Between the Asylum and the Workhouse: Mental Illness and the Victorian Poor Law

Content warning: contains discussion of mental illness, ableism, abuse and possible sexual assault. 

Introduction:

Before the nineteenth century, the majority of the institutionalised mentally ill were accommodated in private licensed houses. It was not until the 1808 Asylum Act that the public asylum began to develop; local authorities were allowed to build asylums that catered to mentally ill and intellectually disabled paupers. The 1845 Lunacy Act and County Asylums Act extended this development, making pauper asylums compulsory for each county. However, throughout the nineteenth century, a surprising number of institutionalised paupers resided not in asylums but in workhouses. By the second half of the nineteenth century, roughly a quarter of pauper ‘lunatics’ and ‘idiots’ resided in workhouses instead of county asylums.

Between the Workhouse and the Asylum:

A variety of reasons could result in the mentally ill or those with learning disabilities being institutionalised in workhouses. The primary purpose of public asylums was treatment. This meant those deemed beyond treatment, such as those with moderate or severe learning difficulties or chronic mental illness, might only be removed to an asylum in the event of violent behaviour.

This is seen in the case of James Bache, a 29-year-old man who appears in an 1848 report of a “Visit by the Commissioners in Lunacy” to Kidderminster Poor Law Union Workhouse. Bache is described as “weakminded” and had been dismissed from Droitwich Asylum as cured. Bache’s dismissal may seem strange, given his apparent disability. However, it is important to understand that asylums of the period centred around ideas of moral improvement and self control, rather than providing the most suitable care for disabled individuals. This emphasis on treatment also underpins the story of Mary Tryner, a resident at Southwell Union Workhouse, which spans three years.

The eight-year-old Mary Tryner first appears in an 1863 letter by the Poor Law Board and is described as someone who “could not be made to learn, although she is not without a certain degree of intelligence.” The letter also reports that Mary Tryner is “rude and mischievous” and “cannot be left with the children as she throws stones at them, and otherwise mistreats them.” It is recommended that Tryner should be placed in an asylum, “where she would be carefully watched and trained.” In a draft copy of the letter, this is followed by “she might be made a wife,” which is crossed out. A subsequent 1864 memorandum recommends sending her to a reformatory instead. A final letter to the board of guardians, dated October 1866, decides that Mary Tryner is to remain in the workhouse, where she can be taught and “her mind improved by teaching.”

Tryner’s case also highlights a further reason why the mentally ill and those with learning disabilities found themselves in the workhouse: the difficult admissions procedure. While admission to the workhouse was relatively straightforward, admission to a pauper asylum required an order from a Justice of the Peace, based upon an application by a poor law official. After 1811, a medical certificate was also required. An 1865 report by the Poor Law Inspector notes the refusal of Mr Coke, the Medical Officer, to “certify to the necessity of her being removed to an Asylum.” Without this certificate, Tryner’s admission to an asylum would have been impossible.

Additionally, there were incentives to keep the population of public asylums low, with such asylums often facing overcrowding and understaffing. In 1850, Devon County Asylum was staffed by a superintendent, a medical assistant and twenty-four attendants, while holding 194 men and 249 women as pauper inmates. By the end of the nineteenth century, this had risen to 424 men and 586 women. Pauper asylum residents also presented considerably higher costs to the Poor Law Boards than those institutionalised in workhouses. The 1851 Berwick-upon-Tweed “Annual Lunatic Return” recorded 10 ‘lunatics’ in the Royal Edinburgh Asylum at the cost of 10s and 6d per week each. By contrast, an ‘idiot’ pauper inmate was held in a workhouse at the cost of 2s and 2d per week. This added cost may well have been a disincentive for Mary Tryner’s admission. Cases such as that of Tryner exemplify how many learning-disabled and mentally ill paupers could find themselves shunted between the asylum and workhouse, owing to financial constraints, administrative issues and ideas of treatment.

Abuses and Neglect:

The failure of asylums to take many learning-disabled and mentally ill paupers meant that workhouses were forced to adapt to this sizable population.

