diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50501-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50501-0.txt | 15498 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15498 deletions
diff --git a/old/50501-0.txt b/old/50501-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c0131ca..0000000 --- a/old/50501-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15498 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's The Mediæval Hospitals of England, by Rotha Mary Clay - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Mediæval Hospitals of England - -Author: Rotha Mary Clay - -Contributor: G. F. Bristol - -Editor: J. Charles Cox - -Release Date: November 19, 2015 [EBook #50501] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND *** - - - - -Produced by Chris Curnow, RichardW, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND, - BY ROTHA MARY CLAY; - A PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK. - - - - - THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS - GENERAL EDITOR: J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A. - - THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND - - [Illustration: _THE SOUTH-EAST VIEW OF THE HOSPITAL OR - MAISON-DIEU AT DOVER._ - - ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, DOVER] - - - - - THE - MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS - OF ENGLAND - - BY - ROTHA MARY CLAY - - WITH A PREFACE BY - THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL - - WITH 78 ILLUSTRATIONS - - METHUEN & CO. - 36 ESSEX STREET W.C. - LONDON - - - - -_First Published in 1909_ - - - - -DEDICATED TO - -FRANCES ARNOLD-FORSTER - -WITH GRATEFUL AFFECTION - - - - -PREFACE - - -When the able author of this book asked me to write a Preface to a work -on Hospitals, I replied that I must first see the sheets in proof. -This was not due to any doubt of the ability of the writer, it was -due to some doubt as to the adequacy of the material at her disposal. -This doubt has been much more than removed. The mass of the material -collected is remarkable. Still more remarkable is the evidence of the -very large part played by Hospitals—in the widest senses of the word—in -the social life of the people of this land in the earlier Middle Ages. -For the fuller understanding of the social life of our ancestors, this -book contributes information of the most luminous character. It will -serve also as an example and pattern for young and earnest students -of real history, the history of ordinary human beings rather than of -generals and of kings. And it must be added that, although the division -into numerous headings leads to frequent repetitions of the names and -characters of institutions of the nature of Hospitals, it has the -great advantage of reducing to order a mass of material which might -under less careful treatment have had a chaotic appearance. As a book -of reference for readers and writers, this treatise on the Mediæval -Hospitals of England ought to hold a distinguished place. - -G. F. BRISTOL - -_July, 1909._ - - - - -CONTENTS - - - Preface by the Lord Bishop of Bristol . . . vii - - Introduction . . . xvii - - - PART I - - CHAPTER I - Hospitals for Wayfarers and the Sick . . . 1 - - CHAPTER II - Homes for the Feeble and Destitute . . . 15 - - CHAPTER III - Homes for the Insane . . . 31 - - CHAPTER IV - The Lazar-House . . . 35 - - CHAPTER V - The Leper in England . . . 48 - - CHAPTER VI - Founders and Benefactors . . . 70 - - CHAPTER VII - Hospital Inmates . . . 91 - - CHAPTER VIII - Hospital Dwellings . . . 106 - - CHAPTER IX - The Constitution . . . 126 - - CHAPTER X - The Household and its Members . . . 143 - - CHAPTER XI - Care of the Soul . . . 158 - - CHAPTER XII - Care of the Body . . . 167 - - CHAPTER XIII - Hospital Funds . . . 178 - - CHAPTER XIV - Relations with Church and State . . . 194 - - CHAPTER XV - Decline of the Hospitals . . . 212 - - CHAPTER XVI - The Dissolution of Religious Houses and its Effect - upon Hospitals . . . 226 - - - PART II - - Hospital Patron-Saints . . . 244 - - - APPENDIX A - - Office at the Seclusion of a Leper . . . 273 - - - APPENDIX B - - Tabulated List of Foundations . . . 278 - - Bibliography . . . 339 - - General Index . . . 343 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT - - -* Asterisk denotes that buildings remain in much the same condition as - shown. - - The seals are copied mainly from impressions in the British Museum. - - - 1. St. John’s Hospital, Oxford . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 1 - - [After M. Paris, B.M. Roy. 14 C. vii. f. 221.] - - 2. A Pilgrim . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 6 - - [B.M. 17 C. xxxviii. f. 39, xiv. cent.] - - 3. Domus Conversorum, London . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 20 - - [Idem.] Home for Jews, founded 1232. Site - occupied by Rolls Chapel, Chancery Lane. - - 4. *Poor Priests’ Hospital, Canterbury . . . B. C. Boulter . . . 23 - - [From _Ancient Cities_ Series.] - - 5. *The Bede-House, Stamford . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 29 - - 6. Seal of the Lazar-House, Mile End . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 47 - - 7. The Leper and the Physician . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 59 - - [Trin. Coll. Camb. O.I. 20, by permission of the - Librarian.] - - Represents, perhaps, the examination of a - suspected person. - - 8. Elias, a Leper-monk . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 64 - - [Notes on Painted Glass in Canterbury Cathedral; - from window in the Trinity Chapel, partly new, - partly fragments of old glass.] - - 9. A Leper . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 68 - - [Exeter Pontifical, B.M. Lands. 451 f. 127; xiv. - cent. MS., marginal sketch possibly xv. cent.] - - 10. “The Memorial of Matilda the Queen” . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 71 - - [After Matthew Paris, _Hist. Major_, Corp. Chr. - Coll. Camb., MS. xvi, xxvi, by permission of the - Librarian.] - - _Memoriale Matildis reginæ scilicet hospitale - Sancti Egidii quod est Londoniæ._ - - 11. *Tomb of Rahere in St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield . . . J. Charles - Wall . . . 76 - - 12. Memorial Brass of John Barstaple . . . — . . . 84 - - [By kind permission of Mr. J. W. Arrowsmith.] - - 13. *St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Bristol . . . S. J. Loxton . . . 89 - - [By kind permission of the Proprietor of the - _Western Daily Press_.] - - 14. Seal of St. Bartholomew’s, London . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 93 - - 15. Seal of Knightsbridge Hospital . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 103 - - Depicts Blessed Virgin and Child with St. Leonard. - - Inscribed: _Sigillum: ospici sci: lenarde (?): - kynght brigge_. - - 16. Seal of St. Alexis, Exeter . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 107 - - 17. Seal of St. John’s, Exeter . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 107 - - 18. Seal of St. John’s, Stafford . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 108 - - 19. Plan of St. Mary’s, Chichester . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 112 - - [Dollman’s Domestic Architecture.] - - 20. Plan of St. Nicholas’, Salisbury . . . — . . . 113 - - Drawn by Mr. J. Arthur Reeve, architect. By kind - permission of Canon Wordsworth. - - 21. Sherburn Hospital, near Durham . . . — . . . 118 - - [Hutchinson’s Durham, 1787.] - - The gateway and chapel remain. - - 22. Plan of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Winchester . . . J. Charles Wall - . . . 119 - - [After Schnebbelie.] - - 23. *Chapel of Abbot Beere’s Almshouse, Glastonbury . . . J. Charles - Wall . . . 124 - - 24. Seal of the leper-women of Westminster . . . J. Charles Wall - . . . 147 - - 25. *Ancient Hospital Altar at Glastonbury . . . — . . . 165 - - [By kind permission of Mr. George Gregory, Bath, - from Rev. C. L. Marson’s _Glastonbury_.] - - In the chapel of the almshouse founded or - re-founded by Abbot Beere. - - 26. A Leper with clapper and dish . . . — . . . 177 - - [After a Miniature in the Bibl. de l’Arsenal, - Paris, MS. 5060; xiii. cent.; from La Vie Privée - d’Autrefois, “L’Hygiène,” A. Franklin, 1890.] - - 27. Document and Seal of Holy Innocents’, Lincoln . . . J. Charles - Wall . . . 180 - - [B.M. Harl. ch. 44 A. 29.] - - 28. Alms-box, Harbledown Hospital . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 192 - - Erasmus dropped a coin into it on his visit to - Harbledown. - - 29. *Bell-turret of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Glastonbury . . . E. H. New - . . . 198 - - [From _Ancient Cities_ Series.] - - 30. Seal of St. Anthony’s, London . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 208 - - [_Gent. Mag._ 1784 ii.] - - 31. *Gateway of St. John’s, Canterbury . . . B. C. Boulter . . . 241 - - [From _Ancient Cities_ Series.] - - 32. Seal of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Bristol . . . J. Charles Wall - . . . 252 - - 33. Seal of St. Mark’s, Bristol . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 254 - - 34. Seal of St. Clement’s, Hoddesdon . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 256 - - 35. Seal of St. Katherine’s, Bristol . . . J. Charles Wall . . . 260 - - 36. A Pilgrim’s Sign . . . — . . . 265 - - [_Collectanea Antiqua._] - - Canterbury souvenir found at York. - - 37. Seal of St. Bartholomew’s, Rochester . . . J. Charles Wall - . . . 271 - - - - -LIST OF PLATES - - - *Maison Dieu, Dover . . . _Frontispiece_ - - [Buck’s engraving, 1735.] - - S.E. view of St. Mary’s Hospital. The restored - buildings form part of the Town Hall; the chapel - on the N.E. is used as a police-court. - - I. Refreshment for Wayfarers . . . 5 - - [“The Pilgrim.” B.M. Tib. A. vii. f. 90, xv. - cent.] - - II. *Pilgrims’ Hospital, Canterbury . . . 8 - - [Drawn by J. Raymond, engraved by Cook.] - - N. view of St. Thomas’, Eastbridge. The windows - are those of the chapel, rebuilt _circa_ 1363. - - III. *St. John’s, Canterbury . . . 15 - - [Idem.] The chapel exists, but altered. The hall - contains charters, alms-box, account-books, etc. - - IV. *Cloister of St. Giles’, Norwich . . . 24 - - [Photograph, London and Co. Photo Press.] - - V. *Harbledown Hospital . . . 35 - - [Drawn by Nelson, 1766, engraved by Cook.] - - Church remains, dwellings rebuilt; hall contains - ancient utensils, etc. - - VI. (_a_) St. Bartholomew’s, Gloucester . . . 73 - - [From Lysons’ _Antiquities_.] - - S.E. view. Hospital rebuilt _temp._ Henry III. - - (_b_) *St. Mary’s, Chichester . . . 73 - - [S.H. Grimm, B.M. Add. Burrell.] - - VII. *God’s House, Southampton . . . 78 - - [Woodward and Wilks, Hampshire.] - - St. Julian’s Chapel and God’s House Gate. - - VIII. *Hospital of St. Cross . . . 81 - - [From Guide, J. Wilkes, 1780.] - - The southern wing has disappeared. - - IX. The Death of Richard Whittington . . . 82 - - [Life of John Carpenter, by T. Brewer, p. 26; - original in Mercers’ Hall.] - - X. *Hall of St. Cross, Winchester . . . 110 - - [Woodward.] - - XI. *St. Mary Magdalene’s, Glastonbury . . . 115 - - (_a_) View from the West. [Drawn by E. H. New.] - - (_b_) Ground-plan. [Drawn by J. Charles Wall.] - - XII. St. Giles-in-the-Fields, London . . . 117 - - [From a map about 1566, B.M. Crace Collection.] - - (_a_) Plan of the Leper Hospital. (_b_) Church of - St. Giles. - - XIII. *Ford’s Hospital, Coventry . . . 121 - - [Photograph by Frith.] - - XIV. The Savoy Hospital, London . . . 122 - - [G.V. 1736, Vetusta Monumenta.] - - XV. *Hospital of St. Nicholas, Salisbury . . . 129 - - [Original drawings by J. Buckler, B.M. K. xliii.] - - (_a_) S.E. view; the present chapel is shown, and - to the right a former chapel, now a kitchen. - - (_b_) W. view; the weathering of the original - porch is seen. - - XVI. (a) The Warden’s House, Sherburn . . . 143 - - [Original drawing by Grimm, B.M.] - - This residence was destroyed in 1833. - - (b) *Gateway, Kepier . . . 143 [Surtees’ Durham.] - - This fine gateway (1333–45) has a groined ceiling - with beautiful bosses. - - XVII. *The Almshouse, Ewelme . . . 151 - - [Photograph by Taunt.] - - “The Pratie Hospitale of poore Men” with its - “very fair Welle” was visited by Leland. - - XVIII. *St. Mary’s, Chichester . . . 158 - - [Photograph by Valentine.] - - XIX. St. Bartholomew’s, Sandwich . . . 160 - - [Drawn by G. Maxwell, engraved in W. Boys’ - _Collections_, 1787.] - - (_a_) Chapel. (_b_) Gateway. - - XX. The Beggars’ Dole . . . 170 - - [_Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1793, from stained - glass.] - - Food distributed to the hungry; one cripple uses - a “stool” or support. - - XXI. St. Mary Magdalene’s, Winchester . . . 179 - - [J. Schnebbelie, 1788, Vetusta Monumenta.] - - (_a_) Master’s House and Chapel. (_b_) Chapel - from West. - - A Norman doorway from this destroyed chapel was - removed to St. Peter’s Street. - - XXII. *St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford . . . 191 - - [Drawn by Hollis, _Gent. Mag._, 1833, i.] - - The chapel and buildings remain at Bartlemas - Farm, Cowley Road. - - XXIII. *St. John’s, Wilton . . . 205 - - [Original drawings by J. Buckler, B.M.] - - (_a_) S.E. view. (_b_) N. view. - - The “Priory” is still picturesque and ivy-clad. - The walls are of flints, with large quoins; the - original buttresses and windows remain. The - chapel (_a_) is in use. - - XXIV. *St. Leonard’s, York (ambulatory) . . . 227 - - XXV. *St. Leonard’s, York (chapel) . . . 232 - - XXVI. *The Almshouse, Abingdon . . . 235 - - [Photograph by Taunt] - - Now called Christ’s Hospital. - - XXVII. St. Mary’s, Newcastle . . . 247 - - [After lithograph, J. Storey, 1844; reproduced - by permission of the Society of Antiquaries, - Newcastle-upon-Tyne, from Transactions, 1892.] - - XXVIII. (_a_) St. Petronilla’s, Bury St. Edmunds . . . 256 - - (_b_) *Lepers’ Chapel, Dunwich . . . 256 - - XXIX. The Hospitality of St. Julian . . . 259 - - [By Cristofano Allori, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, - photograph by Brogi.] - - XXX. (_a_) Spital-on-the-Street . . . 264 - - [S.H. Grimm, B.M.] - - (_b_) *St. Edmund’s, Gateshead . . . 264 - - [Idem.] The chapel was built _circa_ 1247, and - restored 1837; now Holy Trinity Church, High - Street. - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - - _“And to relief of lazars and weak age,_ - _Of indigent faint souls, past corporal toil,_ - _A hundred almshouses, right well supplied.”_ - - (Shakespeare: Henry V., i. 1.) - -While we are justly proud of our institutions for the amelioration of -the lot of the infirm and destitute, we are apt to forget that they are -not the outcome of any modern philanthropic movement, but are rather -England’s inheritance for above a thousand years. - -Much has been written of the regular monastic houses. These are -situated, as it were, upon the high-roads of ecclesiastical history; -but comparatively little attention has been paid to the existence and -development of the foundations known as “Hospitals.” Although it is -with some trepidation that we tread the less-frequented by-paths of -history, an attempt will be made in this volume to illustrate the place -of the hospital in pre-Reformation times, and by this means to secure a -fuller recognition of the widespread activity of the Church of England -in former days. Hospitals played an important part in the social life -of the Middle Ages, and from the study of them much may be learnt of -the habits of a distant past. - -At the outset it will be well to make clear what the hospital was, -and what it was not. It was an ecclesiastical, not a medical, -institution. It was for care rather than cure: for the relief of the -body, when possible, but pre-eminently for the refreshment of the -soul. By manifold religious observances, the staff sought to elevate -and discipline character. They endeavoured, as the body decayed, to -strengthen the soul and prepare it for the future life. Faith and love -were more predominant features in hospital life than were skill and -science. - -It will surprise many to learn that—apart from actual monasteries and -friaries—there existed upwards of 750 such charitable institutions -in Mediæval England.