Prior to the 1850s, medicine had not yet attained the scientific dominance of later centuries. The role of the hospital was limited, with doctors perceived as possessing scarcely more practical
ability to cure disease than the sufferer themselves.95 Healthcare was widely undertaken in the
home, with family and community networks providing support through sickness, assisted (as need and affluence permitted) by a diverse assortment of professional and lay practitioners. How, then, did the hospital come to dominate the provision of healthcare by the mid-nineteenth century? Were smaller colonial institutions, such as those in Bermuda and New Norfolk, as heavily influenced by the advance of medical and scientific knowledge as major urban hospitals such as St Bartholomew‟s in London? This chapter will seek answers to these questions by examining the development of healthcare available to the working classes, that “large body of persons” from which each of the three hospitals in this analysis predominantly drew their
patients.96 While each hospital targeted a specific element of the population – the New Norfolk
95 P. Lloyd, „A History of Medical Professionalisation in NSW: 1788-1950‟, Australian Health Review, 17 (1994), p. 15. 96 Mayhew, cited in R. Maxwell, „Henry Mayhew and the Life of the Streets‟, The Journal of British Studies, 17 (1978), p.
Hospital was primarily run for the treatment of serving convicts, Bermuda Naval Hospital was established for ill or wounded sailors (although it also tended to prisoners), and St
Bartholomew‟s was founded to care for the sick poor – all these groups were predominantly drawn from the British working classes.
Disease fostered a state of dependency, but those who sought hospital treatment – whether in Britain or its colonies – generally had no community networks to support them through their illness. When compounded by sickness, the interconnected influences of disintegrating family structures, unemployment, and economic instability necessitated the need for outside support –
as Fissell contends, “illness alone did not make a hospital patient.”97
Britain
The existing framework of British medical care informed that which was established in colonies such as Bermuda and Van Diemen‟s Land; thus, it is important to begin with an understanding of the origins and development of this system. Until the nineteenth century, strong local networks of working-class family and friends supported each other during times of sickness in both urban and rural communities. While apothecaries, drug-vendors, and other unorthodox practitioners were plentiful, hawking dubious medicines from their shopfronts and on the streets, the demanding tasks of nursing the ill were undertaken in the home.
As the influence of Christianity spread throughout the Middle Ages, so too did charitable virtues such as hospitality, service, and love. Accordingly, most early hospitals were established within
97 M. Fissell, „The „Sick and Drooping Poor‟ in Eighteenth-Century Bristol and its Regions‟, The Social History of
Medicine, 2 (1989), p. 35; M. Dupree, „Family Care and Hospital Care: The „Sick Poor‟ in Nineteenth-Century
religious orders such as monasteries and convents, although a small number were launched
independently.98 These institutions identified the sick poor as particularly deserving of charitable
assistance, but also offered assistance to other vulnerable groups such as the homeless, the aged, and travellers – people on the edge of society, the dispossessed who found themselves with
nowhere else to turn.99 Accordingly, the term „hospital‟ encompassed four basic types of
institutions – leprosaria, almshouses, houses established to tend for travellers and pilgrims, and
those founded for the sick poor.100
Within these mediaeval institutions (particularly the last category, which most closely aligns with nineteenth-century perceptions of a „hospital‟), medical attention was unlikely to be provided by
a „qualified‟ medical practitioner.101 Rather, volunteers and members of the associated religious
order would tend to the needs of their inmates, with medical care being administered alongside
food, clothing, and spiritual guidance.102 This medical attention would have consisted of the
provision of a warm bed, a hot bath, and a substantial meal – medicines were rarely administered
in medieval institutions.103
The vulnerable and sick were recognised as a group which was dependant on the assistance of
the community as a whole.104 This tallied neatly with the Biblical emphasis on the rich coming to
the assistance of the poor, where those with plenty gave generously to those who had little. Successful long-term practical application of these pleasant sentiments, however, was
98 K. Park, „Medicine and Society in Medieval Europe, 500-1500‟ in A. Wear (ed.), Medicine in Society: Historical Essays
(University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 84-85.
99 While members of the hospital‟s own community would be received without question, strangers might be required
to provide evidence of their need before they would be offered assistance (G. Risse, Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A
History of Hospitals (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999), pp. 73-74; K. Park, „Healing the Poor: Hospitals and
Medical Assistance in Renaissance Florence‟ in J. Barry and C. Jones (eds.), Medicine and Charity Before the Welfare State
(Routledge, London, 1991), pp. 26-27).
