ABSTRACT
In the 1820s–30s, some families who could afford private asylum care had nevertheless been reluctant to spend money in this way. For example, in Somerset in 1822, a Mr Goold refused to refer his suicidal wife for treatment at Brislington House because his parish would not bear the cost. Despite appeals from the local rector to Mrs Goold's husband and father, whom he believed had the means to pay, she remained at home, in this case with tragic consequences. Locked in the house alone one evening while her husband was out, her clothes caught fire and she burned to death. 1 Despite the success of asylums like Ticehurst in attracting an upper-class clientele, the private madhouse system had been able to expand partly because some licensed houses continued to take pauper patients. However, in 1845 the provision of county asylums became compulsory. Although some counties were slower than others to comply with this legislation, and pauper patients continued to be accommodated in private madhouses, from the 1850s proprietors of licensed houses increasingly depended on private patients (see Table 4.1). Institutions which already restricted their intake to private patients were best placed to survive in a more competitive market; and all proprietors may have hoped to benefit from the economic prosperity of the 1850s–60s. However, factors apart from cost influenced the willingness of Victorian families to refer patients to private asylums.
