England's Poor Law Commissioners and the Trade in Pauper Lunacy 1834-1847
web address http://studymore.org.uk/mott.htm   -   click for referencing advice
Now available as a novel by Allan Smith

England's Poor Law Commissioners
and the Trade in Pauper Lunacy

Haydock Lodge home page to Andrew Roberts'
web site
mental health and learning
by Andrew Roberts

Summary Contents Mental Health Timeline 1844

the Lunacy Commission was 
the government agency
that regulated the trade
in pauper lunacy

Summary Concerning the activities of Charles Mott, (died 1851) and George Coode (1807-1869) and, particularly, the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum opened in Lancashire, England in 1844.

Both men were officers of the Poor Law Commission established under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act (4 + 5 Will 4, c.76), otherwise known as the "New Poor Law". Coode was Assistant Secretary under Edwin Chadwick, Mott was an Assistant Commissioner.

Mott was recruited to the new Commission from the private sector. His institutions contracted with local authorities for the maintenance of paupers - and pauper lunatics.

This essay traces his business affairs and public service from 1831 to his death, showing how his business and public philosophy interrelated and how business and public service intertwined. It looks at how he was used by Prime Minister Robert Peel and Home Secretary James Graham to discredit the critics of the New Poor Law, and then forced to resign.

From the manuscript evidence of George Coode, not published at the time, it shows how Coode, whilst still running the Poor Law Commission, engaged in a business venture with Mott that used the new railway system to bring pauper lunatics from various parts of England and Wales to a private asylum in Lancashire, where large numbers of them died. How the Haydock Lodge scandal became public, forcing the resignation of Coode and, in combination with the Andover workhouse scandal, precipitating the replacement of the Poor Law Commission by the Poor Law Board.

And it shows the part played in this by rival systems of social science theory, by the new social science of statistics, and by the medical campaigns of Thomas Wakley, surgeon, Member of Parliament, coroner and founding editor of The Lancet.

  The clock on the belfry at Haydock Lodge had the date 1795. It clicked its way through a century when the government of England went from local to national. After fifty years the new railways were delivering pauper lunatics from all over the country. After another fifty years the Lodge was exclusively for the upper and middle classes and the paupers were in public asylums. On the farm


A new system of government
Reducing the Lambeth Rates
Peckham Lunatic Asylum
Assistant Poor Law Commissioner
The South
The North
Coode to the Top
General Rules
Sir Robert Peel's Envoy
Controlled by the Executive
The Poor Law Guide and Union Advertiser

Haydock Lodge licensed 17.1.1844
Table of patients in Haydock Lodge from January 1844
Deception about who ran Haydock Lodge
A Joint Speculation

Resignation of Charles Mott in 1846

The national trade in pauper lunatics
Living on a building site
The 1845/1846 winter
Death by Diarrhoea
One in four patients died in the 18 months from 1.1.1845
Haydock Diet
The 1845/1846 winter: What the Commissioners knew and did

February 1846: Allegations of Ill Treatment at Haydock
May 1846: The Commissioners visit Haydock

Petition 12.6.1846 of Owen Owen Roberts
4.6.1846 Mott struggles to control the scandal
13.6.1846 The fuse begins to burn
17.6.1846 The scandal explodes

July 1846: The Commissioners hear evidence
26.8.1846 Thomas Wakley MP moves for a Commission of Inquiry
Science and Statistics
Clash of the Social Sciences

In a Liverpool Police Court
Hanwell called in
1847: Further Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy
Problems continue

Death of Charles Mott 12.5.1851

1851 Haydock closed
1852 Haydock reopened
1854 Paupers return
Later developments


A new system of government

In 1834 a new system of government was introduced to England and Wales. This offshore island that prided itself on its local government by a local nobility, adopted, almost without noticing it, the elements of continental bureaucracy. It did so by passing a poor law, and by appointing Edwin Chadwick, Secretary to the new "Poor Law Commissioners".


Edwin Chadwick (1801-1890), a disciple of the late Jeremy Bentham, was
"a determined opponent of the aristocratic self-government which prevailed in England and a zealot for uniformity and administrative centralization." [Halevy, E. 1949 vol.3, p. 100].

He had been asked to work for the Inquiry into the operation of the poor laws (1832-1834). as an Assistant Commissioner touring specific districts and reporting back. His reports showed such a balance of principle and empirical pragmatism that he found himself promoted to the central inquiry where he became the main author of the 1834 Poor Law Report

The 1834 Poor Law Act allowed parishes to unite into "unions" in order to build workhouses. If they did so they became subject to the regulations of the Poor Law Commissioners. The bringing together of the local parts into a national whole was therefore a process rather than an instantaneous act. It crept over the country in dramatic stages, marked by the militant resistance of the poor, who thought they would be starved to death in the "bastille" workhouses, and the political resistance of many local authorities.

The new poor law was directed at the able-bodied poor who were sound in mind. But the dependents on the poor law were the old, the sick, the mentally distressed and mentally handicapped. The creation of workhouses under the new law was therefore paralleled by the creation of asylums and infirmaries. By 1845 England and Wales were governed by another centralising law, a law that required every area of the country to provide a lunatic asylum for its insane poor, and which established a central government "Lunacy Commission" to oversee the operation in the same way as the Poor Law Commission oversaw the poor law.

Parry-Jones (1972) has shown how private enterprise supported the new laws by providing pauper asylums for profit whilst the new state system was as yet not fully formed. In the early days the public providers of workhouses could rid their houses of disturbed paupers by a such a contract. Then, when the law required every lunatic pauper to be sent to an asylum it created a bonanza for this trade in pauper lunacy. Public asylums took years to build, so in the mean time the only way for most local authorities to keep the law was to send their lunatic poor to a private madhouse.

In this essay I want to illustrate, through the lives of two of Chadwick's junior colleagues (Charles Mott and George Coode) how state and enterprise intertwined in these developments, sometimes lawfully and sometimes unlawfully.

Research by David Mott (no known relation) suggests that Charles Mott was christened in Loughton on 28.8.1777. However, Mott is shown as 62 (suggesting born 1789) on the 1851 Census and 69 (suggesting born 1782) on what appears to be his burial record (14.5.1851). Mott had his business at Peckham (Camberwell) in the 1830s and David's research suggests he married a Mary Stanbury and they had three daughters whose names were Marina, born 28.12.1830, christened 8.7.1831 at St Giles, Camberwell; Isabel, born 12.11.1834, christened 8.8.1836 at St Giles, Camberwell and one Janie (?), born about 1837. The 1851 census shows the three daughters as born in Sydenham, Kent. Mott and his family had moved to Manchester by 1841 (and probably much earlier)

Reducing the Lambeth Rates

"You propose then that the diet, beside being uniform in amount, should be uniformly reduced in quantity and quality?"
"I do."

The question was asked by Edwin Chadwick, the answer came from a Mr Charles Mott who was "Contractor for the Maintenance of the Poor of Lambeth" and you will find question and answer in the Report of the Commissioners on the Poor Laws that led to the New Poor Law of 1834.

Mr Mott had been a shopkeeper in Lambeth when, about 1820:

"Some rates were applied for which I thought exorbitant, which induced me to investigate the management of the parish; and in consequence of that investigation, the rates were greatly reduced." Mott, C. 1834 p.192A

Mott decided that he could manage the parish poor "better...and at a cheaper rate" than the parish officers. He went into business as a contractor for the poor and in 1834 he was charging the Gosport authorities only three shillings and eleven pence per pauper a week, and he had 240 of their paupers. He considered that most paupers were pampered.

"I have examined many parochial diet tables, and I do not know any place except Gosport where the diet is so low as that of the independent labourer." Mott, C. 1834 p.203A

About 1831 Mott secured the contract for

"maintenance of the poor of Lambeth, at 3/11d per head - men, women and a few children, - able bodied, decrepid, impotent, all included." Mott, C. 1834 p.192A

There were on average 700 indoor paupers in Lambeth and it was said by the Lambeth Vestry that the contract system had saved them £3,000 a year. Mott had cut their costs by one-third and Chadwick wanted to know his explanation. Principally, Mott told him, by the food

"being given out in more exact proportions. ...it will make very little difference to a parish officer whether or not he gives half an ounce more to each individual". Mott, C. 1834 p.192A

Mott had found the Lambeth workhouse scales half an ounce out when he took over: half an ounce in favour of the paupers; due to an accumulation of dirt on the scale that took the weights. So he had the scales scrubbed and adjusted "with nicety"; annually by a scale maker and daily by the people who used them. Mott was adamantly opposed to what he called:

"The tendency...to a constant increase of diet and accumulation of comforts from the interference and influence of humane but mistaken individuals."

The example he gave was of a county magistrate who had distributed some small parcels of tea to several of the old inmates at Lambeth and had recommended an allowance for the "comforts" of tea and sugar to the elderly paupers. Mott remonstrated with the parish officers, but to no avail. Ever since they had

"allowed ninety-five old inmates 6d each week in addition to their allowance of food"

and this had cost the parish over £125 a year.

"Humane individuals rarely calculate upon the tendency or aggregate effect of such alterations",

Mott complained. The extension of this indulgence, however, was checked by the contract system.

"But had the workhouse been under the old management, the probability is that the indulgence would have been extended to the greater proportion of the inmates".

Mott, C. 1834 pp 195A-196A

External links: Lambeth workhouse on Peter Higginbotham's site - Lambeth workhouse on Vauxhall Society site - Gosport (1868) on GenUKI - Alverstoke workhouse (includes Gosport) on Peter Higginbotham's site - "An 1829 plan of the building shows the T-shaped main building surrounded by a number of separate blocks containing men's and women's infirmaries, lunatic cells and workshops" - Camberwell workhouse on Peter Higginbotham's site (Peckham was in the Camberwell Union) -

Peckham Lunatic Asylum

Mott was an expanding entrepreneur. Amongst his older enterprises was a trade in pauper lunatics.
"I am the principle proprietor of the Peckham House Lunatic Asylum; and in that capacity I have transactions with about 40 parishes." Mott, C. 1834 p.192A

1862 map by Edward Weller shows Peckham House on land east of Lyndhurst Road that nowadays appears to be occupied by a school.

Peckham House was an eighteenth century mansion on the High Street in Peckham which was taken over as a lunatic asylum in 1826. In 1829 it was licensed for 172 pauper patients and 40 private patients. [HO 44/51: Registers of the Metropolitan Commissioners for 1829/30] The joint proprietors were Charles Mott, George John Taylor and Peter Armstrong. Mott's practice, he told Chadwick, was to enter into business with at least one other person, who would reside in the establishment and devote his whole time and attention to the management. At Peckham Asylum this other person appears to have been Peter Armstrong. He was proprietor and manager because Mott considered it vital that his managers should have a financial interest in "the small savings which make the difference between economical and extravagant management".

One would expect Charles Mott to have severed all connection with Peckham Asylum in November 1834, when he became an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner. However, a semi-anonymous letter from "M.J." (return contact, Post Office Bristol, to be collected) to Owen Owen Roberts, (6.7.1846) alleges that he did not.

M.J. claimed to have been a resident keeper at Peckham Asylum in 1836:

"Mr Mott ... was at that period part proprietor at that House, together with Taylor, who was then connected either with the East or West India Docks - and these two Gentlemen always met once a week to inspect the [pl?]ace with Armstrong. You understand that I was then merely a Servant and of course I cannot prove that Mott was part proprietor."

M.J. further claimed that Mott "shortly after the New Poor Law came into operation" became a Guardian of the Poor for the parish of Lambeth:

"which Parish up to that period always sent their Insane to Sir Jon. Miles Madhouse, Hoxton Old Town, London, but when Mott became Guardian they were all taken away and sent to Peckham House - his Asylum - and I dare say the Owners of Miles House would speak of this fact."

"Mr Mott has also a very large house and farm nearby adjoining Peckham House and the Keepers and Patients when the hay was about always went and assisted and also at other busy times."

Peter Armstrong was the resident superintendent at Peckham in 1844 and from the few words devoted to his asylum by the Metropolitan Commissioners in their report that year we can see that Mott's careful tradition was preserved:

"The Peckham Asylum has great advantages over those at Bethnal Green and Hoxton, in its site and grounds, and the internal accommodations are in general good. This house, however, has always been a source of trouble to us upon the subject of diet. It has on several occasions , been specially visited on this account, and frequent remonstrances have been made. Application has been lately made for licensing the House for the reception of a larger number of patients. The grant of a licence, however, has been delayed until we shall be satisfied as to the diet of the pauper patients."


George Coode (1807-1869), the eldest son of Manners Benson Coode of St Helier's, Jersey, became a barrister of the Inner Temple on 7th June 1833. A year later, on 18th August 1834, Chadwick was appointed Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners and Coode was appointed as Assistant Secretary. Here he was to meet Charles Mott, the man whose combination of public service and private enterprise would end Coode's service at the Commission in scandal and disgrace.

Assistant Poor Law Commissioner

It would appear that Charles Mott was consulted on the 1834 Poor Law Bill by one of its leading theoreticians. The political economist, Nassau Senior, was a member of the Commission that produced the 1834 Report and is often cited with Chadwick as its main author. He sent Mr Mott (and others) various "Notes of the Heads" of the Bill for his comments.
[Mackay in Nicholls + Mackay, vol.3 footnote p. 117]

Then, on November 4th 1834 Mott became an officer of the national Poor Law Commission that was set up under that Act. He was made an Assistant Commissioner and remained very active in that position until he left under a political cloud on December 31st 1842

[The dates that Mott began and ceased being an Assistant Commissioner are in PP 1846 (572) Vol.36. p.2.]

Mott had a controversial career at the Poor Law Commission. He was often sent as a trouble-shooter on special investigations. An early example was the Eye House potato peeling case. The Times on June 6th 1837 contained a report of a pauper in a Suffolk workhouse who was so starved that he ate potato peelings. Mott was sent to investigate and reported that

"the man at Eye ate potato peelings not because he was underfed, which he wasn't, but because he was an idiot."
[Mott 22.6.1838]

The South

Initially, Mott was apportioned a district of the south of England to report and inspect. He was first appointed to districts in January 1835, when he was given seven unions in Suffolk, as well as two in Wiltshire, one in Gloucestershire and one in Buckingham.

James Kay replaced Mott as Assistant Poor Law Commissioner for Suffolk in early August 1835. Mott and Kay toured the Ipswich-area workhouses together on August 3rd. In February 1836, Kay also took over Norfolk from Sir Edward Parry. Kay remained Assistant Commissioner for Suffolk and Norfolk until 1838, when he took over Mott's London districts.

In August he was changed and, from August 1835 to July 1838 he was assistant commissioner for the unions around London. He had 20 unions in Middlesex and 19 in Surrey as well as Greenwich and Lewisham which were then in Kent. [PP 1840 39, p.276 and 283- 285]

The Commission made a determined attempt to abolish out-door relief and to only meet needs in the workhouse. As well as able-bodied people, they aimed to relieve all sickness in the workhouse. [Hodgkinson, R. 1967 pp 5-6.

Mott was cock-a-hoop that many decided not to claim. He reported that:

"The Poor Law Amendment Act may indeed be called an act of renovation, for it causes the lame to walk, the blind to see and the dumb to speak" [Hodgkinson, R. 1967 pp 5-6, quoting the second annual report of the Poor Law Commission.]

The North

The New Poor Law arose because of problems in the south of England. It was here, in the counties around London, that expenditure on poor relief was highest. [Cole, G.D.H. + Postgate, R. 1949, map p. 274] In the first two years, therefore, the Commissioners concentrated on organising the parishes of the south into unions. In 1837 they turned their attention to the north.

The move north coincided with the onset of an economic depression that stretched across the years from 1836 to 1842. In the north the poor law had not been used to subsidise wages:

"in the industrial districts the old Poor Law served quite a different purpose - that of relieving unemployment due to fluctuations of trade, and also that of preserving from literal starvation the hand-loom weavers and other domestic producers whom the factory system was throwing rapidly on the industrial scrap- heap." [Cole, G.D.H. + Postgate, R. 1949 p.278]

The north revolted. The formation of unions and the building of workhouses was resisted. Richard Oastler and James Rayner Stephens formed Anti-Poor Law Associations in every area, which then joined themselves together into one great national Association. The anger of the workers was increased because the Commissioners refused requests from local authorities for a return to the payment of out-door relief. [Halevy, E. 1949 vol.3, pp 286-287].


Mott was sent to the north of England in August 1838 to relieve Power of "part of his enormous task" [Edsall, N. C. 1971 p.163] His London district was taken over by another commissioner, James Kay, and Mott was ascribed to unions in Cheshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire and (from 1839) Derbyshire and Staffordshire. [PP 1840 vol.39 pp 283-285].

David Mott has found the following entries for Charles Mott in the Slaters Manchester Directory:

1841: Charles Mott: Assistant Poor Law Commissioner. Pooley's Park, Stretford New Road. [Mott officially left the Commission on 31.12.1842]
1845: Charles Mott: District Auditor. 26 Ardwick Place, Ardwick
[This is earlier than Hansard suggests he was auditor]
1850: Charles Mott: District Auditor and Agent to the Argus Life Insurance Co. 1a Market Place
1851: Charles Mott: District Auditor and Agent to the Argus Life Insurance Co. 1a Market Place

David thinks 1a Market Place is a business address and that Charles and his family lived at 3 Moon Grove, Rusholme, Manchester.

Coode to the Top

In the early autumn of 1839 the Bishop of London persuaded the House of Lords that an inquiry was necessary into the sanitary condition of the labouring class. The Poor Law Commission received orders to undertake this inquiry and Chadwick was tacitly released from the duties of Secretary to undertake the task. His duties as Secretary were now taken over by George Coode. [Flinn, M. W. 1965 p.?] [Another Assistant Secretary, W.G.Lumley had already been appointed in May of that year. PP 1846 (572) Vol.36.]

General Rules

In the 1830s the Poor Law Commission issued its instructions mainly in the form of special orders addressed to specific unions. In May 1841, however, the commissioners began to draw up general rules covering every aspect of poor law administration. The plan was to subject the unions of all the country to the one set of rules.

In the south of England this would not involve much of a change because the unions were already subject to special orders similar to the proposed general ones. In the north "no regulations even resembling them were in force" (Edsall). So, in the autumn of 1841, Charles Mott began the process of local investigations and preparations in the north of England that would be necessary before the office at Somerset House would risk issuing its general instructions. [Edsall, N. C. 1971 p. ??]

Sir Robert Peel's Envoy

Political opposition to the new poor law was one of the main factors that brought Robert Peel's Conservative government to power in the autumn of 1841. Many expected Peel to abolish the Poor Law Commissioners, but he soon made it clear that he intended rather to strengthen them and use them to increase central government control of social policies. In Peel's plans, Charles Mott had a special part to play.


The MP for Bolton, Dr John Bowring, described in the Commons the case of a poor man who had been found dead upon his loom, surrounded by his family in a state of starvation. Peel claimed that "the very first thing" he did on accession to office was to write to the Home Secretary [Sir James Graham] about this.
"I said that the story had sunk deep into my mind, and that, if true, it was a disgrace to the society in which such distress was suffered to exist."

The Prime Minister asked that an enquiry should be made and Graham had chosen to send Charles Mott. [Hansard 17.9.1841, cols 584-5]

Controlled by the Executive

From 1842 the general direction of government policy became one of moderating, where necessary, the more extreme applications of the principles of 1834 in order the more firmly to secure political acceptance of the Poor Law Commissioners and the poor law policy. To do this Peel and his Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, brought the Poor Law Commissioners more directly under government control. The direction that Peel was to take was uncertain at first, but it became clear in mid-September of 1841.

In a debate on the continuation of the poor law, Peel told the Commons that he was not going to stand idly by whilst MPs reported cases of atrocious suffering in their constituencies:

"When I hear of any case of individual distress...I am resolved to institute thereupon an immediate inquiry into all the circumstances...I am sure you cannot better show your good will for the Poor Law Commission, or to their subordinate agents, than to make them the instruments of such inquiry" [Hansard 27.9.1841, col. 865]

The next day, William Busfield Ferrand, MP for Knaresborough and the most determined of the new anti-poor law Tories, copiously illustrated a speech with examples of ill-treatment of the poor.

The Home Secretary replied to him that these

"were proofs, if they were accurately stated...of great local mismanagement. They did not tend to impugn the conduct of the central body, on the contrary, they went far to show the danger of local management being left uncontrolled, and were a strong argument in favour of the superintending authority of some commission..."

Parliament, he said, could have further confidence in the Commission because it was under the control of the Government. Within the last six weeks the Commission had issued a General Order to all the unions and withdrawn the special orders with which it hitherto operated. The General Order required his approval as Home Secretary, whereas special orders, directed at specific unions, were issued on the Commissioners' authority alone.

Furthermore, he said, the recent orders of the Commission relaxed the stringencies of the new poor law and demonstrated that the Commission was a flexible body that could respond to the circumstances of popular distress. He called on the House to have "confidence in the Commission controlled by the executive." [Hansard 28.9.1841], col. 950]


Mott was spent as the special investigator to Keighley, in West Yorkshire.

