Facts about David Ritchie Sr's whereabouts prior to his diagnosis of insanity

The final batch of documents relating to the admission of my great-grandfather to the London County Asylum in Hanwell contains illuminating details about his life in the years prior to his breakdown in June 1909. The documents are actually a series of procedural letters and forms aimed at establishing whether his expenses should be covered by the Parish of St Marylebone or the Parish of Kensington. Yet they provide valuable information to flesh out the story as we know it so far.

There is a letter to Miss Louisa Parker, the eldest sister of David's wife Maude, who is living in New Cavendish Street. In it, the Settlement Officer of St Marylebone asks for information pertaining to David Ritchie's stay at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington. Louisa Parker provides the following answers: Firstly, Mr David S Ritchie went to live at that address in May 1904, and stayed there till 30 September 1907. His stay there was continuous, as opposed to broken periods. While at Cornwall Gardens, he had nothing whatever to do with any hospital, infirmary or institution of any sort.

A second letter from the Settlement Officer is addressed to Miss Clara Philpott, 2 Portman Square. Miss Philpott gives basically the same answers: David Ritchie stayed at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington, for 3 years and 6 months, and he left on 30 September 1907. His stay there was continuous. Not once while at Cornwall Gardens did he become an in-patient at a hospital, infirmary or any other institution.

There follows a page of notes summing up the findings of the Settlement Officer. Here are the pertinent facts:

For the week preceding his arrival at the Marylebone Workhouse, David Ritchie stayed at Cleveland House in St James Square. He was with his wife Maude, who was working at this address.

Before Cleveland House, David Ritchie stayed for a month at 41 Cockrin Street in St John's Wood. This was the home of Maude's sister Emily and her husband William Smith.

Tracking backwards in time, the notes indicate that, for the 11 months prior to his stay with the Smiths, David Ritchie stayed at 14 Clafaine Road, Canonbury. No further details are given about this location.

Before that 11-month stay, he was at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington. It appears that the head of this household may have been Sir Henry Bliss, because there is a note beside his name that says, "Gone. Abingdon, Oxford. No relief here." Maybe Miss Clara Philpott, who was applied to for information about his stay, was a servant who worked with him at this address. I do not know who she could be otherwise.

The upshot of all this investigation was a lengthy printed order from St Marylebone regarding "Lunatic Settlement, Maintenance and Care", signed in the presence of the police. This was, in the words of Judy Lester, "a formal order of removal from the Parish of ST Marylebone to the Parish of Kensington, and a request for Kensington to reimburse St Marylebone with all the expenses of getting David Scott Ritchie to the asylum, plus the costs of his ongoing care and maintenance while he remained there. This was because his parish of legal settlement had been adjudged as Kensington, on the basis of 3 continuous years residence at Cornwall Gardens [1904 to 1907]. Point of interest: The costs of care and maintenance at hanwell were being charged at 1 shilling 5 3/4 pence per day."

Image Description - Vintage European style key engraving from Six Semaines de vacances by Paul Poiré (1880). Original from the British Library. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.

Who will pay for the inmate's treatment?

One of the startling aspects of my great-grandfather's life is that he became a pauper, despite having a wife who was employed and a family of origin who were all respectable traders. I don't know how this came to be, and can only surmise that his insanity was too much for the family to bear. At any rate, the documents relating to the cost of David Ritchie Sr's admission to the London County Asylum make it clear that he was cared for by the parish.

As Judy Lester puts it, "St Marylebone investigated David Ritchie's place of legal settlement, in case they could pass the expenses of his removal and the costs of his ongoing care onto another parish. This included the need to establish his place of residence in previous years."

There is a page of scribbled notes which appear to have been made in the course of conversation. I imagine that someone must have questioned David Ritchie himself, as there was no-one else present who could furnish such personal details. The following is my interpretation of the rough notes, based on what I already know about the family's circumstances.

The patient's name is David Ritchie. He is 35 years old, a butler, and married. He belongs to the Church of England and is a member of a club. He was, until his recent breakdown, in service. He has a son named David, who is 7 years old and currently in the Hampstead Fever Hospital. Eighteen months ago he was living at Cornwall Gardens, Kensington, where he remained about 3 years altogether. He began working at a new place about a month ago, at which time he was troubled by deafness. He has a wife named Maude, who is a cook working at the same place as him. Her employer is Sir Charles Murray of Cleveland House, St James Square, Piccadilly. He has a sister-in-law named Mrs Emily Smith, who lives at 31 Cockrin Street. It is unclear whether he has any means.

As mentioned, I was able to decipher the meaning of the notes from what I've already learnt about David Ritchie's former life. To the person interviewing him, however, the story must have been difficult to follow. I see in my mind's eye a uniformed officer sitting at his desk, scratching his head, struggling to sift out the important facts from a long and rambling narrative. How grateful he must have been for the names and addresses already provided on the admission form.

he would gather the evidence he needed to establish which parish should carry the costs of David Ritchie's care and treatment, but more about that in my next post.

Photo credit: "Vintage Wallet — Interior" by J. Mark Bertrand.