An 1848 report of Kidderminster Poor Law Union Workhouse mentioned an “idiot ward” and yard for the use of six male inmates, who all apparently had moderate-to-severe learning disabilities. Workhouses lacked the treatment, comfort and care that could exist in public asylums. Leicester County Asylum recorded outings to places such as Leicester Forest, Crystal Palace and the circus, alongside weekly dances and the presence of airing grounds, which were accessible to patients for at least six hours of the day. None of these provisions were provided by workhouses, although the mentally ill and those with learning disabilities could receive an improved diet. An 1867 discussion of diets at Leicester Workhouse indicated that mentally ill and severely learning-disabled people received the same diet as aged and physically infirm inmates, which was superior to the standard workhouse diet.

Nonetheless, caring for mentally ill and learning-disabled individuals usually fell to other paupers, who were often ill-equipped and untrained for the task. This is seen in the case of Francis Goodwin, an 1855 resident of Southampton Incorporation Workhouse, who had previously been a patient at the asylum in Nursling near Southampton, but had been declared sane and free to leave. Despite his apparent sanity, Goodwin had twice been subjected to “mechanical restraint” due to being in a state of excitement, which had left his hands, arms and legs “much lacerated.” According to a visitor from the Lunacy Commission, these restraints were put in place by another pauper in the master’s absence, with the master stating that he finds this practice objectionable.

We cannot know if this brutality was the result of the other pauper being ill-equipped to care for Goodwin, or if it was an intentional act of abuse. Regardless, this case does show the vulnerability of the institutionalised mentally ill and learning-disabled paupers.

This is also seen in the case of an unnamed Gateshead Woman, who was residing in a private licensed house in 1842. The woman is described in a letter from an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner as having delivered a child two years previously, which had been “begotten upon her in the asylum by one of the keepers managing men.” The letter also stated that the man in question was still attached to the house. While the use of licensed houses and private asylums were more common prior to the 1808 Asylum Act, they continued to house mentally ill and disabled paupers after the Act’s passage. As with Goodwin, the exact circumstances of the case are unclear, and it is impossible to definitively know if this pregnancy was the result of sexual assault. However, the case does demonstrate improper conduct and an abuse of position on the part of the attendant.

Care in the Community:

Not all mentally ill and learning-disabled paupers who came under the Poor Law Board were institutionalised. Some individuals were cared for within their local communities by friends or relatives. Outdoor relief could be provided, which allowed a member of the family to care for the individual in place of paid employment or for an attendant or nurse to be hired. 

This method of care was popular with the poor law authorities on account of being cheaper, and tended to be a more common provision for those with learning disabilities than those with mental illness. This owes much to the perceptions of the time of ‘idiots’ as incurable and harmless. As institutions such as county asylums and workhouses were intended as places of treatment in which the mentally ill could be ‘cured’, the provision provided by parish officials for those with learning disabilities was very limited.

In the 1851 Berwick-upon-Tweed lunatic return, none of the paupers classified as ‘idiots’ are asylum inmates and all but two are living with relatives. George and Ralph Hall, aged 47 and 45 respectively, are recorded as residing with a sister in Henwick. Similarly, George Riddell, a 26-year-old man is recorded as living in Berwick with his brother. Likewise, Thomas and Andrew McDougall, aged 69 and 64, are described as living with a brother-in-law at Duddo.

An additional notable feature in this return is the range of ages seen; the inclusion of the 69-year-old Thomas McDougall depicts a learning-disabled pauper living outside of the workhouse into a relatively old age.

Providing such care could be difficult, and the relief was usually meagre. In the Berwick-upon-Tweed return, the outdoor relief provided ranged from 2s to 3s. Some relatives could be discouraged by the small payments, as seen in the 1848 case of a woman under the Truro Poor Law Union. The unnamed woman is classified as a “lunatic pauper” and of “dirty habits,” who is reportedly not dangerous and had been placed with relatives. However, the anonymous paper had been returned to the workhouse after only a week.