In late April 1842 Mott recommended that a labour test be imposed on all able-bodied male applicants for relief in Keighley Union. This was opposed almost unanimously by the Guardians and their chair, William Busfield Ferrand, raised the issue during the passage of the Poor Law Renewal Bill. Graham produced Mott's reports and later proposed a select committee.

Edsall says that:

"The main achievement of the debates and the Select Committee was to bring Mott's private and often vituperative comments on the Keighley Union out into the open with the result that he soon found himself distrusted by almost all the northern Boards. It was probably because of this that Mott was relieved of his post..." [Edsall, N. C. 1971 pp 238 and 241-242]


Boase tells us that Charles Mott was "Assistant Poor Law Commissioner at Bolton, where his report was criticised by Dr J. Bowring M.P. He got into trouble about the Keighley union and was removed from his office".

Mott officially left the Poor Law Commission on the last day of 1842 [PP 1846 (572) Vol.36. p.2], but the guardians of the poor, official and unofficial, had not heard the last of him.

The Poor Law Guide and Union Advertiser

In March 1843 every Poor Law Union in England and Wales received, unsolicited, a free copy of a new journal with Mott's name and previous occupation inscribed on the cover almost as part of the title. The Poor Law Guide and Union Advertiser, price 6d, was:


Beneath this,the front page editorial hinted at almost official status:

"It has long been regretted that no channel has existed by which the several Boards of Guardians and Union and Parish Officers could obtain practical information on subjects connected with the details of union and workhouse management, so as to establish a uniformity throughout England, in carrying into effect the rules and orders of the Commissioners under the provisions of the New Poor Law."

The founders of this (entirely unofficial) journal were skilful deceivers who had not neglected to have their journal printed by the same firm, Bradbury and Evans, that usually published Government papers.

This was not, however, the first Poor Law journal to be marketed. In October 1842 a weekly Union Gazette edited by a Mr Marryatt had started. This contained information on paupers in different parts of the country who had deserted their families. The Longtown Union thought this would be very useful information, but could they buy the magazine with public money? They wrote to the Poor Law Commissioners to ask and were told they could.

Longtown were not to know that their efforts were to embarrass the Home Secretary, who also happened to be their chairman. Sir James Graham said he had known nothing of this correspondence. It was, however, he later told the Commons, the only cause he could find for an article in The Times on June 17th 1846 which stated that:-

"Mr Mott became, we believe, the editor of an unsuccessful journal in Sir James Graham's neighbourhood and under his especial patronage."

Marryatt's Union Gazette and the Longtown Guardians had nothing to do with Mott, but someone, I assume George Coode, had given him a copy of the Commission's reply. And this, according to the embarrassed Home Secretary, is what he did with it.

"The Poor Law Commissioners answered that application by stating, that if the information contained in that publication was considered useful by the board of guardians in question, they were at liberty to take in that publication, and to charge it on the rates...Now Mr. Mott, in the first number of his publication, in March, 1843, having knowledge from some source or another with which I am not acquainted, of this answer to the Longtown board of guardians, published the letter, but omitted to state all the circumstances and the names, and left the inference to be drawn that the boards of guardians were at liberty to take in the publication in which it appeared. Nothing could be more irregular than this transaction on the part of Mr. Mott." [Hansard 19.6.1846, col. 687]
I could not find this letter in the first issue of Mott's journal, so perhaps it was a later issue.

Haydock Lodge licensed 17.1.1844

aspect of Haydock Lodge from
an 1845 pamphlet. Click picture
for full text of pamphlet This aspect of Haydock Lodge is taken from an 1845 pamphlet. Click on the picture for the full text of the pamphlet

Click here for 1849 map

modern maps

An asylum for private and pauper patients at Haydock Lodge near Winwick in South Lancashire was licensed by the Kirkdale sessions of the Lancashire magistrates on January 17th 1844. It was permitted to contain forty private and a hundred and sixty pauper patients.

The first patient was admitted on February 9th but by March 30th, when the county visitors made their first inspection, there were only thirty-eight patients. In the following months large numbers of pauper patients arrived from all over the country. In July the license was amended to permit up to 350 pauper and fifty private patients. The paupers came, but not the private patients. When the county visitors made their second visit, on July 14th 1844, there were 165 patients and not more than fifteen of them were private. By November 15th there were 256 patients, by December 12th: two hundred and eight nine. [HLP 20.1.1847 Report, p. 293]. By January 1st 1845 the asylum contained 270 paupers, but only twenty two private patients.

During 1845 the number in the asylum continued to grow, reaching its peak in November. [See table]. The newly formed national Lunacy Commission reported in 1847 that Kirkdale sessions licensed the asylum successively for more patients than it could contain on the understanding that such numbers would not be taken in until alterations were completed to enable that number to be accommodated. [HLP 20.1.1847 Report, pp 293-4] But, as you can see from the table, Haydock Lodge took in paupers slightly in excess of what it was licensed for, let alone the number its buildings could comfortably house.

In October 1845 the magistrates extended the license to 450 patients (400 paupers). The series of figures in the table suggests that the paupers in Haydock were already in excess of the previous license and rising rapidly towards the number permitted by the new license. The county visitors counted and minuted the numbers present on November 4th. There were 403 paupers. [Hansard 26.8.1846, column...]

On December 4th a special visit was minuted:-

"At the request of the magistrates at the local Kirkdale quarter sessions, we have this day inspected Haydock Lodge Asylum chiefly for the purpose of ascertaining the number of patients which can be conveniently accommodated. We find that there are now 434 patients, but consider that with its present accommodation, it ought not to contain more than 367. When the alterations now in progress are completed, it will be capable of accommodating 430 patients." [Hansard 26.8.1846, column...]

Table of patients in Haydock Lodge, from January 1844
  All patients Paupers Private
Licensed for 17.1.1844 200 160 40
First patient admitted 17.2.1844
30.3.1844 38 - -
14.7.1844 165 not more than 15 private
Licensed for July 1844 400 350  50
15.11.1844 256 - -
12.12.1844 289 - -
292 270  22
15.3.1845 300 - -
15.8.1845 402 - -
400 pauper inmates is about 20% of the paupers in provincial licensed houses in 1845. See Parry-Jones page 55.)
Licensed for October 1845 450 400  50
447 405  42
4.11.1845 444 403  41
4.12.1845 434 - -
On 4.12.1845, the county visitors considered that the asylum ought not to contain more than 367 patients, "with its present accommodation".

Deducting 50 for private patients gives an estimate of 317 as the number of paupers they thought it was equipped to contain.

At the peak (405 above) it had contained over eighty more than this.

The county visitors also estimated that when alterations were completed it would not be capable of accommodating more than 430 patients.

Contained: 19.12.1845 438 392  46
1.1.1846 425 377  48
Licensed for February 1845 400 (335)  65
396 331  65
1847: Nationally, there were more paupers (2,332) in provincial licensed houses than in any year before or since. Parry-Jones pages 54-55. Haydock Lodge contained 14% of these and was the largest pauper house outside London
393 340 (53)
Summer 1848
380 - -
367 325 42
400 355 45
402 359 43
Closed for a period. Only licensed for private patients when it reopened.
32 - 32
32 - 32
Relicensed for pauper patients
89 53 36
99 57 42
Contained 1859
Data from Parry-Jones page 60
205 162 (43)
1860 There were 750 pauper lunatics in in provincial licensed houses See Parry-Jones page 55.): So it is possible that 17% of them were in Haydock Lodge
Contained 1861
Data from Reagan page 35:
(148) 101 47
Contained or licensed for: 1870
Data from Parry-Jones page 42
250 170 (80)
Contained 1881 Census 215 122 93
By about 1900 Haydock Lodge was advertised as "a private mental hospital for the upper and middle classes only".
Figures in brackets are calculated rather than stated in the source

Deception about who ran Haydock Lodge

Considerable efforts were made to deceive the authorities about what was happening at Haydock Lodge, and when the truth was eventually discovered it was not fully published.

The history of the establishment that I give below was not known to the Lunacy Commission until October 17th 1846 - and was never fully revealed by them.

I start with George Coode, the manuscript of whose evidence on 17.10.1846 may be the nearest we will get to a true statement of the business arrangements respecting Haydock Lodge.

Coode's association with Haydock Lodge became public on Thursday 18.6.1846 when a letter from him was published in The Times. The minimisation of his role in this letter can be compared to the manuscript of his later evidence.

Coode objected to an allegation that "the asylum was established as a joint speculation by parties directly and officially connected with the Poor Law Commission".

Apart from the ex-officer, Mott, he was the only person in the Poor Law Commission "in any way connected with Haydock Lodge".

"My concern with it is simply and strictly that of proprietor of the house and grounds, which I let for the purpose of being used as an asylum"

"As to Mr Mott, he was, it is true, formerly and Assistant Poor Law Commissioner. In that capacity I became acquainted with him - but he had for some months ceased to be an assistant commissioner, or to have any connection with the Poor Law Commission, when he engaged himself as resident superintendent of Haydock Lodge"

A Joint Speculation

Haydock Lodge was a joint speculation of George Coode, Assistant Secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners until the scandal of Haydock Lodge forced them to dismiss him, and Charles Mott.


Coode's actual position at the Poor Law Commission may have been that of Acting Secretary in the place of the nominal Secretary, Edwin Chadwick. Chadwick, at this time, was at loggerheads with the commissioners and does not seem to have been practising as Secretary. W. G. Lumley, the other Assistant Secretary, was junior to Coode and was partly seconded to the Privy Counsel Committee on Education.

These are the arrangements that Coode admitted to the Lunacy Commission on 17th October 1846 [As far as I can decipher the manuscript] The manuscript had been transcribed from shorthand notes of the interview and the headings in bold are in the transcript, added, presumably to pick out important points.

"Arrangement with Mott Mr Mott was one assistant P.L. Commr and I was the ass. Se. I did not know him before we met in those relative positions when I for the first time made his acquaintance. I was the means of keeping him in the office. It became absolutely necessary that he should" [leave?] "the office of the Poor Law Commissioners and [The word "so" was inserted at this point, but the rest of the sentence not altered.] I knew that his circumstances were embarrassed and that he would be destitute and I was willing to save him. For a long time previously and in contemplation of his connection with the commission terminating he had spoken of establishing a Lunatic Asylum in Lancashire and at first I thought of lending him a sum of money in aid of that project but on enquiry into his" [circumstances - The word is actually circes with a line above the ce.] "I found it would not be safe to do so. He wished me to take a part in such speculation and had had Haydock Lodge in view for some time. My original purpose however was not to have anything to do with such an institution but more to assist. The suggestion came from him. I was rash." [?] "he had frequently asked me to invest money and have a share in such a scheme and he had had Haydock Lodge in view for a long time. When on viewing Haydock Lodge I was struck with its natural advantages and immediately entered into ["Entered into" was crossed through. The intention appears to have been to put "was entered into" at the end of the sentence, but this was not done.] a negotiation with Mr Legh." [MH51/746 xxxvi]

Thomas Legh [JP *] of Lyme Hall in Cheshire was the owner of Haydock Lodge, which had been built by his father. [MH51/738 letter from P. Johnson to O.O. Roberts 29.6.1846 (pp 67-70)].

[*Listed as a magistrate in Cheshire and Lancashire in 1836. There were many other "Leghs" and "Leighs" on the Cheshire and Lancashire lists. [PP/1836 JPs]

The Government rented Haydock Lodge as a "barrack for the reception of troops" from about 1831 to 1841, but for the following three years it did not have a regular tenant. Its park, farm and outbuildings, however, were in use. The park was rented by a Mr Clarke and the farm by Mr Alker, both of whom used substantial parts of the outbuildings.

The acquisition of the whole estate was, "contemplated from the first, and formed part of the original scheme, although from the mode in which the property was held it could not be effected at once". [HLP 20.1.1847 Report

Negotiations with Mr Legh "went on successfully" and, Coode said, "I soon found myself in possession of the house". He had it on a sixty year lease. It was never the intention, however, that his name should be openly associated with Haydock Lodge.

Failing to find anyone else to take on a tenancy he came to an arrangement with his sister, Miss Louisa Coode of St Helier (Jersey). He had not consulted her before he took on the lease. This is how he explained the arrangements:-

Position as regards Haydock "My position in connection with Haydock" ["was in 1844" crossed through] "is this. I am lessee for 60 yr. of Haydock House Park and Gardens under Mr Legh at an annual rental but the arrangement I made with Mr Justin who is the" [illegible] "was that I should do every repair, alteration, warming, ventilation, draining and in fact" [?] "to every thing that was required for the use of the house as a lunatic Asylum in the permanent part of the premises." [?] "This was by agreement in writing. This was about the end of 1843."

"My sister was to take the licence. She was to have a term of years in a lease" [?] "from me for 3 qr of the house and about 60 acres. Which" [?] "have never been actually" [made?] "out or ascertained but to be determined on considerations of convenience" [?] "connected with Mr Legh's powers of leasing".

As to Miss Coode's interest "My sister was to pay me a rent to cover the rent paid by myself for the possession of the property which the asylum was to occupy and to be included in her lease from me together with a proportion of the taxes. The whole of which I am liable for in the first instance."

"I was to have a percentage for all upgrading and improvements" ["Mr Bretton of Manchester made an estimate" crossed out], an amount which has been estimated as considerably under the mark."

My sister contemplated upon an estimate made by Mr Mott to pay out of her own funds £1,500 on furniture and fittings. It has since exceeded that sum. She was to be the licensee and have the entire interest in the patients and the establishment." [MH51/746 xxxvi]

Miss Coode was still the licensee in 1849 when the Lunacy Commissioners made an application to the Lord Chancellor to prohibit it being granted in her name (MH50 1.2.1849). Then, in 1851, the Commission reported that it had been granted to the then medical superintendent, Mr Eli Lawrence, in place of Miss Coode. [1851 REP p.4]

Miss Coode, however, was by all reports, a non-active partner, and left the enterprise to her brother and Charles Mott. Mott's name went on the original licence as the resident superintendent, and, about the end of 1843, Charles Mott "took up his permanent abode" at Haydock Lodge and proceeded to direct and superintend a number of alterations to prepare it as an asylum [HLP 20.1.1847 Report]

"My arrangements with Mott was this...that he should proceed to fit up the house with a view to making it a Lunatic Asylum and it was understood that he was to be superintendent whoever carried it on, so as to afford him the means of livelihood. I soon found that I should get no tenant and I made the arrangement with my sister before mentioned - Mr Mott was from that time engaged by me acting for my sister - who left the entire arrangement then and up to the present time to me to fit up and arrange the premises and Mr Mott was to be superintendent as soon as the house was opened. The arrangement as to his salary to be £200 a year up to the time and so long as the profits under the licence did not exceed £500 a year with board and lodging for himself and when the net profits exceeded £500 he was to have as his salary one half of the net profits in the excess. That was my understanding."

"Mott not responsible He was no way interested in the loses or responsibilities. When the licence was procured he was appointed and named in it as resident superintendent. My sister never had any communication with Mr Mott...she only sanctioned me as her agent. She perhaps sent occasional cheques to Mr Mott to the extent of rather more then £1,500 but wrote no more than the superscription of the letter."

"Accounts not furnished by Mott In the arrangement made with Mott was a memorandum in writing not signed Mott was to furnish to my sister a quarterly balance sheet, and accounts as she might require but although frequently demanded these accounts were never rendered. I have since employed accountants to examine Mr Mott's accounts. They leave a large balance unaccounted for the investigations occupied a long period."

"It was my original purpose that I should never be called on to interfere personally or on the spot but it was understood that Mr Mott should consult me on every new subject whether as regarding my share or my sisters and I had almost daily" [word I could not read] "from Mr Mott but often deferred to him as a person of experience. I also made many suggestions particularly about drainage and ventilation and Mr Mott was always ready to adopt my view. He promised every - but often fell short."

"Interference of Mr Coode Latterly I found it necessary to interfere and give positive directions to Mr Mott and other persons and have taken a prominent part in dealings with tradesmen. This must have been about April 1845"

Coode sent a civil engineer (Mr Meikelan) from London to report on the premises to him. Mr Meikelan lived at Haydock Lodge for several weeks whilst carrying out his survey.

In conversations with Meikelan afterwards, Coode became convinced he should interfere further. He "took the first opportunity, about June 1845" of going to the Lodge.

Coode sacked several servants, including the matron, and physically ejected a work supervisor with the assistance of the field servants. He also supported the medical attendant (George Bullock Porteus, surgeon) against Mr Mott.

"In fact by my interference in these matters I fear I became in fact managing superintendent -- This interference was about the end of 1845"
That is to say, six months prior to his statement in The Times
(18.6.1846) that he was no more than the landlord who let out his premises for use as an asylum.

Resignation of Charles Mott in 1846

At the time Coode wrote to The Times, Charles Mott was on his way out of Haydock Lodge. Mott resigned about May 1846 (according to Coode) as a consequence of Coode telling him his remaining there was not compatible with the interests of the institution.

A replacement was not appointed, however, until the end of June and did not take up the post until the end of August. This was a George Francis Whelan, or Whelan, an officer from Hanwell County Asylum in Middlesex. Mott remained as superintendent until the same week that Mr Whelan arrived.

Whelan is sometimes spelt Whelen.
He was a Steward at Hanwell and not a medical officer.

Mott had, in any case, a second post to fall back on. Since March 1846 he had been the auditor of several poor law districts in South Lancashire. Hansard 26.8.1846 (column 1034) says the appointment was made in October 1845 and an entry in an 1845 Trade Directory suggests it was earlier.

The national trade in pauper lunatics

Geographically, Haydock Lodge was very well situated to take advantage of the demand for asylum accommodation for pauper lunatics. the train from London

The advertisements for Haydock Lodge told clients that:

"Haydock Lodge is about a mile-and-a-half from the Newton Station, forming a junction of the railways from Lancaster, Leeds, etc: thus affording a ready conveyance from the surrounding districts of Lancashire, Cheshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and Westmoreland, and from all parts of England, having access to the great railroads"

"Forms for the admission of pauper patients, with proper certificates for the medical officers, may be had at the asylum"

"The charge for the maintenance is SEVEN SHILLINGS PER WEEK; a rate of charge which the cheapness of provisions in the neighbourhood, and the largeness and advantageous situation of the establishment renders possible; and which is so low as to reimburse in a few weeks the cost of travelling of a patient from any part of England and Wales"
[from Caernarvon and Denbigh Herald 1844, reproduced
Parry-Jones, W.L. 1972 p.104]"

In the following section, clicking on the name of an area will take you to a table showing the asylum provision in the area.

Haydock Lodge was opened "at a time when the county asylums of Lancashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire and the West Riding of Yorkshire were 'crowded to their utmost limits'" [HLP 20.1.1847 Report]

The three hundred and seventy paupers resident on January 1st 1846 came from the following areas:
Lancashire: 176 Cheshire: 2 Westmoreland 5
Wales, 37 Isle of Man 2 Staffordshire 4
Yorkshire 20 Derbyshire 14 Leicestershire 29
Birmingham 31 Warwickshire 17 Lincolnshire 20

In addition, there were ten from Eton in Buckinghamshire, two from Halstead in Essex, one from Huntingdonshire, three from Oxfordshire, and four from Rye in Sussex (Return 8.8.1846)

Living on a building site

Private patients at Haydock were accommodated in the "mansion", the paupers were kept in the offices and outhouses which were specially adapted for the purpose. The paupers were moved in, however, before the adaptations were made. The asylum was, according to the Lunacy Commission:

"... from first to last ... in a state of continual fluctuation and transition."

"When the house was inspected by the commissioners in December 1845, the weather was extremely wet, and the rain had come in at several places, and the walls in some parts showed damp ... this arose rather from the carelessness of attendants, in leaving skylights open, and from the operations, then in progress, and unfinished, for warming and ventilating the room, than from any serious defects in the roofs and gutters."

"The changes then going on were so numerous and extensive, involving the putting down of party walls, the throwing of several rooms together, the taking up and lowering of floors, the construction of ranges of single sleeping rooms, as well as many minor alterations, that it was quite impossible for the visitors to form any just notion of what the asylum would be in its completed form."

The consequent discomfort of patients was very great, "especially in wet and cold weather". Several dayrooms were

"abandoned to the workmen ... and the patients were crowded into the others in excessive numbers ... in some instances, patients who were confined to bed by serious illness were kept in rooms which were also occupied by other patients as day rooms. The yards and airing courts were full of disorder and confusion, and the day rooms, which were in use, were unavoidably wet and uncomfortable."

Because of the situation of the asylum in

"flat, beautiful country, surrounded by much full grown timber"

"damps hang about the trees and roofs of the buildings"

causing in spring and autumn

"an almost continual dropping."

Gutters and spouts to the roofs were very defective or absent and so the water dripped onto the seats which were fixed to the walls in the airing courts.

The drains were much neglected. Some were partially cut off and not filled up, and by such means, damp entered the lower parts of the building. In October 1846 a surveyor pointed out that this could be "perceived by examining the bedding" in some of the female patients' cells.

