Document generated on 10/02/2021 4:01 a.m. Ontario History Politics, patronage and scandal at the Provincial Lunatic Asylum, 1848-1857 Joseph Dunlop Volume 98, Number 2, Fall 2006 Article abstract In the mid-nineteenth century, Canada West’s Provincial Lunatic Asylum sat at URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1065825ar the heart of a system of patronage. It was this system of patronage that allowed DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1065825ar the politician John Rolph to secure the position of Asylum Medical Superintendent for his protégé, Dr. Joseph Workman. However, this same See table of contents period also witnessed the beginning of a shift away from patronage-based appointments towards a new style of civil service characterized by expertise rather than political or personal connections. Among those who supported this Publisher(s) new ideal was the politician and journalist George Brown, who heavily criticized Workman’s appointment as an example of political patronage. Yet, The Ontario Historical Society the antagonism that continued to escalate between Brown and Workman owed its genesis not only to Brown’s ideals, but was also fueled by the considerations ISSN of party factionalism as well as by the clash of two strong personalities. Their feud would reach its climax in the heavily publicized 1857 libel suit, Workman 0030-2953 (print) v. Brown. Sharing a common devotion to the Reform party and to lunacy 2371-4654 (digital) reform, an examination of the feud between Brown and Workman reveals the many schisms that could divide Reformers during this period. Explore this journal Cite this article Dunlop, J. (2006). Politics, patronage and scandal at the Provincial Lunatic Asylum, 1848-1857. Ontario History, 98(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.7202/1065825ar Copyright © The Ontario Historical Society, 2006 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ 183 olitics, patronage and scandal at the Provincial P Lunatic Asylum, 1848-18571 by Joseph Dunlop n February of 1857 the Toronto proprietor, George Brown, had pub- Globe published a series of serious lished the letter because of a long stand- Iaccusations directed against Dr. ing rivalry that existed between the two Joseph Workman, medical superintend- men. Brown claimed that he had simply ent of the Provincial Lunatic Asylum. published the letter out of a concern The allegations were penned by one for the public good. James Magar, a former porter at the Workman announced his intentions asylum. Magar’s letter was printed with- to sue Brown for libel. In a letter to the out editorial comment. Nevertheless, radical politician and newspaper editor Workman was certain that the Globe’s William Lyon Mackenzie, Workman at- 1 This paper owes its existence to the generosity of the Friends of the Archives at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, who provided me with a Hewton Memorial Bursary in 2005. I would like to thank John Court, archivist at the CAMH, for his guidance and suggestions. An anonymous reader from Ontario History provided excellent criticism and suggestions, as did Tory Tronrud, the edi- tor of Ontario History, who very patiently helped transform this essay into something readable. Thanks also to Julie Gilmour for her helpful insights, and to Professor Mark McGowan for his invaluable as- sistance in revising this article for publication. Finally, much appreciation is owed to Professor Dennis Duffy for his proof reading, patience, advice, and many other kindnesses. Ontario History / Volume XCVIII, Number 2 / Autumn 2006 184 ONTARIO HISTORY Abstract In the mid-nineteenth century, Canada West’s Provincial Lunatic Asylum sat at the heart of a sys- tem of patronage. It was this system of patronage that allowed the politician John Rolph to secure the position of Asylum Medical Superintendent for his protégé, Dr. Joseph Workman. However, this same period also witnessed the beginning of a shift away from patronage-based appointments towards a new style of civil service characterized by expertise rather than political or personal connections. Among those who supported this new ideal was the politician and journalist George Brown, who heavily criticized Workman’s appointment as an example of political patronage. Yet, the antagonism that continued to escalate between Brown and Workman owed its genesis not only to Brown’s ideals, but was also fueled by the considerations of party factionalism as well as by the clash of two strong personalities. Their feud would reach its climax in the heavily publicized 1857 libel suit, Workman v. Brown. Sharing a common devotion to the Reform party and to lunacy reform, an