[1] To appreciate the relative magnitude of this -number, it must be remembered that the total population was smaller -than that of London at the present day. The fact proves that clergy and -laity were battling bravely with social problems. There existed a sense -of responsibility, causing real charitable effort, although mediæval -methods may appear mistaken in the light of modern scientific and -economic principles. - -The study of these ancient charities calls attention to the following -points. The first is the extent of leprosy in England. There are, -indeed, conflicting opinions concerning the prevalence of the disease, -but it is certain that the figure mentioned above includes over 200 -hospitals occupied at one time by lepers. Secondly, a number of the -early foundations were in the main houses of hospitality for strangers; -and this testifies to the widespread practice of pilgrimage. There were -also general hospitals in which temporary and permanent relief was -given to needy persons of all sorts and conditions. Some were very -small institutions, mere cottage-hospitals. It is often impossible to -ascertain the character of an ancient charity. As long ago as 1594, -it was reported concerning St. Edmund’s, Gateshead: “the poor . . . -are and have been indifferently of both kindes as men and women; but -whether sicke or wholl, lepers or way fairinge, so they be poore, -needie, and indigente, is note respected.” On the other hand, in the -case of large towns, hospitals were often differentiated. Situated -in the main street, perhaps, was an infirmary-almshouse for the sick -and helpless; near a frequented gate stood a hostel for passing -pilgrims and others; outside the walls there would be at least one -leper-hospital. - -It is not possible to be precise in chronology, or even to give -approximate dates. In Chantry Surveys there is often a memorandum that -no foundation can be shown, this being lost in obscurity, and the house -founded “before time of memory.” Probably the earliest authentic fact -relating to charitable houses other than monasteries is that concerning -the Saxon hospital at York, for although, in the words of Canon Raine, -“its beginning is enveloped in an atmosphere of historical romance,” -the munificence of Athelstan enables us to date its origin about the -year 937. - -The year 1547 serves as a useful limit to our period, and may well -for the purposes of this book denote the close of the Middle Ages in -England. Its selection in no way implies a lack of continuity in the -Church with which every hospital was intimately associated,—yet it -marks a time of transition. Charity was crippled for a time by the -confiscations of endowments designed for the relief of the destitute, -until a new generation of philanthropists arose and endeavoured to -replace them. Thomas Fuller truly says, “the reformed Religion in -England hath been the Mother of many brave Foundations.” To support -this he instances certain famous hospitals, as that at Warwick, built -by the Earl of Leicester (1571); Croydon, by Archbishop Whitgift -(1596); Guildford, by Archbishop Abbot (before 1617), and Sutton’s -Charterhouse (1611). There is, indeed, no fundamental difference -between the earlier and later almshouses of the sixteenth century. The -author of _A History of English Philanthropy_ gives two reasons for -using the period of the dissolution of monasteries as a starting-point. -“It was then,” he says, “that modern problems began to formulate -themselves with great precision; and charity was then ceasing to be -under the immediate direction and tutelage of the Church.” For the -same reasons, the year 1547 is here used to conclude the earlier -philanthropic era. - -A tabulated list of hospitals will be found in Appendix B. Additions -and corrections are earnestly invited by the author, as local and -particular knowledge is required to make it accurate and exhaustive. -From this list are excluded such infirmaries as formed an integral -part of a monastic house; but in cases where some abbey maintained a -separate institution outside its gates (with distinct constitution, -separate dedication-name, and sometimes a separate seal), the -foundation is set down as a hospital. The institutions known as -Colleges have no place unless, indeed, they maintained bedemen. The -“House of Converts” does, however, rightly belong to our subject, for -it was an almshouse and industrial home. “Hospitals” of the Orders of -the Temple and St. John of Jerusalem are excluded, because they differ -in character, although the work they carried on was partly the same. -Moreover, as they formed part of great societies, famous in and beyond -Europe, they have their own historians. Houses of the Knights of St. -Lazarus must, however, consistency notwithstanding, find a place, -because any account of relief provided for lepers would be incomplete -if that comparatively small Order were passed over. “Hospital” was -a wide-embracing term, and the occasional application of the word -to religious foundations of one kind or another has not always been -accounted a reason for their inclusion. - -The history of many houses is obscure, limited in some cases to a -single reference. The great scholars Bishop Tanner and Sir William -Dugdale reaped harvests, which are garnered in their Monasticons; -yet even a humble student may now glean after them by means of the -invaluable printed Calendars of the Public Record Office. The labours -of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are likewise fruitful. Wills -are useful as showing the period up to which these institutions had -popular support. Although Appendix B was mainly compiled before the -issue of the Victoria County History, certain shires have received -several additions from that great work, the forthcoming volumes -of which will doubtless supplement the present list. Episcopal -archives throw light upon hospital-life, as upon every department of -ecclesiastical history; fresh information and confirmatory evidence -about which will be forthcoming when, by means of the Canterbury -and York Society and other Record Societies, more Registers become -accessible. It is much to be desired that local Archæological Societies -should take up and develop the history of particular houses. It is -difficult to ascertain which ancient charities still continue, but an -attempt has been made to record approximately in the appended table -such endowments as now exist. - -Grateful thanks are due to those who have assisted the writer in her -task. And first, to the Lord Bishop of Bristol, whose kind offer to -contribute the Preface to this volume is only the latest proof of the -ever-helpful interest he has taken in the whole work. Mention must -also be made of Mr. R. C. Fowler, of the Public Record Office, who, -after personally examining the List of Foundations, gave hints for -its improvement. The Rev. C. S. Taylor, F.S.A. and the Rev. Canon -Wordsworth have given invaluable assistance, particularly by the -translation of the Office found in Appendix A. In various ways help has -been rendered by Miss Arnold-Forster, Professor G. H. Leonard, Mr. W. -F. Rawnsley, and by friends and correspondents too numerous to mention. -Lastly, it remains for the writer to acknowledge her indebtedness to -the Rev. Dr. Cox, General Editor of the Series, without whose kindly -encouragement she would never have ventured to go beyond a private -study of the subject in hand. - - * * * * * - -The Spyttell hous.[2] - - ¶ Copland. - - ¶ Syr, I pray you, who hath of you relefe? - - ¶ Porter. - - ¶ Forsoth they that be at suche myschefe - That for theyr lyuyng can do no labour - And haue no frendes to do them socour - As old people seke and impotent - Poore women in chyldbed haue here easement - Weyke men sore wounded by great vyolence - And sore men eaten with pockes and pestylence - And honest folke fallen in great pouerte - By mischaunce or other infyrmyte - Way faryng men and maymed souldyours - Haue theyr relyef in this poore hous of ours - And all other which we seme good and playne - Haue here lodgyng for a nyght or twayne - Bedred folke, and suche as can not craue - In these places moost relyef they haue - And yf they hap within our place to dye - Than are they buryed well and honestly - But not euery unseke stoborne knaue - For than we shold ouer many haue. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Nearly 800 are set down in the appended list, but some are -uncertain. - -[2] From _The hye way to the Spyttell hous_ (circa 1536), in which -Robert Copland speaks with the Porter of a London hospital, probably -St. Bartholomew’s. - - - - -[p001] - -MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND - -PART ONE - -CHAPTER I - -HOSPITALS FOR WAYFARERS AND THE SICK - - - “_Founded for the maintenance of poor pilgrims and other infirm - persons resorting thither to remain until they are healed of their - infirmities._” - - “_For the poor, for persons going to Rome, for others coming to - Canterbury and needing shelter, and for lying-in women._” (St. - Thomas’, Canterbury.) - -[Illustration: 1. ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL, OXFORD] - -The earliest charitable institutions of England were houses of -hospitality. In sketching the development of these guest-houses we must -bear in mind that the hospital (derived from _hospes_, a host or guest) -was a wayside shelter for all comers. - - -FIRST PERIOD (_circa_ 925–1170) - -Travellers were exposed to peril by the rudeness of the times, but in -those early days hospitality was regarded as a solemn obligation. To -receive any stranger was a [p002] duty: to welcome the passing pilgrim -was a sacred privilege. Although the private entertainment of guests -was widely practised, some public institutions were required. Tradition -tells of at least two “hospitals” or hospices founded in the tenth -century (925–940). Both were in Yorkshire,[3] one being in the distant -country parts, the other in the populous town. At Flixton in Holderness -was a house of refuge “to preserve travellers from being devoured by -the wolves and other voracious forest beasts.”[4] The city of York, -on the other hand, was so great a place of thoroughfare that it was -impossible to entertain all who came. Athelstan, recognizing that the -Canons of the Minster were men of holy life, active in helping the -needy who flocked to them, assisted them in their hospitality by the -foundation of St. Peter’s hospital. - -Two other early houses of charity are ascribed to the Saxon bishops -Oswald and Wulstan of Worcester. In the eleventh century at least we -emerge from tradition, for it seems clear that St. Wulstan founded that -hospital near his cathedral city which afterwards bore his name. It -will be remembered that bishops were especially bound by their vows at -consecration to be given to hospitality. In pre-Norman days, the solemn -question was in substance what is asked to-day: “Wilt thou shew mercy -and kindness, for the name of the Lord, to the poor, the stranger, and -all in want?” (_pauperibus et peregrinis omnibusque indigentibus_). To -this the elected bishop [p003] replied, “I will.” This formula occurs -in the Exeter Pontifical, compiled about nine hundred years ago, and is -repeated in Osmund’s Sarum Use. - -There were, of course, pilgrims among those who sojourned in early -hostels. Englishmen have always loved travel. Not only did our Saxon -forefathers journey to Rome (receiving shelter by the way in hospitals -of English foundation), but they constantly visited their national -shrines. Probably a fresh impetus was given to pilgrimage by the -coming of the Normans. Monastic life was strengthened, and this was -a guarantee of hospitality. “Guests are to be received as if they -were Christ Himself,” said the rule of St. Benedict. In the century -after the Conquest, as in those which preceded it, the chief works of -mercy were done in the monastery. There was the _hospitium_ within -the abbey-gate, as at St. Mary’s, York; and the “Strangers’ Hall” at -Winchester. Then followed the shelter outside the walls, as at Battle, -referred to (_circa_ 1076) as “the house of the pilgrims which is -called the hospital.” During the twelfth century more independent -foundations became common. All sorts and conditions of men were -lodged—wayfarers, invalids, and even lepers. - -About the year 1148, St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, was the resort of -sick pilgrims, of whom “many and innumerable were schewid tokynnys of -myracles.” The patients who flocked to the famous shrine and hospital -were “langwissyng men greuyd with uariant sorys”; one sought “remedie -of his akynge hede,” another suffered from “bleriednes of yen” (eyes), -and yet another from “ryngyng of his erys.” Victims of the falling -sickness [p004] (epilepsy), paralysis, dropsy, fevers, insanity, found -relief; deaf and dumb were healed; a child born blind received sight -from “the heuenly leche.” - -Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, about 1141, invited help for “the -hospital house of Dover, which two brethren, Osbern and Godwin, are -diligently building for the reception of the poor and strangers.” This -hospital of St. Bartholomew (Buckland) was also used for lepers. The -need of further provision for travellers was felt, and a benefactor -made extensive grants on condition that a house was provided for -the reception of needy people disembarking from ships: before 1163 -reference is made to the _hospitium_ for strangers. It was doubtless -frequented by voyagers returning from the Crusades; but before long -an event occurred which brought multitudes to Dover, and then the old -hospital proving insufficient, became chiefly the resort of lepers, and -a new Maison Dieu was built near the quay. (See Frontispiece.) - - -SECOND PERIOD (_circa_ 1170–1270) - -The year 1170 marks an epoch, ushering in the great pilgrimage within -and towards England. When the shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury became -the goal of pious wayfarers it was necessary to find accommodation for -them. The hospitals of Canterbury and Southwark bearing the martyr’s -name were among the earliest. Within a few years such houses (often -called _Domus Dei_) were founded in most of the southern ports and -along the Pilgrims’ Way, as at Dover, Ospringe, and Maidstone. At -Strood “the poor, weak, infirm and impotent, as well neighbouring -inhabitants as travellers from distant [p005] places,” were cared for -“until they die or depart healed.” Norfolk, like Kent, was studded with -houses of charity, especially near the highway to Walsingham. Thirteen -pilgrims were lodged at Bec, near Billingford. At Thetford there was -a hospital near the passage of the river. Among other early hostels -we may enumerate those of Newcastle, Hexham, Ripon, Stamford, Aynho, -London (St. Mary’s), Bridgwater, and Ledbury. - -[Illustration: _PLATE I._ REFRESHMENT FOR WAYFARERS] - -The hospital was a guest-house and infirmary in one. That on -the outskirts of Oxford was called in a charter (_circa_ 1194) -_Herebergeria Hospitalis S. Joh. Bapt._; in 1233 this was refounded -(Fig. 1) “that therein infirm people and strangers might receive -remedy of their health and necessity.” The inmates of St. Nicholas’, -Salisbury, are described as passengers (_transeuntes_) and as sick and -infirm (_egroti et infirmi_). The same two-fold work of charity was -carried on at Chichester, as shown by St. Mary’s statutes:— - - “If anyone in infirm health and destitute of friends should seek - admission for a term, until he shall recover, let him be gladly - received and assigned a bed. . . . In regard to the poor people who - are received late at night, and go forth early in the morning, let - the warden take care that their feet are washed, and, as far as - possible, their necessities attended to.” - -There is a MS. in the British Museum entitled _The Pilgrim_. It is an -allegorical poem in the manner of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” and sets -forth the adventures of the traveller. The illustration (Pl. I) and -description were probably taken from experience of earthly pilgrimage. -“Charity” is seen welcoming strangers, [p006] at which work she was -always busy in mediæval England:— - - “And I suppose for my beste - There to herborewe and to reste - On ther cam and preyed me - And her name was _Charite_ - To pylgrymes in goodly wyse - Sche dyde moste trewely the seruyse - With chere benygne and glad uysage - She brought hem to ther herbergage.”[5] - -Among shrines which the pious Englishman visited may be mentioned Bury -St. Edmunds, Westminster, Durham, Beverley, St. Albans, Waltham.