As a result of the drains

"vermin, such as rats, are very prevalent in some of the yards and buildings"

and "foul gasses" were "easily discernable" on entering two of the yards. The surveyor wrote:

"Privies - In general foul, especially in female convalescent yard ... being full of excrement. This is gross neglect."

The yards themselves were surrounded by ten foot walls and, as the yards were crowded around the pauper buildings, the walls affected their ventilation. [HLP 20.1.1847 Report]

The 1845/1846 winter

The heating system being installed in the winter of 1845-1846 was one for piping hot water through the buildings largely in the hope of drying out the damp. The system was additional to open fires already provided in day rooms. It was supposed to be installed in the summer of 1845, "before the cold weather set in" (Coode), but was not completed until January 1846.

The building operations were at their height in the 1845-1846 winter, when the number of pauper patients reached its peak. At the same time there was a shortage of blankets. Bedding in some male pauper dormitories

"in some case consisting of no more than one blanket and a rug"

The bedding shortage originated at the end of the autumn of 1845, probably because Mott had lost credit with local tradesmen. it "probably lasted for some months". The commissioners were satisfied that the bedding was adequate by May 1846. [HLP 20.1.1847 Report and HLM Coode]

Death by Diarrhoea

Many of the patients sent to the asylum were "in a bad and almost hopeless state of bodily health" [HLP 22.6.1846 Report]

There was a very high mortality at the asylum and it was never possible to determine to what extent this was due to the state in which patients were sent and to what extent to the conditions of the asylum.

In that winter of 1845-1846, a "dysentery prevailed" in the asylum. As early as September 27th 1845, the county visitors made a minute about death by diarrhoea, and recommended an improvement in the food of patients:

"For the last few weeks the number of fatal cases of diarrhoea have been greater than at any previous period, and have been chiefly among the aged and debilitated. The visitors, therefore, suggest to Mr Mott some addition to the diet table amongst this class of patients; and they further suggest the propriety of his adopting the recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy (April 21, 1845")"

The Commissioners had recommended "that an allowance of beer to the pauper patients generally would form a beneficial addition to their present ordinary diet."

The Commissioners said the "dysentery" was in December 1845 and January 1846.

One in four patients died in the 18 months from 1.1.1845

It was calculated that one hundred and twelve patients died in the asylum during 1845. Twenty one died in their first month there, forty-eight others in their first six months, thirty-four others within a year of admission, and only nine of those who died had been in the asylum for over a year.

The register of their deaths said that 18 had died of exhaustion, 20 of diarrhoea, 13 from general debility, 12 of epilepsy and 17 of apoplexy.

It was alleged, and the commissioners thought it not improbable, that at one time there were five bodies in the asylum morgue and "some difficulty in obtaining internment for them" [HLP 22.6.1846 Report]

To get some idea of the rate of death we need, in some way, to look at the flow of patients into and out of the asylum. This can be done by taking patients admitted over a specific period.

From figures published in 1847, it appears that just under one in four of the pauper patients admitted in the eighteen months from 1.1.1845 died during that period. The number of deaths in these figures are lower than in the previous ones because they exclude patients who died after 1.1.1845, but were admitted before.

Both Pauper
Both Total
51 51 102 193 191 384 486
Recovered 10 12 22 34 54 88 110
Relieved 7 10 17 11 9 20 37
Not Improved 6 3 9 9 9 18 27
Escaped - - -     6 6
Died 8 5 13 64 28 92 105
Remaining 20 21 41 69 91 160 201

Whilst the patients were affected by diarrhoea and dysentery, there was a shortage of water owing to something being wrong with the pipes and tanks. In December 1845 the baths had been taken down to make way for the heating apparatus, and, subsequently, regular bathing of patients was on occasions suspended by the medical officer because of a shortage of warm water. [HLP 20.1.1847 Report p.298]

Haydock Diet

Haydock Lodge's official diet table at this time had a soup dinner on two days of the week and a rice dinner on a third. On the other days there was meat with potatoes.

The copy kept by Charles Mott also showed a solid supper of bread and cheese with beer, but the copy kept by the steward, as a guide to issuing provisions, showed this was only issued to about eighty-five of the male patients (none of the women) who were employed during the day.

The commissioners said that the diet "was as liberal as most, and more liberal than many" of those in pauper private houses.

However, there was a uniform deficiency in the amount of milk used in the "rice milk". Fourteen, out of the forty-six quarts that should have been used, was made up of water. Even the milk that was used was only obtained by abstracting a large quantity from what should have been used in the breakfast porridge.

"The evidence proved incontestably that the dinners were occasionally ill- cooked and unpalatable ... that the potatoes were for a time very indifferent ... but no fault was ever found with the bread or beer". [HLP 20.1.1847 Report p.300]

In 1847 the commissioners recorded that the visitors had generally found the diet at Haydock to be adequate. Generally, it is no doubt true that the visitors were satisfied. However, in the critical winter of 1845- 1846, some reference to food occurs in almost every available minute, and these references suggest it was a matter of concern in the context of the conditions then prevailing.

We already seen the county visitors recommendation in September 1846 of more food for the aged and debilitated, to counteract the epidemic of deaths from diarrhoea, and their endorsement of the commissioners' recommendation of an allowance of beer for everyone - made the previous April and not yet acted on.

In November they recorded that they had heard, from the patients, a general complaint of the bad quality of the potatoes.

The county visitors minutes for December 18th 1845 and January 18th 1846 are particularly informative:

18.12.1845: "We ... having had the pleasure of meeting the Commissioners in Lunacy in the house, have confined ourselves to inspecting the food prepared for the dinner of the pauper patients, which, according to the diet table of this day (Friday), consists of one quart of rice and half a pint of beer. We saw the rice prepared, which was formed into a kind of soup: and as the dinner of the preceding day is also a liquid dinner" [soup made of beef, peas and arrowroot] "we are of opinion that it would be wise to avoid the occurrence of a soup dinner on two consecutive days: and we submit to the superintendent that it would be wise to change the arrangement. We have had a conversation with the Commissioners in Lunacy on this subject, and we find that our opinion meets with their concurrence." [Hansard 26.8.1846 column ...]

The basic pattern of the official diet does not appear to have been altered until September 1846 (After Whelan had succeeded Mott when "plum pudding" replaced rice, and "vegetables" replaced potatoes. There was, however, and earlier replacement of the rice soup by meat soup [HLP 20.1.1847 Report p.300 and diet sheets].


It was not only the dietary suggestions of the visitors that were not acted on:-

18.1.1846 "We have this day called at Haydock Lodge Asylum, with the view of ascertaining how far the recommendations of the Commissioners in Lunacy at their visit on the 19th December, have been complied with. We find there is still a deficiency in the article of blankets, many beds having only one. We think that this injunction should be immediately complied with, as this, in conjunction with the hot-water apparatus about to be brought into operation, will tend to improve the health as well as the comfort of the patients. The bedroom no. 112 is offensive and requires ventilation." [Hansard 26.8.1846 column ...]

The 1845/1846 winter: What the Commissioners knew and did

In the winter of 1845 to 1846, the visiting commissioners knew:

  1. That Haydock Lodge was grossly overcrowded

  2. That it was afflicted with dysentery and diarrhoea

  3. That water for baths and blankets for beds were short

  4. That patients had liquid diets two days running

  5. That many of the patients were seriously ill when they arrived at the asylum

  6. That large numbers of pauper patients had died

  7. That the asylum superintendent was not noticeably prompt responding to the suggestions of the county visitors or themselves

Nevertheless, the minutes of the commission do not suggest that Haydock Lodge received any serious attention from the Board in London until March 1846, when it was well on the way to becoming a parliamentary issue.

February 1846: Allegations of Ill Treatment at Haydock

On February 24th 1846 the Lunacy Commission received copies of correspondence between two Welsh doctors (Owen Owen Roberts of Bangor and Lloyd Williams of Denbigh) containing allegations of acts of cruelty and mismanagement at Haydock Lodge. [Hansard 26.8.1846 cols 1028-1029]

This was not the first allegation of cruelty. William Graham, the then house surgeon of Lincoln Asylum, complained to Dr Hume and another commissioner in November 1845 that he had visited a patients transferred from Lincoln to Haydock And had found him with his face so black and disfigured with bruises that he could hardly recognise him. He had also reported patients dying of diarrhoea in a room used as a sitting room. [Hansard 26.8.1846 cols 1047]

Dr Owen Owen Roberts of Bangor had taken the Rev. Evan Richards, as a patient, to Haydock Lodge on May 7th 1844 [Petition 12.6.1846]. Hearing unpleasant rumours about the asylum, he had advised the patient's removal around Christmas 1845 [reference]. On examining Rev. Richards, Roberts found:

"the clearest proof of shameful neglect and cruel treatment ... his body was covered by bruises, scars and discolourations... one of his toes was severely crushed ... one of his ears was as if it had all been pulled off ... his clothes were filthy and disgusting in the extreme" [Petition 12.6.1846]

On March 4th, the Commission's legal secretary, Skeffington Lutwidge, sent a copy of the correspondence to the clerk of the county visitors for Haydock Lodge, "requesting ... that a full and urgent inquiry ... might take place."

The visitors must have received the letter on the morning of the 5th March, for they carried out the investigation on a visit to the asylum they had already arranged for that day. They examined seven patients on the subject and sent the examination to the commission, who later reported to the Home Secretary that they:-

"show that Mr Richards was a dirty and violent patients; and ... acquit the keepers now in the asylum of any ill conduct either towards him or the other patients" [HLP 22.6.1846 Report]

At the board meeting on 17th March, Lutwidge was instructed to write to the clerk saying it was not necessary for the county visitors to pursue the inquiry further, and to send to Dr Williams a copy of the examinations and the letter to the clerk. It was thought that "the more pressing matters" had been dealt with by the local visitors and that certain "minor inquiries" could be made by the next routine visit of the commissioners to Haydock Lodge. [HLP 22.6.1846 Report]

Haydock Lodge first became a major item in the board minutes of the commission on March 28th 1846 (MH50).

Williams and Roberts had requested the return of the correspondence as Dr Roberts was not satisfied with the results of the inquiry and was determined to petition parliament. The commission made copies of the correspondence for their own use when they visited Haydock Lodge, and returned the originals. They advised Williams what they had done, and this may have been the first time that he was clearly told that the complaints were to be investigated further.

The commissioners had also received a letter from Mott alleging that the resident surgeon, Porteus, had been making incorrect returns to them. On April 4th, they referred this matter:

"(in the usual way) to the visiting Justices who accordingly met at the asylum (on the 11th April), and examined various persons relative thereto. These examinations were forwarded to the Commissioners, who, in reply, suggested to the visiting Justices the propriety of their procuring the dismissal or resignation of the offending parties. In the end, Mr Porteus, the resident surgeon, resigned his situation, and Mary Holden, a nurse (who was found to be implicated in concealing some facts from Mr Mott) was discharged."
The tone of the commission's correspondence with Dr Williams and Dr Roberts now altered. Lutwidge wrote to Williams on May 2nd and to Roberts on May 4th requesting any other information they might have and asking Roberts for the names of any witnesses to his allegations.

He also told them that Porteus and Holden "had ceased to form part of the Haydock Lodge establishment".

May 1846: The Commissioners visit Haydock

The commission's investigation at Haydock Lodge was not a routine visit, but a special inquiry. Four commissioners left London on May 4th for the purpose and spent three days investigating the then condition of the asylum (chiefly on oath) as well as a large number of patients who were asked about the treatment they experienced and the general comfort and state of the asylum.
"the result of this investigation was to give the visiting Commissioners reason to think that the establishment was manifestly in an improved state, and that some of the charges made by Dr Roberts were substantially negatived by the evidence that came before them, and that others were no longer applicable to the asylum in its present state." [HLP 22.6.1846 Report]

Petition 12.6.1846 of Owen Owen Roberts

Dr Roberts' petition was presented to the House of Commons by William Owen Stanley, Liberal MP for Anglesea, on June 12th 1846, and printed as a supplement to Votes and Proceedings of the House. This is the petition in full:
"The Petition of Owen Owen Roberts, of Bangor, in the county of Carnarvon,

Humbly showeth

That for upwards of twenty-eight years your Petitioner has been extensively engaged as a medical practitioner in the counties of Carnarvon, Anglesea, Denbigh, and Merioneth.

That in those districts the language spoken by the great bulk of the population is Welsh, the English language being but imperfectly intelligible to many of the inhabitants at large, and not at all intelligible to nine-tenths of the lower classes.

That your petitioner had reason, for a succession of years, most deeply to deplore the want of a suitable asylum for the reception of those among the poorer classes whose misfortune it was to be afflicted with insanity in its various forms.

That between two and three years a lunatic asylum was established at Haydock Lodge, near Newton in the Willows, in the county of Lancaster, and that the management of this asylum was placed under the control of Mr Mott.

That if the information that which your petitioner has lately received is true, this asylum was established as a joint speculation by parties directly and officially connected with the Poor Law Commission, and that Mr Mott, the resident manager, was an ex- Assistant Poor Law Commissioner.

That the advantages said to be afforded by this establishment were successfully urged by influential magistrates as a reason why the counties of Anglesea and Carnarvon should not join the counties of Denbigh and Flint in providing a suitable asylum for lunatics in which Welsh patients, afflicted with insanity, might obtain the comforts and the remedial treatment that could not be afforded in an English establishment.

That in consequence of the patronage and recommendation, a great number of insane persons have from time to time been sent to Haydock Lodge from various parts of the principality of Wales, on the recommendation of your petitioner as of other medical practitioners.

That in the month of April, one thousand eight hundred and forty-four, your Petitioner advised that the reverend Evan Richards, Vicar of Llanwnda and Llanfaglen, in the county of Carnarvon, then afflicted with insanity, should be placed in an asylum.

That, with a view to satisfy himself that the representations that had been made as to the management of the asylum at Haydock Lodge were correct, your Petitioner, on the seventh of May, one thousand eight hundred and forty- four, went thither with Mr Richards, who was also companied by an assistant, whom Mr Mott had sent for that purpose to Mr Richard's residence at Llanwnda.

That your petitioner, finding only one Welsh attendant at the establishment pointed out to Mr Mott the serious disadvantages to which Welsh patients would be exposed under such circumstances.

That, at Mr Mott's request, your Petitioner engaged two respectable Welsh women, who went as nurses to Haydock Lodge.

That early in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-four the number of patients at Haydock Lodge was between sixty and seventy, and that in one thousand eight hundred and forty-six they amounted to nearly five hundred.

That at Christmas last your Petitioner learnt with surprise that the two Welsh nurses engaged by him had left Haydock Lodge, or had been dismissed, and that there were no medical officers connected with the establishment conversant with the Welsh language, and that several of the patients were not only shamefully neglected, but treated with great cruelty.

That your petitioner, in consequence of information which he had received, felt himself called upon to advise the friends of the Reverend Mr Richards immediately to remove that gentleman from Haydock Lodge.

That on Mr Richards arrival at his own residence on the 5th January last, in Llanwnda, your petitioner visited him, and was shocked to find, upon personal examination, the clearest proofs of shameful neglect and cruel treatment. That his body was covered by bruises, scars and discolourations. That one of his toes was severely crushed. That one of his ears was as if it had all been pulled off, and that his clothes were filthy and disgusting in the extreme.

That your Petitioner at once communicated with Mr Mott, upon Mr Richards case, and that being dissatisfied with the explanations given by Mr Mott and the resident medical officer, your Petitioner had a correspondence with the Commissioners in Lunacy, and in consequence an examination was made, at the request of the Commissioners, by the visiting justices.

That in pursuing his inquiries with reference to the Rev. Mr Richards' case, your petitioner obtained what he considers to be clear and trustworthy testimony that many others of the unfortunate inmates of Haydock Lodge Asylum had experienced the same shameful neglect, and the same wanton and heartless cruelty.

That your petitioner has been informed by disinterested parties, who had opportunities of knowing the fact, that the number of deaths in the Haydock Lodge establishment has been disproportionately great.

That no fewer than five bodies have been lying in the dead-house at one time. That one of those bodies was that of an individual whose name the informants of your petitioner did not know. That this individual had been found dead at 5 o'clock in the morning, after, as was alleged, having been cruelly used by one of the keepers on the night but one preceding, and that the body was buried without even the formality of an inquest.

That, in the opinion of your petitioner, it s highly improper and impolitic that either the Poor Law Commissioners, or any parties officially employed by them, should be allowed to become proprietors of any establishment for the reception of pauper lunatics.

That, as it appears to your Petitioner, such proprietorship is directly calculated to deprive lunatic paupers of that protection which it is the special duty of the Poor Law commissioners, and of all who are connected with that body, to afford them.

That your Petitioner, respectfully submits, that whenever a death occurs in a lunatic asylum, common humanity, as well as public policy, imperatively demands that a corner's inquest should be held, as is now by law required in the case of every individual who dies while in confinement in a county prison.

That your Petitioner deems it highly improper that Welsh lunatic patients should be sent to any asylum in which there are no medical officers, and no suitable number of other attendants conversant with the welsh language, as having in all such cases a direct tendency to aggravate individual sufferings, without giving the chance of recovery which would otherwise be afforded.

That, although it has been intimated to your Petitioner that the Commissioners in Lunacy intend, at some future time, to investigate the statements submitted to them more closely than they have already done, your Petitioner ventures most respectfully to submit to your honourable House the propriety of directing an immediate and strict inquiry to be made as to facts involving the comfort and well-being of so many hundreds of the most unfortunate, the most helpless, and the most pitiable of human beings.

Your Petitioner, therefore humbly and earnestly prays your honourable House,

First, that you will be pleased to institute inquiry with respect to the asylums provided for Welsh insane persons, and especially with respect to the treatment to which such persons have been subjected, in reference not only to their physical comforts, but also to the means adopted for their restoration to the use and enjoyment of their mental faculties.

Secondly, that you will be pleased to take into consideration the propriety of enacting that a corner's inquest shall be held, or that an investigation shall be instituted, before some responsible and competent tribunal, touching the deaths of such individuals afflicted with insanity as may die while inmates of an lunatic asylum.

Thirdly, that you will be pleased to cause a specific inquiry to be made as to the deaths which have taken place at Haydock Lodge Asylum, from time to time, since its first establishment.

Fourthly, that you will be pleased to take measure s for preventing either Poor Law Commissioners, or persons officially connected with that body, or officially employed by it, from being proprietors of any asylum for the reception of pauper lunatics, and from having a beneficial interest in any such establishment.

And lastly, that you will be pleased to adopt such other measure as your honourable House in its wisdom may deem to be most effectual for remedying all the evils, which at present exist in the disposal and management of person afflicted with insanity in the principality of Wales.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray,

Owen Owen Roberts"

4.6.1846 Mott struggles to control the scandal

The interlocking issues of Dr Roberts petition include
  • Poor Law Commissioners running a pauper lunatic asylum

  • Ill treatment of patients in the asylum

  • Staff and patients speaking different languages

  • Efforts to establish a public asylum in north Wales

  • The death rate in the asylum

  • Specific deaths

  • Inquests on inmates dying in institutions

The alleged involvement of Poor Law Commissioners made it potentially explosive. When allegations extended to the Home Secretary, the mixture did explode.

Whilst forthright in it claim that

"this asylum was established as a joint speculation by parties directly and officially connected with the Poor Law Commission"

The petition names nobody, apart from ex-commissioner Mott, connected with the asylum and the Commission.

However, although George Coode's name is not mentioned, both Dr Owen Owen Roberts and William Owen Stanley MP had him in mind.

Stanley gave Coode notice that he intended to bring his name forward in connection with the asylum and, as a consequence, Charles Mott wrote to Dr Roberts (4.6.1846) and visited him in Wales a few days later.

Mott wanted Coode's name kept out of the affair. If Roberts would withdraw the allegations about anybody else connected with the Poor Law being concerned, Mott was willing to:

"send all the patients home, and give notice that he would not receive any more so as to force them to build an asylum in Wales which he assumed was the object I had in view"

Roberts was sorry for Mr Mott, who, "was evidently in great agony of mind". However, having "the same feeling for Irish, English or Scotch" as for Welsh lunatics, Roberts was not prepared to abandon a single allegation he had made, believing them to be true.

Mott offered to make Haydock open to the inspection of anyone Roberts chose to send, but Roberts replied that his complaints were about what had happened, not about what was happening. [MH51/738]

13.6.1846 The fuse begins to burn

The day that Owen Owen Roberts Petition was printed, Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, wrote to the Poor Law Commission and the Lunacy Commission for an explanation of the allegations in the petition.

Stanley had communicated those parts of the petition that concerned them to the Poor Law Commission, who examined Coode about his relationship to Haydock Lodge. The minute of the Poor Law Commissioner's examination of Coode is dated 13.6.1846, and may have been their reply to the Home Secretary about what they had done before his enquiry.