examination of the feud between Brown and Workman reveals the many schisms that could divide Reformers during this period. Résumé: Le favoritisme érigé en système existait, au milieu du 19e siécle, au sein de l’Asile provin- cial d’aliénés de l’ouest du Canada. C’est ainsi que l’homme politique John Rolph put nommer l’un de ses protégés, le Dr Joseph Workman, directeur de cet institution médicale. Cependant, pendant la même période, le système de népotisme était remis en question au profit d’un nouveau type de nominations des fonctionnaires fondé sur le mérite plutôt que sur les relations politiques personnelles. Georges Brown, politicien et journaliste, était l’un de ceux qui soutenaient cette nouvelle politique, et il critiqua sévère- ment la nomination de Workman, un exemple caractéristique selon lui de favoritisme politique. Les deux hommes partageaient pourtant l’idéal du Parti réformiste et étaient convaincus de la nécessité de réformer le système d’aide aux aliénés; mais leur antagonisme croissant se nourrissait aussi bien des op- positions entre différentes factions à l’intérieur du parti que de celles entre deux fortes personnalités aux caractéres absolus. Leur dispute atteint son apogée lors du procès bien connu Workman contre Brown qui s’ouvrit en 1857. Une analyse de cette dispute révèle les nombreuses divisions entre les réformistes durant cette période. tacked Brown in a torrent of sarcastic somewhat ironic, as it echoes similar invective: criticisms expressed by Brown’s Globe George Brown knows all about insanity some years earlier concerning Work- and its treatment. He knows all about the man’s own lack of experience in the structure & management of asylums. He treatment of the insane: “We acknowl- never (in my time) had his foot in the asy- edge Dr. Workman to be a man of tal- lum, but he is well posted up in all of its ent, of good acquirement and able to details, wants, peculiarities, & faults. Why discharge the duties of a general practi- not, seeing that he has such clever tutors as 2 tioner as well as most of his compeers. James Mager [sic]…? But these are not sufficient for the pur- Workman’s critique of Brown is pose [of running the asylum].”3 Work- 2 Archives of Ontario (hereafter cited as AO), Mackenzie-Lindsey Papers (MLP), Joseph Work- man to W.L. Mackenzie, 2 March 1857. 3 Globe, 3 April 1854, editorial: “The Lunatic Asylum.” poltcs, patronage and scandal 185 man would be venerated by the end of the scandals that plagued the asylum’s his career as the ‘Nestor of Canadian first decade grew out of a struggle for Specialists’ and is remembered today as the control of the institution, fought be- the major reformer in the treatment of tween the asylum’s medical superintend- the mentally ill in nineteenth-century ents and its board of commissioners.6 Canada.4 Yet at the time of his appoint- Much of the Magar scandal of 1857 is ment, Workman was no expert in the also grounded in the internal politics of treatment of the mentally ill. He was the asylum. Both the Magar scandal and a patronage appointee who owed his the ones that preceded it were the result job to his connection with the Reform of conflicts between the directors of politician, Dr. John Rolph. His appoint- the institution and infighting amongst ment would draw strong criticism from the staff. Yet these conflicts were also Brown. connected to complications caused by Though the use political patronage patron-client relationships. Much of was still prevalent during this period, what occurred in the early years of the the mid-nineteenth century began to asylum is best understood in light of see a gradual shift away from the use of the culture of ‘clientelism’ that strongly patronage in the appointment of gov- marked social and political relationships ernment officials and civil servants in in Canada during the first half of the Britain, the United States and Canada.5 nineteenth century. The scandals that In Canada West, George Brown was shook the asylum between 1848 and a leading proponent of such reform, 1857 provide a case study in which to advocating ‘expertise’ over personal or observe the workings of patronage, fac- political connections when it came to tionalism and personal hostility. making appointments to the province’s Like many other public institutions penitentiary and asylum. of the nineteenth century, the Provin- The 1857 scandal that grew out of cial Lunatic Asylum sat at the heart of Magar’s charges was only one in a long a system of political patronage. Both S. list that went back to the establishment F. Wise and Carol Wilton-Siegel have of the temporary Provincial Lunatic observed the value that clientelism and Asylum in 1840.