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

crusading endeavours to tighten licensing laws and to penalise those who indulged, the 'offence'
of critics must be taken with a pinch of salt. The protestations made by patients themselves at
the occasional poor qual ty of Bethiem beer, demonstrate how much they appreciated a good
provision. If some visitors had sought amusement by getting patients drunk, they were only an
unfortunate minority. The majority of 'strng liquor' given to patients indubitably came out of
good intentions or indulg'nce.
In the latter eighteenth century the Governors dramatically tightened their control over
what comestibles and potables were permissable for patients. Their former restrictions were
clarified and elaborated to embrace unauthorised 'tea wine or strong beer' in 1765, 'sugar' in
1778, and 'any [unauthorised] provision whatever' in 1794403. The repetition and extension
of these proscriptions may suggest their ongoing abuse, although one must be cautious not to
belabour this kind of methodology. More importantly, these rulings manifest the hospital's
increasing self-definition and the advancing prominence of medical criteria in determining the
environment of Bethlem. Nevertheless, they lagged fourteen years and more behind the third
rule governing the conduct of the keepers of St. Luke's, on its foundation404.
Undoubtedly, the radical reduction in the numbers of visitors to Bethlem, after 1770, must
have made their gifts to patients easier to regulate. Yet the withdrawal of items like tea and
sugar was once again the outcome of popular misconceptions 405. The ban on tea may not have
lasted long or been enforced across the board, however. Sometime before 1770, Grosley, a French
visitor to l3ethlem, was compelled to take tea with the daughter of a French refugee and 'a room
full of women [patients] of all ages' (presumably, in one of the parlours reserved for convalescents
at the hospital) 406 . Grosley's visit was possibly undertaken before 1765, however. The hospital's
403 Ib,I, lol. 136; BGCM, 4 September 1778 in BSCM, end 55CM, 18 October 1794. From 1765, vi.iting
friends were required to sign their names in the Steward's book ii they desired to order Particular things' for
patients; BCGM, 20 June 1765, fol. 133
404 This order forbade 'any strong Beer, Spiritous Liquors, Tea or Provisions of any kind to be brought into
the House to the Patients from their friends or any Person whatsoever'. See Rules & Orders to be observed by
the Officers and Servants of the Hospital', drawn up by the House Committee & passed by St Luke's General
Committee on 23 Oct. 1751, in book of foundation orders etc, in St. Luke's Woodside archives, 23. St. Luke's
also instituted a 'Visitors' Book' for 'Complaints of any Neglect or Misconduct' by staff, in 1751, whereas at
Bethlem this initiative was not adopted until after visiting had been curtailed in 1770. See General 'Rules and
Orders' passed by the General Court, 26 June 1751, rule 36, in i&,d, 11.
405 Tea, coffee and sugar were, like tobacco, regarded with suspicion by many contemporaries, medical men in
particular, and even seen as linked causally to insanity. See e g. A Broai-,sde against Coffee, Or the Marriage
of the Tark (London, 1672). For i opposite view, see e.g. Rehlhoaa Antidole, or a Dialogae Between Coffee
and Tea (London, 1685).
406 Grosley, Londres, vol. ii, 12; 'je tombai dans tine salle remplie de femme, de d,ffrens ige qui...alloient
89