There are two versions of their minute (dated 13.6.1846). The one I think is correct reads:

"The commissioners had been aware that Mr Coode...was owner or landlord of Haydock Lodge; but in consequence of the allegations of this petition, they obtained from him a full statement of his interest in this establishment, particularly with reference to its actual occupation and management. It appears from Mr Coode's explanation, that his legal interest in the establishment is only that of a landlord; but inasmuch as he stated that the actual lessee (in whose name the licence is taken out) is a person nearly connected with him by blood, the Commissioners thought that the arrangement was, on the whole, not compatible with his office of assistant secretary."

A copy of this in Hansard (26.8.1846, col. 1027) says the commissioners had not been aware that Mr Coode was owner or landlord of Haydock Lodge. The distinction being made in the minute between owning the building and holding the licence on the asylum, seems to require the first version to be correct, if it is to make full sense.

The Commissioners wanted Coode to break his connection with Haydock Lodge. As he was unable to do this, they regretfully accepted his resignation. (HLP ----)

17.6.1846 The scandal explodes

Owen Owen Roberts petition was reported in The Times on Wednesday 17.6.1846. The Times reports caused the explosion by linking the name of the Home Secretary, Sir James Graham, with that of Charles Mott, the undisputed manager of Haydock Lodge. The scandal now ran from top to bottom, and the Home Secretary had every motive for dealing with it.

The Times caused the explosion with the sentence:

"Mr Mott became, we believe, the editor of an unsuccessful journal in Sir James Graham's neighbourhood and under his especial patronage."
Coode then brought his own name before the public with his letter stating that he and Mott were the only two people connected with the Poor Law and Haydock Lodge. The Times (Thursday 18.6.1846) was delighted to print this letter. It provided public "facts" where previously there had only been allegations.

On July 19th, Stanley asked the Home Secretary if Coode had resigned and if Sir James Graham would produce any minute of the Poor Law Commissioners relative to the subject. Graham confirmed that Coode had resigned, and agreed to lay on the table the replies from both the Poor Law and the Lunacy Commissioners as soon as he could. The reply from the Lunacy Commissioners had not yet been received.

Graham also denied that Mott had been at any time the editor of a paper under his, "especial patronage". [Hansard 19.6.1846 cols 685-688]

I looked into this issue a little, and am inclined to believe Graham's account. The account suggests to me, however, that Coode had been supplying Mott with Poor Law Commission papers. (See Hansard 19.6.1846 cols 686-687]

July 1846: The Commissioners hear evidence

From Wednesday 17th June to Thursday 25th June, something new about Haydock Lodge happened almost daily. The Lunacy Commissioners held their Board meetings on Thursdays. On 25.6.1846, Haydock Lodge was an item on the agenda.

On 1.7.1847 the Lunacy Commissioners held their Quarterly meeting, and on Saturday 4th July they held a special meeting, summoned on the chairman's orders, about Mott and Haydock Lodge. All the lay commissioners bar one were present.

These events were taking place in the midst of the fall of one government (Robert Peel's) and the arrival of another.

On Friday 10.7.1846 and Saturday 11.7.1846, the Commission again held special meetings. This time to examine witnesses.

In a letter to Thomas Wakley (23.8.1846) Owen Owen Roberts gives his impression of a Commission that dismissed his representations for many months without adequate investigation, and then acted precipitously when The Times published his petition:

"I brought the cruel treatment experienced by patients confined in Haydock Lodge ... under the official notice of the Commissioners early in the month of February. When some weeks had elapsed I became convinced that some secret influence was at work ... in the month of May, I was requested ... to furnish the Commissioners with the names, etc, of the witnesses upon whose testimony I relied ... In the month of June .. I was informed by Mr Stanley that the Commissioners had ... [made] ... a report to the Secretary of State, in which they impugned the credibility of some of my witnesses, without ever having seen or asked them a single question.

In the month of July, after the publication of the petition, and the notice taken of its contents by The Times newspaper, the witnesses were summoned with such precipitancy as to render it almost impossible for them to appear in due time at the Commissioners' Office in London; indeed, one female was served with the summons at half-past twelve in the day, calling upon her to appear in Spring-gardens at nine o'clock the following morning." [Hansard 26.8.1846 cols 1046-1047]

The witnesses were Owen Owen Roberts himself - Mrs Jane Richards, her brother, Robert Edwards and servant William Jones - William Griffiths, an ex-patient and Mrs Ellen Griffiths (widow) and two other ex-patients: Charles Mellish and John Edwards.

Comparing the report from the Commission before the interviews, with the report after the interviews:

Dr Owen Owen Roberts had reported that when the Rev. Richards returned from the asylum, he examined him and found:

"his body was covered by bruises, scars and discolourations. That one of his toes was severely crushed. That one of his ears was as if it had all been pulled off, and that his clothes were filthy and disgusting in the extreme."

The Commissioners at first said:

"Mr Richards was discharged on the 3rd, and arrived at his own home on the 5th January last, a period of two days, during which some accident may have occurred. Mr Richards had an old sore on his ear, and was subject to an eruptive disease, producing sores, which he himself aggravated, and he was in the habit of throwing himself on the ground, so as to occasion bruises; but on his leaving the asylum, his toes were sound. Mr Richards was an exceedingly dirty patient, but the clothes that he wore when he left Haydock were perfectly clean. Three keepers (one of whom put on his stockings, and the others of whom were present and assisted in dressing him, when he left the asylum), and a patient fully capable of speaking to the point, distinctly and positively testified to this effect. It appears that some old dirty clothes belonging to Mr Richards were accidentally sent home with him by one of the keepers; they were unfit for wear, and were intended to have been destroyed."
After the interviews the Commissioners wrote that they had been led into inaccuracy by not realising that Richards arrived home on the evening of the 3rd January, the same day as he was discharged.

However, with respect to his ears, they point out that Mrs Richards (his wife) had noticed a diseased ear on a visit to the asylum many months previous, and that she noticed it was better when he arrived home.

They now considered the medical officer, Mr Porteus, to have been guilty of "culpable negligence and misconduct"

"amongst other instances of failure in his duty, Mr Porteus has been shown to have exhibited considerable neglect in the case of Rev. Mr Richards"

At Mr Mott's request, Dr Owen Owen Roberts had engaged two respectable Welsh women, who went as nurses to Haydock Lodge. He was distressed to find that they had left the asylum or been dismissed.

The Commissioners at first said:

"The two ... were ... aunt and niece; they acted a nurses about four months; they were hired on the 10th May 1844, and were dismissed towards the end of the following September, partly, as we are informed, because one of the two (whose respectability is very much questioned) stayed out until midnight, without leave, with one of the male attendants."

After the interviews the Commissioners wrote:

"the fact of the alleged dismissal, and the grounds of it ... were strongly denied by both parties upon oath; ... they moreover made recriminating charges against one of their accusers."

Dr Owen Owen Roberts said he had evidence that other patients, as well as Rev. Richards, had suffered "shameful neglect" and "wanton and heartless cruelty".

The Commissioners at first said:

"the parties principally or solely inculpated by him have been removed from the asylum ... the cause for complaint, even if they existed formerly, exist no longer."
After the interviews the Commissioners wrote respecting two attendants (Sam and Saduski):

"the Commissioners think that the charge against them for cruelty and harshness towards various patients have been substantiated; but they are of the opinion, that no act of cruelty or misconduct has been proved against any attendant now in the asylum."

The Commissioners concluded:

"Upon the whole, the Commissioners think that no useful purpose would be answered by further investigation. Haydock lodge Asylum is now in a very improved state, and will henceforth be under the care of a new superintendent, and a new medical officer with an assistant. The asylum stands in a good situation, and there is attached to it an extensive park, into which the visiting Commissioners have, upon their several visits, observed that the patients have free access for the purposes of recreation and exercise. It is important also to consider, that there are no asylums or licensed houses in the county of Lancaster, or in any of the neighbouring counties, capable of accommodating the large number of patients now confined in Haydock Lodge."

26.8.1846 Thomas Wakley MP moves for a Commission of Inquiry

Thomas Wakley (1795-1862), son of a Devon farmer, worked his way up the medical profession from being an apprentice apothecary to surgeon. In 1823 he issued The Lancet, a weekly magazine that saved medical students the expense of attending lectures, by reporting them in detail. He further upset leading surgeons by reporting which of them caused their patients the greatest pain. Good reporting and marketing had made the Lancet the leading medical journal in England and Wales by the 1840s. But it was still a radical campaigning journal: campaigning for the medical reform of society on the principles of scientific medicine, backed by social statistics.

A radical democrat, Wakley succeeded in becoming Member of Parliament for Finsbury in 1835. One of Wakley's greatest concerns was that coroners' courts should be run by doctors rather than lawyers, so that they could assess the medical evidence. In February 1839 he succeeded in an election as Coroner for West Middlesex and, in September, issued instructions to the constabulary of West Middlesex that he was to be notified of every death in confinement. If a prisoner died in a police station or prison, a pauper in a workhouse, or a patient in a private or public asylum, Wakley was to be told.

On Monday 30th September, 1839 an old man fell into a laundry copper in the new Hendon Union workhouse. Thomas Austin, pauper, aged 79, died of scalds and was buried in Hendon churchyard by order of the Guardians. No notice was given to the coroner. Wakley ordered the body to be dug up, and held an inquest. The verdict was accidental death with contributory neglect on part of the workhouse authorities in not placing railings around the copper. Wakley was not popular with the people who ran institutions.

In September 1845, Wakley had presented a Petition to the House of Commons complaining that rations were so short in Andover Workhouse that men crushing old bones in the workhouse yard would gnaw at those that still had gristle or marrow. As a direct consequence of this scandal, the Master and Matron of the workhouse were charged with neglect. As an indirect consequence, the Poor Law Commission was reformed. Wakley thought that what was happening at Haydock Lodge was worse than the scandal of Andover

"It is now exactly twelve months since I first brought the Andover case before this House. This case seems to me to be still worse than that of the Andover Union - that is my firm conviction"

With it must fall the Poor Law Commissioners, and the Home Secretary too if he allowed them shelter:

"Perhaps they think to hang on to the skirts of the Right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary; but I can tell him that if he lets them do so, they will inevitably pull him down with them. Yes; he may be sure that down he must go. They are at present retaining office with a desperate tenacity, braving public opinion, and bidding defiance to the decision of a Committee of this House" [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1034]

The speech in the House of Commons in which Thomas Wakley moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the management of Haydock Lodge was heard by very few members of parliament. Sir George Grey, the new Home Secretary, commented afterwards that Wakley had only been able to speak for so long (nearly three hours) because of the forbearance of a House of literally less than a dozen members. [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1051]

[The length of the speech is given in The Times 27.8.1846]

The only three members to speak were Wakley, Grey and John Fielden. We do not know who the others present were, but we do know that Lord Seymour, the acting chairman of the Lunacy Commission in the absence of Lord Ashley, was not amongst them. Both Wakley and Grey regretted his absence. [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1023 Wakley + 1051 Grey]

On those who did hear the speech, it appears to have had a powerful effect. John Fielden rose as Wakley sat down:

"I cannot trust myself, Sir, to say what I feel on this subject. If the establishment were truly designated, it would be called a slaughterhouse. The people are very forbearing, but my impression is, unless the right hon Baronet does something to satisfy the public, they would be justified in rising en masse, and destroying Haydock Lodge."
He managed another sentence before his emotions forced him to sit down:
"... my feelings are so harrowed by the statements that have been made, that I do not dare trust myself to speak to them." [Hansard 26.8.1846 cols 1050-1051]

Fielden was an established critic of the Poor Law Commissioners and, although a Lancashire factory owner, a champion of working class interests. In 1842 he had moved, unsuccessfully, for radical action to relieve public distress.

Sir George Grey was new to his post, and not implicated in the allegations as Sir James Graham had been. He could afford to be more sympathetic, and he had some familiarity with the trade in pauper lunacy, as part of his training as a young MP had been a two year stint on the Metropolitan Lunacy Commission.

Grey conceded the whole of Wakley's case against Haydock Lodge

"[Mr Wakley] will be very much mistaken if he expects ... that he will hear from me any defence of the establishment respecting which these allegations are made" [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1051]
In fact, he feared that
"the lamentable disclosures made of the state of Haydock Lodge are not applicable to that case only. I am afraid that the state of [all] our pauper lunatic asylums is most discreditable." [The Times report has the word "all". Hansard does not.]

And he was as eloquent as Wakley on the importance of the subject.

He did not, however, conceded anything to Wakley's criticisms of the Poor Law Commissioners or the Lunacy Commissioners. It was the case against Haydock Lodge that he conceded.

Science and Statistics

Wakley wanted to use science and statistics to open up what was happening at Haydock. He quoted from a recently published book on the statistics of insanity, to show that the death rate at Haydock was abnormal and probably due to asylum conditions:

Mr Thurnam, of the Retreat, in Yorkshire, has published a book on the subject of the treatment of lunatics, in which he says:-

"The mortality is generally more favourable during the early history of an asylum, and during the first twenty or even thirty years of its operation: as the proportion of recent cases increases, and as the old cases die off, it usually continues to undergo a material increase, which often amounts to 50 or 100 per cent upon the mortality of the first five years."

The same authority says on the subject of diet: -

"It appears to be now generally allowed that the insane, as a class, require a liberal and nutritious though simple diet. The mere change indeed, on admission into a pauper asylum, from a scanty to a liberal diet, has in many cases appeared to effect a recovery without the employment of any more special means. I believe there can be no question that in institutions where the diet is liberal, the general health will be promoted; and that consequently in such institutions, other things being equal, the recoveries will be more numerous and the mortality lower than when the reverse obtains. Watery broths and soups, containing large quantities of peas or other flatulent vegetables, are seldom adapted to the wants of the insane; and their too liberal use in asylums, in connection with an otherwise scanty diet, has been found to be connected with the prevalence of dysentery and diarrhoea"

Wakley argued that the fifty one patients whose deaths were ascribed to "exhaustion", "diarrhoea" or "general debility" might well have died of asylum conditions:

"All these might come under the same head, and be attributed to the same causes - insufficiency of diet, bad ventilation, and bad clothing."

But how could they know, he asked, about the patients whose deaths were put down to other causes:

"how do we know that everyone of them was not starved?"

It appeared that the person who signed the medical certificates was also the person accused of falsifying other returns.

With respect to the liquid diet of the patients, Wakley pointed his finger at the value of water in reducing the cost of food to an institution. Quoting the Visitors' phrase:

"rice, prepared, which was formed into a kind of soup"

He exclaimed

"that is dignifying what the poor fellows had by an improper title - it was rice water" [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1044]

The asylum watered the food to save money, and money, Wakley claimed was the root of the problem. A place in a county asylum could cost 10/- a week, Haydock Lodge only charged 7/- a week. [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1048-1049]

Mott claimed that the high death rate at Haydock was due to the condition in which patients arrived. Wakley countered that moving patients from bad conditions to good conditions had been shown to reduce the death rate:

"The experience of pauper lunatic establishments, nearly without exception, has proved, that in the first years of their establishment the mortality is slightest...

The reason why the mortality is slighter in the generality of such establishments is, that paupers having been badly accommodated and fed in the workhouse, on being transferred to other places designed for their maintenance in comfort, are better fed, their rooms better ventilated, and the treatment is more kindly and generous, as well as the accommodation more ample, so that they live longer. After a few years the mortality begins to increase, and it does not reach a maximum till twenty-five or thirty years have elapsed. The mortality in the Retreat at York is four per cent."

The Retreat was established in 1796. 7% had been suggested by William Farr, in 1841 as the "natural rate" at which lunatics died. At Haydock it was at least 30%. Applying Farr's statistical yard stick, the excess deaths above 7%:

"must be attributed to the diseases generated by the limited space in which ... lunatics are confined - to the collection of large numbers under the same roof - the impurity of the atmosphere - the want of exercise and warmth - the poor unvaried diet - and the deficiency of medical attendance." [Farr 1841 p.30]

Clash of the Social Sciences

There was a great battle in the 1840s over social science theory. The dominant social science,
political economy, was challenged by humanitarians who wanted to put community back into the theory of society. Wakley was strongly on the humanitarian side of the argument.

The science of political economy, built on the work of Adam Smith, had been used by David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus to attack charity as unscientific and socially dangerous. Their efforts had led eventually to the punitive Poor Law of 1834, under which the Poor Law Commissioners operated.

Blaming Haydock Lodge firmly onto the new poor law, Wakley asked

"is there not something pestiferous in a Poor Law which would give rise to these unprecedented enormities? There is, indeed, something in the whole system so odious and abominable, that it is revolting to all humane and generous feelings. Everything about it is stamped with the horrors of cruelty. It steels the hearts of men - it converts them into flint or granite. Rich people used formerly to feel it the greatest luxury when they had the opportunity of doing a humane act to any of their suffering fellow creatures; but, now-a-days, another principle is in vogue; they call it political economy; I call it the devil's economy." [Hansard 26.8.1846 col 1039-1040]

Haydock Lodge was an example of the general meanness of spirit inherent in the philosophy of the new poor law and the practice of its agents:

"What has been the course taken by the heads of the Poor Law Commission? If they found a starving district, a starving diet was ordered in the workhouse, that is, four ounces of meat, and stuff called 'gruel' - the very name of it is enough to make a man sick -"

[Gruel was another of the liquid meals. It is a kind of weak porridge]

"half a pound of potatoes, seven ounces of bread, and an ounce of cheese"

[This would be served something like the following:
Breakfast: bread with gruel
Dinner: meat and potatoes (alternative days: just soup)
Supper: bread and cheese (alternative days: bread and broth. Broth is a weak soup.)]

In London, however, where "they know that they could not resist the cry which would be raised against the attempt to perpetrate such cruelty"

"beer, and tea and sugar are allowed"

"I have examined and compared many of the allowances in distant parishes. I don't believe the allowances are half of those that are given in the house of correction." [Hansard 26.8.1846 col.1040]

At Haydock Lodge, Wakley believed economic interests were working in a particularly horrific, malthusian, way:

"Haydock lodge is surrounded by 228 acres of land; and an expectation was entertained that more would be got. It was worked by the strong lunatics. The sooner the feeble died off, the better for he establishment." [Hansard 26.8.1846 col.1039]

In a Liverpool Police Court

With Wakley's speech the scandal had exploded and flung its excrement over everyone "responsible" in any way for Haydock Lodge, from the Home Secretary down to George Coode and his staff, from the Lunacy Commission down to local Visitors, and from the Poor Law Commission down to local officers throughout the country who has sent paupers to Haydock to save the rates a few sixpences. There was much cleaning to be done, at every level.

In a Liverpool police court on Monday 30.8.1846, a stipendiary magistrate, Mr Rushton, met a paid overseer of the parish. Rushton asked the overseer if the churchwardens and overseers had visited Haydock Lodge recently.

"Not very recently, but I believe they are about to go"

"You should go immediately. It is a bad business."

The conversation was reported to The Times, and the reporter made his own inquiries. The Parish of Liverpool had been sending 43 to 44 paupers regularly since the opening of the asylum. They had been charged 7/6d a week, but, this year, the price had been reduced to 7/-.

"unfortunate imbeciles from Liverpool have formed a large proportion of the deaths" [one year, 15; another, 12]

The last visit by the Liverpool officials had been made in August 1845. The Times commented that if they had visited more often:

"there can be little doubt that Haydock Lodge would have achieved notoriety at an earlier period than 1846"

The moral of the story was that

"the New Poor Law defiles or damages everybody that has anything to do with it." The churchwardens and overseers had only interested themselves in Haydock Lodge "with a view to the reduction of 6d per week in the cost of each pauper."

The Times Tuesday 1.9.1846 p.5 col.2

On the following Tuesday, the 8th September, the issues were raised by a Mr Raymond Houghton at a meeting of the select vestry of Liverpool. One overseer told him that a visit was about to be made, but another doubted if the Poor Law auditor would pass the expenses of the journey. Mr Houghton thought they should be paid from rates, and doubted if necessary charges would be disallowed in the present state of feelings on the subject.

The Times Thursday 10.9.1846 p.6 col.1

This last report is particularly revealing when one recalls that the Poor Law auditor for several poor law districts in South Lancashire since March 1846 was Charles Mott.

In the House of Commons, Wakley had described the power of the auditor as:

"infinitely greater than that of an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner; for he had not only the power of examining accounts, but also of striking out items, and there was no appeal from his decision except to the Poor Law Commissioners, or the Court of Queen's Bench." [Hansard 26.8.1846 cols 1034-1035]

The appointment had not been made by the Poor Law Commission, but by the local guardians. It had been confirmed by the Poor Law Commission and Sir George Grey:

"regretted, that the slightest apparent connection was allowed to exist between Mr Mott and the Poor Law Commissioners." [Hansard 26.8.1846 col.1054]

Hanwell called in

Whilst facing the full force of a national scandal, George Coode was struggling to establish his business on a more respectable footing. At the end of August 1846, Charles Mott departed from Haydock Lodge and George Francis Whelan replaced him as Superintendent. Whelan had been Steward at the Middlesex County Lunatic Asylum, Hanwell.

