioners in Lunacy 1873 annual report, they commented:

‘the superintendent of police visited…and found his mother shut into a room with a wet flagged floor, no fire, and little light, for the window had been boarded up. Her condition was excessively filthy, and evidenced utter neglect. With the exception of a nightcap, she was naked, and was found crouched on her bed…How long the woman has been kept in this state did not appear. She had been found wandering in a state of nudity in Wigton, in February or March preceding the visit of the superintendent, and had then been brought back to her son’s house. The police took proper steps for lodging the lunatic in the Cumberland Asylum with due expedition, and charged the son before the local bench with cruelty and neglect…He was committed for trial to the Quarter Sessions, and, on hearing what had occurred, we ordered our secretary to prosecute.’

When the case came to court, something curious happened, which the Commissioners referred to as ‘a complete failure of justice in a case of undoubted ill-treatment’. Although the evidence of mistreatment was proven, the relationship between the Joseph and his mother apparently removed his liability for prosecution, as he had a ‘natural obligation’ to keep her, rather than the fact being that he willingly took on her care and knowingly mistreated her. As a result, he was acquitted of all charges.

Therefore, although the presence of the Commissioners in Lunacy goes against the cultural portrayals of madness and asylums, as there clearly was a correct code of practice ensuring that abuse/neglect did not happen, incidents did arise whereby people severely mistreated the mentally vulnerable. Does this mean that our understanding of mental illness in the nineteenth century is skewed by a small number of incidences? Possibly so, or was it that the prosecutions were upheld as examples, with a view to combating more widespread breaches? In this case, as we have seen, prosecution wasn’t successful, but there were many more which did result in a fine or prison sentence. However, the maximum sentence brought in any of the prosecutions that I have studied (1845-1890), was seven years in prison, which was for the manslaughter of an asylum patient by an attendant. In reality then, was the law tough enough on breaches of the Lunatics Act? Did this leniency result in many more abuses later on, and into the twentieth century?

Thanks for taking the time to read this post. Stay tuned for more on prosecutions, as I am working on a book chapter on this area. Follow me on Twitter for full updates @caradobbing 

If you liked this, you may also enjoy my thesis, which is freely available to view  - https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/The_Circulation_of_the_Insane_The_Pauper_Lunatic_Experience_of_the_Garlands_Asylum_1862-1913/10226480

Work related worry in the nineteenth century asylum

Last year, 54% of all working days lost were attributed to conditions caused by work related stress, and increasingly, pressure due to overwork is inducing bouts of mental ill health among workers.[1] However, the impact of overwork on an individual’s mental health is not a phenomenon consigned to recent decades. This post details three cases that demonstrate how work was found to impact patients in the archives of the Garlands Asylum, in an attempt to link our experiences with those confined in lunatic institutions of the nineteenth century. 

It is important to note that patients admitted to a lunatic asylum would be diagnosed according to the symptoms they displayed. As a result, largely due to a lack of understanding of the workings of the brain and how mental illness manifested, conditions were attributed to physical causes. For instance, injuries close to the brain were thought to trigger a breakdown of a person’s mental health. In the casebooks, events such as ‘injury to head from fall on a rock’, were cited as the cause of insanity. In this instance, the patient, Christopher S, had suffered a head injury, which bled profusely at the time, but no one considered it a serious threat to his health. Two years passed before he was admitted to Garlands, which was triggered by the violence towards his wife, to such an extent that she was afraid of him. Less common in the casebooks were explanations of conditions due to ‘moral’ causes, as they were then termed. Anything considered to be caused by a heightened emotional state, for example ‘disappointment in love’, can be found but were much less common. In 1872, in a review of Garlands’ first decade of admissions, Dr Clouston stated that only a quarter of cases were due to emotional trauma. 

The first patient, Joseph T, was admitted to Garlands in November 1882. The cause of his insanity was believed to be ‘worry and hardwork’. Given his occupation, a general practitioner, it can easily be deduced as to why his profession would’ve impacted his health. Before the NHS, GPs were their own enterprises. They worked long hours, travelled great distances to visit patients at home, and had to secure their own business. His case notes also tell us that he was resident in the Crichton Asylum in Dumfries five years earlier, and although he had been discharged recovered, it was noted that he had not felt well since. Interestingly, it was work that aided him whilst under treatment in Garlands. Shortly after admission it was noted that he ‘has gone to work with a party in the grounds’. This was part of the work-based therapy offered in Victorian asylums, as useful occupation was seen to divert patients from their disordered thoughts. A little later on, Joseph’s case notes state that: ‘Is very industrious, says he feels he would break windows etc. if he did not work’. However, it was this outdoor work which also led to his exit from Garlands. After being granted more liberty, due to continuous good behavior, he was placed in charge of one of the working parties, and increasingly given more freedom. This gave him the chance to escape, as detailed in the following passage: 

‘The patient was allowed a considerable amount of liberty and never showed any tendency to abuse this privilege, nor had there been anything unusual in his mental state of late. He went out for a walk between 7 and 8am and he did not appear at meals. A search was instigated for him...’ 

