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

of the office, than with the profligacy of its occupants 21 . The size of the security required from
Jeweller and his successors, rather than a reflection of how much the Stewardship of Bethlem
was deemed to be worth, was a recognition of the need for hefty insurance against the large
sums of money which were to pass through the Steward's hands. From 1690, as a result of the
the improvidence, inefficiency and downright dishonesty of these four Stewards, the security for
the office was augmented to the prohibitive sum of £50022, which was to be maintained for the
duration of the period. Plainly, however, those without friends of substance did not apply or
succeed to the post.
There is no doubting that the I3ethlem Stewardship was hotly contested 23. The desirability
of the post is demonstrated by the numbers and social standing of those who applied for it.
For the eight elections that took place during 1635-1700, there was an average of almost six
petitioners for each vacancy 24 , giving the Governors considerable scope for discrimination. While
the average fell during 1700-70 to less than four candidates for each of the five elections, this
seems largely to have been the consequence of a tightening up of election procedures, rather than
a genuine decline of interest 25 . The only condition imposed on candidates for the Stewardship,
however, was that they be freemen (i.e. citizens) of London 26 . The vast majority of successful
applicants came from London's vibrant cloth trade, the retailing rather than the manufacturing
side. Richard Langley and Thomas hodges were both drapers; George Foye, a merchant tailor;
Matthew Benson, a broderer (embroiderer); I'homas Yates, a haberdasher, and William Godbed,
21 The debtor Steward, were Richard Langley, Thomas Lewis, William Godbed (or Godbid) and John Carter,
who held the oflice 1636-44, 1647-8, 1658-63 and 1663-90, respectively.
22 BCGM, 19 Dec. 1690, fol. 94.
23 Jeweller was so keen for the post that, despite hi. disqualification in 1635, he re-applied on the vacancies
of 1644 and 1647. See BCGM, 1 Feb. 1644, foL 88, where Jeweller is disqualified again, according to the folmer
order, & 1 Jan. 1647, fol. 288, where no mention of any disqualification is made.
24 45 candidates in all are recorded in the Court Minutes, but the range was extremely variable—from as few
as 2, in the elections of 1636 & 1648, to as many as 14, in the election of 1690. The latter high was, no doubt, a
result of the disruptions which affected the government of every city institution in the aftermath of the Glorious
Revolution.
25 the latter eighteenth century, the Bethlem Grand Committee had assumed the major responsibility for
elections of inferior officers. While e.g. only 1 candidate was mentioned in the election of 20 June 1768 (BCGM,
lol. 139), it i. likely that the Grand Committee had already weeded out the competition. There were 5 candidates
again for the vacancy in 178.5; BCGM, 23 Sept. 1785, fols 214-5.
26 Robert Sole, though calling himself a 'Gent', was disqualified from the election of 1 Feb. 1644, because be
did not meet this condition; BCGM, fol. 88.
331