[6] - - -THIRD PERIOD (1270–1470) - -[Illustration: 2. A PILGRIM] - - -(a) _Pilgrimage and Vagrancy._—The greatest century of pilgrimage was -past, but vagrancy was an ever-increasing problem, and inasmuch as it -affected the social life of England, it affected hospitals, directly or -indirectly. In the Statute of Labourers, drawn up in 1350, an attempt -had been made to restrain desultory wandering, idleness, mendicancy -and indiscriminate almsgiving. This was followed by many ordinances, -local and general. By a proclamation in 1359 the municipal authorities -of London declared that such unworthy beggars “do waste divers alms, -which would otherwise be given to many poor folks, such as lepers, -blind, halt, [p007] and persons oppressed with old age and divers other -maladies.” In 1369 they issued a precept “for mendicants, vagrants and -pilgrims to leave the city.” The Statute of Westminster (1383) ordered -inquiry concerning vagabonds “wandering from place to place, running in -the country more abundantly than they were wont in times past.” The Act -of 1388 declared that those who “go in pilgrimage as beggars” when fit -for employment, should be dealt with according to the previous Statute. -It will be observed that these measures were framed from an economic -standpoint, not to check pilgrimage as such. - -Although pilgrimage was declining, there were still many pilgrims. -Some of these were professional palmers, and hirelings fulfilling -vows by proxy; for there are numerous bequests in the fourteenth -century to persons undertaking journeys on the testator’s behalf -to Canterbury, Walsingham, and Bury St. Edmunds, as well as to St. -James of Compostella, Rome, or the Holy Land. The special “Jubilee” -at Canterbury in 1420 was attended by 100,000 persons, and in 1434 -thousands set sail for Compostella. - - -(b) _Provision for temporary relief._—Existing houses of hospitality -were kept up, but a growing tendency to discriminate amongst applicants -may be noticed. In many cases more beds were reserved for chronic -invalids than for casual comers. St. Thomas’ hospital, Canterbury, -carried on its old work, but the renewed statutes of Archbishop -Stratford (1342) direct “that poor pilgrims in good health shall be -entertained only for one night . . . that greater regard shall be -had for the sick than for the well pilgrims.” With some diplomacy it -describes itself, in a petition to the Pope, as designed “for persons -going [p008] to Rome (_Romipete_), for others coming to Canterbury and -needing shelter,”[7] etc. - -The chief building period was over, as far as this particular kind -of temporary provision is concerned, but one or two new foundations -must be mentioned. St. John’s, Winchester, was built about 1275 “for -the relief of sick and lame soldiers, poor pilgrims, and necessitous -wayfaring men, to have diet and lodging thereto fit and convenient for -one night or longer, as their abilities to travel gave leave.” In 1393, -the Bishop of Ely offered an indulgence to persons contributing to the -sustentation of a hospital at Brentford, which consisted of a chapel, -newly constructed, “with two houses built there, furnished with beds -and other necessaries for the entertainment of poor travellers.” The -old hospital at Brackley was reconstituted for the same purpose (1425). -It was, however, suppressed sixty years later, because hospitality was -being neglected. - -One special form of temporary relief came to the front about this time. -The assistance of women in childbirth was named in the Petition and -Statute of 1414 as part of the recognized aim and scope of hospital -charity. The heading to this chapter alludes to the work undertaken at -St. Thomas’, Canterbury, in 1363. The foundation deed of Holy Trinity, -Salisbury, sets forth that “lying-in women are cared for until they are -delivered, recovered and churched.” The Spital near Blyth was newly -constructed in 1446 for the lodging of strangers and distressed women. - -[Illustration: _PLATE II._ HOSPITAL OF ST. THOMAS, CANTERBURY FOR -PILGRIMS] - -It is recorded that the two London infirmaries of St. Mary without -Bishopsgate and St. Bartholomew [p009] undertook this work; in -both institutions the touching provision was made that if the mother -died, her child should be brought up there until the age of seven.[8] -In the year 1437 privileges were granted to the latter hospital “in -consideration of their great charges in receiving the poor, feeble -and infirm, keeping women in childbirth until their purification, -and sometimes feeding their infants until weaned.” William Gregory, -a citizen of London, describing in his commonplace book various -foundations, says of “Bartholomewe ys Spetylle”:— - - “Hyt ys a place of grete comforte to pore men as for hyr loggyng, and - yn specyalle unto yong wymmen that have mysse done that ben whythe - chylde. There they ben delyueryde, and unto the tyme of puryfycacyon - they have mete and drynke of the placys coste, and fulle honestely - gydyd and kepte.” - -General hospitals for the sick were thus in process of development. -St. Bartholomew’s was steadily fulfilling its founder’s vow to provide -a place for the “recreacion of poure men.” After three and a half -centuries of usefulness, a roll of 1464 records with approbation “works -done within the hospital in relief of poor pilgrims, soldiers, sailors -and others of all nations.” - - -FOURTH PERIOD (_circa_ 1470–1547) - - -(_a_) It is evident that pilgrimage was no longer an important factor -in the social life of the country. The daily resort to shrines had -practically ceased, but the special anniversaries were kept. Such -pious travellers as there were, lodged chiefly in inns. At Glastonbury -a Pilgrims’ Inn was built by Abbot John, about the year 1475, to -accommodate those visiting the holy places of [p010] St. Joseph of -Arimathæa and St. Dunstan. A later abbot, Richard Beere, writing to -Archbishop Warham to defend the genuineness of St. Dunstan’s relics, -stated that people had come from far and near to visit the new shrine, -especially upon St. Dunstan’s Day (1508).[9] Although the regular -stream of pilgrims to Canterbury was no longer seen day by day, the -great “Jubilee” celebrations were popular, the last one being kept in -1520. At that time the needs of visitors were met by special provision, -a post being set up in the main street with “letters expressing the -ordering of uitell and lodyng for pylgrymes.” Probably the bailiffs and -citizens made all arrangements for bed and board as they had done in -1420. - -Vagrancy still constituted an increasingly grave problem. By “An Acte -agaynst vacabounds and beggers,” in 1495 (re-enacted 1503), previous -legislation was amended and “every vagabound heremyte or pilgryme,” -partially exempt hitherto, was henceforth compelled to fare like -wandering soldier, shipman or university clerk. In a letter from Henry -VIII to the Mayor of Grimsby it is observed that the relief of the -impotent is much diminished by the importunate begging of the sturdy -and idle, and it is required that measures be taken “that the weedes -over growe not the corne.”[10] The Statutes became increasingly stern, -and able-bodied beggars were scourged with the lash from town to town -by the Act of 1530–1. But “the greatest severities hitherto enacted -were mild in comparison with the severe provisions of the enactment” -of the first year of Edward VI (1547). If the young king’s father had -literally chastised beggars with whips, his own counsellors desired -that they should be chastised with [p011] scorpions. They might be -reduced to the condition of slaves: their owners might put a ring round -their necks or limbs, and force them to work by beating and chains, -whilst a runaway could be branded on the face with a hot iron.[11] This -brutal law was repealed two years later. - - -(_b_) Where towns were few and far between, the need of shelter for -strangers was especially felt. Extensive works of hospitality were -done by religious houses, particularly in the northern counties. That -fresh provision, although on a small scale, was still made for shelter, -indicates its necessity. When an almshouse was built at Northallerton -(1476), accommodation was made not only for thirteen pensioners, but -for two destitute and distressed travellers, who should stay a night -and no longer. A hostel solely for temporary shelter was founded at -Durham (1493). One Cuthbert Billingham directed the provision of eight -beds in a “massendeue or spittel,” where “all poore trauellyng people -ther herbery or logyng asking for the loue of Gode shall be herbered -and logide.” In Westmorland, a little hospital, with two beds for -passers-by, was built by John Brunskill at Brough-under-Stainmoor -(1506): it was situated on the pass into Yorkshire. - -At seaports and in places of thoroughfare, shelter was still provided -for travellers. God’s House, Southampton, expended £28 annually upon -“daily hospitality to wayfarers and strangers from beyond the sea,” and -similar charity was provided at Dover. Leland describes St. Thomas’, -Canterbury, as “An Hospital within the Town on the Kinges Bridge for -poore Pylgrems and way faring men.” At Sandwich there was a “Harbinge” -attached to St. John’s almshouse. Provision was made for lodgers, -[p012] and the buildings included “the chambre of harber for strange -wemen, the gentilmen chambre and the long harbur chamber” (1489). The -town authorities ordered “that no persons do harbour beggars, who are -to resort to St. John’s Hospital” (1524). - -The existing provision for temporary relief was in fact wholly -inadequate. In the metropolis, for example, there was a crying need. It -was stated by Henry VII in 1509 that:— - - “there be fewe or noon such commune Hospitalls within this our Reame, - and that for lack of them, infinite nombre of pouer nedie people - miserably dailly die, no man putting hande of helpe or remedie.” - -The king, recognizing the need, planned to convert the old Savoy Palace -into a magnificent institution (Pl. XIV) in which “to lodge nightly -one hundred poor folks.” If this charity corresponded with the recent -Statute, it would relieve those vagrants who alone were exempt, namely, -women in travail and persons in extreme sickness. The king contemplated -building institutions similar to the Savoy in York and Coventry, but -the design was not carried out. - -The problems arising from true poverty and false mendicancy were, of -course, intimately connected with hospital life. A graphic picture -of the difficulties which beset administrators of charity about the -year 1536 is given by Robert Copland in _The hye way to the Spyttell -hous_. The author states that one wintry day, he took refuge from the -snow-storm in the porch of a hospital, probably St. Bartholomew’s. Here -he got deep into conversation with the porter of the house. While they -talked, there gathered at the gate people of very poor estate,—lame, -blind, [p013] barefoot—and Copland, who does not despise the honest -poor, only those who live in need and idleness, inquires whether -they admit all who ask for lodging. The porter at first answers, -“Forsooth, yes,” and Copland goes on to protest against indiscriminate -hospitality:— - - “Me thynk that therin ye do no ryght - Nor all suche places of hospytalyte - To confort people of suche iniquyte. - But syr I pray you, of your goodnes and fauour - Tell me which ye leaue, and which ye do socour.” - -The porter replies that the house is no supporter of sham beggars. -There are some who counterfeit leprosy, and others who put soap in -their mouth to make it foam, and fall down as if they had “Saynt -Cornelys euyll.” He goes on to describe those who hang about by -day and sleep at night at St. Bartholomew’s church door—drunkards, -spendthrifts, swearers and blasphemers, those who wear soldiers’ -clothing, but are vagabonds, and men who pretend to have been -shipwrecked. Many of these live by open beggary, with bag, dish and -staff:— - - “And euer haunteth among such ryf raf - One tyme to this spyttell, another to that.” - -The porter intimates that an effort is made to discriminate among those -daily harboured, but he confesses that they are obliged to receive -many unsatisfactory men, and disreputable women so numerous that they -are weary of them; but they refuse stubborn knaves who are not ill, -for they would have over many. Indeed, the aim of the hospital is -to relieve those who cannot work and are friendless—the sick, aged, -bedridden, diseased, wayfaring men, maimed soldiers, and honest folk -fallen into poverty. (See p. xxiv.) [p014] - -It is clear, however, that during the sixteenth century there was -much genuine distress besides unthrifty beggary and sham sickness. -From various economic causes there was a considerable increase of -destitution. Legislation entirely failed to solve the problem of an -ever-shifting population. The Statute of 1530–1 had recognized the -value of charitable foundations by its clause:—“provided also, that -it be lawful to all masters and governors of hospitals, to lodge and -harbour any person or persons of charity and alms.” Although hospitals -had been abused, the neglect of the sick and homeless which their -reduction involved was a far worse evil. One writer after another -breaks out into descriptions of the increased poverty and pain. -Brinklow, in _The Lamentacyon of a Christian agaynst the Cytye of -London_ (1545), bewails the condition of the poor:— - - “London, beyng one of the flowers of the worlde, as touchinge - worldlye riches, hath so manye, yea innumerable of poore people - forced to go from dore to dore, and to syt openly in the stretes a - beggynge, and many . . . lye in their howses in most greuous paynes, - and dye for lacke of ayde of the riche. I thinke in my judgement, - under heaven is not so lytle prouision made for the pore as in - London, of so riche a Cytie.”[12] - -Again, referring to the old order and the new, _A Supplication of the -Poore Commons_ (1546) speaks of poor impotent creatures as “now in -more penurye then euer they were.” Once they had scraps, now they have -nothing. “Then had they hospitals, and almeshouses to be lodged in, -but nowe they lye and storue in the stretes. Then was their number -great, but nowe much greater.” - -[Illustration: _PLATE III._ ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL, CANTERBURY] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[3] There were probably other Saxon hospitals. Leland notes the -tradition that St. Giles’, Beverley, and St. Nicholas’, Pontefract, -were founded “afore the Conquest.” - -[4] Dugdale, charter temp. Henry VI. - -[5] Cott. Tib. A., vii. f. 90. - -[6] See also J. C. Wall, _Shrines of British Saints_ in this Series. - -[7] Cal. Pap. Letters, 4, p. 36. - -[8] Close Rolls 1344, 1353. - -[9] Chron. and Mem. 63, p. 434. - -[10] Hist. MSS. 14th R. (8) 249. - -[11] C. J. Ribton-Turner, _Vagrants and Vagrancy_, 1887. - -[12] Early Eng. Text Soc. Extra Series 22, p. 90. - - - - -[p015] - -CHAPTER II - -HOMES FOR THE FEEBLE AND DESTITUTE - - - “_Hospitals in cities, boroughs and divers other places . . . to - sustain blind men and women . . . and people who have lost their - goods and are fallen into great misfortune._”[13] - -The majority of hospitals were for the support of infirm and aged -people. Such a home was called indiscriminately “hospital,” “Maison -Dieu,” “almshouse” or “bedehouse.” It was, as in the case of -Kingston-upon-Hull, “God’s House . . . to provide a habitation for -thirteen poor men and women broken by age, misfortune or toil, who -cannot gain their own livelihood.” It occupied the place now filled -by almshouses, union workhouses, and homes for chronic invalids or -incurables. - - -(1) ALMSHOUSES IN CITIES - -One of the most ancient hospitals for permanent relief was St. John’s, -Canterbury, founded about 1084, and still existing as an almshouse. -(Pl. III.) Eadmer tells us that it was intended for men suffering -from various infirmities and for women in ill health. The inmates are -described as a hundred poor, who by reason of age and disease cannot -earn their bread; and again, as a hundred brothers and sisters blind, -lame, deaf and sick. It is [p016] characteristic that the earliest -foundation of this type should be found in the chief cathedral city of -England: every such town had a hospital in connection with the See. -The prince-bishops of Durham, for example, provided houses of charity -around the city and at their manors. Ralph Flambard built St. Giles’, -Kepier; Philip of Poitiers founded St. James’ near Northallerton; -Robert de Stichill, St. Mary’s, Greatham; and Nicholas of Farnham, St. -Edmund’s, Gateshead. The most famous episcopal hospital remaining is -that of St. Cross, near Winchester. (Pl. VIII.) - -Other charities were associated with cathedral clergy. There was a -hospital for the poor in the precincts of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Before -the year 1190, one of the canons gave his house for the purpose, and -the Dean endowed it with certain tithes. St. Nicholas’, Salisbury, -founded by the Bishop, was afterwards committed to the Dean and -Chapter. The existing almshouses in Chichester and Hereford were -likewise associated with those cathedrals. - - -(2) ALMSHOUSES IN BOROUGHS - -The municipal control of charity is an ancient custom. Before -burgesses were called to Parliament, townsmen of Exeter, Northampton, -Nottingham and Wallingford were trustees of the hospitals of St. John -in those places. The leper-houses of Lynn and Southampton were also -early instances of municipal administration. In the reign of Edward -I the hospitals in Scarborough were declared to have been “founded -by burgesses of the town of old.” During the fourteenth century, if -not before, the “keepers” of Beverley, the “jurats” of Hythe, [p017] -and the commonalties of Bedford, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Pevensey, -Sandwich, Wilton, etc., controlled almshouses in those towns.