Library Collections: Document: Full Text

This principle is, that there is no such thing as a just and proper curative or ameliorating treatment of the insane in cheaply constructed and cheaply managed institutions; that the measure of expense of common paupers never should be regarded in providing for the insane; that a better class of alsmhouses may be carried on for receiving lunatics, and dignified with the name of asylums or hospitals, with some degree of apparent success, but to do the greatest amount of good to the insane the mind of the tax-paying community must be trained to understand and admit the necessity of expensive arrangements, and that if it is worth while to have any institutions beyond these receptacles in which the most patients, or rather the most sufferers, can be crowded together at the least charge, it is worth while to establish such as will accomplish all of cure or relief which is practicable.

It is true that there are many places, public and private, in England, where the only question asked before a patient is sent, is, is the weekly rate lower than any where else? At two private establishments in London, Bethnal Green, and Hoxton, a thousand patients are crowded together into what appears a collection of buildings in the rear or backyard of a crowded street, without classification, ventilation, employment, or other means of comfort, to say nothing of cure. The general tone of feeling and action in England, was such as to render it certain that the days of cheap provision for the insane had passed away, after an experience of thirty years since hospitals were generally established.

This greater degree of spaciousness prevails throughout; in the quantity of land expanded to fifty or a hundred acres, instead of a town lot; in the area of ground plan of the buildings, rarely being run up to three stories, as far as the common apartments of the inmates are concerned; in the galleries, which in no recent instance have rooms on more than one side, and are from 12 to 15 feet wide, and as many high, presenting thus a light, airy, and cheerful aspect, giving a window to many groups of patients; the attendants' rooms, large and commodious, enabling this essential and all-important class of assistants to enjoy their limited intervals of sleep and relaxation in comfortable quarters, which at the same time are so arranged as to allow something to be known of the patients, even when the attendant is in his own room, the stair cases, so numerous as to allow the classification to be unbroken; the bathing-rooms, not in the galleries as was the former very uncomfortable practice, but near them, and of very ample dimensions.

It is obvious that to have things on this enlarged scale of spaciousness must require much more extent of building, for the same number of patients, than in the old mode of cutting an edifice into as small cells, or bed-rooms, as were endurable. This is in part obviated by having a large share of the patients lodge in very spacious "associated dormitories" where a number, often as great as 20 to 30, are accommodated in beds ranged side by side, with an attendant's bed or room, so arranged, as to permit a constant inspection; the water closets, &c., being so placed, as to prevent an annoyance to each other.

It will be manifest that an immense economy of space and first cost will be saved by this system, unless there are objections to it which should prevent its adoption. A reference to the Report of the Metropolitan Commissioners on Lunacy, (a work of wonderful sagacity and practical wisdom, on all points touching the practical treatment of the insane,) and the various Asylum Reports, which I communicate to you, will show that this system has been most generally adopted and approved of in Great Britain, as a mode of accommodating a large proportion of patients, advantageous on many accounts, of vastly higher importance than mere economy. I beg leave to call your attention to the abundant testimony on this point, contained in the documents referred to.

In examining this really most important point in construction, with the heads of all the institutions I visited, I was surprised to find an almost entire concurrence of opinion, that in the best plan for an institution, whether for rich or poor, old or recent, males or females, it was expedient to have a large part accommodated in associated dormitories. Most of these gentlemen were familiar with both systems, as the idea formerly was in England, as it has been with us, that an institution should have a room for each inmate.

With respect to the exact proportion between the numbers to be placed in associated, or in single dormitories there was some diversity of judgment. While some would have no single rooms, except for such as we term lodge patients, others would prefer to have one-half, or one-third of the beds in single rooms. In a single instance only, was a larger proportion of single rooms recommended. At the new and splendid Morningside Asylum, near Edinburgh, it will be seen by the plan that there are but six single rooms for 350 pauper patients. At Leicester and the York Asylums, I found common dormitories just made by removing partitions of small rooms; at Lincoln the upper galleries had been discontinued as such, and were used as common dormitories.