100 M. Carlin, „Medieval English Hospitals‟ in L. Granshaw and R. Porter (eds.), The Hospital in History (Routledge,
London, 1989), p. 21.
101 Carlin, „Medieval English Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 31. 102 Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 4.
103 Carlin, „Medieval English Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 31; M. Rubin,
„Development and Change in English Hospitals, 1100-1500‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 51.
uncommon. The vast majority of medieval hospitals established in the wave of economic, social and demographic expansion during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries disappeared as the fourteenth, fifteen, and sixteenth centuries wore on, forced to close their doors due to the effects of the Reformation combined with poor management, insufficient funds, and the impact of
famines and epidemic disease.105
As the economic situations of mediaeval institutions fluctuated, and their capacity to provide care for the sick varied accordingly, concepts of charity and hospitality demanded constant reassessment. As the availability of financial support decreased, poverty and the poor came to be seen as socially threatening. Consequently, the capacity of religious orders and their hospitals to provide care for the sick poor was constrained, and forced to manifest itself in alternative forms
which were financially and socially more sustainable.106 Those institutions which managed to
survive often did so through conversion to more profitable enterprises, with many being transformed into almshouses or educational institutions, where those who could afford to pay
fees were admitted in preference to the poor.107 Markus describes hospitals and these
almshouses as essentially “a different kind of institution for the same kind of inmate” – the sick and vulnerable were admitted to both facilities, but the use of space was altered, allowing patrons
of the almshouses greater independence than hospital patients.108
Amidst these social and economic upheavals, a small group of royal hospitals, including St
Bartholomew‟s, were able to survive as their land and income were protected by law.109
However, as these institutions occupied large swathes of property in the centre of London (from
105 Rubin, „Development and Change‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 43, p. 52. 106 Rubin, „Development and Change‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 55. 107 Carlin, „Medieval English Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 34; Rubin,
„Development and Change‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 53.
108 T. Markus, Buildings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types (Routledge, London, 2004),
p. 97.
which much of their income was derived) and were overseen by influential local authorities, they
were peculiarly vulnerable to political turmoil.110 As St Bartholomew‟s governors were staunchly
devoted to the Crown, it was perhaps the least affected of the royal hospitals by such political disturbance, although it nonetheless experienced numerous changes in power. This was particularly evident during the late seventeenth century when many hospital governors were dismissed from positions of power (including those who had only recently been instated in an
attempt to displace Whigs from any position of public influence).111
By 1800, London had a population of over one million people. Seven hospitals, providing a combined total of just two thousand beds, served the sick poor of the city, while a similar
number of institutions offered care to the remainder of England and Wales. 112 Compounding
this staggering shortage was the displacement of family and social structures, particularly in rural
areas, triggered by the industrial revolution.113 This effectively meant that the labourers flooding
urban centres lacked any form of traditional community support in the event of illness. As increasing urban populations placed ever more pressure on these limited hospital facilities, public authorities were forced to confront the severe need for easily accessible health care for the lower
classes.114 Although periodic attempts at reform had been made in the past, usually under the
menace of uncontrolled epidemics, as soon as any immediate threat had passed the health boards
and hospital committees were disbanded.115
110 C. Rose, „Politics and the London Royal Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, pp. 142-
143.
111 Rose, „Politics and the London Royal Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 143;
Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p 8.
112 B. Abel-Smith, The Hospitals: A Study in Social Administration in England and Wales (Heinemann, London, 1964), pp.
4-5.
113 A. Clark-Kennedy, The London: A Study in the Voluntary Hospital System (vol. 2, Pitman Medical, London, 1963), p.
1.
114 S. Cherry, „The Hospitals and Population Growth: The Voluntary General Hospitals, Mortality and Local
Populations in the English Provinces in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Part 1)‟, Population Studies, 34 (1980), p. 66.
115 H. Richardson, English Hospitals 1660-1948: A Survey of the Architecture and Design (National Monuments Record
Where no public institutions served the need, private individuals sought to capitalise on the desperation of the sick poor. By the end of the eighteenth century, irregular practitioners
outnumbered orthodox medical men at a ratio of nine to one.116 These „quacks‟ are often
presented in modern accounts of nineteenth-century medicine as charlatans, selling ineffective –
and sometime dangerous – medicines to ignorant and gullible consumers for exorbitant prices.117
This generalisation is in some cases accurate, but these unorthodox practitioners did also provide a significant portion of the population with accessible, commonsense health care.