[14] Old -deeds of the Winchester corporation refer to Devenish’s hospital as -“oure hous of Synt John.” Freemen had an advantage, if not a monopoly, -when seeking entrance into houses under municipal supervision. The -“Customals” of Rye and Winchelsea show that men and women “who -have been in good love and fame all their time, and have neither -goods nor chattels whereof to live” were received without payment -into the hospitals of the town. Bubwith’s almshouse, Wells, was to -receive men so poor that they could not live except by begging, and -so decrepit that they were unable to beg from door to door. Reduced -burgesses were assigned “the more honourable places and beds.” At St. -Ursula’s, Chester, candidates were preferred who had been one of “the -twenty-four,” or the widows of aldermen and common council-men. - -In some towns charities were not directly connected with the -municipality but with local trustees. St. Katherine’s, Rochester, -was under the governance and correction of the parish priest, the -city bailiff and the founder’s heirs. Davy of Croydon put his -almshouse under the vicar and other townsmen, answerable ultimately -to the Mercers’ Company, and provided that his pensioners should be -“householderers or trewe laborers” from within four miles, preference -being given to residents of long standing, if of good character and -destitute. [p018] - - -(3) GILD ALMSHOUSES - -The gilds were an important factor in the economy of towns, and their -works of piety sometimes included hospital maintenance. St. Cross, -Colchester, having been practically disendowed—the advowson was granted -to the commonalty in aid of the repair of the town walls—was revived in -1407 as an almshouse under the auspices of St. Helen’s gild. Barstaple -of Bristol founded his almshouse for twenty-four poor, (granting the -advowson to the mayor and commonalty,) and also a fraternity for -himself, his wife and others who wished to join. The institutions -were incorporated separately. Each community was ruled by a warden, -possessed a common seal, and had power to make ordinances.[15] In -other cases a private individual attached his charity to an existing -association to secure continuity of rule. Hosyer’s almshouse in Ludlow, -e.g., “appertained” to the Palmers’ gild. These religious societies -often began in connection with some trade. At Winchester, financial -assistance was given to St. John’s by “the fraternity of St. John, -in the hospital there by providence of the Tailors of Winton first -ordained.” - -The craft-gilds and city companies supported disabled members in -places like the Maison Dieu of the Shoemakers at York, called also -the Bedehouse of the Cordyners. There are countless references in -wills to the poor of the Drapers’ or Fullers’ Halls, etc. Although -such institutions were really almshouses, they are not (with certain -exceptions) included in the appended list, and their history must be -sought in connection with the trades. [p019] - -In ports, special provision was made for seafaring men. Leland -remarks that St. Bartholomew’s, Sandwich, was “fyrst ordened for -Maryners desesid and hurt.” The Fraternity of the Blessed Trinity at -Kingston-upon-Hull maintained “an house of alms of poor mariners,” -and a similar institution was incorporated with Trinity House, -Newcastle-upon-Tyne. A society of merchants at Bristol provided -for poor seamen within the old hospital of St. Bartholomew (1445). -Upon arrival in port, masters and mariners alike contributed to the -charity because “the wheche prest and pore peple may nott be founden -ne susteyned withoute grete coste.” This fraternity was in fact a -benefit-club, for members became eligible for admission after paying -their dues for seven years. The community was especially bound to pray -for seamen in time of peril. - - -(4) PRIVATE ALMSHOUSES - -In villages, the lord of the manor or squire provided a charity for his -retainers, tenants or neighbours. This was done at Arundel, Donnington -near Newbury, Heytesbury, Ewelme, Thame, etc. A man who had risen to -prosperity occasionally remembered his birthplace in this way, as -Chichele did at Higham Ferrers. - - * * * * * - -Although most hospitals were of a general character, some were designed -for particular classes of persons, such as homeless Jews, poor clergy, -decayed gentle-people, women and children. - - -(5) HOMES FOR JEWS - -The chief “hospital” for Jewish converts was in London. The inmates -were not ailing in health, but they needed succour because they were -unable to earn a [p020] living, and were cut off from their own -families as apostates. Converts were often sent to monasteries for -maintenance. The names of almost five hundred, together with the -particular houses that received them, are recorded in one roll of 39 -Henry III.[16] - -[Illustration: 3. HOUSE OF CONVERTS, LONDON] - -Special provision for the maintenance of converted Jews was made in -1232, when Henry III founded the House of Converts, Hospital of St. -Mary or “Converts’ Inn,” near the Old Temple. Within twenty years -Matthew Paris described its purpose, also making a drawing (Fig. 3) in -the margin:— - - “To this house converted Jews retired, leaving their Jewish - blindness, and had a home and a safe refuge for their whole lives, - living under an honourable rule, with sufficient sustenance without - servile work or the profits of usury. So it [p021] happened that - in a short time a large number were collected there. And now, - being baptized and instructed in the Christian law, they live - a praiseworthy life under a rector specially deputed to govern - them.”[17] - -The year of this chronicler’s death (1256), upwards of 160 convert -brothers received tunics from the king’s almoner. Probably about half -were inmates, and half unattached pensioners. The number may have been -increased from interested motives on account of the persecution of Jews -which followed the supposed “horrible crime lately perpetrated in the -city of Lincoln, of a Christian boy crucified.” In January 1256, pardon -was granted to John the convert, who was a Jew of Lincoln when the -so-called “little St. Hugh” was put to death. - -The _Domus Conversorum_ was rebuilt by Edward I, who bestowed much -attention upon it. By his ordinance, the pensioners were taught -handicrafts and trained to support themselves. He ordered that school -should be kept and that suitable converts might be educated as clerks -or chaplains. St. Mary’s was an industrial home or training institution -for persecuted Jewish Christians, who were safe only under royal -protection. Another roll of the same year shows that a special effort -was made at that time to evangelize the Jews. Orders had recently been -given to repress notorious blasphemers, and those who after baptism -had been “perverted to Jewish wickedness.” Edward also directed that -strenuous efforts should be made by the Friar Preachers for their -conversion. Finally he set himself to improve the endowments of the -institution:— - - “He therefore, in order that those who have already turned [p022] - from their blindness to the light of the Church may be strengthened - in the firmness of their faith, and those who still persist in their - error may more willingly and readily turn to the grace of the faith, - has taken measures, under divine guidance, to provide healthfully for - their maintenance.”[18] - -The House of Converts was then supporting ninety-seven persons. Of -these fifty-one remained in 1308. After the great expulsion in 1290, -the numbers were quickly reduced. In 1327, there were twenty-eight. In -1344, the institution supported eight converts and seven admitted for -other causes. After that date the pensioners dwindled to two. During -the fifteenth century, a few foreign Jews were received from time to -time, the household varying between eight and three. The hospital -was empty in the days of Edward VI, and remained so until 1578; its -subsequent history is related by Adler. - -The _Domus Conversorum_ in Oxford was likewise founded by Henry III. -There, says Wood, “all Jews and infidells that were converted to the -Christian faith were ordained to have sufficient maintenance. By which -meanes it was soe brought about that noe small number of these converts -had their abode in this place and were baptized and instructed.” The -building (figured in Skelton’s _Oxonia Antiqua_) subsequently became a -Hall for scholars. - -According to Leland and Stow there were homes, or, at least, schools, -for Jews in London and Bristol before Henry III turned his attention to -this work. Stow, referring to the original foundation of St. Thomas’ -hospital, Southwark (1213), says that it was a house of alms for -converts and poor children. Leland, quoting from a manuscript of the -Kalendars’ Gild in Bristol, states that [p023] in the time of Henry II -there were “Scholes ordeyned in Brightstow by them for the Conversion -of the Jewes.” The information (which he gleaned from the _Little Red -Book_) originated in the bishop’s inquisition made in 1318, which found -that Robert Fitz-Harding and the Kalendars “established the schools of -Bristol for teaching Jews and other little ones under the government of -the same gild and the protection of the mayor.” It should be noticed -that _scola_ also refers to a Jewish synagogue, but the term _Schola -Judæorum_ is applied by Matthew Paris to the House of Converts in -London. - -[Illustration: 4. POOR PRIESTS’ HOSPITAL, CANTERBURY] - - -(6) HOMES FOR POOR CLERGY AND FOR LAY GENTLEFOLK - -Diocesan clergy-homes were provided during the thirteenth century -in most ecclesiastical centres. At Canterbury, the Archdeacon built -(before 1225) the Poor Priests’ hospital (Fig. 4). St. Richard of -Chichester began [p024] a similar charity at Windeham in his diocese. -Walter de Merton designed a small institution at Basingstoke for -“ministers of the altar whose strength is failing,” and incurables of -Merton College. There were three beds for chaplains at St. Wulstan’s, -Worcester, and the Stratford gild intended to initiate a hospital for -the diocesan clergy. To St. Giles’, Lincoln, were admitted “needy -ministers and servants and canons not able to work.” - -Similar retreats arose in the following century. The Bishop of Exeter -built near his palace at Clist Gabriel a home for twelve blind, -infirm, ancient or disabled priests, deacons and sub-deacons. The -Dean of York maintained six infirm chaplains in St. Mary’s, Bootham. -Clergy-homes were usually founded by ecclesiastics; but in 1329, a -London layman, Elsyng by name, touched by the sufferings of the clergy -in that time of scarcity, began his almshouse, ordaining that among -the hundred pensioners, blind, paralytic and disabled priests should -be specially cared for. The need is evident from a deed concerning -St. Giles’, Norwich (1340). The house had been founded for the poor -“and principally to minister the necessaries of life to priests of the -diocese of Norwich, who, broken down with age, or destitute of bodily -strength, or labouring under continual disease, cannot celebrate divine -service”; but the number of such priests and infirm persons “flocking -to the hospital hath so grown and daily groweth” that assistance was -urgently required. Although the priesthood was temporarily diminished -by the pestilence of 1349, clerks acting as chantry priests were again -numerous during the fifteenth century. These unbeneficed clergy, it -was said, “when depressed by the weight of old age, or labouring -under weak health . . . [p025] are by necessity compelled to wander -about, begging miserably for food and raiment . . . to the displeasure -of Him whose ministers they are.” To put an end to this scandal, “the -fraternity of St. Charity and St. John Evangelist” was founded in -London (1442), and this clerical almshouse was commonly called “The -Papey.” Gregory, who was mayor in 1451, describes it in his note-book:— - -[Illustration: _PLATE IV._ HOSPITAL OF ST. GILES, NORWICH FOR AGED -CHAPLAINS AND OTHER POOR] - - “Pappy Chyrche in the Walle be twyne Algate and Beuysse Markes. And - hyt ys a grete fraternyte of prestys and of othyr seqular men. And - there ben founde of almys certayne prestys, both blynde and lame, - that be empotent.” - -Persons of gentle birth who had suffered reverses of fortune often -retreated into convents, or were received into hospitals with a -semi-official position. During the fifteenth century one or two -institutions arose to benefit those decayed gentlefolk who, as one has -said, are of all people “most sensible of want.” Staindrop College -maintained a staff of priests and clerks, and certain gentlemen (_certi -pauperes generosi_) and yeomen (_pauperes valecti_) who had been in the -Earl of Westmorland’s service. The “New Almshouse of Noble Poverty” -(_Nova Domus Eleemosynaria Nobilis Paupertatis_), which Cardinal -Beaufort intended to add to the original establishment of St. Cross, -was never fully completed, but there are still four brethren of the -professional class on the Cardinal’s foundation. - - -(7) HOMES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN - -One of the earliest permanent homes for women was St. -Katharine’s-by-the-Tower, London. The sisters of St. John’s, Reading, -are described as “certyn relygyous [p026] women, wydowes in chast -lyuyngg in God’s seruyce praying nygt and day.” To provide for -fatherless children and widows was part of the design of Holy Trinity, -Salisbury. In two hospitals outside Lincoln this particular work was -carried on. Originally served by the Gilbertine Order, they became -entirely eleemosynary institutions under the care of lay-sisters. Many -wills about the year 1400 allude to St. Katharine’s asylum or hospital -for widows, orphans, and bedemen. The daughter-house was a home for -waifs and strays, namely, “certain orphans placed in danger through -the negligence of their friends, and deserted, and brought into the -hospital of St. Sepulchre, guarded and educated there.” - -A further reason for the adoption of children into the hospital family -was this: that when women died in confinement, their infants were -frequently kept and cared for. (See p. 9.) In connection with St. -Leonard’s, York, mention is made of “ministering to the poor and sick -and to the infants exposed there.” In 1280 there were twenty-three -boys in the orphanage, with a woman in charge. Education was provided -for them and for the thirty choristers. Two schoolmasters taught -grammar and music. The Dean and Chapter were forbidden by the King -on one occasion (1341) to meddle with the grammar school in the -hospital. Among the expenses in 1369 is a gratuity to the bishop of the -choir-boys. This shows, says Canon Raine, that there was a “boy-bishop” -at St. Leonard’s as well as in the Minster. - -Nor was it uncommon thus to find young and strong side by side with -aged and infirm inmates. Several almshouses maintained children. -Bishop Grandisson carried out his predecessor Stapeldon’s intention of -[p027] adding twelve boys to the foundation of St. John’s, Exeter, -and Archbishop Chichele attached a boarding-school to his bedehouse -at Higham Ferrers. There were children and adult pensioners in St. -Katharine’s, London, and in Knolles’ almshouse, Pontefract. - -Some hospitals had boarders or day-boarders whose studies were -conducted in neighbouring schools. St. John’s, Bridgwater, -maintained thirteen scholars—such as were _habiles ad informandum in -grammatical_—who were excused from full ritual that they might keep -schools daily in the town (1298).