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

permanently restored to Bethlem in 1687, when promoted to the position of Porter 96 . Indeed,
only one basketman amongst those admitted between 1633 and 1700 was discharged solely for
being married, without subsequently being appointed to a Bridewell office. When dismissing
Whetstone in 1679, it was less the fact that he 'hath a wife and Children' which persuaded the
Court that he was 'very unfit', than his incompetence and infirmities, although neither had pre-
vented his original appointment in 1678. Despite being prepared to bypass their ruling over
marriage, the Governors were always careful, in so doing, to obtain guarantees that servants
would not absent themselves from their posts. In the cases of Miles, Fancourt and hewitt, their
wives were forbidden to 'come.. .to them in the said hospital' at all 98 . Indeed, it is a mystery
where or when (if ever) any of these men were supposed to see their wives.
The majority of servants admitted to Bethlem throughout this period were, nevertheless,
single. It might be supposed that if the Governors had permitted servants to be married,
the occasion, or even inclination, for the sexual abuse of patients by basketmen might have
been somewhat obviated. Marriage was no restraint, however, on the conduct of the 'honest
industrious sober' Jones, discharged for this very offence 9 years after his admission 99 . Indeed,
as we shall see, the Governors' ability to accurately evaluate the character of their servants was
severely limited. Jones was one of two basketmen vilified by James Carkesse as 'fierce' to the
point of brutality' 00 . As Porter, Wood was to be found guilty of large scale embezzlement from
the poors' box'°'.
Servants were also recruited to Bethlem on the recommendation of governors or others
connected with the hospital. William Whetstone was 'recomended by Ellis Crispe Esq', a very
96 flu, 4 March 1687, fol. 230.
fiji, 12 April 1678 & 23 May, 4 June & 4 July 1679, fol.
The Court ordered that Miles's 'wife come not to him in the said hospital nor hee absent himseffe there
day or night'; ibid, 15 April 1681, fol. 213. Fancourt and Hewitt, admitted in 1682 despite being married,
were required to provide security to the same effect, and in addition that their wives and families never become
'burdensome or a charge' to either hospital or parish; 16 ii, 6 Oct. 1682, fol. 333. The Court had been rather
more considerate when considering the cases of Jones and Wood, who were allowed (temporarily) to 'lodg p every
night by tame, [my italicsj in the...hospitall'; ibud, 23 April 1673, fol. 501.
For sexual abuse, see in/re.
100 Lieida !ntervalla, and in/n..
101 See chap. 6, saprs.
346