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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

It was here, too, that hierarchy was arrayed at its ultimate pitch, <strong>and</strong> here that hierarchy<br />

was most vigilant of any affront <strong>and</strong> most fearful of disaffection <strong>and</strong> threats, whether real or<br />

potential. Table 6q details the reasons for the committal of 41 patients supported by the Board<br />

of Greencloth in Bethiem during 167O175 1235. Nearly half of those committed to Bethlem by<br />

the Board had been guilty of intrusion <strong>and</strong> unspecified 'disorderly', 'troublesome' <strong>and</strong> 'offensive'<br />

behaviour, at the royal palaces, or towards the royal court. Only three of those committed<br />

had been guilty of actual physical assault upon members of the royal hou,ehold; two of whom<br />

had wounded guards at the royal palaces, the other having thrown an orange at the King in St.<br />

James's Park 236 . It was the station of the individuals assaulted that made such acts particularly<br />

threatening <strong>and</strong> likely to result in the incarceration of the offender, but it was the fact that<br />

they were deemed to be committed 'without any Provocation' that suggested their issue from<br />

a 'discomposed & disordered...Braine'237. Most patients sent from the Board, however, were<br />

committed for merely threatening violent acts against royalty, or members of the royal household,<br />

or because considered 'in a distracted condition api [my italics] to do misehiefe', with a mind<br />

to 'ye prevention of any danger or mischeife that may ensue' 238. While Matthew Pugh/Pew<br />

was committed to Bethlem, in 1754, having drawn his sword in St. James's Chapel, Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />

llatton was apprehended <strong>and</strong> sent to Bethlem, in 1762, having been caught 'behaving in such<br />

manner as to give Suspicion [of]...some ill Design'239 . It was language, as much as behaviour,<br />

which identified individuals as insane <strong>and</strong> a danger in this period. Words whether uttered or<br />

written, were particularly threatening when hostile to royalty or the ruling elite, even more so<br />

if uttered or published within close proximity of the royal household; sufficient, if discovered<br />

or overheard, to issue in charges of treason <strong>and</strong> to result in confinement <strong>and</strong> severe, if not<br />

capital, punishment. The treasonable intent of the mad was doubly dangerous because it was<br />

unpredictable. While only three individuals were committed to Betlilem by the Board during<br />

235 For (hi, discussion, see esp. BAR.; PRO LS.13/86.8, 13/104 . 6, 13/114 . 5, 13/171-9.<br />

236 BAR, warrant dated 18 Aug. 1684; PRO LS.13/104, to1. 94, 12 Jan. 1678; 13/176, fol. 27, 18 April 1715;<br />

cases of Captain White, Richard Harris & Edward Price.<br />

237 BAR, as sapra, case of Captn White.<br />

238 E.g. PRO LS.13/104, fol. 90, 4 Dec. 1677; 13/105, fols 53-4, 11 June 1688, 7 Jan. 1689, cases of Nicholas<br />

Valiant, William Norris, John [Jean] Stafford.<br />

239 Pugh died in Bethlem 3 years later, while Hatton was transferred to the incurabks wards in 1764 where he<br />

perished the following year. See flu, 15/179, fol. 17, 2 Aug 1762; LEP, No. 2804-5, 23-29 Oct. 1745; BAR.,<br />

fols 255, 223, 17 & 193.<br />

472

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!