Those who could afford it would visit the „sixpenny doctor‟ at the local dispensary for care,
where for a small fee they would receive care and medicine.118 Unfettered by the restrictive
admission criteria of the hospitals, general practitioners were able to provide affordable care to large numbers of people suffering a wide variety of illnesses using the dispensary as their
shopfront.119 Some incorporated small in-patient facilities, but most primarily aimed to deliver
medical, surgical, and obstetric treatment to out-patients, either on site at the dispensary or in the
sufferers‟ homes.120 By 1834 London had thirty-five dispensaries, founded by donations and
subscriptions to alleviate the poverty-inducing illnesses suffered by the „deserving poor‟, the
“worthy working man and his family.”121
116 P. Martyr, „No Paradise for Quacks? Nineteenth Century Health Care in Tasmania‟, Tasmanian Historical Studies, 5
(1997), p. 141; Abel-Smith, The Hospitals, p. 3; L. Picard, Victorian London: The Life of a City, 1840-1870 (Phoenix, London, 2006), p. 231.
117 F. Smith, The People’s Health: 1830-1910 (Croom Helm, London, 1979), p. 255; Fissell, „The „Sick and Drooping
Poor‟‟, p. 36; J. Taylor, Hospital and Asylum Architecture in England, 1840-1914: Building for Health Care (Mansell, London, 1991), p. 38.
118 I. Loudon, „The Origins and Growth of the Dispensary Movement in England‟, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 55
(1981), p. 322.
119 A. Crowther and M. Dupree, „The Invisible General Practitioner: The Careers of Scottish Medical Students in the
Late Nineteenth Century‟, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 70 (1996), p. 407; J. Andrews, „A Respectable Mad- Doctor? Dr Richard Hale, F.R.S. (1670-1728), Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 44 (1990), p. 169; Loudon, „The Origins and Growth of the Dispensary Movement‟, p. 330.
120 I. Loudon, „Deaths in Childbed from the Eighteenth Century to 1935‟, Medical History, 30 (1986), pp. 17-19;
Loudon, „The Origins and Growth of the Dispensary Movement‟, p. 322.
121 Fissell, „The „Sick and Drooping Poor‟‟, p. 36; Taylor, Hospital and Asylum Architecture in England, p. 26; Loudon,
From the 1720s, however, the influence of a new type of hospital had gradually been increasing
across Britain.122 Reminiscent of much earlier Christian influences, voluntary hospitals were
established as a means for the wealthy to support the underprivileged, thus merging medicine
and the relief of the poor.123 While the upper classes patronised private physicians, and the
pauperised were theoretically provided for by the Poor Law system, voluntary general hospitals
were founded to fill a void in the provision of medical care in Britain.124 The working classes and
the „deserving poor‟ were worst afflicted by the intertwining of disease and poverty, but had the least access to other forms of medical care. Voluntary hospitals sought to provide:
relief and comfort of Multitudes who are unable to be at the expence [sic] of Advice or Physick, but are not distinguished by the name of The Poor, because they do not come under the care of a Parish or Workhouse, and yet…They are in present want; and are of the diligent and industrious, that is of the useful and
valuable part of all Society.125
Affluent donors of all (upper) classes and denominations devoted themselves to the care of the
sick poor.126 In return for their sponsorship and administrative services, these donors were
awarded the title of governor and the material and social privilege of nominating cases for admission; the larger the donation, the more patients each governor could recommend for hospital care.127
122 F. MacDonald, „The Infirmary of the Glasgow Town‟s Hospital, 1733-1800: A Case for Volunteerism?‟, Bulletin of
the History of Medicine, 71 (1999), p. 64.
123 These institutions were founded on the contributions of wealthy patrons whose voluntary donations gave the
hospitals their name (MacDonald, „The Infirmary of the Glasgow Town‟s Hospital‟, p. 65).
124 S. Cherry, „The Hospitals and Population Growth: The Voluntary General Hospitals, Mortality and Local
Populations in the English Provinces in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Part 2)‟, Population Studies, 34 (1980), p. 254.
