Queen Mary and Westfield College London University PhD Thesis ...

would tend to verify the statements of both Tom Brown and Ned Ward, at the turn of the century,
that a fee was being required 22 . That there are discrepancies in accounts of what was charged
or whether charged on entering or leaving the hospital, can itself be explained by discrepancies
between what was, and what was supposed to be, happening at I3ethlem. Undoubtedly, as
Alideridge maintains, visitors were supposed, until 1765, to make their donations on leaving
(although this possibly only prevailed after 1676, for at the Bishopsgate building th s is not made
explicit). Quite apart form the 1765 order Allderidge cites, this is confirmed by de Saussure,
who visited Bethiem in 1725, and by abuses uncovered by the Sub-Committee in 1727, when
enterprising staff had been extorting money for inner tours of 'the chequer', and visitors were
reftisng to 'pay agen' when asked by the Porter on leaving 23 . Evidently, however, it had occurred
before that the Porter had demanded money on visitors' entry and had 'shutt the doore against
them' until they paid the fee he asked 24 . Even if, by the eighteenth century, a penny (or,
latterly, tuppence) had become a standard fee for visitors to Betlilem, it was (as Alideridge says)
a minimum standard, and does not make poors' box receipts an any more reliable quantifier
for visiting. Wealthier visitors continued to give considerably more than the penny asked for.
Lord Percy gave lOs in 1610, while the Prince of Wales 'was pleased to give five Guineas to
the Poors-Box' in 173525. Hospital tenants also, on securing leases and other bargains with the
Court, often made donations to the poors' boxes of Bridewell or Bethlem 26 . On rare occasions,
even a patient might make a contribution, like David Avery, who gave half a guinea to the box
in 172227. When relatives, friends and parish officers also gave money to the poors' box; or
22 Tom Brown, Amssemena Serioea and Comical, Calcelaied for She Meridian of London in The Works
(London, 1707-8), vol. III (1708), 35; Edward Ward, The London Spy. The VeniSie, and Vices of She Town
Exposed So View (London, 1699), ad. Arthur L. Hayward (London, Toronto, Melbourne and Sydney, Cassell and
Company, 1927), 55.
23 BCGM, 12 May 1727, fol. 11; de Saussure, Foreign View, 93.
24 BCCM, 28 April 1643, fol. 36. See in/re.
25 See O'Donoghue, Bethlehem, 235, & The London Esening Posi, henceforth LEP, No. 1239, 25-28 October
1735.
26 It is not entirely clear to me whether these donations were actually balanced with the poor.' box taking.
in Bethkm itself, but this does seem the implication of entries like that of 15 July 1642, when Olave Rucke
bargained for a lease of two house, at Charing Cross belonging to Bethiem, by giving 'a 2(1. piece of Gold to bee
put into the poore. boxe of the s(aild hospitall'; BCGM, fol. 393. From 1644, a contribution of 10. to the box
wai made compulsory for all assignees of hospital leases, ib,d, 23 Aug. 1644, fol. 142.
27 This was, in fact, only a temporary whim on Avery s part, whose change of mind and request lot his money
back was sympathetically complied with by the Sub-Committee. This instance was undoubtedly exceptional,
15