Poor-Law Doctors

poor-law Doctors

Parishes were accustomed to pay a local doctor a lump sum to attend the poor. There was sometimes competition for the job and in 1816 Dr Charles Palk Collyns boasted that he had caused his successful rival, Dr Mead to undercut his original tender for Dulverton and do the job for £6. Collyns wanted £15 15s. Collyns was appointed to care for the poor of several parishes including Winsford for fees varying between £5 and £19. He refused to serve the poor of East Anstey because the parish would only paid 2 guineas in 1816.

Patients would usually send a note to the doctor or get someone else to write on their behalf. In the case of paupers the parish overseers would summon the doctor to attend. In 1816 a woman declared her intention of calling on Dr Collyns to discuss her father who had discharge from his leg. She thought he could not live long. He was on poor relief and she could not help him having 10 children to keep. Another woman sent the doctor a list of the many symptoms she was suffering after a bad miscarriage including giddiness, heat in the stomach and “loging of water” in her side. One woman begged the doctor to send no more medicine “for I cannot take it. I have bin verey bad with what you gived me yesterday but I hope I shall get better without any more”. One man recorded “in case of death” that the doctor had lent him £2 in 1826. In 1835 overseer Wiliam Hayes wrote, “Maria Prouse was Taken Veree Badd Last Wenday & shee hath keep her Bead ever scence Shee ess Verey thurstay & want somthinge for to quin her drouth and wanth something for to Scour hear Lung”. In 1839 a message from Rackenford concerned a Mrs Moore whose stools were dark green. Many patients sent graphic accounts of their stools and the results of taking their medicine. Others sent messages for nurses and doctors at Exeter hospital after they had been discharged. One woman, presumably on her deathbed, wrote a note asking to be “chimed” to church and have the organ playing for her burial rather than the tolling of the bell.[1]

After the establishment of the New Poor Law in 1834 each Poor-Law Union appointed a medical officer of health and Charles Collyns obtained the post. By the time the workhouse opened in 1856 there were medical officers for the house and for up two four districts of the union, although the same doctor might hold more than one post. Before the railway enabled the poor to be taken to hospital operations were carried out in Dulverton workhouse including amputations.

1856 was a bad year for the Dulverton Union and its doctors, with a series of disputes. John Collyns, son of Charles, refused to serve as medical officer for the second Dulverton district because the £50 salary was too low. He would only continue if paid at least £80 a year. In the end the Guardians had to agree to keep him on temporarily at £100 a year. They failed to find anyone willing to serve for £55 so re-advertised the position at £60 a year excluding fees. Mr Collyns applied and so did Dr Bell. The latter was elected.

Dr Bell had in 1854 saved a local boy from having his leg amputated after a massive abscess had followed bad scythe wound in the calf had developed. He reported to the Poor Law Board with a sketch of the wound and account of his treatment. He maintained that many limbs were amputated when they could be saved. After his election complaint was made that he did not live in the district and that he was qualified as a doctor but not as a surgeon. Both Bell and Collyns lived in Dulverton, which was in the first district. Lengthy correspondence with the Poor Law Board ensued. The Dulverton Guardians said they felt Dr Bell’s being in Dulverton made him more accessible to the poor and they refused to have John Collyns with whom they were in dispute. They were also satisfied with Dr Bell’s treatment of the poor and did not want to disturb the arrangement. It was not clear if John Collyns would be prepared to work for the salary they were paying Bell. The latter moved to Exebridge, within his district.

In 1856 John Collyns sought election as medical officer at the new workhouse. This brought to light serious allegations against him. He was accused of seducing a respectable young pauper in his care. Dr Bell took over the case and found that she was pregnant. The magistrates found that Collyns was the father yet he was allowed to continue his practice at the new workhouse. Dr Bell then found himself under attack from Collyns. He said he had experienced the truth of words spoken by the Vice Chairman of the Board of Guardians to Mrs Bell when he was appointed, - you come into a nest of Hornets. Bell felt that the Guardians had used him in their dispute with the Collynses over salary and the latter were now determined to get rid of him. The Poor Law Board felt that it could not interfere but that anyone would be preferable as medical officer to Collyns who ought not to be allowed to attend the poor outside the workhouse. They assured Bell that they would not entertain any complaints against him without letting him reply. The Collynses retained their position in Dulverton, Bell was an outsider, however good a doctor he may have been, although John Collyns accused him of being simply an apothecary. There were disputes over poaching patients for vaccination and Dr Bell’s ordering of extra food for paupers. Finally in January 1857 Dr Bell resigned.

In fact, despite regular complaints against him at Board meetings and threats to resign unless given a higher fee, John Collyns retained his workhouse job. In 1857 he was again before the magistrates and was convicted of trespass on Beer, presumably shooting which was a regular pastime of his. He even got the post of medical officer of the second district as no other doctor was willing to do it. In 1861 he was re-elected to 2nd district on £75 whereas the medical officer of the 4th district received only £15.

copyright

Mary SuiratPage 1 Exmoor Reference

[1] SRO, DD/COL 13.