[19] In some cases, like St. Giles’, -Norwich, food was provided for children who were getting free education -elsewhere. At St. Cross, Winchester, seven choristers were boarded -and instructed. Thirteen poor scholars from the Grammar School also -received a substantial meal daily. - -In other instances we find that instruction was provided without board -and lodging. The lads taught in God’s House, Exeter, were not inmates, -like those of St. John’s in that city. The master of the hospital -was required to teach from three to nine boys, beginning with the -alphabet and going on to the “great psalter of the holy David.” In -the almshouses of Ewelme and Heytesbury also there were non-resident -pupils. Only the more advanced at Ewelme aspired to “the faculty of -grammar.” It was directed that should the schoolmaster have no more -than four “childer that actually lernes gramer, besides petettes [i.e. -beginners] and reders,” he should assist at matins and evensong. He -must so rule his scholars that none be tedious, noisome, or troublous -to the almspeople. Payment was forbidden at [p028] Heytesbury except -as a free gift, or by pupils whose friends had a yearly income of over -£10. Bishop Smyth, a patron of learning, added a schoolmaster and usher -to his restored almshouse at Lichfield, where very poor children were -to be taught. The Grammar School connected with St. John’s hospital, -Banbury, became famous. - - * * * * * - -Lastly, the development of these institutions must be considered. Many -of the almshouses built during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -were intended from their foundation for life-pensioners. In other -cases, however, on account of necessity or expediency, the permanent -home was evolved from one originally of a temporary character. -Charities underwent a change during the fourteenth and fifteenth -centuries. This may be attributed to various social and economic -causes—the decline of leprosy, legislation regarding vagrancy, and -the redistribution of wealth. As the number of lepers decreased, the -alms formerly bestowed upon them were available for other necessitous -persons, and some lazar-houses gradually became retreats for aged -invalids. This was chiefly during the fifteenth century, but even about -1285 St. Nicholas’, York, is said to be “founded in the name of lepers, -and for the support of the old and feeble of the city.” Again, when -it was realized that indiscriminate hospitality encouraged vagrancy, -the character of some hospitals gradually altered. The Statute of 1388 -helped to develop local administration of charity by ordaining that -beggars unable to work must either remain in the town where they found -themselves or return to their birthplace and abide there for life. -[p029] - -[Illustration: 5. BEDE-HOUSE, STAMFORD] - -The crying need for the permanent relief of genuine distress made -itself heard. Langland, the poet of the people, called attention to the -necessity of rebuilding hospitals. In his _Vision_ “Truth” begs rich -merchants to put their profits to good uses and “amenden meson-dieux” -therewith. In 1410, and again in 1414, the Commons suggested that -new almshouses might be founded if some ecclesiastical property were -confiscated. Although this was not done, many were provided through -private liberality. By the redistribution of wealth and the rise of -the middle classes, a fresh impetus was given to building. The chantry -system also had an increasingly powerful influence upon the charity -of this period. The newer foundations, even more explicitly than the -older, were “bede-houses” or houses of prayer. All [p030] charitable -foundations were to a certain extent chantries. Many, alas! were solely -on this account marked with the stigma of superstition, and fell under -the two Acts for the dissolution of chantries: the plea of usefulness, -however, happily prevailed in several cases.[20] For a time the work of -building almshouses ceased, but revived after a while. In 1583 Philip -Stubbes complained that although in some places the poor were relieved -in hospitals, yet more provision was required:— - - “For the supplie whereof, would God there might be in euerie parish - an almes house erected, that the poore (such as are poore indeede) - might be maintained, helped, and relieued. For until the true poore - indeed be better provided for, let them neuer thinke to please - God.”[21] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[13] Rolls of Parl. 2 Hen. V, Vol. IV, p. 19b Petitions, No. III. - -[14] St. John’s, Bedford, was intended only for townsmen; all such -applying to the master for relief were to be received, but “all poore -folkes dwellyng without the same town to be expulsed and put out.” -_Chantry Cert._ (ed. J. E. Brown). - -[15] Pat. 9 Hen. IV, Pt. i. m. 8. - -[16] Tovey, _Anglia Judaica_, 227. - -[17] Chron. and Mem. 44, iii. 262. - -[18] Pat. 8 Edw. I, m. 17. - -[19] Bishop Drokensford’s Reg. p. 268. - -[20] See Chapter XVI. - -[21] Anatomie of Abuses, Pt. II, 43. - - - - -[p031] - -CHAPTER III - -HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE - - - “_Hospitals . . . to maintain men and women who had lost their wits - and memory._” (Rolls of Parliament, 1414.) - -Little is known regarding the extent and treatment of insanity during -the Middle Ages. Persons “vexed with a demon” were taken to holy -places in the hope that the “fiends” might be cast out. An early -thirteenth-century window at Canterbury shows a poor maniac dragged by -his friends to the health-giving shrine of St. Thomas. He is tied with -ropes, and they belabour him with blows from birch-rods. In the second -scene he appears in his right mind, returning thanks, all instruments -of discipline cast away. Even in the sixteenth century we read of -pilgrimage by lunatics, especially to certain holy wells. - -Formerly, all needy people were admitted into the hospital, mental -invalids being herded together with those weak or diseased in body. -From the chronicle of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, we learn that in -the twelfth century mad people were constantly received as well as -the deaf, dumb, blind, palsied and crippled. One young man lost “his -resonable wyttys” on his journey to London. He wandered about running, -not knowing whither he went. Arriving in London, he was brought to the -hospital and “ther yn shorte space his witte [p032] was recoueryd.” -Another patient was taken with the “fallynge euill” [epilepsy], which -is described as a sickness hindering the operation of the senses. -It would seem that persons subject to fits were sometimes placed in -a lazar-house, for at St. Bartholomew’s, Rochester (1342), was one -patient “struck with the epilepsy disease.” - -The public did not make itself responsible for the custody of the -lunatic, whose own people were required to guard him and others from -harm. One of the “Customs of Bristol” (1344) orders that the goods and -chattels of demented men be delivered to their friends until they come -to a good state of mind (_ad bonam memoriam_). The sad condition of -“lunatick lollers” is described by Langland, who speaks compassionately -of this class of wanderers. - -In London, the question of making special provision for the insane -came to the front about this time, for in 1369 one Denton intended to -found a hospital “for poor priests and others, men and women, who in -that city suddenly fell into a frenzy (_in frenesim_) and lost their -memory,” but his plan was not carried out. Stow mentions that the -earliest asylum for distraught and lunatic persons was near Charing -Cross, “but it was said, that some time a king of England, not liking -such a kind of people to remain so near his palace, caused them to be -removed farther off, to Bethlem without Bishopsgate.” - -St. Mary of Bethlehem was the most famous refuge for the mentally -disordered. In 1403 there were confined six men deprived of reason -(_mente capti_), and three other sick, one of whom was a paralytic -patient who had been lying in the hospital for over two years. The good -work [p033] done in the institution was fully recognized. A bequest -was made in 1419 to the sick and insane of St. Mary de Bedlam. A -Patent Roll entry of 1437 speaks of “the succour of demented lunatics” -and others, and of the necessity of cutting down these works of -piety unless speedy help were forthcoming. The then town clerk, John -Carpenter, recalled this need and remembered in his will (1441) “the -poor madmen of Bethlehem.” Another citizen, Stephen Forster, desired -his executors to lay out ten pounds in food and clothing for the poor -people “detained” there. Gregory, citizen and mayor, describes in his -_Historical Collections_ (about 1451) this asylum and its work of -mercy, and it is satisfactory to hear that some were there restored to -a sound mind:— - - “A chyrche of Owre Lady that ys namyde Bedlam. And yn that place - ben founde many men that ben fallyn owte of hyr wytte. And fulle - honestely they ben kepte in that place; and sum ben restoryde unto - hyr witte and helthe a-gayne. And sum ben a-bydyng there yn for - evyr, for they ben falle soo moche owte of hem selfe that hyt ys - uncurerabylle unto man.” - -Probably the utterly incurable were doomed to those iron chains, -manacles and stocks mentioned in the inventory of 1398 and quoted at -the visitation of 1403:— - - “Item, vj cheynes de Iren, com vj lokkes. Item iiij peir manycles de - Iren. ij peir stokkys.”[22] - -In other parts of the country it was customary to receive persons -suffering from attacks of mania into general infirmaries. At -Holy Trinity, Salisbury, not only were sick persons and women in -childbirth received, but mad people were to be taken care of (_furiosi -custodiantur donec sensum adipiscantur_). This was at the [p034] close -of the fourteenth century. In the petition for the reformation of -hospitals (1414) it is stated that they exist partly to maintain those -who had lost their wits and memory (_hors de lour sennes et memoire_). -Many almshouse-statutes, however, prohibited their admission. A -regulation concerning an endowed bed in St. John’s, Coventry (1444), -declared that a candidate must be “not mad, quarrelsome, leprous, -infected.” At Ewelme “no wood man” (crazy person) must be received; and -an inmate becoming “madd, or woode” was to be removed from the Croydon -almshouse. - -Such disused lazar-houses as were inhabitable might well have been -utilized as places of confinement. This, indeed, was done at Holloway -near Bath. At what period the lepers vacated St. Mary Magdalene’s is -not known, but it was probably appropriated to the use of lunatics -by Prior Cantlow, who rebuilt the chapel about 1489. At the close of -the sixteenth century, St. James’, Chichester, was occupied by a sad -collection of hopeless cripples, among whom were found two idiots. A -hundred years later the bishop reported that this hospital was of small -revenue and “hath only one poor person, but she a miserable idiot, in -it.” - -Bethlehem Hospital was rescued by the Lord Mayor and citizens at the -Dissolution of religious houses and continued its charitable work. In -1560 Queen Elizabeth issued on behalf of this house an appeal of which -a facsimile may be seen in Bewes’ _Church Briefs_. “Sume be straught -from there wyttes,” it declares, “thuse be kepte and mayntend in the -Hospital of our Ladye of Beddelem untyle God caule them to his marcy or -to ther wyttes agayne.” - -[Illustration: _PLATE V._ HARBLEDOWN HOSPITAL, NEAR CANTERBURY ONCE -USED FOR LEPERS] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[22] Char. Com. Rep., xxxii. vi. 472. - - - - -[p035] - -CHAPTER IV - -THE LAZAR-HOUSE - - - “_For the relief of divers persons smitten with this sickness and - destitute and walking at large within the realm._”[23] (Holloway, - 1473.) - -On the outskirts of a town seven hundred years ago, the eye of the -traveller would have been caught by a well-known landmark—a group of -cottages with an adjoining chapel, clustering round a green enclosure. -At a glance he would recognize it as the lazar-house, and would prepare -to throw an alms to the crippled and disfigured representative of the -community. - -It is a startling fact that there is documentary evidence for the -existence of over 200 such institutions in this country in the Middle -Ages, though historians disagree in their conclusions on this subject, -as they do on the extent and duration of the disease itself. To some, -leprosy is a phantom playing upon the imagination of a terror-stricken -nation; to others, an all-devouring giant stalking through the land. -One writer surmises that all the _British_ leper-hospitals together -did not exceed fifty, for “there might have been a leper in a village -here and there, one or two in a market-town, a dozen or more in a -city, a score or so in a whole diocese.” Another says that “the -number of these lazar-houses, however great, was insufficient to -accommodate [p036] more than a small proportion of those suffering from -the disease. The rest flocked to the high roads, and exposed their -distorted limbs and sores, and sought by attracting the notice of -travellers to gain alms for their support.” - -Speaking broadly, one may say that leprosy raged from the eleventh -to the middle of the thirteenth century, when it abated; that it was -inconsiderable after the middle of the fourteenth; that, though not -extinct, it became rare in the fifteenth; and had practically died out -by the sixteenth century, save in the extreme south-west of England. - - * * * * * - -It is commonly supposed that leprosy was introduced into this country -by returning crusaders. “The leprosy was one epidemical infection -which tainted the pilgrims coming thither,” says Fuller; “hence was it -brought over into England—never before known in this island—and many -lazar-houses erected.” Voltaire makes this satirical epigram:—“All that -we gained in the end by engaging in the Crusades, was the leprosy; and -of all that we had taken, that was the only thing that remained with -us.” This theory, however, is no longer accepted, and Dr. C. Creighton -expresses an opinion that it is absurd to suppose that leprosy could -be “introduced” in any such way. Geoffrey de Vinsauf, the chronicler -who accompanied Richard I, says, indeed, that many perished from -sickness of a dropsical nature. He was an eyewitness of the famine -which led to the consumption of abominable food, but there is little -proof that these wretched conditions engendered leprosy among the -pilgrim-warriors. Only once is a leper mentioned in his _Itinerary_, -and then it is no less a personage than Baldwin IV, the young prince -who became seventh King of Jerusalem and victor over [p037] Saladin. -It is, moreover, an undeniable fact that there were lepers in Saxon -and early Norman England. The Anglo-Saxon equivalent is found in the -vocabulary attributed to Aelfric. Roger of Hoveden tells the story of -a poor leper whom Edward the Confessor was instrumental in curing. -Aelfward, Saxon Bishop of London, retired into a monastery because of -this affliction; and Hugh d’Orivalle, Bishop of London, a Norman, died -a leper in 1085. Finally, at least two lazar-houses were established -within twenty years of the Conquest, and before the first Crusade. - - -(a) _Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries_ - -Leprosy was rampant during the Norman period. By a happy providence, -charity was quickened simultaneously by the religious movement which -illuminated a dark age, so that the need was met. Two leper-houses were -rivals in point of antiquity, namely, Rochester and Harbledown, both -founded before 1100. These were followed (before 1135) by foundations -at Alkmonton, Whitby, London, Lincoln, Colchester, Norwich, Newark, -Peterborough, Oxford, Newcastle, Wilton, St. Alban’s, Bury, Warwick. -Within the next twenty years hospitals are mentioned at Canterbury -(St. Laurence), Buckland by Dover, Lynn, Burton Lazars, Aylesbury, -York, Ripon, and Northampton; there were also other early asylums at -Carlisle, Preston, Shrewsbury, Ilford, Exeter, etc. The chief building -period was before the middle of the thirteenth century. A glance at -_Appendix B_ will show how such houses multiplied. Moreover, many -not specifically described as for lepers, were doubtless originally -intended for them. (Cf. Lewes, Abingdon, Scarborough, etc.) [p038] - - -(b) _Fourteenth Century_ (1300–1350) - -During the first part of the fourteenth century, leprosy was -widespread, but by no means as common as formerly. Directly or -indirectly, testimony is borne to the fact of its prevalence by -national laws, by hospital authorities and by the charitable public. - -In the first place there is the witness of external legislation, which -is two-fold. Schemes of taxation refer constantly to lepers (_Rolls -of Parliament_, 1307–1324). Measures were repeatedly taken for their -expulsion from towns. An ordinance was made in the Parliament of -Lincoln (1315) commanding that houses founded for the infirm and lepers -should be devoted to their use. The admission of other persons was now -refused, as, for example, at St. Giles’, London, and St. Bartholomew’s, -Oxford.[24] - -There is, secondly, the phraseology of contemporary leper-house -statutes, e.g. those drawn up by the Abbot of St. Alban’s (1344), and -by the Bishop of London for Ilford (1346). Here it is right to note a -case where infected inmates were already in a minority. A summary of -the history of St. Nicholas’, Carlisle (1341), includes this definite -statement:—“until by lapse of time the greater part of the lepers died, -when . . . their places were filled by poor impotent folk.”[25] - -Thirdly, it is evident from the gifts of charitable persons that there -were still many outcasts in need of assistance. Bishop Bitton of Exeter -left money to lazars in thirty-nine localities within his diocese -(1307). [p039] Practically all the wills of the period allude to the -presence of lepers in the neighbourhood. Although there already existed -two asylums outside Rochester (St. Bartholomew’s and St. Nicholas’ at -Whiteditch), to which bequests were continuously made until far into -the next century,[26] St. Katherine’s hospital was founded in 1316 for -lepers and other mendicants:— - - “if it happe anie man or woman of the cittie of Rouchester to be - uisited with lepre, or other suche diseases that longe to impotence, - with unpower of pouertie, there sholde be receaued.” - -If leper-houses were empty, the fact is largely accounted for by the -mismanagement and poverty of charitable institutions at that period. -This aspect of the subject has never received adequate attention. -Destitute persons were ousted to make way for paying inmates. One -thirteenth-century master of St. Nicholas’, York, admitted thirty-six -brethren and sisters, of whom four were received _pro Deo_, because -they were lepers, but the rest for money. This practice was sadly -common, and notorious instances might be cited from Lincoln (Holy -Innocents’), London (St. Giles’), and Oxford (St. Bartholomew’s). - -Moreover, the leper would probably not be anxious for admission, -because at this time, when hospitals were barely able to supply the -necessaries of life, it meant restriction without the corresponding -comfort which sometimes made it welcome. It is related that in 1315, -the lepers of Kingston showed their independence by quitting the -hospital and demolishing it. A Close Roll entry relating to St. -Nicholas’, Royston (1359), declares that the “lepers for a great while -past have refused to come or to dwell [p040] there.” About the year -1350 the chronicler of St. Alban’s states that at St. Julian’s hospital -“in general there are now not above three, sometimes only two, and -occasionally one.” Possibly they had rebelled against the strict life -enforced: in 1353 the master and lepers were made semi-independent by -grant of the abbot and convent.