A medical examination for the new inmate

Previous posts in this series about David Ritchie's admission to the London County Asylum have shown why he had to be admitted and how he got there. Here, I share the notes taken by the Medical Superintendent as to the state of his physical health. Once again, a big thanks to Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research for tracking down the records and sending them to me so I could include them in my blog. First, some background to set the scene. David Ritchie was a 35-year-old man, married, and a butler. He had a 7-year-old son, my grandfather, who was living with relatives in St John's Wood, presumably so that David and his wife Maude could both continue working.

David had suffered a previous attack of insanity when he was 18. That episode had lasted just a few days and was not treated. At that time, he was probably living with his widowed mother Emma Eliza Ritchie and 9-year-old sister Susan Elizabeth. This assumption is based on the fact that he was living with them in the 1891 census, taken a year earlier. Interestingly, David switched occupations from junior clerk to footman soon after that census was taken, suggesting that his health forced him to make the change. Nevertheless, he managed to rise to the position of butler and stay employed at Cleveland House in St James Square, so his condition certainly did not impair his normal functioning.

At least, not until June 1909, when he began displaying bizarre behaviour and had to be taken to the Marylebone Workhouse. After that, Dr Duncan Menzies pronounced him to be "of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment". He was then conveyed by the police to the asylum at Hanwell, where the Medical Superintendent examined him in preparation for formal admission.

Here is what the Superintendent noted:

1. As to cleanliness: Clean. 2. Bodily condition: Fair. 3. Positions and descriptions of any bruises, wounds, marks of injury, skin eruptions, sores, pain, tenderness, and any evidence of disease or disorder: Old vaccination marks, right arm. Faint bruise, left leg. Abrasion, left leg. Old scars, both knees. Sebacious cyst, forehead.

This is clearly not a sick or broken man. On the contrary, he has marks on his body which are consistent with work in a busy household full of dark corridors, narrow steps, heavy furniture and horses. If he looked anything like his son, my grandfather, he was also tall, big-boned, and strong. indeed he must have been because he survived the institution for an astonishing 57 years, until his death at the age of 92. Photo credit: "Some of Mike's wounds" by Ryan McFarland.

Taken charge of and detained under care and treatment

In my previous post, I began sharing some of the documents relating to David Ritchie Sr's admission to the London County Asylum in Hanwell. Here I present the next batch. In the words of Judy Lester who found the documents for me, "As you'd expect, under the provisions of the Lunacy Act (1890) there was a lot of paperwork connected with committal to an asylum. So there are many forms and notes."

One document lists the expenses incurred by the Relieving Officer in regard to the enquiry into David Ritchie Sr's state of mind. The Relieving Officer was the person at the workhouse who was in charge of deciding which residents were entitled to receive assistance, and exactly what form that should take. In this case, he was responsible for deciding whether David Ritchie should be admitted to the workhouse at all, and after establishing that he should not, he arranged for a Justice of the Peace [a policeman] to come and take him to the London County Asylum. The expenses were all incurred on 5 June 1909.

As you consider the list, I invite you to picture the scene. A cab draws up to the gates of the Marylebone Workhouse. Watery sunlight spills from the roof of the building and reflects off the vehicle's bonnet. A horse drawn cart clatters past, speeding up as it goes. From inside the cab, the keen-eyed passenger can't help noticing that the skinny woman holding the horse's reins has a decidedly guilty expression on her face, but before he can get distracted, he climbs out, reminds the driver to wait, and puts on his hat. Burnt porridge and wood fire smells seep from a high window, causing his nostrils to twitch as he looks around. Then he spots a pitiful-looking figure dressed in a worn-out coat with tails. Immediately, he calls out in an authoritative voice, instructing the inmate to bring someone with a key. At the same time he pulls out a sheaf of papers from the inside pocket of his jacket. It is time to meet and take charge of the lunatic within.

Now, here is the list of expenses, offered in my own words:

Two shillings for the hire of a cab to convey the Justice of the Peace from Duke Street to the workhouse, including waiting and return. Seven shillings 6 pence for the part-hire of a cab to remove David Ritchie to Hanwell asylum. One shilling 6 pence for the part-hire of a male attendant. Six shillings for expenses incurred by the Relieving officer with regard to filling in forms, waiting on the Justice of the Peace, etcetera. Seven pence for postage, etcetera [including 2 pence for correspondence with David Ritchie's wife Maude].

The above expenses came to 17 shillings 7 pence. In case you are not familiar with the old money used before the decimal system was introduced, bear in mind that there were 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound. Thus, the total amount incurred was nearly 1 pound.

Accompanying documents show that money was duly paid out to the Relieving Officer. These documents include an order from the Justice of the Peace to the Guardians of the Poor of the Parish of St Marylebone, directing them to reimburse the Relieving Officer the sum of 17 shillings and 7 pence. Also, receipts for payments made by the Relieving Officer to the Marylebone Workhouse, to cover the hire of the cab and a male attendant.

I share these details of expenses because they flesh out the journey my great-grandfather took on that fifth day of June 1909. What was for one man an entry into an unknown world of institutional food, padded rooms and locked wards was for others a routine day of driving, signing papers and issuing payments. History is surely full of contrasting perspectives.

Photo credit: "Great Britain 6 pence 1900" by Numismatic Coins & History.