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

from 5/to 2/6 per week, a ceiling adhered to for half a century'°
There were severe limits to the extent of Bethlem's charity, of course. As already indicated,
Bethiem's relief did not normally extend to providing for the clothing, bedding, transportation
and burial, of its patients, nor always to the surgery they required. Indeed, these first four
provisions remained the standard obligations of bonds entered into for patients on their admis-
sion for the duration of the period". In the course of 1674-5, with the Governors feeling the
bite of inflation and the expense of the hospital's rebuilding at Moorfields (for which they were
forced to borrow rather heavily), mitigations of patients' fees had been ceased altogether. While
abatements were resumed again during 1678, a ceiling of 4/ was imposed on the weekly fees of
'Country' parishes from 1680-85, and thereafter all parishes were barred absolutely from receiv-
ing abatements for the remainder of the century, parishes clearly (though, not unreasonably)
being regarded as better able to afford to provide for their insane members than private indi-
viduals and families 12 . From 1680, abatements had additionally been restricted to patients who
had remained in Bethlem for at least six months' 3. An increasing concern about the expense
of chronic patients silting up the hospital, provoked the Governors, in 1681, to impose a levy
of 5/ per week, for 'any person' to 'have their freinds' retained at Bethlem once their discharge
had been directed; a fee which was transformed into a penalty of 10/ per week (over and above
any existing charges) from 1702'. Once provision for incurables was formally taken on board
at Bethiem in the 1720s, a rather prohibitive deposit demanded for each admission (of £6 5/,
10 Rising prices forced the Governors, in 1789, to restore the original fee of 5/ a week for incurables. The
deterrent effect of high maintenance fees is indicated by cases like, Elizabeth Smith, 'Incurable & taken away by
the Parish Oflicers on account of the increase of the Annual Payments', & by persistent efforts by obligors to
avoid the payment of such fees. See eap. i6,d, 12 July 1728, 13 Nov. 1735, 18 July 1738 & 16 July & 21 Nov.
1789, fols 153, 364, 24 & 339.
For examples of the standard form of these bonds, compare bonds for Anne Paybody & James Speller (dated,
respectively, 1680 & 1713); & Ann Bold & Henri Bailey, dated 1746 & 1789; Particulars...for the Admission
of Patients' c1663 & c1777; & 'Instructions for the Admission of Patients' c1816, all attached as Appendix 6.
See, also, BCGM, 10 Nov. 1652 & 18 March 1658, cases of Sarah Derrington & Simon Humfrey; & lies from
Chelsea College & the Office for Sick and Wounded Seamen, which promised 'that Customary Charges as Bedding
Clothing & during his Continuance in y[our] said Hospital shall be defrayed by us & the Charges of his Buryel in
case he dyes while under your Care And wee also Ingage Whensoever you shall think fitt to discharge him [i.e.
to collect & provde for him]', in BAR.
12 Bridewell Precinct & the French Protestant Congregations in London were the only quasi-parochial bodies
which continued to receive abatements alter 1685, the Court deciding that they were not true parishes with the
authority to levy a poor rate. See BCGM, e g. 30 May, 11 & 29 July 1674, 30 April & 30 July 1675, 12 Nov.
1680, 19 Dec. 1684 & 18 Jan. 1695, lola 648, 15, 23, 125, 156, 184, 29 & 420-21.
13 BCGM, e g. 2 April, 14 May & 23 July 1680, lola 146, 153 & 161-2, & paas,rn, thereafter, 1680-1701.
14 16,1, 17 Aug 1681 & 4 Sept. 1702, fols 244 & 109.
415