Conclusion:

Life for the mentally ill and learning-disabled pauper was often a harsh existence with inadequate provision and care. Many paupers struggled to obtain treatment or admittance to asylums, instead finding themselves in the workhouse, where living conditions were often inferior to those of asylums. Institutionalised mentally ill and learning-disabled paupers often found themselves particularly vulnerable to the abuses of attendants and other inmates. Other such paupers instead lived out in the community with family, although the financial provision for this was usually inadequate. The hardships faced by mentally ill and learning-disabled paupers highlight some of the worst aspects of the Victorian Poor Law, which consistently sought to lessen the expense of poor relief and produced a miserable existence for those who came under it. 

Written by Olivia Boyle.

Bibliography and references and images

Images:

Dinner-Time in St. Pancras Workhouse, London. Image Credit: Unknown, circa 1911 (thumbnail image).

Southwell Workhouse, Image Credit, Olivia Boyle, 2022.

A Modern Day Recreation of Kitchen at Southwell Workhouse, Image Credit, Olivia Boyle, 2022.

A Copy of Workhouse Rules, Image Credit, Olivia Boyle, 2022.

A Modern Day Recreation of a Ward at Southwell Workhouse, Image Credit, Olivia Boyle, 2022.

Primary Sources:

The National Archives, London: MH 12/9532/226, ‘Draft Letter From the Poor Law Board, to John Kirkland, Clerk to the Guardians of the Southwell Union’.

The National Archives, London:  MH 12/9533/221, ‘From the Commissioners in Lunacy, to the Poor Law Board. Copy of a Report of Their Visit on 18 October 1866’.

The National Archives, London: MH 12/9532/293, ‘Letter from John Kirkland, Clerk to the Guardians of Southwell Union, to the Poor Law Board’.

The National Archives, London:  MH 12/9534, 31/12/66,  ‘Letter from John Kirkland, Clerk to the Guardians of the Southwell Union, to the Poor Law Board’.

The National Archives, London:  MH 12 8977/134, nos. 203-204, ‘Letter from John Walsham, Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, to the Poor Law Commission, Endorsing the Enclosed Report on Pauper Lunatic Asylums’.

The National Archives, London:  MH 12/1530/142, ‘Letter from R M Hodge [Richard Michell Hodge], Clerk to the Guardians of the Truro Poor Law Union, to the Poor Law Board, Relating to Lunatic Paupers in the Union Workhouses’.

The National Archives, London: MH 12/8981/4, ‘Letter from W and E Willoby [William Willoby and Edward Willoby] Clerks to the Guardians of the Berwick-upon-Tweed Poor Law Union to the Poor Law Board’.

The National Archives, London: MH 12/9533/86, ‘Report from Robert Weale, Poor Law Inspector, to the Poor Law Board’.

The National Archives, London: Series: MH 12/14019/186: Report of a ‘Visit by Commissioners in Lunacy’.

The National Archives, London:  MH 12/11001/16, ‘Report on a visit by A Proctor, on Behalf on the Commissioners in Lunacy, Made on 3 November 1855 to Southampton Incorporation Workhouse’.

Secondary Sources:

Adair, R., Forsythe, B., & J. Melling, ‘The New Poor Law and the County Pauper Lunatic Asylum- the Devon Experience, 1834-1884’, Social History of Medicine, 9/3 (1996), pp. 335-355.

Bartlett, P., ‘The Asylum, the Workhouse and the Voice of the Insane Poor in 19th Century England’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 21/4 (1998), pp.421-432.

Carter, P.,  James, J., & S. King, ‘Punishing Paupers? Control, Discipline and Mental Health in the Southwell Workhouse (1836-71)’, Rural History, 30/2 (2019), pp. 161-180.

Dale, P., & J. Melling (eds.), Mental illness and Learning Disability since 1850 : Finding a Place for Mental Disorder in the United Kingdom (Abingdon, 2006).

Eastoe, S., Idiocy, Imbecility and Insanity in Victorian Society (Cham, 2020).

Hamlett, J. & L. Hoskins, ‘Comfort in Small Things? Clothing, Control and Agency in County Lunatic Asylums in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century England’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 18/1 (2013), pp.93-114.