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

desire for the cure of the afflicted, and their appreciation of the specialist care Bethiem provided.
On the one hand, Richard Hutton, for example, was transferred from Tuthill Fields Bridewell
to Bethlem in 1670 owing to the inadequacy of the facilities there 'to secure the lives of other
p[er]sons. ..from receiveing hurt and damage from him' and 'to keepe him out' of Whitehall
Palace. On the other hand, the Board of Greencloth claimed that he had originally been sent
to Tuthill Fields to 'be reclaimed & Cured of his distemp[er]'; and that it had been 'for want of
those ordinary meanes & helps that might Contribute to his Cure', that he 'is since growne to so
high a distemp[er] of braine & disorder', and requested explicitly, at Bethlem, that he 'bee put
into the way of Cure for this distemper & dieted' as usual' 84 . Just as confinement in Bethlem was
often the product of a breakdown of the ordinary discipline and cohesiveness of the household,
whether it be the family household or the royal household, those identified as the cause of such
breakdowns were often admitted to Bethlem with the idea that being subjected to the unfamiliar
and more severe discipline of the hospital might more effectively reduce them to obedience
and submission. It was according to this notion that Catherine Edwards, was committed to
Bethiem for a second time in 1679. She had been admitted initially at her husband's instance
in 1678, having continued to be 'very much distracted in her minde, notwithstanding all tJie
endeav[our]s & means us'd by [him]...to cure her...Infirmity'. After having been discharged well,
but relapsing, and being 'guilty of Many disorders contrary to the good Covernm[en]t of his
Ma[jes]ties household' (both she and her husband being servants in Whitehall Palace), she was
admitted again on a warrant from the Board of Greencloth and ordered to be 'treated' there
'according to the good order and discipline of yo[ur] house" 85. In some cases, the objectives of
'care' and 'cure' were given exclusive prominence by petitioners, who, like the aforementioned
John Edwards, had already made concerted efforts to effect an individual's recovery. Daniel
Gardiner, a labourer of Ilarbury, Warwickshire, for instance, had 'for six weeks past labour'd
under an insanity of mind', when 'his Friends' applied for his admission to Bethlem in 1775,aIl
the assistance [they]...could give him towards his recovery' having 'hitherto been of no Service',
while 'their low circumstances' rendered them 'totally incapable of taking that care of him which
his present situation requires" 86 . Whereas 'meanes for [a patient's]...safe Custody & Recovery'
were twin aims in his reception and maintenance at Bethlem, it was 'p[re]vent[ing] the Damage
dainger & terro[r] of the people where hee is' that was more often the prominent concern of the
184 PRO LS.13/104, lol. 46.
185 PRO LS.13/104, loIs 98 & 105. See, also, axprs, chap. 3.
186 see Appendix Go, where the petition is reproduced in lull.
459