[27] - -In truth, hospitals were in great straits during this distressful -century, and retrenchment was necessary. Leper-houses in particular -were seldom on a sound financial basis. Even if they possessed certain -endowments in kind there was rarely money to spend on the fabric, and -buildings became dilapidated. Experience teaches the difficulty of -maintaining old-established charities. Much of the early enthusiasm had -passed away, and charity was at a low ebb. - -It was indeed a poverty-stricken period. Heavy taxation drained the -country’s resources. War, famine and pestilence were like the locust, -palmerworm and caterpillar devastating the land. These were cruel times -for the poor, and also for houses of charity. The mediæval tale of Sir -Amiloun shows that, so long as the land had plenty, the leper-knight -and his companion fared well, but that when corn waxed dear, they were -driven by hunger from town to town, and could barely keep themselves -alive. - -A few instances will show how charity suffered. At the Harbledown -leper-house (1276), voluntary offerings were so diminished that inmates -were come to great want, and it was feared the sick would be compelled -to leave. In 1301 the authorities of the Stafford hospital were [p041] -said to be accustomed to receive lepers with goods and chattels, but -they were not bound to support them, and the prior himself had been -driven away by destitution. St. Giles’, Hexham, was suffering from the -Scotch wars. An inquiry ordered by the archbishop (1320) showed that -the numbers were reduced, that none were admitted without payment, and -that they had to work hard. The allowance of bread and beer from the -priory was diminished, oxen were borrowed for ploughing, and there was -scarcely enough corn to sow the land.[28] Wayfaring lepers had ceased -to frequent St. Mary Magdalene’s, Ripon (where they used to receive -food and shelter), because applicants went away empty-handed (1317); -and a later inquiry showed that none came there “because it was fallen -down.” In 1327, the Huntingdon lepers had barely sufficient to maintain -their present company, admittance being refused to applicants solely -on that account, and they were excused taxation in 1340, because if -payment were made, they would have to diminish the number of inmates -and disperse them to seek their food. Civil and ecclesiastical -registers alike, in issuing protections and briefs for leprous men -collecting alms for hospitals, tell a tale of utter destitution. - - -(c) _Fourteenth Century_ (1350–1400) - -Having discussed that portion of the century which preceded the fateful -year 1349, we now inquire to what extent leprosy existed during the -fifty years that followed. It is no longer mentioned in legislation, -and there are indications that it had come to be regarded chiefly as -a question for local government: the _Letter Books_ of the [p042] -Corporation of London record edicts of expulsion. There are other -proofs that the number of sufferers was decreasing. If, for example, -the language be compared of two Harbledown deeds, dated 1276 and 1371, -an appreciable difference can be discerned. In the first it is declared -that there “a hundred lepers are confined to avoid contagion,” but a -century later it is merely stated that “some of these poor are infected -with leprosy.” It was said at Maldon in 1402 that there had been no -leper-burgesses for twenty years and more. The mention of burgesses is, -however, inconclusive, for there may have been mendicant lazars who -would gladly have accepted the shelter of St. Giles’; but the town was -not bound to support them. - -The gifts and bequests of this period testify to the fact that although -there were lepers—notably in the vicinity of towns—yet the institutions -provided for them were small in comparison with former asylums. A new -lazar-house was built at Sudbury in 1373, to accommodate three persons. -Shortly before 1384 a house for lepers and other infirm was founded -at Boughton-under-Blean.[29] Richard II left money to complete two -hospitals near London. The will of his uncle, John of Gaunt, who died -the same year (1399), indicates the smallness of existing institutions -within five miles of the city, for he bequeaths to every leper-house -containing five _malades_, five nobles, and to lesser hospitals, three -nobles each. - -For a time, the pestilence of 1349 had brought financial ruin to -houses dependent upon charity. In London, for example, in 1355, the -full complement at St. Giles’ should [p043] have been fourteen—it had -originally been forty—but the authorities complained that they could -not maintain even the reduced number, for their lands lay uncultivated -“by reason of the horrible mortality.” St. James’ hospital—which used -to support fourteen—was empty, save for the sole survivor of the -scourge who remained as caretaker, nor does it appear to have been -reorganized as a leper-asylum. - -This diminution in numbers may be attributed to various causes. An -increase of medical knowledge with improved diagnosis, together -with the strict examination which now preceded expulsion, doubtless -prevented the incarceration of some who would formerly have been -injudiciously classed as lazars. Possibly, too, the disease now took -a milder form, as it is apt to do in course of time. Again, the Black -Death (1349) had not merely impoverished leper-hospitals, but must -surely have been an important factor in the decline of leprosy itself. -If it reduced the population by two-thirds, or even by one-half, as is -computed, it also carried off the weakest members of society, those -most prone to disease. When the plague reached a lazar-house, it found -ready victims, and left it without inhabitant. The same may be said -of the terrible though lesser pestilences which followed (1361–76). -The attempt to purify towns by sanitary measures contributed to the -improvement of public health. In Bartholomew’s _De Proprietatibus -Rerum_ (_circa_ 1360) it is declared, among divers causes of leprosy -that:—“sometyme it cometh . . . of infecte and corrupte ayre.” Steps -were taken in London to improve sanitation (1388) because “many and -intolerable diseases do daily happen.” [p044] - - -(d) _Fifteenth Century_ - -Having admitted that leprosy was steadily declining, so that by the -year 1400 it was rare, we are not prepared to echo the statement that -its disappearance “may be taken as absolute.” Certain lazar-houses -were, indeed, appropriated to other uses, as at Alkmonton (1406), -Sherburn (1434), and Blyth (1446). In remembrance of the original -foundation, accommodation was reserved at Sherburn for two lepers “if -they could be found in those parts” [i.e. in the Bishopric of Durham] -“or would willingly come to remain there,” the place of the sixty-five -lepers being now taken by thirteen poor men unable of their own means -to support themselves.[30] This was a period of transition, and -although ruins already marked the site of many a former settlement, yet -there were places where a few lepers occupied the old habitations. - -Leprosy certainly lurked here and there. The testimony of wills may -not be considered wholly trustworthy evidence, yet they show that the -public still recognized a need. In 1426 a testator left money for four -lepers to receive four marks yearly for ten years. Bequests were made -to lepers of Winchester (1420); to “eche laseer of man and woman or -child within Bury” (1463); to “the leprous men now in the house of -lepers” at Sandwich (1466). There were, perhaps, cases where testators -had little personal knowledge of the charities. We cannot, however, -doubt that a real need existed when the former mayor of Newcastle -leaves forty shillings to “the lepre men of Newcastell” (1429), or -when [p045] John Carpenter—for over twenty years town-clerk of -London—bequeaths money to poor lepers at Holborn, Locks and Hackney -(1441). - -In 1464, when confirming Holy Innocents’, Lincoln, to Burton Lazars, -Edward IV renewed Henry VI’s stipulation that three leprous retainers -should still be supported:—“to fynde and susteyn there yerely for -ever, certeyn Lepurs of oure menialx Seruauntez and of oure Heires -& Successours, yf eny suche be founde.” The king relinquished some -property near Holloway (Middlesex), in order to provide a retreat -for infected persons. In the year 1480 there were a few lepers at -Lydd, who were allowed to share in the festivities when the quarrels -between Edward IV and Louis XI came to an end. The ships of the Cinque -Ports had been requisitioned, including “the George” of Romney. The -town-clerk of Lydd makes an entry of 4_d._ “Paid to the leperys, whenne -the George was fette home fro Hethe.”[31] - - -(e) _Sixteenth Century_ - -Cases of true leprosy were now of rare occurrence. Probably leper -hospitals were in the main only nominally such, as a testator hints -in 1519, bequeathing a legacy “to every Alms House called Lepars -in the Shire of Kent.” But although the social conditions of the -country improved during the Tudor period, they were still low enough -continually to engender pestilence. When Erasmus visited England, he -was struck by the filthy habits which were prevalent; but the avengers -of neglect of cleanliness were now plague and the sweating sickness. In -some few cases old hospitals were [p046] utilized for the sufferers. -The plague having lately raged in Newcastle, it was recorded in the -Chantry Certificate of St. Mary Magdalene’s (1546) that it was once -used for lepers, but “syns that kynde of sickeness is abated it is used -for the comforte and helpe of the poore folks that chaunceth to fall -sycke in tyme of pestilence.” - -The south-west corner of England was now the last stronghold of -leprosy. St. Margaret’s, Honiton, had been refounded about 1530. A new -leper-hospital was built at Newton Bushell near Exeter in 1538:— - - “for the releff of powre lazar-people, whereof grete nomber with - that diseas be now infectid in that partis, to the grete daunger of - infection of moche people . . . for lacke of conueayent houses in the - county of Devonshire for them.” - -Even in 1580, none were admitted to St. Mary Magdalene’s, Exeter, -except “sick persons in the disease of the leprosy.” About the same -time it was reported that “for a long time there had been a great -company of lazar-people” at Bodmin. - -A few of the old hospitals were kept up in different parts. In the -first year of Edward VI (1547) it was enacted that all “leprouse and -poore beddred creatures” who were inmates of charitable houses should -continue in the places appointed, and be permitted to have proctors -to gather alms for them. The Corporation MSS. of Hereford include a -notification that year of the appointment of collectors for “the house -of leprous persons founded in the worship of St. Anne and St. Loye.” -Strype records similar licences granted to Beccles and Bury; and he -also cites[32] “A protection to beg, granted to [p047] the poor -lazars of the house of our Saviour Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, at -Mile-end [in Stepney], and J. Mills appointed their proctor” (1551). -The sixteenth-century seal of this _Domus Dei et S. Marie Magd. de Myle -End_ (figured below) shows a crippled leper and an infirm woman of the -hospital. In 1553, £60 was given to the lazar-houses round London on -condition that inmates did not beg to people’s annoyance within three -miles. - - * * * * * - -It has here been attempted to bring together some notes touching the -extent and duration of leprosy during the Middle Ages, as affecting -the provision and maintenance of leper-hospitals. Into the nature of -the disease itself we have not endeavoured to inquire, that being a -scientific rather than an historical study. Those who would go further -into the subject must gain access to the writings of Sir James Simpson, -Dr. C. Creighton, Dr. George Newman and others. - -[Illustration: 6. SEAL OF THE LAZAR-HOUSE, MILE END] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[23] Patent 12 Ed. IV, pt. II, m. 6. - -[24] Pat. 8 Edw. II, pt. ii. m. 5. Close 9 Edw. II, m. 18 _d_. - -[25] Pat. 15 Edw. III, pt. i. m. 49, 48. - -[26] J. Thorpe, _Custumale Roffense_, p. 39 et sq.; _Reg. Roff._ p. 113. - -[27] Pat. 27 Edw. III, pt. ii. m. 16. - -[28] Surtees Soc. 46, ii. 130. - -[29] Cited Vict. Co. Hist. _Kent_. - -[30] One deed of reformation speaks of “the diminution of the means of -the hospital and the small number of lepers who resort thither.” (_Pap. -Lett._ 1430–1.) - -[31] Hist. MSS. 5th R. p. 527 a. - -[32] Ecclesiastical Memorials, II, 248. - - - - -[p048] - -CHAPTER V - -THE LEPER IN ENGLAND - - - “_From the benefactions and possessions charitably bestowed upon the - hospital, the hunger, thirst and nakedness of those lepers, and other - wants and miseries with which they are incessantly afflicted . . . - may be relieved._” - - (Foundation Charter of Sherburn.) - -We now turn from leper-asylums to consider the leper himself—a sadly -familiar figure to the wayfaring man in the Middle Ages. He wears a -sombre gown and cape, tightly closed; a hood conceals his want of hair, -which is, however, betrayed by the absence of eyebrows and lashes; his -limbs are maimed and stunted so that he can but hobble or crawl; his -features are ulcerated and sunken; his staring eyes are unseeing or -unsightly; his wasted lips part, and a husky voice entreats help as he -“extends supplicating lazar arms with bell and clap-dish.” - - * * * * * - -At the outset it is necessary to state that inmates of lazar-houses -were not all true lepers. Persons termed _leprosi_, _infirmi_, -_elefantuosi_, _languidi_, _frères malades_, _meselles_, do not -necessarily signify lepers in a strict sense. Gervase of Canterbury, -writing about 1200, speaks of St. Oswald’s, Worcester, as intended -for “_Infirmi, item leprosi_”; and these words are used synonymously -in Pipe Rolls, charters, seals, etc. “Leprosy” was an elastic term as -commonly used. In the statutes of one hospital, [p049] the patriarch -Job was claimed as a fellow-sufferer—“who was so smitten with the -leprosy, that from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there -was no soundness in him.” A _lazar_ was one “full of sores,” and any -person having an inveterate and loathsome skin-eruption might be -considered infected. Disfiguring and malignant disorders were common. -Victims of _scrofula_, _lepra_, _lupus_, _tuberculosis_, _erysipelas_ -(or “St. Anthony’s fire”) and persons who had contracted disease -as the baneful result of a life stained with sin, would sometimes -take advantage of the provision made for lepers, for in extremity -of destitution this questionable benefit was not to be despised. In -foreign lands to-day, some are found not unwilling to join the infected -for the sake of food and shelter; we are told, for example, that the -Hawaiian Government provides so well for lepers that a difficulty -arises in preventing healthy people from taking up their abode in the -hospitals. On the other hand, it often happens that those who are -actually leprous refuse to join a segregation-camp. - -No one, however, can deny that leprosy was once exceedingly prevalent, -and after weighing all that might be said to the contrary, Sir J. -Y. Simpson and Dr. George Newman were convinced that the disease -existent in England was for the most part true leprosy (_elephantiasis -Græcorum_). - - -1. PIONEERS OF CHARITY - -One practical outcome of the religious revival of the twelfth century -was a movement of charity towards the outcast. The Lazarus whom Jesus -loved became linked in pious minds with that [p050] _Lazarus ulceribus -plenus_ neglected by men, but now “in Abraham’s bosom,” and the thought -took a firm hold of the heart and imagination. Abandoned by relatives, -loathed by neighbours, the famished leper was now literally fed with -crumbs of comfort from the rich man’s table. - -The work of providing for “Christ’s poor,” begun by the great churchmen -Lanfranc and Gundulf, was carried into the realm of personal service by -Queen Maud (about 1101), the Abbot of Battle (before 1171) and Hugh, -Bishop of Lincoln (about 1186). Queen Maud is the brightest ornament -of the new movement. Like St. Francis of Assisi a century later, -she “adopted those means for grappling with the evil that none but -an enthusiast and a visionary would have taken.” Aelred of Rievaulx -relates how Prince David visited her and found the house full of -lepers, in the midst of whom stood the queen. She washed, dried and -even kissed their feet, telling her brother that in so doing she was -kissing the feet of the Eternal King. When she begged him to follow her -example, he withdrew smiling, afterwards confessing to Aelred:—“I was -sore afraid and answered that I could on no account endure it, for as -yet I did not know the Lord, nor had His spirit been revealed to me.” -Of Walter de Lucy, the chronicler of Battle Abbey writes:— - - “He especially compassionated the forlorn condition of those - afflicted with leprosy and _elephantiasis_, whom he was so far from - shunning, that he frequently waited upon them in person, washing - their hands and feet, and, with the utmost cordiality, imprinting - upon them the soothing kisses of love and piety.” - -St. Hugh used to visit in certain hospitals, possibly those at -Peterborough and Newark connected with the [p051] See or the Mallardry -at Lincoln.