Hello Ann, In the 1800s hospitals were mostly supported by subscription. Local councils subscribed some of their rates to support hospitals. Benefactors who subscribed were designated "governors" of the hospital. Local courts subscribed some of their fines to the hospital, sometimes from the court "poor box". As time moved on, governments made grants which matched the subscription lists, sometimes £ for £ or less. Consequently, you could not just present yourself at the guarded gate of the hospital to gain admission. You had first to gain an order from a responsible person representing subscribers. This could be the mayor of the local council, the magistrate of the court which contributed, or an individual subscriber. There are records of people being delivered to the Melbourne hospital, being refused permission to enter, and the people who brought the patient having to rush around looking for a subscriber to have the right to entry. People died in the street outside the gate, having no "letter of introduction". Here in Williamstown, someone had to find the mayor (because the council subscribed on behalf of the burgesses), request his letter of introduction, then get the patient onto a train going to Melbourne, then a hansom cab from the station to the hospital, present the letter of introduction, gain entry THEN get hospital treatment. I guess some people might have been advised that "death at home" might be a better outcome for the patient, since someone had to do the runaround to find the responsible subscriber representative and gain a letter, and the patient could go through some trauma to gain entry.. Just consider that in those times you had to be considered "deserving poor" to gain any sort of assistance. If you were destitute and could not prove you were "deserving" then, no matter what your age: 1 month or 90 years, you were on your own, regardless of your need. Of course, things improved in tiny steps over the last century and a half, so that we now are appalled at the past, and completely lacking in understanding of the times, jump to inappropriate conclusions on the actions of our forebears. Hope that is some help. At 13:34 19-06-05 +1000, Anne Hanson wrote: >Hi All, > >I am researching a Victorian 19th century criminal case. In the trial >manuscript one of the witnesses said that she encouraged the wife to get the >local magistrate to authorise her husband's admission into hospital. Now the >husband was ill in bed and my question is: > >Was it normal for a wife in 1863 to have to get a magistrate's permission >before her husband could be admitted to hospital? I should stress the >husband was physically ill, not mentally ill. > >Any thoughts/comments will be gratefully received. > > >Anne Hanson >[email protected] > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17-06-05 regards, Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia formerly Ackerly DocuSearch -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17-06-05

So in fact donations to a hospital were the earliest form of health insurance? I have always wondered why so many of my relatives wills included a donation to a hospital - perhaps this is the answer! Lovely story Ada, thanks cheers jon Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:41:54 +1000 From: Ada Ackerly <[email protected]> Hello Ann, In the 1800s hospitals were mostly supported by subscription. Local councils subscribed some of their rates to support hospitals.=20 Benefactors who subscribed were designated "governors" of the hospital.=20 Local courts subscribed some of their fines to the hospital, sometimes fr= om=20 the court "poor box". As time moved on, governments made grants which=20 matched the subscription lists, sometimes =A3 for =A3 or less. Consequently, you could not just present yourself at the guarded gate of=20 the hospital to gain admission. You had first to gain an order from a=20 responsible person representing subscribers. This could be the mayor of the local council, the magistrate of the court= =20 which contributed, or an individual subscriber. There are records of people being delivered to the Melbourne hospital,=20 being refused permission to enter, and the people who brought the patient= =20 having to rush around looking for a subscriber to have the right to entry= .=20 People died in the street outside the gate, having no "letter of introduc= tion". Here in Williamstown, someone had to find the mayor (because the council=20 subscribed on behalf of the burgesses), request his letter of introductio= n,=20 then get the patient onto a train going to Melbourne, then a hansom cab=20 from the station to the hospital, present the letter of introduction, gai= n=20 entry THEN get hospital treatment. I guess some people might have been advised that "death at home" might be= a=20 better outcome for the patient, since someone had to do the runaround to=20 find the responsible subscriber representative and gain a letter, and the= =20 patient could go through some trauma to gain entry.. Just consider that in those times you had to be considered "deserving poo= r"=20 to gain any sort of assistance. If you were destitute and could not prove= =20 you were "deserving" then, no matter what your age: 1 month or 90 years,=20 you were on your own, regardless of your need. Of course, things improved in tiny steps over the last century and a half= ,=20 so that we now are appalled at the past, and completely lacking in=20 understanding of the times, jump to inappropriate conclusions on the=20 actions of our forebears. Hope that is some help. At 13:34 19-06-05 +1000, Anne Hanson wrote: >Hi All, > >I am researching a Victorian 19th century criminal case. In the trial >manuscript one of the witnesses said that she encouraged the wife to get= the >local magistrate to authorise her husband's admission into hospital. Now= the >husband was ill in bed and my question is: > >Was it normal for a wife in 1863 to have to get a magistrate's permissio= n >before her husband could be admitted to hospital? I should stress the >husband was physically ill, not mentally ill. > >Any thoughts/comments will be gratefully received. > > >Anne Hanson >[email protected] > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17-06-05 regards, Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia formerly Ackerly DocuSearch --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 17-06-05 Jon ______________________________________________________________