Haydock had both benefitted and suffered from comparison with Hanwell. When conditions at Haydock became public knowledge, comparison with public institutions with a good reputation was made, but before that, patients were sent to Haydock in the belief that it was like Hanwell.

At the beginning of 1844, when the asylum opened, Dr Owen Owen Roberts in North Wales knew of it only by reputation -

"it was required then as a substitute for having an Asylum in Wales."

He visited the asylum in May, when it was not in an advanced state, having only 40 or 50 patients, and looked round for about two hours. From then, Charles Mott wrote to him regularly, every five or six weeks, with news of the asylum, and Roberts sent many patients there.

Roberts was questioned by the Lunacy Commission in July 1846:

"In fact from the beginning of 1844 to the end of 1845 you did not hear anything disadvantageous to the Asylum?"

"No. I did not"

"And you thought well of it?"

"Yes. I thought it was conducted like Hanwell or Gloucester"

But Coode did more than appoint the steward of Hanwell as manager. He appointed Dr John Conolly as Visiting Physician and consultant. As resident physician at Hanwell from 1839 to 1844, Conolly had abolished mechanical restraint and gained for himself an international reputation. He as now visiting physician to Hanwell, using his own house (Lawn House, Hanwell) as a select asylum for up to six ladies, and working on his next book: The Construction and Government of Lunatic Asylums (1847). Conolly made his Report to Coode on 10.9.1846.

Of Dr Conolly, Wakley had said:

"No man is more competent to deliver an opinion as to the government of a lunatic asylum, and I know no man to whom the poor are more indebted" [Hansard 26.8.1846 col.1048]

Of Mr Whelan:

"He knew Mr Whelan was a benevolent man; he had been steward of Hanwell; but how could they tell it was not a colourable transfer? How did they know that the interest of Mr Mott in the establishment had ceased, and that he would not continue practically the auditor of the union and the superintendent of the asylum?" [Hansard 26.8.1846 col.1055]

It was a point that the Home Secretary took pains to suggest the Lunacy Commission investigate [HLP 20.1.1847 Report] when he asked them to carry out a further inquiry into Haydock Lodge.

1847: Further Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy

In October 1846, the Chester Courant and Advertiser for North Wales told its readers that a Government Commission of Inquiry was now taking evidence about Haydock Lodge at the Legh Arms (or Leigh Arms) in Newton. The inquiry was by the Lunacy Commission, but was being supervised by the Home Secretary. The Commission's Board drew up instructions for it which were carefully considered and finally settled at its Board on 17.9.1846. They were sent to Sir George Grey, who approved them on 1.10.1846. On Monday 12th October, commissioners Mylne, Campbell and Drs Hume Prichard and took the train from London to Newton and, for most of the following three days, inspected Haydock Lodge. For part of Thursday, and all of Friday and Saturday, they heard evidence from witnesses. The following week they spent another five days at the asylum, procuring returns and examining books and other witnesses.

In January 1847, the Commission heard further evidence on Haydock Lodge, at its London offices, from Mott, Whelan, Coode (twice) and Porteus. Finally, on January 20th, Lord Ashley signed a report to the Home Secretary and, on 23rd it was sent with a letter that it was:

"For the private information of Sir George Grey ... a copy of evidence taken before the Visiting Commissioners at the asylum" ... "the Commissioners consider it desirable that it should not be made public" ... "the evidence containing much matter of a private and personal nature ... would render the publication of it more than ordinarily objectionable."

On 30.1.1847 the Lunacy Commission approved a contract Lancaster County Lunatic Asylum sought to make with Haydock Lodge for the maintenance of 150 pauper lunatics. The Secretary was to make a report to the Home Secretary on this.

The Home Secretary was not of a mind to keep the Commissioners' report on Haydock Lodge to himself. On 1.2.1847, W.O. Stanley, the MP who first raised the issue in parliament, asked him if he would lay it on the table:

"that the House might be informed of the causes which had produced the great and unusual mortality there, and also under what provisions the license to that Asylum had been renewed?"

"Sir G. Grey replied that he had received not very long ago a full report from the Commissioners of Lunacy on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and that he was prepared to lay it on the Table of the House at an early period. The report was accompanied by a letter from the Commissioners, expressing a strong opinion that it was not desirable to lay the whole of the evidence upon the Table of the House. They conceived that the evidence contained particulars which were not necessary to their inquiry, and that their report would put the House fully in possession of the grounds on which their opinion had been formed." [Hansard 1.2.1847 cols 614-615]

It was an unusually long time before the Report was printed, a period probably involving discussion and possibly legal opinion about what should or could be published. An Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Sir William Somerville, moved for it in the early hours of 16.2.1847 and presented it on 19.2.1847. It was ordered to be printed on 8.3.1847.

The Further Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Secretary of State for the Home Department relative to Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum was accompanied by several other documents and appendixes of data, which I have listed in the bibliography.

The report does not contain the details of Coode's involvement in the asylum that is contained in the manuscript of his evidence on 17th October 1846. The relation between Haydock Lodge and the Poor Law Commission is obscured.

On the causes of mortality at Haydock Lodge, the Report is indecisive. With respect to the effect of conditions in the asylum on diarrhoea, the Medical Commissioners decided that:

"Taking all the facts, however, into our consideration, and giving them their due weight, we are not prepared to say that they prevailed to such an extent as to have any material influence in generating this disease, although they must have affected the general health of the Patients."

The last part of which was communicated to the Home Secretary as

"we are not prepared to say that they prevailed to such an extent as to have any material influence in generating this disease, or otherwise in affecting the general health of the Patients."

and had to be corrected later (24.6.1847 Report p.546 footnote)

In any case, conditions at the asylum were changing. The notes to the plan of the asylum comment on the general effect of alteration by 1847:

"while the mansion (which is appropriated to the private patients) remains in its exterior unaltered, the buildings occupied by the paupers have become a most extensive range (much of it entirely new), forming several hollow squares, with small airing courts in the centre..."
The Commissioners reported in June 1847:
"Since the last of these Reports, this Asylum has again been visited by two members of this Commission, who report that, in various respects, it has undergone much improvement. The last Report also of the Visiting Justices (dated 30th April, 1847) states that their, 'visit has proved very satisfactory', that they 'found the house remarkably clean in every part, the drainage and ventilation much improved, and the health and appearance of the inmates as favourable as could be expected'.

The Justices further observe, that 'by far the largest number of the pauper Patients received into this house are of a class very unfavourable to their successful treatment, - not a few of them having, superadded, the seeds of serious bodily disease'."

By 7.5.1847, Charles Foster Jenkins, Surgeon, had become Resident Medical Superintendent in place of the non-medical George Francis Whelan, and a second resident medical officer "Mr Green" was appointed. The licence was granted to Jenkins, at first for four months, and then for ten months.

The Commission made suggestions to the County Visitors about how they might use the licence to exert pressure on the asylum.

"In consequence of our communication, the Justices, in the first place, took the precaution of granting a Licence for four months only, and at the expiration of that time, being satisfied with the improved condition of the Asylum, they granted a Licence for ten months to Mr Charles Frederick Jenkins, the present resident Medical Superintendent, there being a second Medical Officer also resident on the premises, and Mr Coode himself living in the neighbourhood." (24.6.1847 Report p.545 following)

Problems continue

On 17.6.1847 it was reported that Mr Jenkins was sleeping at Lowton, whereas it had been clearly understood that he was to reside at the asylum

Dr Prichard and Mr Mylne visited Haydock in April 1848 and, when the Board read their minute on 28.4.1848 they made an order regulating the pauper dietary and asked Procter to send Mr Jenkins a letter:

"expressing the strong disapprobation of the Board at the neglect and abuses still reported to exist at Haydock Lodge and intimating their determination, in the event of any further complaints being received relative to the management of the Asylum, to take steps by application to the Lord Chancellor for a revocation of the licence."

On 3.10.1848, Commissioner Procter reported to the Board a parlous state of finances at Haydock. There were arrears of wages to attendants totalling about £1,500. The Board sent a letter to the Visitors.

On 30.10.1848 both Mr Greene (Medical Officer) and Mr Jenkins (Superintendent) resigned. Eli Lawrence was appointed superintendent.

Eli Lawrence was born 28.9.1804 in Welford, Northampton. He was a widower when he married Caroline Ann Barbet (30.7.1829) at St Katherine Creechurch in the City of London. All their children were born in or near to Aldgate and Spitalfields. From 1833 to about 1848 Eli was a woollen draper. He has been traced as such in Aldgate and then in Leadenhall Street Market. Eli died 22.3.1879, aged 75. He is buried in Abney Park Cemetery, Stoke Newington, London.

1.1.1849: 367 patients: 325 pauper 42 private

In February 1849 it was noted that Mr Lawrence was to be superintendent and Mr Nicholl resident medical officer

1.1.1850: 400 patients: 355 pauper 45 private

1.1.1851: 402 patients: 359 pauper 43 private

At some time in 1851 this large number of patients or, at least, the pauper patients, were removed from Haydock Lodge. The new Lancashire County Asylums were opened on 1.1.1851, and, presumably, those Haydock paupers chargeable to Lancashire parishes were removed to a County Asylum. At the end of 1851, however, when a new proprietor was due to take over, there may still have been paupers from other parts of the country in Haydock. These were removed to an unlicensed house in Cheshire .

30.3.1851: Census: Parish of St Thomas - Ashton-In-Mackerfield. Grove Cottage, 35 Lodge Lane: Eli Lawrence aged 46 (making him born in 1804/5), born in Welford Northamptonshire - Superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum Haydock; Caroline Anne (aged 44) his wife. Edward (15) his son occupation "assistant in the asylum". Henry (13) another son and Emma (11), another daughter.

30.3.1851: Census: at 3 Moon Grove, Rusholme, Manchester: (Entry difficult to read): Charles Mott, aged 62, born Loughton, Essex. Word "auditor" clear in occupation, which could be District Poor Law Auditor. Wife: Mary Mott, age could be 50, born Berkshire. Unmarried daughters: Marina Mott, aged 19, born Sydenham, Kent - Isabel Mott, aged 16, Scholar, born Sydenham, Kent - Janie? Mott, aged 14, Scholar, born Sydenham, Kent

Death of Charles Mott 12.5.1851

In the Annual Register for 1851 under deaths on page 288 it says May 12th.
"Of paralysis, Charles Mott, esq., auditor of the South Lancashire poor law district, a gentleman who had a very prominent share in organising the present system of Poor Laws."
The Gentleman's Magazine, July 1851 p.100 May 12

Entry discovered by Eddie Ince

[1851 Census: Mott may have been born about 1789]

1851 Haydock closed?

In 1851, Eli Lawrence became the licensee of Haydock Lodge, in the place of Miss Coode, but the asylum was soon to close.

The Sixth Report (30.6.1851) of the Lunacy Commission commented on the effects of opening two new County Asylums for Lancashire, at Rainhill and Prestwich. An

"immediate result has been to enable the Justices to remove and place under treatment in the County Asylums the numerous body of pauper lunatics belonging to the county, who, at a heavy expense, had been theretofore sent to and maintained at various private Licensed Houses, both within and beyond the limits of the county.

Of these Licensed Houses, one of the largest is Haydock Lodge, the supervision of which has always given much trouble and anxiety to the Commissioners, and which, notwithstanding all their efforts, has never been brought to a satisfactory state." [1851 Report]

The essay on the Poor Law and the Trade in Pauper Lunacy, above, was researched and written in the 1970s and 1980s. Since I put it online, in 2001, a new essay has been emerging about what happened to Haydock Lodge after the dramatic events of the 1840s. This essay is being collectively researched by people who have written to me. Thank you for sharing.

Haydock after Mott and Coode

a collective essay

30.10.1851 Two patients admitted to Derby County Asylum on account of Haydock Lodge "being compelled to close in consequence of two county asylums for Lancaster opening".

1852 Abbots Grange

Early in January 1852, Eli Lawrence fitted up a house near Chester called Abbots Grange so that it could receive lunatics, and kept some of the pauper patients from Haydock Lodge there. The house was illegal, because unlicensed, but the Lunacy Commission did not hear about it until after the patients had left, and did not prosecute because they had reason to believe that Mr Lawrence, in the first instance, had acted "with the cognizance, if not the sanction" of some of the local authorities and under expectation that the magistrates of Chester would grant a licence. [1852 Report p.4]

What happened to the Lawrences? Edward, the son apprenticed to William Back, we think became a ships surgeon. In 1858 he took out citizenship of the USA, but in 1860 married in London. He then settled in Somerset as a wine merchant. On Edward's marriage certificate, his father Eli is described as "gentleman".

1852 Haydock reopened

The closure of Haydock Lodge was temporary and brief. But when it reopened, on 26.1.1852 it was for private patients only. It was relicensed to John Sutton, formerly master of Manchester workhouse [49 years old in 1848], who is said to have "conducted the establishment in an admirable way". [Parry-Jones, W.L. 1972 p.280]"

"Mr Whitehead of Newton , a surgeon, visited daily and Dr Renaud of Manchester was appointed as consulting physician" (Reagan, M. 1986 p.34)

"Mr Sutton made a cautious start. Though licensed for sixty patients, the asylum, in the first eighteen months, catered for rather less" (Reagan, M. 1986 p.34)

7.7.1852 Ellen Jane Rodgett (aged 18) married William Hogarth (aged 27) at Brindle, Lancashire, England. Their daughter, Margaret Ellen Hogarth was born about 1853. Edward Lister (father Charles) married Ellen Jane Hogarth (father Edward Bodgett) in Lancashire on 23.7.1862. Dr Edward Lister became the proprietor of Haydock Lodge in 1865

John Sutton is shown as "Superintendent or Proprietor" for 1.1.1853 with 32 patients (all private). Nineteen of them male and thirteen female, and two of the males found lunatic by inquisition.

1854 Paupers return

In 1854 the paupers returned, and for most of the rest of the nineteenth century, Haydock had a pauper department. However, the indications are that this now provided mainly for Lancashire paupers, rather than collecting patients from all over England and Wales.

Lancashire Courts of Quarter Sessions: Petitions:
30.10.1854 Liverpool. Copy recommendation for increase in number of inmates at Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3472/15 )

The Lunacy Commission reported that:

"Haydock Lodge has again been licensed for the reception of Pauper Patients, and a considerable number have been removed thither from the parish of Liverpool and the Union of West Derby, as well as from very distant parishes in the county of Northampton.

Although no complaints have been made as to the treatment of the Pauper Inmates, we cannot avoid expressing our regret that the Justices have granted a Licence for Pauper Patients, and that, notwithstanding the existence of three County Asylums in Lancashire, the accommodation of that county is still found to be insufficient" [1855 Report p.24]


Twenty seven chancery lunacy inquisitions: first April 1855, last May 1900

April 1855 Inquisition on James Clegg of Medlock Street, Hulme, Lancs; now in Haydock Lodge Retreat [asylum], Ashton, Lancashire

In the 1856 the Commissioners wrote:

"The Reports relative to Haydock Lodge have generally been of a favourable character." [1856 Report p.515]

In 1856 the County Asylum at Rainhill was full and that at Prestwich had to refuse patients.

December 1857 Inquisition on Thomas Bibby of Haydock Lodge Asylum

About 1858, Charles Tidbury Street was born at Grantham Lincolnshire. His father was the local Vicar. In 1881, he was a medical student living in lodgings in London. [The place of birth and initial on the online census are mis-transcribed from the original]. He became a joint licensee of Haydock Lodge in 1887, probably becoming resident medical superintendent than, as he was by See 1891. In 1888 he married into a family with experience of running asylums. Under his management, the asylum was rebuilt and became an asylum for for the upper and middle classes only. See also 1895 and 1897, the 1901 census, the early 20th century booklet and 1997 [Research on Charles Street and family carried out and sent to me by (Eddie Ince)]

April 1858 "The Custody of the Insane Poor" in the Asylum Journal of Mental Science discussed policy for pauper lunatics in Lancashire. Quarter Sessions had appointed a committee of fourteen magistrates to report on the most feasible manner of supplying the increase of asylum accommodation, needed. This recommended £12,000 should be spent enlarging Rainhill Asylum by adding detached buildings in a way that had been done in Devon. The extra accommodation would be for 256 patients. At this time there were 150 pauper lunatics from Lancashire in Haydock Lodge [Compare this to the table below] and 900 lunatics and idiots in union workhouses. The Bolton Guardians objected to the expenditure. They proposed an alternative policy of providing asylum wards in all workhouses and restricting admission to county asylums to people in an acute and curable stage or people whose curability could be tested by twelve months residence, as at Bethlem.

1858 Mr Whitehead resigned as surgeon and succeeded by a Mr Rossiter. [D. Rossiter, MRCS Haydock Lodge became a member of the The Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (Journal of Mental Science October 1859)

In 1858 the County Asylum at Lancaster had to refuse 181 patients and that at Rainhill was preparing to discharge chronic patients to the Liverpool workhouse.

In 1859, five years after the house was relicensed for paupers, Haydock was the eighth largest pauper house in England and Wales (third largest outside London), and the seventh largest pauper department (second largest outside London)

Table of licensed houses receiving paupers in 1859
house All patients Paupers Private
Bethnal House - London 455 314 (141)
Grove Hall - London 359 173 (186)
Fisherton House - Wiltshire 330 117 (213)
Camberwell House - London 318 247 (71)
Peckham House - London 317 188 (129)
Hoxton House - London 312 213 (99)
Vernon House - South Wales 212 194 (118)
Haydock Lodge 205 162 (43)
Dunston Lodge - Durham 161 126 (35)
Bensham - Durham 94 88 (6)
Gateshead Fell - Durham 94 88 (6)
Fairford House - Gloucestershire 77 25 (52)
Norwich Infirmary - Norfolk 75 75 (0)
Gate Helmsley - York 55 28 (27)
Dunnington House - York 44 19 (25)
Grove Hall, Acomb - York 23 7 (16)
Claxton Grange Retreat - York 22 7 (15)
Portland House - Hereford 19 3 (16)

"In 1860, Dr Henderson was appointed Resident Medical Officer, his salary being £120, together with apartment, laundry and horse. He remained in post for only six months, after which time his duties were assumed by a Dr Loy" [Ley] (Reagan, M. 1986 p.35)

1861 Mr Sutton suffered a stroke.

1861 Census: John Sutton age 57, born Middlesex, Proprietor and his wife Mary Jane, age 42, born Lancashire

"In August 1861, the Lodge housed forty seven private patients and one hundred and one paupers. A house in New Brighton near Liverpool was leased and some of the patients were able to have a holiday." (Reagan, M. 1986 p.35)

Lancashire Courts of Quarter Sessions:
18.9.1861 Certificate of satisfactory condition of lunatic asylum at Haydock Lodge, Ashton in Mackerfield Item 18 Sep 1861 (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3640/15)

14.10.1861 Notice of intention of John Sutton and Henry Rooke Ley to apply for renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Asylum. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3640/14) Letter from Henry Rooke Ley of Ashton, near Warrington, to Messrs. Birchall and Wilson, Clerks of the Peace, re Haydock Lodge Asylum (QSP/3640/12) Statement of number of patients detained in Haydock Lodge Asylum, Ashton in Mackerfield (QSP/3640/13). Henry Rooke Ley was later superintendent of the County Asylum at Prestwich. He appears to have been superintendent of Haydock Lodge from 1860 to 1863

December 1861 Inquisition on Alfred Ingham of Haydock Lodge Asylum

22.10.1862 Letter from Commissioners in Lunacy to Clerk of the Peace enclosing report on Haydock Lodge Asylum (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3664/13)

About 1862 Copy of report of two commissioners in lunacy, on additional premises and alterations at Haydock Lodge, declaring them satisfactory. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3664/14) The 16th Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, in 1862, "fully details" the history of Haydock Lodge.

1863 Dr Douglas Resident Medical Officer in place of Dr Loy. [Ley]

Local Records H/L/2: County Case Book 1863 - 1866 Records patient's names, age, occupation, physical description, medical history and symptoms. Date of admission and date of discharge / transfer.

"The County Case Book 1863-1866 H/L/2 has a Commission on Lunacy Stamp on the front Fly-sheet and has the numbers 33574 (1863) and an adhesive sticker with "McCorquudale & Co., London". The book was conserved by Derry & Sons in 1992. I found that the books were well kept on a daily basis showing admissions and the condition in which patients arrived- and leavers. It also shows the treatments given for some of them." (Eddie Ince)

February 1863 Inquisition on Ann Faulkner of Haydock Lodge Asylum

June 1863 Inquisitions on William Atherton and Joseph Jones of Haydock Lodge Asylum

The marriage of Edward Henry Beaman and Ann Thwaites was recorded in Bolton, Lancashire in the June quarter of 1863. Edward Henry Beaman was a surgeon. A son was born in 1864 and a daughter in 1866. He became the licensee of Haydock Lodge in 1880. He was the "medical proprietor" and had a "medical superintendent". At first, he and his family lived at Haydock Lodge, but by 1891 he had moved to Southport. He remained a licensee until his death in 1905.