[33] He would even dwell among the lepers, eating with them -and ministering to them, saying that he was inspired by the example -of the Saviour and by His teaching concerning the beggar Lazarus. On -one occasion, in reply to a remonstrance from his Chancellor, he said -that these afflicted ones were the flowers of Paradise, pearls in the -coronet of the Eternal King.[34] - - -2. PUBLIC OPINION - -These noble pioneers were doubtless important factors in moulding -public opinion. They may often have outstepped the bounds of prudence, -but, as one has observed, “an evil is removed only by putting it for -a time into strong relief, when it comes to be rightly dealt with and -so is gradually checked.” As long as possible the world ignored the -existence of leprosy. The thing was so dreadful that men shut their -eyes to it, until they were shamed into action by those who dared to -face the evil. The Canon of the Lateran Council of 1179 acknowledged -that unchristian selfishness had hitherto possessed men with regard to -lepers. We need not suppose that the heroism of those who ministered -to lepers was that which boldly faces a terrible risk, but it was -rather that which overcomes the strongest repulsion for hideous and -noisome objects. There is no hint in the language of the chroniclers of -encountering danger, but rather, expressions of horror that any should -hold intercourse with such loathsome creatures. The remonstrances of -Prince David and of William de Monte were not primarily on account of -contagion.—“What is it that thou doest, O my lady? [p052] surely if -the King knew this, he would not deign to kiss with his lips your mouth -thus polluted with the feet of lepers!” “When I saw Bishop Hugh touch -the livid face of the lepers, kiss their sightless eyes or eyeless -sockets, I shuddered with disgust.”—If St. Francis raised an objection -to inmates wandering outside their precincts, it was because people -could not endure the sight of them. The popular opinion regarding the -contagious nature of the disease developed strongly, however, towards -the close of the twelfth century. The Canon _De Leprosis_ (Rome, 1179; -Westminster, 1200) declares emphatically that lepers cannot dwell with -healthy men. Englishmen begin to act consistently with this conviction. -The Prior of Taunton (1174–85) separates a monk from the company of -the brethren “in fear of the danger of this illness”; and the Durham -chronicler mentions an infirmary for those “stricken with the contagion -of leprosy.” - - -3. CIVIL JURISDICTION - - -(a) _The Writ for Removal._—The right to expel lepers was acknowledged -before it was legally enforced. An entry upon the statute-book may be -merely the official recognition of an established custom. The fact that -where use and wont are sufficiently strong, law is unnecessary, is -illustrated to-day in Japan, where public opinion alone enforces the -separation of lepers. At length English civil law set its seal upon -the theory of infection by the writ _De Leproso Amovendo_, authorizing -the expulsion of lepers on account of manifest peril by contagion. -An early instance of removal occurs in the Curia Regis Rolls (1220). -It is mentioned that William, son of Nicholas Malesmeins, had been -consigned with the assent [p053] of his friends to a certain Maladria -in Bidelington, where he abode for two years. This was the leper-house -near Bramber, mentioned four years previously in a Close Roll as “the -hospital of the infirm of St. Mary Magdalene of Bidelington.” - -Legislation on this subject was chiefly local. The Assizes of London -had proclaimed in 1276 that “no leper shall be in the city, nor come -there, nor make any stay there.” Edward III supplemented existing -measures by an urgent local edict for London and Middlesex. The royal -proclamation sets forth that many publicly dwell among the citizens, -being smitten with the taint of leprosy; these not only injure people -by the contagion of their polluted breath, but they even strive to -contaminate others by a loose and vicious life, resorting to houses of -ill-fame, “that so, to their own wretched solace, they may have the -more fellows in suffering.”[35] All persons proved leprous—citizens -or others, of whatever sex or condition—are to quit the city within -fifteen days, “and betake themselves to places in the country, -solitary, and notably distant from the city and suburbs.” This order, -sent to the mayor, was followed by a proclamation to the sheriff of -the county. Lepers are to abandon the highways and field-ways between -the city and Westminster, where several such persons sit and stay, -associating with whole men, to the manifest danger of passers-by.[36] - -This social problem continued to vex municipal authorities. A -precept was issued (1369) “that no leper beg in the street for fear -of spreading infection.” The porters of the eight principal gates -of the city were sworn [p054] to refuse them admittance. (That -_barbers_—forerunners of the barber-chirurgeons—were included among -the gate-keepers in 1310 and 1375, was perhaps due to their supposed -capability of recognizing diseases.) If a leper tried to enter, he -should forfeit his horse or his outer garment, and if persisting, be -taken into custody. The foreman at “le loke” and an official at the -Hackney lazar-house were also bound to prevent their entry into the -city. - -The “Customs of Bristol,” written down by the recorder in 1344, declare -“that in future no leper reside within the precincts of the town.” -Imprisonment was the penalty—a plan of doubtful wisdom. The measures -ordained by the burgesses of Berwick-on-Tweed were summary:— - - “No leper shall come within the gates of the borough; and if one gets - in by chance, the serjeant shall put him out at once. If one wilfully - forces his way in, his clothes shall be taken off him and burnt, and - he shall be turned out naked. For we have already taken care that a - proper place for lepers shall be kept up outside the town, and that - alms shall be there given to them.”[37] - -It was comparatively easy for the civic authorities to control the -ejection of lepers when the asylum was under their supervision, as -it frequently was. At Exeter, ecclesiastical leniency permitted a -continuance of the custom (which was already “ancient” in 1163) -of allowing lepers to circulate freely in the town. In 1244 the -bishop seems to have agreed with the mayor and corporation about the -inadvisability of the practice; and he resigned the guardianship of the -lazar-house, accepting in its stead that of St. John’s hospital. [p055] - -Municipal documents record the expulsion of lepers. In Gloucester -(1273), Richard, Alice and Matilda gave trouble and would remain within -the town “to the great damage and prejudice of the inhabitants.” John -Mayn, after repeated warnings to provide for himself some dwelling -outside London, was sworn to depart forthwith and not return, on pain -of the pillory (1372). A Leet Roll among the records of Norwich states -that “Thomas Tytel Webstere is a leper, therefore he must go out of the -city” (1375). In the following instances, the infected were consigned -to hospitals. Margaret Taylor came before the keepers of Beverley in -the Gild Hall, and asked by way of charity permission to have a bed -in the lepers’ house outside Keldgate Bar, which request was granted -(1394). The town-clerk of Lydd makes an entry of ten shillings “Paied -for delyvere of Simone Reede unto the howse of Lazaris” (_circa_ 1460). -The manorial court sometimes dealt with such cases. That of the Bishop -of Ely at Littleport recorded (1321):—“The jurors say upon their oath -that Joan daughter of Geoffrey Whitring is leprous. Therefore be she -set apart.”[38] - -The law evidently had no power to touch a leper unless he made himself -a source of public danger. No one interfered with him as long as he -remained in a quiet hiding-place, quitting it, perhaps, only at night. -Individuals, sheltered by the affection or self-interest of relatives, -might never come under the ban of the law: in the Norwich records, for -example, Isabella Lucas seems to have been allowed to remain at home -(1391). Judge Fitz-Herbert, commenting on the writ of removal, observes -[p056] that it lies where a leper is dwelling in a town, and will come -into the church or amongst his neighbors.[39] - -English legislation was never severe regarding lepers. We may believe -that the tolerant spirit of a certain thirteenth-century Scottish canon -prevailed throughout Great Britain. Lepers, it was declared, might well -fulfil their parochial obligations, but “if they cannot be induced -to do so, let no coercion be employed, seeing that affliction should -not be accumulated upon the afflicted, but rather their misfortunes -commiserated.”[40] In France, however, upon one terrible occasion, -Philip V was guilty of the abominable cruelty of burning lepers on the -pretext that they had maliciously poisoned wells. Mezeray says:—“they -were burned alive in order that the fire might purify at once the -infection of the body and of the soul.” The report of this inhuman act -reached England and was recorded both in the Chronicle of Lanercost -(under date 1318) and also by John Capgrave, who says:— - - “And in this same yere [1318] the Mysseles [lepers] thorow oute - Cristendam were slaundered that thei had mad couenaunt with Sarasines - for to poison alle Cristen men, to put uenym in wellis, and alle - maner uesseles that long to mannes use; of whech malice mony of hem - were conuicte, and brent, and many Jewes that gave hem councel and - comfort.”[41] - - -(b) _Property._—The legal status of the leper must now be examined. -When pronounced a leper in early days, a man lost not only his liberty, -but the right to inherit or bequeath property. A manuscript Norman -law-book [p057] declares “that the mezel cannot be heir to any one.” -In the days of Stephen, for example, Brien Fitz-Count was lord of -Wallingford and Abergavenny. “He had two sons, whom, being lepers, he -placed in the Priory of Bergavenny and gave lands and tithes there to -for their support,” bequeathing his property to other kinsmen. Again, -two women of the Fitz-Fulke family appeared in the King’s Court (1203) -in a dispute about property at Sutton in Kent: Avice urged that Mabel, -having a brother, had no claim—“but against this Mabel says that he -is a leper.”[42] Even a grant made by such a person was void. In 1204 -King John committed the lands of William of Newmarch to an official who -should answer for them at the Exchequer, but “if he have given away -any of his lands after he fell sick of the leprosy, cause the same to -be restored to his barony.”[43] This illustrates Bracton’s statement -that “a leprous person who is placed out of the communion of mankind -cannot give . . . as he cannot ask,” and, again, “if the claimant be -a leper and so deformed that the sight of him is insupportable, and -such that he has been separated . . . [he] cannot plead or claim an -inheritance.”[44] - -On the other hand, Lord Coke declares that “ideots, leapers &c. may -be heires,” and he comments thus upon Bracton and Britton:—“if these -ancient writers be understood of an appearance in person, I think -their opinions are good law; for [lepers] ought not to sue nor defend -in proper person, but by attorney.”[45] Possibly the Norman custom of -disinheritance prevailed in England at one time and then died out. The -case of Adam [p058] de Gaugy proves that in 1278 this Northumbrian -baron was not liable to forfeiture. He was excused, indeed, from -appearing in the presence of Edward I, but was directed to swear fealty -to an official. Although spoken of as his brother’s heir, Adam did not -long enjoy his property. He died the same year, childless, but leaving -a widow (_Eve_), and the barony passed to a kinsman.[46] - -The Norman maxim that the leper “may possess the inheritance he had -before he became a leper” is illustrated by the story of the youthful -heir of Nicholas de Malesmeins. Having attained full age, he left the -hospital where he had been confined, appeared before his feudal lord, -did homage, made his payment, and entered his fief.[47] - - -4. ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION - -Although leprosy was a penal offence, only laymen could be cited and -dealt with by the king, mayor or feudal lord. Clerks in holy orders -had to answer to their bishop. In the case of parochial clergy, the -diocesan was responsible for their suspension from office, as stated -by the Canon _De Leprosis_. Lucius III (1181–1185) decreed that they -must serve by coadjutors and wrote to the Bishop of Lincoln on this -subject.[48] The episcopal registers of Lincoln afterwards record -the case of the rector of Seyton (1310). Several leprous parish -priests are named in other registers, e.g. St. Neot, 1314 (Exeter), -Colyton, 1330 (Exeter), Castle Carrock, 1357 (Carlisle). In the latter -instance, the bishop having learned with sorrow that the rector was -infected and unable to [p059] administer the sacraments, cited him -to appear at Rose with a view to appointing a coadjutor.[49] It was -ordered by Clement III that when clergy were thus removed, they should -be supported from the fruits of their benefices. Sir Philip, the -leper-priest of St. Neot in Cornwall, was allowed two shillings a week, -besides twenty shillings a year for clothing. He was permitted to keep -the best room in his vicarage and the adjoining chambers, except the -hall. The rest of the house was partitioned off for the curate, the -door between them being walled up.[50] - - -5. EXAMINATION OF SUSPECTED PERSONS - -The duty of reporting and examining cases fell to the clergy, doctors, -civil officers or a jury of discreet men. (Cf. Fig. 7.) A curiously -complicated lawsuit brought into the King’s Court in 1220 relates how a -certain man had custody of the children of Nicholas de Malesmeins. When -the eldest-born became a leper, his perplexed guardian took the young -man to the King’s Exchequer, and before the barons of the Exchequer he -was adjudged a leper, and consigned to a hospital. (See pp. 52, 58.) - -[Illustration: 7. LEPER AND PHYSICIAN] - -In ordinary cases, the leper would show himself to the parish priest -as the only scholar. It was the village priest who helped the stricken -maiden to enter “Badele Spital” near Darlington, and afterwards -attested her [p060] cure, as related by Reginald of Durham. (See p. -97.) The register of Bishop Bronescomb of Exeter declares that “it -belongs to the office of the priest to distinguish between one form of -leprosy and another.” It was the duty of the clergy to take cognizance -of cases, but it was not always politic to interfere. In 1433 the -parson of Sparham endeavoured to get a parishioner, John Folkard, to -withdraw from the company of other men because he was “gretely infect -with the sekeness of lepre.” The vicar advertised him to depart, for -“his sekenes was contagious and myght hurte moche people.” After much -disputing, John went off to Norwich and took an action for trespass -against the parson before the sheriffs. Whereupon the vicar had to -appeal in chancery.