Joseph was never found, or brought back to the asylum, and his body was recovered mere miles from Garlands five weeks later near a quarry, which it was presumed he fell into shortly after his escape. 

Second, cases can be found in the records of patients who experienced delusions to do with work. One example is that of John W, who was admitted to Garlands in February 1897. He was 37, suffering his first attack of insanity which had lasted about a week. The doctors couldn’t find an apparent cause, but noted that he ‘came home from work saying there was a conspiracy against him and refused to go back’. Under ‘delusions’ it was also recorded: ‘says there was a conspiracy against him by fellow workmen and that part of it is to bring him here’. John remained in Garlands for 6 months, and was discharged as recovered as his delusions abated.

The final case to be presented demonstrates that a lack of work could also be a cause of mental breakdown. Richard A was brought to Garlands on 4 October 1862, and was said to have been driven insane by his ‘anxiety of mind for want of work’.  He lacked a hereditary predisposition to the illness, therefore the cause of Richard’s mental instability was attributed to his lack of work and food. Within six weeks Richard was discharged as recovered, restored to full health simply by eating, sleeping well, and being usefully employed in the Asylum workshop.  Here we can clearly see that periods of economic decline, specifically in agriculture, effected, not just a person’s income, but also their mental health. Farmers and casual agricultural labourers were at times merely surviving, and, in some cases, the threat of losing work, or being without an occupation, was enough to trigger insanity. 

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you would like to read more of my research on the Garland Asylum, my thesis is freely available to view online: https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/The_Circulation_of_the_Insane_The_Pauper_Lunatic_Experience_of_the_Garlands_Asylum_1862-1913/10226480 

For more information about mental health, talking about mental illness, and support, visit https://www.time-to-change.org.uk/ 

 [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress.pdf 

Before the Asylum: Provision for Cumbria’s Mentally Ill pre-1862

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 20^th 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

Women in the nineteenth century Asylum – Balanced Treatment?

To coincide with mental health awareness week (13-19 May 2019), this post will look at the treatment of women in the nineteenth century lunatic asylum. Taking into consideration the notion of balance, the focus will be on the inequality of attitudes within asylum environment, which reflected the moral conventions that governed the Victorian era.

Lunatic Asylums themselves were patriarchal institutions. Modelled on a familial framework, the male medical superintendent formed the head of the ‘family’, and the patients were the ‘children’ who had to adhere to the regime. The patients were segregated by gender, and interaction with the opposite sex was limited to mealtimes and during certain events such as the weekly dance. The day-to-day tasks of the asylum were completed by the patients, and were implemented by gender. For instance, men would work on the land, tend to the gardens and the livestock on the institution’s farm. Women would be required to carry out household chores, work in the laundry and tend to any clothing repairs.

Treatments implemented in asylums were also decided upon by men. All doctors in county institutions were male. There were female nurses employed to work on female wards, but they had no say in what treatments should be administered, even though they – along with male attendants employed on male wards - were the ones who had the most day-to-day contact with the patients.

Upholding moral standards was an important aspect of the regime and the asylum environment, which reflected wider societal attitudes. The female staff could not socialise with the male attendants, relationships were prohibited and could result in dismissal. Similarly, immorality was a key factor commented on in asylum patient casebooks, and was used to indicate symptoms of insanity. For instance, in the case of females admitted that had given birth to an illegitimate child, it would be clearly outlined in the admission documents.

An example is Barbee L (Barbra on birth record, but spelling fluctuates), who was admitted in November 1902, aged 18 from Ambleside. The supposed cause for her condition was given as: ‘through giving birth to illegitimate child’, which occurred 25 days prior to asylum committal. The form of her illness was given as ‘puerperal mania’, which we know today as post-natal depression. Her occupation was given as a domestic servant, and she had given birth in Milnthorpe workhouse, where she had begun accusing the nurses of mistreating her baby, which was stated as a delusion. After some months in the asylum, Barbee was discharged as recovered, and did not return to Garlands. It is unclear whether or not she was reunited with her child.  However, on the records of males who had fathered illegitimate children, there was no mention of this, and certainly not as a factor in their illnesses.