May 1865: Visiting Commissioners minute:

"nothing could exceed the order and cheerfulness which was found everywhere throughout the house today and the supply and means of amusement and occupation for all the inmates is most liberal"

Reagan, M. 1986 (p.35) adds "They reported that among the added amenities were a new reading room, intelligently supplied with illustrated and amusing books, and a quantity of ferns and flowering plants. The attendants were considered to be satisfactory in terms both of qualifications and number". In the same month, four "gentlemen" patients were allowed to visit the Chester Races in the company of two attendants.

"In September 1865, Mr Sutton went to live in the south of England and Haydock Lodge Asylum was bought by Dr Edward Lister"

November 1865 Inquisition on Nathan Smedley, of Haydock Lodge Asylum

31.12.1865 Death of Thomas Knights - Age: 67 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Burial: 3.1.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield


The birth of Gilbert E[dward] Mould was recorded in Stockport in the June quarter of 1866. See Street Mould marriage. In February 1899, a letter he sent to the British Medical Journal, in defense of asylums, was addressed from Finsbury Park. In 1901 he was in charge of The Grange (Grange Hall) asylum in Rotherham. He is shown in the early 20th century Haydock Lodge booklet as G. E. Mould, L.R.C.P. (London), M,R.C.S. (England), The Grange, Rotherham; Physician for Mental Diseases to the Sheffield Royal Hospital. He was a Visiting Physician to haydock Lodge and he held consultations in Manchester on Thursdays from 12-30 to 1-30 p.m. at Winters Buildings, St. Ann's Street. In 1902, he and Miss Gertrude Rowlinson took over the license of Overdale Asylum. In 1910 he was a committee member of the Northern and Midland Division Medico-Psychological Association

16.2.1866 Death of William Burrows - age 56 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Pneumonia - Buried: 21.2.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

17.2.1866 Death of Matthew Cope - age 56 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: General Paralysis and exhaustion - Burial: 20.2.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

7.3.1866 Death of James Clegg - age 47 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Inflammation of the lungs - Buried 12.3.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

20.3.1866 Death of William Turner - Age: 18 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Phthisis - Buried 23.3.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

21.3.1866 Death of William Bostock - Age: 74 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Asthma - Buried 24.3.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

25.3.1866 Death of Anne Jeffrey - Age: 56 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Disease of the brain - Buried 28.3.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

31.3.1866 Death of James Bishop - Age: 53 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Exhaustion from neuter hernia - Buried 3.4.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

31.3.1866 Death of George Monks - Age: 32 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Softening of the brain - Buried 4.4.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

12.4.1866 Death of Frederick John Hawkes - Age: 35 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: General paralysis - Buried 17.4.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

3.6.1866 Death of Sarah Philips - Age: 39 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Marasmus - Buried 6.6.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

27.6.1866 Death of Elizabeth Thease - Age: 44 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Chronic dementia and exhaustion - Buried 30.6.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

3.7.1866 Death of George Mather - Age: 37 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: Exhaustion from acute mania - Buried 6.7.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

9.7.1866 Death of Thomas Houghton Lonsdale in Haydock Lodge. Cause: Erysipelas. Age: 37 years. Born 1829 Hindley, Lancashire. Husband of Jane Isabella (nee Brown). Information from death certificate. He is not in Records for Haydock Lodge at St Helens Library. He is buried in All Saints Church, Hindley. (email from "Joan" 21.5.2009)

15.7.1866 Death of James Alexander - Age: 41 - Abode: Haydock Lodge - Cause of Death: General Paralysis - Buried: 18.7.1866 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield

1869 Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy

"At the opening of 1867, the number of patients belonging to parishes in Middlesex in metropolitan licensed houses was 194; at the opening of 1868, they had increased to 401; and they are now 494, besides 57 at Fisherton House, Salisbury, others at Haydock Lodge, 60 at Hayward's Heath Asylum ... and some removed even as far as the asylum for the North Riding of Yorkshire."

3.10.1867 Notice of intention of Edward Lister to apply for lunatic asylum licence for premises in Ashton in Makerfield called Haydock Lodge and Park House, with list of names of private and pauper patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/3784/45)


The birth of Philip George Mould was recorded in Ormskirk in the December quarter of 1869. See Street Mould marriage. He was, at some time, a medical officer at Bethlem. In 1901 he was Assistant Medical Officer at Cheadle Royal Lunatic Asylum. At the time of the early 20th century booklet, he was Resident Medical Superintendent at Overdale, Whitefield, Manchester, which had been licensed to his brother in 1902. In 1907, "of Overdale", he was a co-licensee of Haydock Lodge and of Marsden Hall in Nelson.

1870 Licensee Dr E Lister

December 1870 Inquisitions on Ann Richardson and Elizabeth Richardson of Haydock Lodge Asylum

1871 Directory:

Haydock Lodge Private Lunatic Asylum,
near Newton le Willows
Edward Lister, Esq., MD proprietor
John Bond, assistant medical officer
George W. Weeks, Clerk and Steward.

1871 Census: Edward Lister aged 39, Physician/Surgeon born Muddleham, Yorkshire and his wife, Ellen Jane Lister, age 38, born Preston

Marriage: 6 May 1871 St Thomas, Ashton-In-Makerfield
Frederick Turton - 20 Plasterer Bachelor of Bridge Foot in Ashton
Jane Vernon - 22 Spinster of Town Field Gate in Ashton
Groom's Father: William Turton, Plasterer
Bride's Father: James Vernon, Deceased, Hinge Maker
Witness: James Vernon; Elizabeth Rigby

In 1872, Haydock Lodge was burnt down but rebuilt immediately afterwards. [See 1884 fire]

4.4.1872 Death of patient Richard SUMMERSGILL ; Male, 30yrs, Car Driver (formerly);

July 1872 W F M'Lean, M.B., C.M. was appointed Assistant Medical Officer to the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, Newton le Willows in place of D. Gentle who was appointed to Colney Hatch.

Lucy Jefferson (born in Keswick 1844) was apparently Matron at Haydock Lodge in the early 1870s and married a James Fairclough (miller) in 1871 at Manchester Cathedral. The family tradition is that James Fairclough used to visit the Superintendant to play cards. There is a story that Lucy Jefferson went to America at one stage (presumably in the early 1860s?). (If any one has further information about, please mail me)

January 1874 Inquisitions on Edward Ogden and Henry Walcott of Haydock Lodge Asylum

1874 A walnut vanity case has the inscription:

"Presented to Miss Hogarth on her 21st Birthday by officers and servants of Haydock Lodge 29th March 1874"

Margaret Ellen Hogarth was born in Liverpool about 1854. She was the stepdaughter of Edward Lister, the proprietor. Became Margaret Ellen Bolton when she married George Yates Bolton, a Glass Manufacturer in Liverpool on 15.6.1875. They had a daughter Marian J. Bolton, age 4 years in 1881 and lived at 11 Museum Street, Warrington. The baby's photograph was kept with the box. A Jno Jas Hogarth, aged 20, who lived with them, was an apprentice tanner. The box is now owned by Louise Fuller. Does anyone know more about Margaret Ellen and her connection with Haydock Lodge? Louise Fuller would like to know as much as she can about the original owner of the box).


Bryan Hogarth has found this entry in the Marriages section of the Times for Saturday 19 June 1875:

"On the 15th, at St. Thomas', Ashton-in-Mackerfield, by the Rev. H. Sidall, Vicar of the parish, assisted by the Rev. R. B. Billington, Curate of Wallasey, GEORGE YATES, son of EDWARD BOLTON, Warrington, to MARGARET ELLEN, eldest daughter of the late WILLIAM HOGARTH, of Southport, and stepdaughter of Edward Lister, L. R. C. P., of Haydock Lodge, Newton- le-Willows."

November 1876 Inquisition on Sophia Smith of Haydock Lodge Asylum


Foundation of Brain, neurological journal to which James Shaw was to contribute.

7.6.1878 Over two hundred men and boys were killed when there was a massive explosion in the Haydock coal mine. Allan Smith has told the story in Fatal Spark - The companion novel to Mr Mott's Madhouse

Compare Bhopal 1984

29.9.1879 Ashton in Makerfield. Notice of intention of Edward Lister to apply for renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4066/21)


Local Records H/L/3/1: Private Ledger No. 1 and Index 1880 - 1883. Records patients name, details of accounts owing, name and address of next of kin.

Local Records H/L/4: Pauper ledger 1880 - 1899 Balance of Accounts for those Poor Law Unions housing pauper patients of the Lodge. (List names of patients from each union.)

25.2.1880 Quarterly Metting of the Medico Psychological Association - James Shaw MD (Queen's University, Ireland) of Haydock Lodge became a member.

23.8.1880 Suicide of Mrs Jane Vernon at Haydock Lodge. - Death of Jane Vernon, age 55, registered Warrington in the September quarter of 1880

1.10.1880 Ashton in Makerfield. Notice of intention of Edward Henry Beaman to apply for licence for Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4090/23)

February 1881 Inquisition on James Smith of Haydock Lodge Asylum. May be J. S. Patient Widower aged 74 born Liverpool, a Gentleman in 1881 Census

James Shaw was born about 1850 in Ballynahinch, County Down and studied medicine at Queens University, Belfast. He became MD at Queens (and "C.M."?) in 1870. In 1871 he was assistant to a doctor at Staplehurst in Kent. By 1873, an Assistant Medical Officer at the Norfolk County Lunatic Asylum, Thorpe, Norwich and a member of the Norwich Medical and Chirurgical Society. From 1879/1880 to about 1888 he was Medical Superintendent and later Co-Licensee at Haydock Lodge. In 1882 he had three articles published in different medical journals, all relating in some way to mental faculties being related to brain disease or damage. Another was published in 1884. After he left Haydock Lodge, he wrote two textbooks, one published in 1892, the other in 1900 (Medical Directories). His life is being researched by Yewa Holiday. James Shaw was the brother of her great grandfather, who was also a doctor. Most of the information I give about James Shaw is provided by Yewa - and I am still entering it.

Beaman and Shaw

During the period that James Shaw was superintendent, Edward Beaman lived on the premises and appears to have been an active proprietor. The administrative part of the asylum was largely destroyed by fire in 1884.

Sunday 3.4.1881: 1881 Census. The online version (below) for Haydock Lodge does not have entries in the "Disability" column.

1881 census: Edward Henry Beaman (aged 48, married to Ann) was the Medical Proprietor, James Shaw (aged 31, born Ireland, unmarried) the Medical Superintendent and Elizabeth Frances Anderson (aged 35, unmarried) was Matron.

1881 Census Rev Benjamin Street (aged 70), vicar of Barnetby Le Wold, Lincolnshire, and his wife Mary (aged 65), may be the parents of Charles Tidbury Street

1881 Census Ernest F. Cooper, surgeon, may be the Ernest Frederick Cooper who applied to be joint licensee of Haydock Lodge in 1886

1881 Census Alfred E. Chambers, surgeon, born Altringham, Cheshire [in the June quarter of 1857], living at 174 Oxford St, Chorlton On Medlock, Lancashire, may be the Alfred Edward Chambers who was Resident Medical Officer at Haydock Lodge sometime after 1900.

An 1881 Directory gives:
Haydock Lodge Private Asylum, Warrington Lane. - Dr. E. H. Beaman, principal [and:]
George W. Weeks, clerk and steward at Haydock Lodge Retreat

"Haydock Lodge, a beautifully situated mansion, formerly the residence of the Legh family, is now occupied as a private asylum for the reception and recovery of insane patients. The system of treatment pursued at this establishment has been highly successful. The extensive grounds for the exercise and recreation of the patients are tastefully laid out."
1881 Occupations of Patients    
1891 Occupations and 1901 Occupations]

There are 215 patients. (See growth of Haydock). The census begins with one group of men and then women, followed by a second group of each. The occupations of the two groups support the surmise that the first group (93 patients) the are the private patients and the second group (122 patients) the pauper patients.

Ten patients are entered as idiot and twenty one as imbecile, the rest as lunatic.

All but two of the idiots and about half of the imbeciles are of no occupation. The idiots are all male paupers. One (J.J. aged 24) is a labourer and another (J.MC L, aged 14) a clerk. The definition of idiot in both cases must be broader than in 1913. The imbeciles include a law clerk, shop assistant, three labourers, a coach painter and a painter. The definition of idiot in these cases appears broader than in 1913 "Feeble-minded" was not an option on the census.

Twelve patients are under 20 (7-19). Of these, two are described as "lunatic": A 19 year old woman "servant" and an 18 year old man with no occupation. Six are "idiot", four are "imbecile" and . The really young (7 and 14) are "idiot".

First group of [49] women:
None: 43 [one "imbecile" "M.J." age 22 ]
Household Work: 1 - "C.S.P." age: 71, born Windsor Castle
Household: 1 - "J.B." age: 50
Shop Assistant: 1 - "A.M." age: 24 ["imbecile"]
Schoolmistress: 1 - "E.D." age: 28
Milliner and Dressmaker: 1 - "A.R." age: 24
Governess: 1 - "M.V." age: 49
First group of [44] men:
None: 12 [three "imbecile"]
Law Clerk: 1 ["imbecile"] - "G.H." age: 62
Printer: 1 - "J.F.S." age: 72
Cotton Spinner: 1 - "N.J." age: 52
Gentleman Farmer: 1 - "J.D." age: 56
Medical Student: 1 - "G.B." age: 53
Gentleman: 6
Assistant Innkeeper: 1 - "J.B." age: 38
Surveyor: 1 - "W.R." age: 70
Army Officer: 1 - "E.D.C." age: 67
Publican and Farmer: 1 - "J.B." age: 66
Cutlery Salesman: 1 - "W.R." age: 32
Nail Manufacturer: 1 - "J.A." age: 70
General Dealer: 1 - "H.S.G." age: 35
Farmer: 1 - "J.N." age: 70
Tailor: 1 - "R.H." age: 55
Bookkeeper: 1 - "H.W.H." age: 24
Architect: 1 - "W.J.A." age: 54
Clerk: 1 - "A.R.L." age: 23
Custom House Clerk: 1 - "J.G. D." age: 30
Contractor: 1 - "R.R." age: 51
Undergraduate: 1 - "W.W." age: 21
Timber Merchant's Apprentice: 1 - "T.R." age: 24
Watchmaker: 1 - "T.S." age: 29
Miller: 1 - "T. J. E." age: 30
Licensed Victualler: 1 - "H.P." age: 52
Clerk in Holy Orders: 1 - "E. P. P." age: 47
Salesman: 1 - "J.B." age: 46
Second group of [56] women:
None: 38 [Three "imbecile"]
Servant: 5
Charwoman: 4
Housekeeper: 2
Dressmaker: 1 - "E.T." age: 42
Governess: 1 - "P.M.M." age: 46
Music Teacher: 1 - "S.H." age: 26
Reeler: 1 - "S. A. B." age: 30
School Teacher: 1 - "E.P.S." age: 23
Hat Trimmer: 1 - "A.S." age: 45
Weaver: 1 - "H.H." age: 30
Second group of [66] men:
None: 15 [Five "idiot" and four "imbecile". One of those imbecile also "dumb and deaf"]
Labourer: 16 [One "imbecile" and one "idiot"]
Basket Maker: 1 - "E. MC D." age: 50
Iron Turner: 1 - "J.C." age: 36
Groom: 1 - "J.H." age: 53
Bobbin Turner: 1 - "S.W." age: 30
Clerk: 4 [One "idiot" - ".." age: ]
Coach painter: 1 - "J.S." age: 26 ["imbecile"]
Gardner: 2
Engineer: 1 - "J.G." age: 39
Carter: 1 - "J.W." age: 66
Painter: 2 [One "W.S." age: 60 "imbecile"]
Shoemaker: 1 - "G.N." age: 32
Joiner: 1 - "D. MC L." age: 41
Factory Operator: 1 - "T.B." age: 37
Saddler: 1 - "W.H.S." age: 26
Cab Proprietor: 1 - "J.P." age: 52
Jobber: 1 - "J.B." age: 67
Farm Labourer: 1 - "G.C." age: 45
Musician: 1 - "J.B." age: 31
Painter and Paperhanger: 1 - "J.D." age: 30
Watchmaker: 1 - "W.A.T." age: 50
Seaman: 1 - "W.C." age: 62
Hairdresser: 1 - "T.W." age: 54
Butcher: 1 - "C.L.J." age: 61. Born Wales ["Blind Lunatic"]
Warehouseman: 1 - "E. B." age: 28
Ship Carpenter: 2
Farm Servant: 1 - "E.W." age: 28
Sawyer or Lawyer: 1 - "J.K." age: 49
Collector: 1 - "R.T.M." age: 45. Born Ireland
Tailor: 1 - "J.O.N." age: 40

17.10.1881 Notice of intention of Edward Henry Beaman and James Shaw to apply for licence for lunatic asylum for private and pauper patients at Haydock Lodge and Park House, Ashton in Makerfield, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4114/21)

1882: Cerebral Hyperaemia; Does it exist? A Consideration of Some Views of Dr. William Hammond by Cornelius Fitzgerald Buckley, B.A., M.D., formerly Superintendent of Haydock Lodge Asylum, England. Published New York by G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1882 [William Alexander Hammond was Surgeon General in the USA Army]

Medical articles by James Shaw in three journals

  • "Cases bearing on Cerebral Localization" British Medical Journal 1882
  • "Melancholia with left hemiplegia and defective vision of left eye : destructive lesions of right ascending convolutions and gyrus angularis" Brain Volume 5, issue 2 1882 [Full title from Copac record of a copy in Birmingham]
  • "Case of idiocy with paralysis and congenital aphasia: atrophy of convolutions (with lithographs)" Lewes: H.W. Wolff, printer. 3 pages, one leaf of plates. From title page: "Reprinted from The Journal of Mental Science July, 1882"


    Local Records H/L/3/2: 2 Private Ledger No.2 and Index 1883 - 1885. Records patients' name, details of accounts owing, name and address of next of kin.

    1884 James Shaw "Case of cerebellar haemorrhage: abnormalities of cerebral arteries". Published London. Three pages. "Reprinted from The Journal of Mental Science July, 1884"

    In 1884, James Shaw described as a Medical Superintendent and Co-Licensee at Haydock Lodge Asylum.

    The following advertisement from the London and Provincial Medical Directory (no date) is reproduced in (Reagan, M. 1986 p.30)



    Two Miles from Newton Bridge Station, on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway

    (Private Asylum for the Restoration and Care of the Insane)

    Haydock Lodge, formerly the Mansion of an opulent country gentleman, is situated in a retired and healthy locality.

    The accommodation is of a superior character, the apartments being spacious, cheerful, and admirably arranged for the purposes of classification, without entailing any objectionable features, such, for instance, as one suggestive of restraint.

    Surrounding the building are extensive park and woodlands, gardens with attached vineries, green-houses, etc, also a farm of sixty acres, all calculated to afford ample scope for the diversion or occupation of the Inmates.

    Every facility is provided for the out and in-door recreation of the patients - namely, bowling, quoiting, and golf, croquet and archery lawns, billiard and reading rooms, etc, etc.

    TERMS - First Class, from £1 10s. to Six Guineas per week; Second Class, from £1 to £1 10s., according to nature of case; Third Class, 15s., and 17s. 6d., the latter charge to include Clothing.

    Apply to E.H. BEAMAN, M.R.C.S.E. AND L.S.A., medical Proprietor, or to J. Shaw, M.D. Medical Superintendent

    January 1884 Inquisition on Thomas Harvey of Haydock Lodge Asylum

    Wednesday 20.2.1884 A fire at Haydock Lodge. Nobody was injured, but there was extensive damage. The fire started at 9.30pm in the "drying room" next to the laundry. This was "in an old wing extending backwards from the main front block" which "is the administrative department". A strong wind spread the fire rapidly. The whole of the administrative wing was destroyed "with the exception of the kitchen and bakehouse, which were fortunately very little damaged". Edward Beaman (who lived the main front block) and James Shaw (who clearly lived on site, but it is not stated where) were in charge of the responses to the fire. To prevent the fire spreading to the front block, they had the connecting buildings demolished. Dr Shaw "saw that the patients in the front block were removed to another part of the Asylum, not in any way connected with the burning portion. No excitement was observed amongst the patients, and they were never in the slightest danger." "Though a great inconvenience to the staff of the Asylum, the work of the institution has gone on almost as usual". Reported The Journal of Mental Science (1884) 30: 165-166 - "Fire at Haydock Lodge, Ashton, Lancashire" A. F. M. (offline) [See also 1872 fire]

    November 1884 Inquisition on Lucy Speakman, of Haydock Lodge Asylum

    Newton le Willows Lancs - Haydock Lodge at Ashton
    For 230 male and female patients of all classes. Paupers received.
    Proprietor E H Brenan MRCS. Medical Superintendent J Shaw M.D.

    In 1885, as well as being at Haydock Lodge, James Shaw is shown in a Medical Directory as also Assistant Medical officer at Grove Hall Asylum, London and Surgeon with the Royal Mail Service. His address remained in Lancashire.

