The Chaplaincy Question: The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Versus the Belfast Lunatic Asylum*

THE CHAPLAINCY QUESTION: THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND VERSUS THE BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM* PAULINE PRIOR AND DAVID GRIFFITHS the “chaplaincy question” refers to a public dispute between the Board of Governors of the Belfast District Lunatic Asylum and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the mid-nineteenth century. The governors so strongly opposed the Lord Lieutenant’s wish to appoint asylum chaplains that they entered into successful litigation in a Dublin court. This paper investigates the motives that inspired the board to defy such a powerful opponent. Documents of the period reveal a solid network of local support for the Belfast Governors based on a deep-seated resentment of colonial administration; opposing views on the role of religion in the treatment of the insane; and professional rivalry between Dr. Frances White, Inspector of Lunacy, and Dr. Robert Stuart, Resident Medical Superintendent (RMS) of Belfast Asylum . This examination of the incident is divided into four sections: The first introduces the conflict and its main protagonists, the second sets it within its historical context, the third concludes the narrative, and the final discussion reflects on the wider issues underlying the dispute. THE PROBLEM EMERGES When Belfast Lunatic Asylum opened in 1829, a board of unpaid governors was nominated by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to assist in the administration and management of the asylum. In March 1834, the governors assembled to discuss the regulation of divine worship. The catalyst for the discussion was a letter from the commissioners for the erection of lunatic asylums in Ireland inquiring (for the information of the Lord Lieutenant) THE CHAPLAINCY QUESTION 137 *The authors would like to express their appreciation for research guidance given by Doctors Campbell and Crawford of the Department of Social and Economic History at Queen’s University, Belfast, and for the helpful comments of the referee from ÉIRE-IRELAND. whether chaplains had been appointed. No reply was sent to the commissioners , though the board decided unanimously to take matters into its own hands, resolving [t]hat whereas for some convalescent patients who could not be suffered to attend public worship, it may, under proper regulations, be useful and consolatory , and not likely to be detrimental to hear the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the offering up of prayers in their behalf by a minister of religion , ordered that, on a wish being expressed by a patient to receive such professional visits, the manager of the asylum, if he is of opinion that such visits are not likely to produce an injurious excitement in the patient, but are likely to be beneficial to him, be authorised to request the attendance of a clergyman of the Established Church, whether the parochial clergyman , or, with his permission, the clergyman of the parish to which the patient belonged before his admittance, or of the minister of such other denomination as the patient may have belonged before his admittance, if he should give a preference to such other minister, subject, however, to the same local limitations as in the case of the clergyman of the Established Church . . . that the Manager report the application and the results at the next monthly meeting of the Governors and that no nurse or any other person connected or unconnected with this asylum, be suffered to introduce any minister of religion to a patient without the knowledge and express permission of the Manager.1 Rather surprisingly, the board’s action did not incur the immediate disapproval of central government. Eleven years later, the governors received a letter from the Inspector General of Prisons—also responsible for asylums during the first half of the nineteenth century—requesting the names and salaries of chaplains appointed to the asylum. After lengthy discussion , the governors agreed to reply that “no such offices were attached to the establishment.”2 This minutes entry is highly significant. Board members were aware that the Inspector of Prisons was requesting information that could easily have been obtained from routine financial returns and was therefore a formal reprimand. The board again ignored the request for information and instead recommended that the Lord Lieutenant appoint the board’s resident physician, Dr. Robert Stuart (the first medical manager to be appointed in a...