125An Account of the Establishment of the First County Hospital at Winchester with the Proceedings of the Governors etc. from the
First Institution on St Luke’s Day, 18 October, 1736, to Michaelmas, 1737 (Point 8) cited in E. Sigsworth, „Gateways to
Death? Medicine, Hospitals and Mortality, 1700-1850‟ in P. Mathias (ed.), Science and Society, 1600-1900 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972), p. 99.
126 C. Stevenson, Medicine and Magnificence: British Hospital and Asylum Architecture (Yale University Press, New Haven,
2000), p. 107.
127 Picard, Victorian London, p. 222; Taylor, Hospital and Asylum Architecture in England, p. 14, pp. 33-34; Sigsworth,
To secure admission to hospital, a sufferer was required to obtain a governor‟s recommendation
(commonly known as „lines‟ or „tickets‟).128 Accidents and emergency cases were rare exceptions
which were accepted without tickets; indeed, general hospitals were perhaps better suited to the
treatment of acute injuries.129 All other potential patients, however, were required to petition a
hospital governor, demonstrating their need for hospital admission and their inability to pay for alternative forms of care. To obtain a ticket, social networks were often more crucial than was medical necessity – a well-connected friend or benevolent employer was more likely to supply
lines to an acquaintance than a stranger.130 Once they had secured their recommendation, there
remained still more hurdles to cross before they could hope to find themselves in a hospital bed.
Voluntary hospitals typically admitted inpatients on just one day per week, a narrow timeframe
which precluded many acutely ill from accessing treatment.131 Admission criteria were restrictive,
stipulating that:
No woman big with child, nor child under six years of age…no persons in
consumption, disordered in their sense, or subject to epileptic fits, suspected to have the smallpox, venereal disease, itch, or any other infectious distemper, no persons having habitual ulcers on their legs, cancers not admitting operations or dropsies in their last stages, or apprehended to be in a dying condition, or incurable, be admitted in-patients.132
128 Smith, The People’s Health, p. 250.
129 Loudon, „The Origins and Growth of the Dispensary Movement‟, p. 335.
130 Dupree, „Family Care and Hospital Care‟, p. 196, pp. 207-208; Sigsworth, „Gateways to Death?‟ in Mathias (ed.),
Science and Society, p. 99.
131 Abel-Smith, The Hospitals, p. 10; Taylor, Hospital and Asylum Architecture in England, p. 14.
132 In mediaeval times, however, hospitals established alongside religious orders often tended to young unwed
mothers, with some institutions even established solely for their care. St Bartholomew‟s had a ward to accommodate pregnant women, and was known for “keeping women in childbirth until their purification and sometimes feeding their infants until weaned.” The hospitals also sought to care for infants from Newgate prison, which was located close by (Carlin, „Medieval English Hospitals‟ in Granshaw and Porter (eds.), Hospitals in History, p. 33; Sigsworth, „Gateways to Death?‟ in Mathias (ed.), Science and Society, p. 100; quote from S. Cherry, „The Role of a Provincial Hospital: The Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, 1771-1880‟, Population Studies, 26 (1972), p. 295).
Furthermore, any person able to afford private medical care was also excluded, as were paupers;
their place was the workhouse.133 These restrictive regulations were not always followed rigidly,
to some extent because contemporary knowledge of the progression of various diseases was limited (meaning, for example, that cases of infectious diseases may be inadvertently admitted at
a stage when the condition did not appear to be contagious).134 The very existence of such
narrow admission criteria was, however, an impediment to those in desperate need of medical attention.135
Almoners and porters, the gatekeepers of the hospital, then selected patients for admission. If
there were no available beds, even those proffering tickets were turned away.136 Those rejected
by the porters could present themselves at an outpatient‟s department for assistance. It was an unappealing and humiliating option – deliberately made to be so to discourage the attendance of
those wealthy enough to afford to pay for their medical care.137 Patients faced a long wait on
hard wooden benches crowded with other sufferers, the coughs of consumptives and the smell of foetid dressings and unwashed children mingling with the nauseating sights of congealed blood and weeping ulcers. Those courageous or desperate enough to persevere made their way through the queues until they had their few moments with a physician‟s or surgeon‟s junior assistant, who was constantly on the lookout for „interesting‟ cases. Any patient exhibiting atypical or uncommon symptoms was admitted without the need for a ticket, and tended by the
hospital‟s senior practitioners.138 The vast majority of outpatients, however, were treated with
generic cathartics or emetics and sent home, with more complicated prescriptions being filled by