    19.9.1885 Full Record Copy letter of the Commissioners in Lunacy re renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Asylum (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4213/53)

    November 1885 Inquisition on Adam Gibson of Haydock Lodge Asylum

    7.10.1885 Ashton in Makerfield. Notice of intention of Ann Beaman and James Shaw M.D. to apply for renewal of lunatic asylum licence for Haydock Lodge Asylum, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4213/54)

    14.10.1885 Letter of Robert Davies, solicitor, at Warrington to Clerk of the Peace at Preston re renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Asylum (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4213/52)

    13.10.1886 Notice of intention of Edward Henry Beaman and Ernest Frederick Cooper to apply for renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4236/57)

    December 1886 Inquisition on Thomas Mercer of Haydock Lodge

    June 1887 Inquisition on Betty Orrell of Haydock Lodge Asylum

    By 1889, James Shaw was late Medical Superintendent and Co-Licensee Haydock Lodge. It has been calculated he left in about 1888, but his last application to be on the licence with Ann Beaman in 1885

    1887 This is when the management took over that produced the booklet below. The booklet says "it came under the present management in 1887, since which date it has been almost entirely reconstructed". [See 1895]. The new management is (presumably) Charles Tidbury Street and would possibly have included his new wife, and some of her relatives. Over the same period (1887-1900) the asylum became exclusively for private patients. [See 1885 - 1891 and 1891 Occupations - 1899

    14.10.1887 Haydock. Notice of intention of Edward Henry Beaman and Charles Tidbury Street to apply for renewal of licence of Haydock Lodge Asylum, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4264/63)

    [Charles Tidbury Street married Mabel Rebecca Mould (born about 1868) in Cheshire in 1888. She was the sister of Gilbert E. Mould and Philip George Mould), whose father was the medical superintendent of Manchester Royal Lunatic Asylum - See Manchester Mould. The early 20th century booklet shows both of her brothers active at Haydock Lodge. In 1901, Gilbert E. Mould was in charge of The Grange (Grange Hall) asylum in Rotherham and Phillip George Mould was Assistant Medical Officer at Manchester Royal Lunatic Asylum - renamed Cheadle Royal Lunatic Asylum.

    January 1888 Inquisition on Theresa Kearsley of Haydock Lodge Asylum


    The booklet below is after the 1890 Lunacy Act

    On the farm
    Haydock with cows. After the extensive alterations that made it what it was when the booklet) with this photograph was published in the early 1900s

    James Shaw had become a member of the Liverpool Medical Institute by 1890. The annual journal of this body was, at this time, the Liverpool Medico-Chirugical Journal

    external link


    "An advertisement in the London and Provincial Medical Directory of 1891, during Dr Street's period as superintendent, described accommodation as fitting for a first class hotel, with drawing rooms for ladies, smoking and reading rooms. In addition, the Lodge had large dining and games room and even a ballroom, in which concerts, and balls were held. Carriages were kept for the patients and holidays arranged at the seaside." (Reagan, M. 1986 p.35)

    Local Records H/L/1: Copy of an advertisement for the Lodge in 1891 giving a brief description of the Lodge and its facilities

    1891 Occupations of Patients    
    1881 Occupations and 1901 Occupations]

    Male and female:
    None: 19 [This includes the four people marked "idiot" and the two marked "imbecile"]
    Living on own means: 36.
    Housewife or housekeeper: 15
    Governess: 2
    Domestic: 2
    Shop Assistant: 2
    Dressmaker: 3
    Shopkeeper (Provisioner): 1
    Lady Nurse: 1
    Confectioner: 1
    Sempstress: 1
    Cotton Spinner: 1
    Farmer: 2
    Medical Student: 2
    Innkeeper: 2
    Salesman (Cutlery) 1
    Nail Manufacturer: 1
    General Dealer: 1
    Cricketer: 1
    Architect: 1
    Commercial Traveller: 1
    Surveyor: 2
    Soldier: 1
    Hosiery Manufacturer: 1
    Mercantile Clerk: 1
    Grocer: 1
    Solicitor: 1
    Indian Civil Service: 1
    Railway Engine Driver: 1
    Lawyer: 1
    P.O. Superintendent: 1
    Builder: 1
    Silk Manufacturer: 1
    Stickmaker: 1
    Lieutenant R.E.: 1
    Worsted Manufacturer: 1
    Chartered Accountant: 1
    Mariner: 1
    Blacksmith: 1
    Schoolmaster: 1
    Chemist: 1
    Marine Engineer: 2 (one of whom "retired")
    Calico Printer: 1
    Warehousekeeper: 1
    Surgeon: 1

    By 1891 Edward H. Beaman had moved to Southport, but remained a licensee:
    9.10.1891 Ashton in Makerfield. Notice of intention of Edward Henry Beaman of Southport and Charles Tidbury Street of Ashton in Makerfield surgeons, to apply for renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge Asylum Item 9 Oct 1891 (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4361/24)


    Epitome of mental diseases: with the present methods of certification of the insane, and the existing regulations as to "single patients", for practitioners and students by James Shaw, M.D Bristol: J. Wright. 15 pages introductory. 345 pages [May also have been published London, Simkin Marshall] - see other textbooks

    "Dementia : Alcoholic - Organic - Senile" by James Shaw published in the Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal


    "Sterility as a Factor in the Causation of Climacteric Neurosis and Psychosis" by James Shaw published in the Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal


    Published papers by James Shaw:

  • Facial Expressions as one of the Means of Diagnosis and Prognosis in Mental Diseases Medical Annual
  • On the prevention of mental and nervous diseases Abstract of paper read in Section I, Sanitary Science and Preventive Medicine, of the 14th Congress of the Sanitary Institute held at Liverpool, September 1894. Published in Journal of the Sanitary Institute Volume 15 (1894-1895) pages 564-565


    1895 Kelly Lancashire Directory on Newton-Le- Willows.com

    Haydock Lodge Private Asylum, Ashton, near Newton-le-Willow-
    Proprieters, Drs Beamon and Street;
    Resident medical superintendent, C.T. Street LRCP London, MRCS England;
    [The transcription says O.T. Street - But it is C.T. Street, Haydock Lodge, in the list of private residents of the district. This also lists Edward H. Beaman at Haydock Lodge.]
    Chaplain, Rev. H Siddall B.A. (vicar of Ashton);
    Steward, Ernest Webb. T N 3;
    Telegraphic Address: "Street, Ashton-in-Makerfield"

    26.11.1895 Plan of old office and surgery at Haydock Lodge, converted into single rooms Scale: lin. to 8 ft. (65 =3= 46.5cms. waxed linen, ink and wash) (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4470/29)

    9.12.1895 Letter of Charles T. Street at Haydock Lodge Asylum enclosing a plan of alterations approved by the Commissioners in Lunacy (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4470/28)

    Published papers by James Shaw:

  • Acute Mania - Climacteric Insanity - Paranoia Medical Annual
  • Contribution to the Clinico-Pathological study of Cerebral Localisation Brain Issue one for 1895
  • "The Early Treatment of Mental cases in Private Practice" Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal

    4.6.1896 A patient admitted to Haydock lodge, under the care of Dr Street, whose case is discussed by Damer Harrison in "Some Remarks on the Surgical Treatment of Insanity" in the Journal of Mental Science in 1902 (offline). He was examined by "Dr Street and Dr Davidson".

    the east window, above the alter 1897 Charles T. Street Esq of Haydock Lodge donated part of a stained glass window in St Thomas the Apostle, Ashton in Makerfield (archives) to commemorate the diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria. Another part of the window was donated by Edward H. Beaman Esq of Southport

    Many Haydock patients are buried in St Thomas's

    diamond jubillee year in Hackney and Islington

    See also Eddie Ince

    James Shaw: was editor of the Insanity section of the Medical Annual 1897-1898 and again 1900-1901

    1899 The pauper financial accounts go to 1899. But I assume this is the year the last receipts from Unions were entered.

    Mabel Rebecca Street and her photograph album - about 1900

    The album is one of those owned by David Jarret and his family

    About 1900? [booklet 1902-1905?]

    On the farm Part of a photograph of the farm in the brochure below

    The following text is taken from a booklet of pictures of Haydock Lodge in the possession of Drina Allen. We hope to fix its date from internal clues. We originally fixed its date as "about 1900". Comparison of the names in the booklet with the 1901 census shows that it is later than that, whereas a change in the licensee suggests it was before 1906.

    In connection with telephone: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/freshwater/histuk.htm

    In connection with railway: http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/

    I have included notes on the text in the same form as this header





    For the upper and middle classes only, either as voluntary patients or under certificates.

    Telegram - "STREET, ASHTON-IN.MAKERFIELD", Telephone (National)-ll ASHTON- IN-MAKERFIELD-

    Consulting' Rooms:


    DR STREET, 47 Rodney Street - Thursdays, 2 to 4 p.m.
    Telephone - Royal 2456


    DR P. G. MOULD, Winters Buildings, St. Ann's Street - Tuesdays, 12-30 to 1- 30 p.m.

    DR. G. E. MOULD, Winters Buildings, St. Ann's Street - Thursdays, 12-30 to 1-30 p.m.

    Telephone - Manchester 7611.

    Other Days by Appointment.

    Station - NEWTON-LE-WILLOWS (London and North Western Railway)
    ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD (Great Central Railway). 3 miles distant - there is a Cab Stand

    Haydock Lodge is a large County Mansion specially adapted for the care and treatment of those suffering from mental ailments or of unsound mind, It stands in Haydock Park surrounded by extensive woods which exclude it from the immediate neighbourhood, and by its own farm, Gardens and Pleasure Grounds, comprising nearly 100 acres, and containing Lawns for Tennis, Croquet, Bowling Greens, Cricket and Football Fields and a Golf Course.

    The older parts of the Mansion have recently been reconstructed and brought up-to-date, and besides the ordinary reception rooms and bedrooms, include a Great Hall, with adjoining Billiard Room, Smoking Room and Verandah Lounge, A Sanatorium and Infirmary have been added which greatly facilitate the treatment of the sick and infirm. The Sanitary arrangements are fitted with the latest improvements, and are subject to constant supervision. The outlook is extensive and the air is bracing, and the physical health of the Patients very good: cases of tuberculosis and dysentery, which are so frequently associated with mental diseases, are fortunately, practically unknown in this Institution, The treatment is carried out by a Resident and Visiting Staff of Physicians, together with an Experienced Staff of Nurses and Attendants, most of whom have had long service, and are valued tor their kindness, sympathy and skill in the management of mental and nervous cases. Individual attention, useful occupation, an out-of-door life in some cases, and rest in bed in others, and a high standard of moral treatment effect recovery in 50% of the admissions.

    The patients are classified according to their mental condition and social position. Private sitting-rooms and bedrooms may be had if required. The Morning-rooms, Billiard-rooms, Library, Drawing-rooms, and Ball-room provide suitable indoor recreation.

    Concerts, Entertainments, Balls, and Re-unions are held in the Great Hall, and parties are frequently taken to the theatres in Manchester and Liverpool during the season, Carriages and Motor Cars are kept for the use of patients. Patients who will. benefit by the change, if their condition permit, or whose friends desire it, spend some time at the sea-side during the Summer. The Table is presided over by the Medical or Assistant Superintendent and the Ladies' Companion. The Diet is liberal and varied according to Season. The Parish Church is within easy distance and Divine Service is held in the House every Sunday by the Chaplain, The Vicar of the Parish, also daily Prayers, The Roman Catholic Church in Garswood Park is adjacent, and the Clergy visit Catholic patients in the house.

    The resident staff . .

    CHARLES T. STREET, L.R.C.P. (London), M.R.C.S. (England),
    Resident Medical Proprietor and Director, Haydock Lodge; formerly A.M.O., County Asylum, Prestwich, and Bethlem Royal Hospital, London.

    A. E. CHAMBERS, L.R.C.P. (London), M.R.C.S. (England),
    Resident Medical Superintendent, Haydock Lodge,

    P.G. MOULD, L.R.C.P. (London), M.R.C.S. (England),
    Resident Medical Superintendent at Overdale, Whitefield, Manchester;
    formerly A.M.O., Cheadle Royal Asylum, and Bethlem Royal Hospital, London.


    SIR JAMES BARR, LL.D, M.D., F.R.C.P., 72 Rodney Street, Liverpool.

    NATHAN RAW, M.D., M.R.C.P., 66 Rodney Street, Liverpool.

    W. B. WARRINGTON, M.D., F.R.C.P., 63 Rodney Street, Liverpool.

    G. E. MOULD, L.R.C.P. (London), M,R.C.S. (England),
    The Grange, Rotherham; Physician for Mental Diseases to the Sheffield Royal Hospital.

    The law outline in the following text from the Haydock Lodge booklet is the same as that in the 1890 Lunacy Act.

  • The procedure in non-urgent cases, where a petition and statement [of particulars - form two] and two certificates are required is that for applying for a "reception order" under sections four to six of the Act. The judicial authority is defined in section 9 of the Act.

  • The provision for "urgency orders" is in section 11 of the Act. The "statement of particulars" is form two.

  • The provision for boarders is in section 229 of the Act

    The emphasis on urgency orders and boarders may suggest that these procedures were encouraged in practice.

  • Forms of admission

    The prescribed Forms of Admission can be obtained from the Medical Superintendent.

    Patients can be admitted at all times without notice.

    By observing the following instructions the admission of patients is facilitated, and much trouble and expense saved.

    If the case is urgent, and if the doctor will certify that it is for the patient's welfare, or for the public safety, that he or she should at once be, placed under care and treatment, the "Urgency Order" signed by husband, wife, or near relation, accompanied by a "Statement of Particulars" and ONE "Medical Certificate" is sufficient, providing the Patient has been seen within TWO days by the persons signing the papers.

    If the case is not urgent, then the "Petition" and "Statement" accompanied by TWO "Medical Certificates," must be presented to a County Court Judge, Magistrate, or Justice of the Peace (specially appointed), who will make an order for the reception of the Patient.

    Persons wishing to place themselves under care and treatment may do so as VOLUNTARY BOARDERS without any certificates, on application in writing to the Medical Proprietor, and they can leave at any time by giving 24 hours' notice in writing.

    Male and female Attendants can always be obtained for nursing cases at their own homes, at a charge from 2 Guineas a week. Cases can also be placed under single care and visited by the Medical Staff in conjunction with the Family Medical Attendant.

    Regarding Certification in most cases it is simply an aid to Treatment. It is impossible to control the actions of a person of unsound mind unless one has legal authority to do so by Certification, but it does not deprive the relatives of their control of the patient, who can be removed whenever they wish and the Certificate annulled, excepting only, that if by so doing, the life of the patient or of anyone else is thereby engaged. [misprint for endangered?]

    It is illegal for anyone to detain or treat a person of unsound mind, against his or her will, anywhere, except in their own home, unless he or she is certified and no one may so treat a patient unless authorised by the Commissioners in Lunacy.

    A Medical man who has Signed a Certificate in good faith, and with reasonable care, shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings: and if proceedings are taken against him they can be stayed by application to the High Court.


    With each Patient a sufficient supply of Clothing should be brought, together with an inventory of the same, and any other property left with the Patient. Any article afterwards required should be supplied on notice being given to the person responsible for the Patient's board, and should such notice not be attended to, the Medical Superintendent will order such necessary clothes and charge for them in the next quarter's account. - A high-class firm of Ladies' and Gentlemen's Outfitters attend at staled times to enable those patients who are able to take any interest in their wardrobe to select their own materials.


    Friends and Relations may visit the patients at all times, providing the Medical Superintendent does not consider such visits detrimental to the patients' well-being.

    Private Patients only received.

    There are none of the disadvantages connected with the County Asylums and association with paupers.

    Each Patient is classified and treated according to the mental condition and social position-

    The charges are made to meet the financial position of the patient.
      Board and
    per week
    Medical Attendance
    and Medicine
    per quarter.
    The General Accommodation at the discretion of the Medical Officer £ s. d.
    1 11 6
    2 2 0
    £ s. d.
    0 15 0
    1 1 0
    Private Bedroom, according to situation.... from: 3 3 0 1 11 6
    Private "Bed Sitting Room" combined.... from: 5 5 0 2 2 0
    Private Sitting Room and Bedroom .... from: 7 7 0 3 3 0
    Laundry, £2 2s. per quarter in all cases. A Special Nurse, Day or Night, each £1 Is. Motor Drives. 1/- a mile-

    Carriage Drives, £2 2s- per quarter. Inclusive Terms, with Clothing, can be made by arrangement.

    The Clock on the Belfry bears the date 1795, and "Haydock Lodge" has more than a local history. During the Rising of 1745, Mr Legh of "Haydock Lodge" turned out a fox in plaid jacket to hunt and so offended The Jacobite Party in Wigan that a mob came out to "Haydock Lodge" and almost destroyed it. During the Chartist Riots in 1830, the Lancashire Fencibles and several Cavalry Regiments were at different times quartered here. The House was first used for the care of Persons of Unsound Mind in 1845, and it came under the present management in 1887, since which date it has been almost entirely reconstructed.



    1900 James Shaw Golden rules of psychiatry 74 pages. This was number five in the Golden Rules series on medical specialities published by J. Wright of Bristol. It is one of the earliest uses of "psychiatry" in a book title. A third edition, revised and enlarged (79 pages) was published in 1905.


    On Sunday 31.3.1901 Census:


    Charles Tidbury Street, aged 43, born Grantham Lincolnshire. Physician. Medical Superintendent.
    Mabel Rebecca Street, aged 33, born Cheadle Cheshire, his wife, Housewife
    [See Marriage 1888]
    Henry Alosyno Cecil Mawdsley, aged 25, born Southport, Lancashire: Assistant Medical Officer.
    Followed by the names of the butler, page boy and other domestic servants

    Rodney Street, Liverpool

    James Barr, aged 50, born Ireland, Physician, living with his wife, Isabella, aged 38; daughter, Vera, aged 18; daughter in law and two servants, at 72 Rodney Street - Which is his address on the booklet. See 1911 - 1916

    William B. Warrington, aged 31, Physician, living with his wife, Anne, aged 33, baby daughter, Phyllis, and two servants at 69 Rodney Street. His address on the booklet is 63 Rodney Street.

    West Derby parish, Liverpool

    Census has James Shaw, a Physician, aged 57, born Ireland, in the parish of West Derby, Liverpool.

    Rotherham, Yorkshire

    Gilbert E. Mould, aged 34, single, Physician (LRCP, London), was head of "Grange Hall (Private Asylum)". [In the booklet called "The Grange". Bethlem and Maudsley has a file of brochures (date range 1925 to about 1949) that includes The Grange.

    Local Records H/L/5: Medical Journal 1901 - 1908, a weekly log book detailing:-
    a) number of Patients (male and female).
    b) Patients who have been in seclusion (period and reason)
    c) Patients under medical treatment for bodily disorders.
    d) deaths, injuries and violence to patients.

    1901 Occupations of Patients    
    1881 Occupations and 1891 Occupations]

    All patients are entered as "lunatic" (no one as idiot or imbecile)
    Male and female:
    No one is entered as "living on own means". People entered as that in the 1891 census who are still patients in 1901 are entered as "none" of "housewife".
    Housewife (no housekeepers): 28
    None: 60 (one deaf and dumb)
    Shop Assistant (Drapery): 1
    Pupil Teacher: 1
    Hospital Nurse: 1
    Telegraph Clerk: 1
    Cotton Spinner (employer): 1
    Clerk: 1
    Inn-keeper: 1
    Athletic outfitters assistant: 1
    Broker's clerk: 1
    House Builder (own account): 1
    Corn Merchant's Clerk: 1
    Grocer (own account): 1
    Solicitor: 1
    Judge in India: 1
    Medical Student: 1
    Royal Engineers: 1
    Accountant: 1
    Chemist Assistant: 2
    Builder Contractor (Partner): 1
    Marine (Royal): 1
    Railway Clerk: 1
    Flour Miller (own account): 1
    Solicitor's Clerk: 1
    Traveller in Silks: 1
    Paper Manufacturer (Partner): 1
    Surgeon: 1
    Mechanical Engineer: 1
    Merchant's Clerk: 1
    Commercial Traveller: 1
    Baker (own account): 1
    Traveller in wines and spirits: 1
    Bookseller (own account): 1
    Joiner: 1
    Accountant: 1
    Team [?] owner (own account): 1
    Insurance Agent (own account): 1
    Medical Student: 1
    Cigar Merchant (own account): 1
    Stockbroker (Partner): 1
    Police Constable: 1
    Law Student: 1
    Butcher (own account): 1
    Physician and Surgeon: 1
    Clerk in Holy Orders: 1
    Architect's Apprentice: 1
    Solicitor: 1
    Cotton Broker (worker): 1
    Chemist (own account): 1


    about 1902 Copy certificate of granting of licence to James Holmes M.D. and Blanche Crompton Holmes for Overdale House, with notice of transfer of licence to Dr Gilbert Edward Mould and Miss Gertrude Rowlinson (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4664/14)

    May 1902 William Waterhouse Cromack, a male nurse at Haydock Lodge, succesfully sat the "Examination for the Nursing Certificate" of the Medico-Psychological Association. (offline)

    20.10.1902 Annual report of the Committee of Visitors of Overdale Asylum, with recommendation for renewal of licence of Dr Gilbert E. Mould and Miss Gertrude Rowlinson, resident matron (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4664/9)


    1903 James Shaw The physiognomy of mental diseases and degeneracy 12 introductory pages. 83 pages. Illustrated. Bristol: John Wright & Co.

