29.03.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

apprentices <strong>and</strong> staff of Bridewell, were undoubtedly a distraction, to the Surgeon especially'29.<br />

By the early eighteenth century, the business of the Surgeon had increased to such a level that<br />

the Board was obliged to allow him a 8eparate salary for BridewelP 30 . Increasingly it was<br />

Bridewell rather than Bethiem which dem<strong>and</strong>ed the Surgeon's 'frequent attendance"31.<br />

Medical officers were often appointed as governors at Bridewell <strong>and</strong> Bethlem, which had the<br />

advantage of encouraging a deeper involvement in the hospitals' affairs than might otherwise<br />

have been the case, many indeed proving very energetic in this capacity 132. On the other h<strong>and</strong>,<br />

the financial interest of officers in the hospital, particularly of the Apothecary <strong>and</strong> Surgeon who<br />

submitted bills, posed obvious problems for the Governors in bringing them fully to account.<br />

129 Throughout the period medical officers had been required 'to give necessary Attendance' on the officers of<br />

both hospitals <strong>and</strong> on the apprenticeS <strong>and</strong> prisoners of Bridewell, but had recurrently attended them much more<br />

than the Governors would have liked. For the period 1649-56, e.g., the Surgeon, Meredith's, bills for Bridewell<br />

totalled only about £10 less than those for Bethlem. With the Governors increasingly concerned about the<br />

problem of contagion at the hospitals, from 1686 the Physician & Surgeon were required to examine every boy<br />

recommended as an apprentice to ensure that they were 'healthful' & free from diseases. The Apothecary, on<br />

the other h<strong>and</strong>, by the 1740., was making 5 times as much for his business at Bethiem as at Bridewell. For<br />

surgery at Bridewell, see e.g. BCGM, 2 Sept. 1631, 15 Feb. 1633, 10 Feb. 1643, 27 March 1651, 24 Oct. 1656,<br />

21 Feb. & 21 Oct. 1657, 18 March 1658, 24 Sept. 1662, 12 Sept. 1684, 28 Jan. 1686, 7 July 1693, 19 Dec.<br />

1707, 20 Feb. 1708, 7 July 1709, fol 238, 315, 18, 490, 770-1, 791-2, 830, 857, 15, 5, 138, 253, 393, 398, 486.<br />

For the Apothecary's service at Brideweil, see e.g. ,lid, 5 Dec. 1718, 16 May 1750, 1 Feb. 1751, fob 369, 446<br />

& 480. For the Physician's attendance there, see e.g. ibId, 21 Feb. 1657, 5 Dec. 1718, loIs 791-2, 369. At<br />

Guy's hospital, however, where the lunatic ward was much neglected by medical officers who saw their duty as<br />

primarily to the patients of the general hospital, attendance appears to have been even sparer, although neglect<br />

was mitigated by the .mall number. (c20) of the insane housed there. Although, Guy's medical officers were<br />

supposed to attend the Committee (along with the Steward & Matron) to inspect 'the severall wards <strong>and</strong> Lunatic<br />

House', 'once in every four days', with the major purpose merely of removing the appropriate patients, this rule<br />

was clearly allowed to lapse as far as the insane were concerned after its introduction in 1730. Al Guy's, as at<br />

all general hospitals, 'the visits of Physicians...were neither long nor frequent'; 'a surgical operation was a rare<br />

<strong>and</strong> spectacular happening' & patients were largely 'left to look alter themselves'. See e.g. Cameron, Mr. Gtgy's<br />

Hospitel, 45 & 78-9; Andrew., 'Incurably insane'.<br />

130 The £60 salary allowed the Surgeon from 1710 comprised £30 for each hospital, although an earlier request<br />

appears to have been refused. Higgs's 1690 petition for a Bridewell surgery allowance was referred to the Bridewell<br />

Committee & in 1691 the Clerk was ordered to give an account of orders made concerning the Surgeon, but the<br />

£20 granted the Surgeon in 1694 evidently did not include a separate amount for Bridewell. See ibid, 23 May<br />

1690, 13 Feb. 1691, 4 & 18 Feb. 1715 & 10 Jan. 1718, fob 48, 102, 106, 115 & 319, & Table 4a.<br />

131 11,11, 18 Feb. 1715, Id. 115.<br />

132 Amongst the Apothecaries, both Ralph Yardley & James James were active governors, regularly attending<br />

Court meetings. Yardley served on a onmber of Committeea & as a surveyor of the provisions of Bethletn in the<br />

1630. & 40., & James served as an auditor of the Treasurer's accounts & in numerons other affair., especially in<br />

the 1650. See e.g. BCGM, 13 Dec. 1638, 1 April 1639, 28 July 1641, 3 Dec. 1641, 5 June 1644, 24 Oct. 1656,<br />

27 March & 6 Aug. 1657, lola 216, 236, 343, 359 & 125, & ref. 124.<br />

275

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!