The stigma of illegitimacy was also passed down to the illegitimate children. For both male and female offspring, if later in life they were admitted to the asylum, it would be remarked in their case record that they were illegitimate. Thus, indicating that it could have been a contributory factor in their mental illness which caused them to be admitted to the asylum.

The display of unfeminine behaviour attracted attention in the asylum casebooks, and was also used an indication of insanity. This is evident in the next two cases. The first is Elizabeth S, admitted in July 1887, aged 21, single, a domestic servant from Kendal, said to be suffering from mania caused by a 'love affair'. On her case notes recorded on admission, it was stated that: ‘Behaving foolishly and in a silly way, swore a great deal, and began to go with loose company’. It was also stated that she talked in a ‘lewd way’ and ‘said she was pregnant’. Six days after admission the superintendent recorded the following observations of Elizabeth: ‘She labours under mania. She told me today that she had been pregnant for long; that she felt the child moving in her, that its father was a William Woodburn. She is menstruating at present. She also says that Woodburn several times induced abortion for her, but can owe no account of how it was done or the result: talks about little else than sexual subjects.’ The supposed love affair that caused her illness is not mentioned in any detail, rather, the doctors focus on her ‘coarse and vulgar’ language that she used, and referred constantly to the sexual nature of her conversation. Also stated in her notes, four months after admission, was that she: ‘Is very lazy and untidy, foolish and erotic looking’. The reference to laziness and willingness to work is common throughout the case books, but the ‘erotic looking’ reference is quite unclear and is not something which I have come across in other patients, particularly never for males. Thus, the descriptions of her demonstration of insanity were based on appearance and her sexuality, and in turn her immorality. Elizabeth remained in Garlands until October 1888 when she was discharged as recovered.

The second case, that of Phoebe D, demonstrates that the societal notions of femininity presided over the diagnosis of mental illness in the late nineteenth century. Admitted in April 1871, Phoebe was transferred to Garlands from Carlisle Gaol, where she had been imprisoned for throwing vitriol over a man who accused her of having sex with him. Whilst in gaol she began showing signs of insanity, and was admitted to Garlands. In her casebook record, the two causes given for her illness were: ‘lactation’ and ‘being accused by a man of having had sexual intercourse with him’. Throughout her notes the feminine stereotypes are prevalent in signalling recovery. For instance, two weeks after admission it was noted that: ‘A few days ago got much excited when she saw her husband. She even asked about her children.’ However, the following month, any signs of her returning back to normality, in which she would be interested in the welfare of her family, had abated: ‘taking no interest in anything. Shows no signs of caring for children.’ Therefore the stereotypical role of women as primary caregivers was used as an indicator of recovery. If she showed an interest in her family, she must be getting better. Phoebe remained in Garlands until December 1873 when she was transferred unimproved to Staffordshire Asylum. This case demonstrates that female norms were predicated upon women in the asylum as diagnostic tools that could signal both their insanity and recovery. It would be interesting to examine the extent to which male patients were judged by notions of masculinity, and whether or not this was used in their diagnosis and recovery.

The final case to be discussed in this post, is one that I found reported in the local Carlisle press. Titled ‘Shamming Insanity’, a small news item detailed how Mary G from Dumfries had been arrested in Carlisle as she has broken a grocer’s shop window, and was in a state of intoxication. Whilst on trial for her crime, she behaved in an ‘excited manner’ and struck the chief constable in the face whilst in the dock. The constable noted that she had only just come out of gaol, and was behaving this way ‘in the hope of being sent to an asylum’. However, she was noted as not being insane, and was sentenced to two months hard labour. This case demonstrates that, as much as the asylum was believed to be a place of perceived horror that carried a great stigma, for some it was a viable option, as the alternative was much worse.

Through this post, some of the preconceived notions of femininity of the nineteenth century, are evidenced through the statements recorded by doctors on the patient case records. Attitudes towards illegitimacy, female sexuality and women’s roles as mothers have been demonstrated using a handful of cases. Male patients could also be noted to have symptoms of a sexual nature – i.e. through masturbation which was regarded as a sinful act signalling insanity – but these were predominantly through physical acts, rather than through using sexual language, or through illegitimacy or other symptoms discussed here that were attributed to women.

This is part of my ongoing research into the Garlands Asylum, through which I aim to encourage the conversation around mental health by reflecting on the history of treatment, the patients who suffered, and the institutions in which they were resident. For more information on mental health awareness and support: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/  http://www.cemind.org/