    11.5.1903 Emily Eliza Beaman, age 38, Spinster of 77 Hart Road, married Joseph Farmer Milne, age 58, Solictor, Widower of 29 Lulworth Road Birkdale, at St Luke, Southport, Lancashire, England. The groom's father (Jonas Milne, Gentleman) was deceased. The bride's father was Edward Henry Beaman. The witnesses were Joseph Thwaites and Ann Beaman. (source)

    26.5.1903 Edward Henry Beaman died "at the age of 40". Address at time of death was Bridlington (East Riding of Yorkshire). Recorded June quarter of 1903.

    5.10.1903 Letter of Charles T. Street at Haydock Lodge, Newton le Willows, enclosing application for renewal of licence (QSP/4693/18) - Letter of application of Edward Henry Beaman of Southport and Charles Tidbury Street of Haydock Lodge, Ashton in Makerfield, surgeons, for renewal of lunatic asylum licence (QSP/4693/19) - Certificate of Charles T.Street, resident licensee, of the names and numbers of patients in Haydock Lodge (QSP/4693/20 Lancashire Record Office)


    Published papers by James Shaw:
    " Dementia praecox" in the Medical Annual
    "Obsessions" in the Journal of Mental [?] Science (Note says "Journ. Med. Sci.")


    The death of Edward Henry Beaman, age 76, was recorded Ormskirk, Lancashire, in the September quarter of 1905.

    30.9.1905 Ashton in Makerfield. Letter of application of Charles Tidbury Street, physician, Mabel Rebecca Street and Alfred Edward Chambers, physician and assistant medical officer, for renewal of lunatic asylum licence for Haydock Lodge, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4749/18)


    13.10.1906 Ashton in Makerfield. Notice of application of Charles Tidbury Street, physician, Mabel Rebecca Street, his wife, and Alfred Edward Chambers, Medical Officer, for renewal of licence of Haydock Lodge Asylum, with list of patients. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4777/11)

    "A.E.Chambers made most of these entries as 'Assistant Medical Officer' but in November of 1906 he signed the register as 'Resident Licensee'. " (Eddie Ince)


    26.9.1907 Nelson. Notice of intention of Philip George Mould of Overdale, Outwood, physician and surgeon, Robert Chester Haworth of Manchester and Florence Ethel Moor of Marsden Hall to apply for renewal of lunatic asylum licence for Marsden Hall, with list of patients (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4802/2)

    14.10.1907 Ashton in Makerfield. Letter of application of Charles Tidbury Street, physician, Mabel Street, his wife, Alfred Edward Chambers, physician, all of Haydock Lodge, and Philip George Mould of Overdale, physician, for renewal of licence for Haydock Lodge. (Lancashire Record Office QSP/4804/16)


    Tuesday 19.4.1910 Spring meeting of Northern and Midland Division Medico-Psychological Association at Haydock Lodge - (offline) - Dr Street presided. Present (members) Drs D. Blair - H. R. Cross - A. K. Douglas - E. Gane - C. K. Hitchcock - H. T. Mackenzie - G. E. Mould - P. G. Mould - N. Raw - C. M. Smith - C. T. Street, G. S. Williamson, and T. S. Adair. Present as visitors "Drs. T. R. Bradshaw, A. Butler, A. G. Gullan, A. Hall, D. Harrison, C. T. MacAlister, and N. P. Marsh. Apologies were received from Drs. W. Bevan Lewis (the President), Middlemass, Powell, Stewart and others. William Henry Coupland, L.R.C.S.Edin., L.R.C.P.Edin., Senior Assistant Medical Officer, Royal Albert Asylum, Lancaster was was unanimously elected as an ordinary member of the Association. Dr. T. S. Adair was re-elected Secretary to the Division for the ensuing twelve months on the proposal of Dr. Hitchcock, seconded by Dr. Nathan Raw. Dr. G. E. Mould was re-elected, and Drs. Middlemass and Mackenzie were elected representative members of Council for the Division. Proposed by Dr. Hitchcock and seconded by Dr. Nathan Raw.

    "Dr Street opened a discussion on the question: "Are we doing as much in the form of treatment of mental disorder as we might do" ? He said that the two points which prompted him to ask the question were : First, the general idea that nothing is done in the way of treatment in asylums; and second, that the recovery rate does not increase. Though much has been written in the way of treatment of the insane, yet treatment does not appear to have yielded many results: the recovery rate has not increased during the past thirty years. He advocated a higher form of moral treatment than the usual occupation, recreation and amusement; a more intimate knowledge of the mental condition of every patient, and particularly a more frank and open method of dealing with it. He believed in discussing a patient's mental symptoms freely with him, whether they were delusions or suicidal inclinations, and had found this method to yield good results, especially in cases of melancholia and alcoholism."


    Sir James Barr (1849-1938), a Consultant physician, was chairman of the BMA in 1911 when he considered the National Health Insurance Bill would

    "destroy individual effort and increase the spirit of dependence," and that "only loafers and wastrels will benefit".

    July 1911 Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal published "The aim and scope of eugenics" by Sir James Barr. It was also published as a 23 page reprint in Edinburgh, later in 1911, from which this quote comes:

    "The followers of Calvin and John Knox should all be Eugenists, because the teaching of those great men on preordination and predestination fits in exactly with modern views on inheritance from the germ plasm" (page 15. Quoted G. R. Searle, 1976 page 2) - See race improvement

    The death of Ann Beaman, age 68, was recorded in Ormskirk in the September quarter of 1911.

    Sir James Barr was President of Liverpool Branch Eugenics Education Society in 1916

    1918 John Charles Wooton came to Haydock Lodge which was jointly "sponsored" by him and Dr L. Street.
    Jack Wooton
    Jack Wooton, about 1912, is top left. His mother, Neeny, a teacher, is looking at him and her sister Nan (also a teacher) is in the front. Jack had three brothers and one sister. One of the younger brothers, Clement, also married a teacher. (Information from Drina, a niece of Jack Wooton)

    1919 William Barnett Warrington (1869-1919) died Above booklet is before this.

    1923 Grouping of railways. Above booklet is before this.


    Haydock Lodge Gala Day 1925

    An album of photographs of this is owned by the family of David Jarrett - Who also have other albums, including that of Mabel Rebecca Street. Copies have been sent to me by Steven Dowd, editor of the History of Newton-le-Willows and Earlstown - Stephen has a page of photographs of Haydock Lodge. To see them all, you will need to register and log in (no cost).


    "What is most needed is birth control amongst the poorer working classes, who represent the greatest increase in the population. A large number of the children brought into the world by these people are of no value except to provide work for doctors and undertakers." --Sir James Barr, M.D. quoted in the Birth Control Review, Volume 8, Number 8 (August 1924), page 236.

    early 1930s Eddie Ince born.

    24.10.1933 Samuel Buckley (aged 74) of Rosemount, Newmarket Road, Ashton- under-Lyne, Lancs died at Haydock Lodge. He was buried on Saturday 28.10.1933 at Christ Church in Ashton-under-Lyne. Samuel's death certificate, registered in Warrington, shows the cause of death as: Cerebral Softening 1 year - Melancholia 4 years, 6 months 8 days
    No post mortem. Death certified by J C Wooton MRCS. Informant: J C Fenney, present at the death Haydock Lodge.
    Samuel Buckley was the son of Joseph and Mary Buckley of Ashton- under-Lyne. He was born about 1859 and his parents are shown in the 1861 census as a "cotton-spinner" (Joseph) and a "cotton-weaver" (Mary). By 1871 Joseph is a "stationer". By 1881 Joseph, Mary and Samuel (aged 22) are all entered as "photographer". Before 1891, Joseph married Hannah Schofield and left the family home. In 1891, Joseph remained a photographer, but Mary was entered as a housekeeper. The 1901 census show Joseph as a photographer on his own account (not employed or an employer). Samuel's wife, Hannah, died on 29.9.1932. Samuel was already a patient at Haydock Lodge. He did not attend her funeral at Ashton. (Information from Samuel's great- grandson, Neill Buckley, whose website give family history
    Samuel and Hannah Buckley and their children
    "A family photo showing Samuel and Hannah with their children. This would have been taken around 1915 as poor Stanley in the back row is in his army uniform. He was killed in France in 1917" - Neill Buckley

    "On most days from 1943 to 1950 I cycled from Haydock to Ashton-in-Makerfield Grammar school along Lodge Lane (A49) and Wigan Road to Bryn passing the Asylum entrance and the Prisoner of War camp which were about half-a-mile apart. I would guess these recollections about prisoners of war and Haydock Lodge patients on Lodge Lane would be about 1945-1947"

    "I was born in Haydock about one mile from the Lodge in the early 1930s. One of my memories of it as a young boy concerned Italian and German Prisoners of War (encamped in Lord Gerrards Park) in their brown all-in-one suits marked with brightly coloured 15 inch discs on the back, escorting Lodge patients along Lodge Lane on Sunday evening walks. They were usually in groups of 8 or 10 and appeared to me as small swarms of bees continually rotating as they progressed on their journey towards Ashton-in-Makerfield. It seemed to me like the hopeless guiding the hapless, though in retrospect I am not sure which was which!"

    "The Legh family were large land owners in this area including the Lodge and Gerrard's Park which had a large house and stables and which became the POW camp (I think the USAAF ran it,but I could be wrong.) A large Public House in Ashton is the Sir Thomas Gerrard - affectionately known by many locals as Tom & Jerrys!"

    "Sadly the former Grammar Schools have gone but their replacement is Byrchall High School which is built on the former POW Camp. (As you can imagine there were many comments about new and old occupants in the early days of the new school). Byrchall was a benefactor and founder of the old Grammar School in 1588" (Eddie Ince)

    4.5.1947 External link to a letter from a German Prisoner of War at Garswood Park Camp, Ashton in Makerfield. No direct relation to Haydock Lodge.

    31.12.1955 Eddie Ince married Enid Ellen Redford at St Thomas the Apostle where part of a stained glass window was donated by Charles Street. This was one of the memories that has drawn Eddie in his researches into local history to research Haydock Lodge. He has made substantial contributions to this essay.

    Dr "Jack" (John) Wootton's great niece Drina remembers visiting great aunt and uncle on many occasions with her parents between July 1958 and August 1959. Haydock Lodge

    "seemed a mysterious place at the time. I remember what seemed at my age then to be a very large billiard table in a round room at the front of the lodge. I also remember lunch at an even larger dining room table with just we folks! We always toured the gardens, pushing Uncle Jack in his wheelchair"

    about February 1966 Mrs Wooton died. In August, John Wooton married June Rodgers, a nurse at Haydock Lodge.

    Haydock Lodge continued as a private asylum until 1969

    Dr Wootton administered Haydock Lodge up until the 1969, when he died, aged about 88.

    spring 1969 John Charles Wooton died

    31.7.1969 Haydock Lodge Nursing Home closed

    29.7.1971 Letter: "The portion of the present building, which is listed as a building of architectural or historic interest and, for which Messrs Trust Houses Forte were seeking to demolish is the large two storey late eighteenth century stone section which faces south... As a result of inspecting the building it was found that part of the original (sixteenth century) house and adjacent stable, which were later used as cavalry barracks, still remain and are not in fact protected by listing. The portion which is in fact listed was reconstructed in the early 1880s after a fire ... Messrs Trust Houses feel they could make little use of the listed portion of the building but are very interested in retaining and restoring, possibly as a banqueting suite, the sixteenth century portion, which includes a very fine hall, and would form the nucleus of the proposed new hotel."

    Friday 20.9.1974 "Preliminary work started on a new 122 bedroom hotel on the site of the old Haydock Lodge nursing home" [By coincidence, 1974 was also the year I began researching Haydock Lodge]

    1986 A Caring Society by Millicent Reagan published

    1997 Around Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne compiled by Tony Ashcroft for the archive photographs series (Published Chalford, Stroud) contains a photograph of Dr Street, described as a local worthy.

    January 2002:

    Roberts, Andrew 1990- England's Poor Law Commissioners and the Trade in Pauper Lunacy 1834-1847 published on the world wide web. web archive begins 11.2.2002

    16.6.2004 Dr Pamela Michael of University of Wales, Bangor to research Scandal, welfare and the emergence of a popular Welsh consciousness: the Haydock Lodge Inquiries, 1846-7

    1.9.2005 David Hirst "A ticklish sort of affair: Charles Mott, Haydock Lodge and the economics of asylumdom" History of Psychiatry 2005 16: 311-332 (David Hirst is at the School of Social Sciences, University of Wales Bangor) - (offline)

    I only used national (not local) records for this research.

    There are local records of Haydock Lodge at:

    St Helens Local History and Archives Library
    St Helens, WA10 1DY

    I am be pleased to hear from anyone who uses them. Eddie Ince is researching there and the paper by Millicent Reagan used the St Helens records.

    Haydock Lodge - The building

    "a daunting building that once stood in 80 acres of woodland overlooking the nearby racecourse" (Dave Harrop, newspaper cutting, no date)

    The Haydock Lodge that became an asylum in January 1844 was built towards the end of the eighteenth century as a residence for members of the Legh family and it was largely reconstructed in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. But it has an earlier history

    29.7.1971 "... part of the original (sixteenth century) house and adjacent stable, which were later used as cavalry barracks, still remain"

    "During the Rising of 1745, Mr Legh of "Haydock Lodge" turned out a fox in plaid jacket to hunt and so offended The Jacobite Party in Wigan that a mob came out to "Haydock Lodge" and almost destroyed it." (about 1900 booklet)

    The Clock on the Belfry bears the date 1795

    1808 Ceased to be residence of Legh family.

    At an uncertain date, became a Cavalry barracks. [So used in 1836]

    "During the Chartist Riots in 1830" [either the name or the date is wrong], "the Lancashire Fencibles and several Cavalry Regiments were at different times quartered here". (about 1900 booklet)

    Probably not used by a family between being vacated by the cavalry and becoming an asylum although "wings and outbuildings were probably occupied by the person to whom the park and farm were let" (Dave Harrop, newspaper cutting, no date)

    © Andrew Roberts 1991 - This research was begun in 1974. The paper above combines a paper I wrote in the 1980s with one I wrote in 1991. Transferred to the web, and revised, January 2002

    Citation suggestion


    My referencing suggestion for this essay is a bibliography entry:

    Roberts, Andrew 1990 - England's Poor Law Commissioners and the Trade in Pauper Lunacy 1834-1847

    With intext references to "(Roberts, A. 1990)"

    If you want to reference part of the essay, you could use a short heading in the intext references. For example: "(Roberts, A. 1990 Petition 12.6.1846)" would direct your reader to the Petition of Owen Owen Roberts.

    See ABC Referencing for general advice.

    Study links outside this site
    Andrew Roberts' web Study Guide
    Picture introduction to this site
    Top of Page Take a Break - Read a Poem
    Click coloured words to go where you want

    Andrew Roberts likes to hear from users:
    To contact him, please use the
    Communication Form

  • plus: Rev Noble Wilson and Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum
    plus new essay:
    Haydock after Mott and Coode

    Now available as a novel by Allan Smith
    Now available as a novel by Allan Smith

    click for chronological index mental health


    Abbots Grange, unlicensed asylum

    Andover Workhouse

    Mr Alker

    Peter Armstrong

    Lord Ashley


    asylums index

    Thomas Austin, pauper

    Jeremy Bentham



    Margaret Ellen Bolton

    Dr John Bowring

    Mr Bretton of Manchester

    William George Cambell

    Edwin Chadwick


    Mr Clarke

    Dr John Conolly

    George Coode -
    Acting Secretary in place of Chadwick
    publicly denies joint speculation
    Evidence to Lunacy Commissioners
    "became in fact managing superintendent"
    1846/1847 evidence

    Miss Louisa Coode

    Manners Benson Coode

    county asylums


    Diet: Lambeth - Peckham - Haydock Lodge


    John Edwards, ex-patient

    Robert Edwards

    Eye (Suffolk)

    William Farr

    William Busfield Ferrand

    John Fielden

    Further Report of 1847

    General Rules



    Sir James Graham
    Longtown Union

    William Graham of Lincoln Asylum

    Mr Green, medical officer

    Sir George Grey
    Further Report

    Mrs Ellen Griffiths

    William Griffiths, ex-patient


    Haydock Lodge - Table of patients
    1844 advert
    Spring 1845 Pamphlet
    closed - reopened - 1854 Paupers return
    1880s advert
    1891 advert
    1900? pamphlet


    Hendon Union Workhouse


    Margaret Ellen Hogarth

    Mary Holden, nurse

    Mr Raymond Houghton, magistrate

    Dr R. Barron Howard of Manchester

    Dr John Robert Hume
    Further Report

    Charles Foster (or Frederick) Jenkins, surgeon
    sleeping at Lowton

    Jersey -
    Miss Louisa Coode

    William Jones

    Justice of the Peace (JP)

    Mr Justin

    Dr Kay


    Kirkdale sessions


    Lancaster County Asylum contract

    Mr Eli Lawrence
    Abbots Grange, unlicensed asylum

    Thomas Legh

    licensed houses

    Edward Lister


    Longtown Union

    Skeffington Lutwidge

    W. G. Lumley

    Lyme Hall, Cheshire

    mad houses


    Thomas Malthus

    Manchester Workhouse

    Mr Marryatt

    Mr Meikelan, engineer

    Charles Mellish, ex-patient

    Miles Madhouse, Hoxton


    Charles Mott -
    Mott Dismissed -
    struggles to control the scandal -
    Mott resigns 1846
    1846/1847 evidence

    James Williams Mylne

    Mr Nicholl, medical officer

    Richard Oastler


    pauper lunatics


    Robert Peel

    Petition of Owen Owen Roberts

    The Poor Law Guide and Union Advertiser

    George Bullock Porteus, surgeon
    "culpable negligence"
    1846/1847 evidence


    Prestwich Aslyum

    Dr James Cowles Prichard

    Bryan Waller Procter

    Quarter Sessions

    Rainhill Asylum

    Rev Evan Richards, patient

    Mrs Jane Richards

    Owen Owen Roberts of Bangor
    July 1846 evidence

    Mr Rushton, magistrate

    Sam and Saduski cruel

    Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Classes

    Science and Statistics

    Nassau William Senior

    Lord Seymour

    James Shaw

    Adam Smith

    Social Sciences

    Sir William Somerville

    William Owen Stanley MP
    Further Report

    James Rayner Stephens

    St Marylebone Workhouse

    Charles Street

    John Sutton

    George John Taylor

    John Thurnam of York Retreat

    Union Gazette

    Dr James Vose of Liverpool

    Thomas Wakley

    Welsh Doctors

    George Francis Whelan
    1846/1847 evidence

    Dr Lloyd Williams of Denbigh

    Rev. Noble Wilson

    workhouse asylums

    York Retreat

    Chronological index






    January 1835

    August 1835

    1831-1841: Haydock barrack

    6.6.1837: Eye

    1837 - north

    August 1838

    autumn 1839

    autumn 1841




    April 1842


    March 1843

    about the end of 1843 (Coode)

    about the end of 1843 (Mott)

    1844 advertisement


    April 1844: Rev Richards

    7.5.1844: Richards admitted

    18 months from 1.1.1845

    about April 1845

    21.4.1845 recommendation

    about June 1845

    September 1845: Andover

    27.9.1845 minute

    October 1845

    The 1845/1846 winter
    what they knew

    about the end of 1845

    December 1845 inspection

    18.12.1845 minute

    Christmas 1845 (Roberts)


    5.1.1846: Richards returned

    18.1.1846 minute

    24.2.1846 allegations

    March 1846

    about May 1846

    4.5.1846 special visit

    4.6.1846: Mott to Roberts

    12.6.1846 Petition

    13.6.1846: Graham

    17.6.1846: Times

    18.6.1846: Times

    25.6.1846: Lunacy Commission agenda

    4.7.1846: Lunacy Commission special meeting

    10.7.1846 and 11.7.1846: Commission hear evidence

    26.8.1846: Wakley

    end of August 1846
    Mott out - Whelan in

    30.8.1846: Liverpool

    1.9.1846: Liverpool

    10.9.1846: Conolly reports


    October 1846 drains


    12.10.1846: on the spot

    October 1846: Chester Courant



    January 1847


    30.1.1847: Lancaster

    1.2.1847: Stanley



    8.3.1847: Further Report published



    June 1847






    February 1849

    1851: Miss Coode

    1851: Haydock closed

    12.5.1851: Death of Charles Mott

    January 1852: Abbots Grange

    1852: Haydock reopened

    1.1.1853: John Sutton

    1854: Paupers return





    1872: burnt down

    1874: vanity case




    about 1900