[51] - -The writ of removal ordered the careful investigation of cases in the -presence of discreet and lawful men having the best knowledge of the -accused person and his disease. Probably the best was not very good, -for many judged by the outward appearance only. The Bishop of Lincoln, -directing the resignation of a clergyman (1310), says that he is -besprinkled with the spot of leprosy. The decree of 1346 condemns “all -those who are found infected with leprous spots” to be removed. Anthony -Fitz-Herbert, writing in 1534, points out that the writ is for those -“who appear to the sight of all men that they are lepers,” by their -voice, disfigurement and noisome condition. - -In medical treatises, great stress was laid on the necessity of -investigation with pondering and meditation. The _Rosa Anglica_ of -John of Gaddesden (physician to Edward II) declares that “no one is -to be adjudged a leper, and separated from intercourse of mankind, -until [p061] the figure and form of the face is actually changed.” The -contemporary French doctor, Gordon, uses almost the same words; and, -repeating his precautions, observes that “lepers are at the present day -very injudiciously judged.” A later writer, Guy de Chauliac (_circa_ -1363) says:— - - “In the examination and judgement of lepers, there must be much - circumspection, because the injury is very great, whether we thus - submit to confinement those that ought not to be confined, or allow - lepers to mix with the people, seeing the disease is contagious and - infectious.” - -Sir J. Simpson gives copious extracts from Guy’s _Chirurgia_, which has -also been translated into modern French (1890). Guy describes fully -the examination of a suspected person, giving in detail all possible -symptoms. It may here be observed that Bartholomew _Anglicus_, his -contemporary, enumerates among the causes predisposing to leprosy, -dwelling and oft talking with leprous men, marriage and heredity, evil -diet—e.g. rotten meat, measled hogs, flesh infected with poison, and -the biting of a venomous worm: “in these manners and in many other the -evil of _lepra_ breedeth in man’s body.” Guy advises the doctor to -inquire if the person under examination comes of tainted stock, if he -have conversed with lepers, etc. He must then consider and reconsider -the equivocal and unequivocal signs of disease. After a searching -investigation—not to be confined to one day—the patient must either -be set free (_absolvendus_) with a certificate, or separated from the -people and conducted to the lazar-house. - -About the time that John of Gaddesden was professor of medicine at -Oxford (1307–1325), and was writing upon [p062] leprosy, “experienced -physicians” were summoned to examine a provincial magnate. The mayor -and bailiffs of royal Winchester had been over-zealous “under colour -of the king’s late order to cause lepers who were amongst the healthy -citizens to be expelled.” It was surely a bitter hour to Peter de -Nutle, late mayor of the grand old city, when his successor and former -colleagues hounded him out! But there was justice for one “falsely -accused”; and subsequently an order of redress was sent, not without -rebuke to the civic authorities for their malicious behaviour towards a -fellow-citizen:— - - “as it appears, from the inspection and examination before our - council by the council and by physicians expert in the knowledge of - this disease, that the said Peter is whole and clean, and infected in - no part of his body.” - -A few days later the sheriff of Hampshire was directed to make a -proclamation to the same effect, so that Peter might dwell as he was -wont unmolested.[52] - -The royal mandate of 1346 reiterated the stipulation that men of -knowledge should inquire into suspected cases. It therefore seems -unlikely that a London baker ejected in 1372 was merely suffering -from an inveterate eczema, as has been suggested. Careless as were -the popular notions of disease, medical diagnosis was becoming more -exact; four kinds of leprosy were distinguished, of which “leonine” and -“elephantine” were the worst. - -There is an interesting document extant concerning a certain woman who -lived at Brentwood in 1468. She was indicted by a Chancery warrant, -but acquitted on the [p063] authority of a medical certificate of -health. The neighbours of Johanna Nightingale petitioned against -her, complaining that she habitually mixed with them and refused to -retire to a solitary place, although “infected by the foul contact -of leprosy.” A writ was therefore issued by Edward IV commanding a -legal inquiry. Finally, Johanna appeared before a medical jury in the -presence of the Chancellor. They examined her person, touched and -handled her, made mature and diligent investigation, going through -over forty distinctive signs of disease. She was at length pronounced -“utterly free and untainted,” and the royal physicians were prepared to -demonstrate this in Chancery “by scientific process.”[53] - - -6. TREATMENT OF THE BODY - -Alleviation was sometimes sought in medicinal waters. Here and there -the site of a hospital seems to have been selected on account of -its proximity to a healing spring, e.g. Harbledown, Burton Lazars, -Peterborough, Newark, and Nantwich. In various places there are springs -known as the Lepers’ Well, frequented by sufferers of bygone days. - -Tradition ascribes to bathing some actual cures of “leprosy.” Bladud -the Briton, a prehistoric prince, was driven from home because he was a -leper. At length he discovered the hot springs of Bath, where instinct -had already taught diseased swine to wallow: Bladud, too, washed and -was clean. The virtue of the mineral waters, well known to the Romans, -was also appreciated by the Saxons; possibly the baths were frequented -by lepers [p064] from early days, for there was long distributed in -Bath “an ancient alms to the poor and leprous of the foundation of -Athelstan, Edgar and Ethelred.” A small bath was afterwards set apart -for their use, to which the infected flocked. Leland notes that the -place was “much frequentid of People diseasid with Lepre, Pokkes, -Scabbes, and great Aches,” who found relief. A story similar to that of -Bladud, but of later date, comes from the eastern counties: a certain -man, sorely afflicted with leprosy, was healed by a spring in Beccles, -near which in gratitude he built a hospital. - -[Illustration: 8. ELIAS, LEPER MONK] - -There was rivalry between the natural water of Bath and the -miraculous water of Canterbury; the latter consisted of a drop of St. -Thomas’ blood many times diluted from the well in the crypt of the -cathedral.[54] William of Canterbury, a prejudiced critic, is careful -to relate how a leper-monk of Reading, Elias by name, went with his -abbot’s approval to Bath desiring to ease his pain, and there sought -earnestly of the physicians whatever he was able to gather from -them. “He set his hope in the warmth of the sulphur and not in the -wonder-working martyr,” says William. After forty days in Bath, Elias -set out for Canterbury, but secretly, pretending to seek medicine in -London; because (adds the chronicler) the abbot honoured [p065] the -martyr less than he ought to have done, and might not have countenanced -the pilgrimage. On his way, Elias met returning pilgrims, who gave him -some of the water of St. Thomas (Fig. 8); he applied this externally -and internally and became well.[55] Lest any should doubt the miracle, -Benedict of Canterbury tells us that many who were especially skilled -in the art of medicine used to say that Elias was smitten with a -terrible leprosy, and he proceeds to detail the horrible symptoms. In -the end, however, William declares that he who had been so ulcerated -that he might have been called another Lazarus, now appeared pleasant -in countenance, as was plain to all who saw him. What the Bath doctors -and Bath waters could not do, that the miraculous help of St. Thomas -had achieved. - -We see from the story of the monk Elias that the ministrations of the -physician and the use of medicine were sought by lepers. Bartholomew -says that the disease, although incurable “but by the help of God” when -once confirmed, “may be somewhat hid and let, that it destroy not so -soon”; and he gives instructions about diet, blood-letting, purgative -medicines, plasters and ointments. Efficacious too was (we are told) -the eating of a certain adder sod with leeks. - -There is no information forthcoming as to the remedial treatment of -lepers in hospital. The only narrative we possess is Chatterton’s -lively description of St. Bartholomew’s, Bristol, the Roll of which he -professed to find; it satisfied Barrett, a surgeon, and a local, though -uncritical, historian. A father of the Austin Friary came to shrive the -lepers (for which he received ten marks) and to dress [p066] their -sores (for which he was given fifty marks) saying, “lette us cure both -spryte and bodye.” When barber-surgeons came for an operation—“whanne -some doughtie worke ys to bee donne on a Lazar”—friars attended “leste -hurte ande scathe bee done to the lepers.” The friars’ knowledge was -such that barber-surgeons were willing to attend “wythoute paye to -gayne knowleche of aylimentes and theyr trew curis.” - - -7. TREATMENT OF THE SPIRIT - -Disease was sometimes regarded as an instrument of divine wrath, as -in the scriptural case of Gehazi. Thus Gilbert de Saunervill after -committing sacrilege was smitten with leprosy, whereupon he confessed -with tears that he merited the scourge of God. The popular view that -it was an expiation for sin is shown in the romance of Cresseid false -to her true knight. But except in signal cases of wrong-doing this -morbid idea was not prominent; and the phrase “struck by the secret -judgement of God” implies visitation rather than vengeance. Indeed, -the use of the expression “Christ’s martyrs” suggests that the leper’s -affliction was looked upon as a sacrifice—an attitude which illuminated -the mystery of pain. St. Hugh preached upon the blessedness of such -sufferers: they were in no wise under a curse, but were “beloved of God -as was Lazarus.” - -Those responsible for the care of lepers long ago realized exactly what -is experienced by those who carry on the same extraordinarily difficult -work to-day, namely, that leprosy develops to a high degree what is -worst in man. Bodily torture, mental anguish, shattered nerves almost -amounting to insanity, render lepers wearisome [p067] and offensive -to themselves no less than to others. These causes, together with -the absence of the restraining influences of family life, make them -prone to rebellious conduct, irritability, ingratitude and other evil -habits. Hope was, and is, the one thing to transform such lives, else -intolerable in their wintry desolation. St. Hugh therefore bade lepers -look for the consummation of the promise:—“Who shall change our vile -body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious Body.”[56] - -Alleviation of the agonized mind of the doomed victim was undertaken -first by the physician and afterwards by the priest. A recognized part -of the remedial treatment advocated by Guy was to comfort the heart. -His counsel shows that doctors endeavoured to act as physicians of the -soul, for they were to impress upon the afflicted person that this -suffering was for his spiritual salvation. The priest then fulfilled -his last duty towards his afflicted parishioner:— - - “The priest . . . makes his way to the sick man’s home and addresses - him with comforting words, pointing out and proving that if he - blesses and praises God, and bears his sickness patiently, he may - have a sure and certain hope that though he be sick in body, he may - be whole in soul, and may receive the gift of eternal salvation.” - -The affecting scene at the service which followed may be pictured from -the form in _Appendix A_. There was a certain tenderness mingled with -“the terrible ten commandments of man.” The priest endeavours to show -the leper that he is sharing in the afflictions of Christ. For [p068] -his consolation the verse of Isaiah is recited:—“Surely He hath borne -our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet did we esteem Him as a leper, -smitten of God and afflicted.” The same passage from the Vulgate is -quoted in the statutes for the lepers of St. Julian’s:—“among all -infirmities the disease of leprosy is more loathsome than any . . . yet -ought they not on that account to despair or murmur against God, but -rather to praise and glorify Him who was led to death as a leper.” - -[Illustration: 9. A LEPER] - -After separation the fate of the outcast is irrevocably sealed. -Remembering the exhortation, he must never frequent places of public -resort, nor eat and drink with the sound; he must not speak to them -unless they are on the windward side, nor may he touch infants or young -folk. Henceforth his signal is the clapper, by which he gives warning -of his approach and draws attention to his [p069] request. (Fig. 26.) -This instrument consisted of tablets of wood, attached at one end with -leather thongs, which made a loud click when shaken. In England, a -bell was often substituted for this dismal rattle. Stow and Holinshed -refer to the “clapping of dishes and ringing of bels” by the lazar. -The poor creature of shocking appearance shown in Fig. 9 holds in his -one remaining hand a bell. His piteous cry is “Sum good, my gentyll -mayster, for God sake.” This was the beggar’s common appeal: in an -_Early English Legendary_, a _mesel_ cries to St. Francis, “Sum good -for godes love.” - -Compelled to leave home and friends, many a leper thus haunted the -highway—his only shelter a dilapidated hovel, his meagre fare the -scraps put into his dish. To others, the lines fell in more pleasant -places, for in the hospital pain and privation were softened by -kindness. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[33] See p. 180. - -[34] Chron. and Mem. 37, _Magna Vita_, pp. 162–5. - -[35] Riley, _Memorials of London_, 230. - -[36] Close 1346 pt. i. m. 18 _d_, 14 _d_, and 1348 pt. i. m. 25 _d_. - -[37] Toulmin Smith, _Gilds_, 241. - -[38] Selden Soc., _Court Baron_, p. 134. - -[39] _Natura Brevium_, ed. 1652 p. 584. - -[40] Wilkins, _Concil. Mag._ i. 616. - -[41] Chron. and Mem., 1. 186. - -[42] Selden Soc., 3, No. 157. - -[43] Rot. Litt. Claus. 6 John m. 21. - -[44] Chron. and Mem., 70, i. 95; vi. 325. - -[45] First Institutes, p. 8a., 135b. - -[46] Inquisition, cf. Rot. Curia Scacc. Abb., i. 33. - -[47] Curia Regis Rolls, 72, m. 18 _d_. - -[48] _Conciliorum Omnium_, ed. 1567, III, 700 (cap. 4). - -[49] Reg. Welton. Cited Vict. Co. Hist. - -[50] Reg. Stapeldon, p. 342. - -[51] P.R.O. Early Chancery Proceedings, Bundle 46, No. 158. - -[52] Close 6 Edw. II, m. 21 _d_. - -[53] Close Roll, Rymer, ed. 1710, ix. 365. Translated, Simpson, _Arch. -Essays_. - -[54] Chron. and Mem., 67, i. 416. - -[55] Id. ii. 242. - -[56] Compare the title of a modern leper-house at Kumamoto in Kiushiu, -known as “The Hospital of the Resurrection of Hope”: and in Japanese -_Kwaishun Byōin_—“the coming again of spring.” - - - - -[p070] - -CHAPTER VI - -FOUNDERS AND BENEFACTORS - - - “_Hospitals . . . founded as well by the noble kings of this realm - and lords and ladies both spiritual and temporal as by others of - divers estates, in aid and merit of the souls of the said founders._” - - (Parliament of Leicester.) - -As our period covers about six centuries, some rough subdivision is -necessary, but each century can show patrons of royal birth, benevolent -bishops and barons, as well as charitable commoners. The roll-call is -long, and includes many noteworthy names. - - -FIRST PERIOD (BEFORE 1066) - -First, there is the shadowy band of Saxon benefactors. ATHELSTAN, on -his return from the victory of Brunanburh (937), helped to found St. -Peter’s hospital, York, giving not only the site, but a considerable -endowment. (See p. 185.) Among other founders was a certain noble and -devoted knight named ACEHORNE, lord of Flixton in the time of the -most Christian king Athelstan, who provided a refuge for wayfarers -in Holderness. Two Saxon bishops are named as builders of houses for -the poor. To ST. OSWALD (Bishop of Worcester, died 992) is attributed -the foundation of the hospital called after him; but the earliest -documentary reference to it is by Gervase of Canterbury (_circa_ 1200). -ST. WULSTAN (died 1094) [p071] provided the wayfarers’ hostel at -Worcester which continued to bear his name. Wulstan, last of the Saxon -founders, forms a fitting link with Lanfranc, foremost of those Norman -“spiritual lords” who were to build hospitals on a scale hitherto -unknown in England. - - -SECOND PERIOD (1066–1272) - -[Illustration: 10. “THE MEMORIAL OF MATILDA THE QUEEN”] - -LANFRANC erected the hospitals of St. John, Canterbury, and St. -Nicholas, Harbledown; these charities remain to this day as memorials -of the archbishop. His friend Bishop GUNDULF of Rochester founded a -lazar-house near that city. In QUEEN MAUD, wife of Henry I, the bishop -found a ready disciple. Her mother, Margaret of Scotland, had trained -her to love the poor and minister to them. St. Margaret’s special -care had been for pilgrims, for whom she had provided a hospital at -Queen’s-ferry, Edinburgh. The “holy Queen Maud,” as we have seen, -served lepers with enthusiasm, and she established a home near London -for them. (Fig. 10.) HENRY I caught something of his lady’s spirit. -“The house of St. Bartholomew [Oxford] was founded by our lord old King -Henry, who married the good queene Maud; and it was assigned for the -receiving and susteyning of infirme leprose folk,” says Wood, quoting -a thirteenth-century Inquisition. Henry endowed his friend Gundulf’s -foundation at Rochester, and probably also “the king’s hospital” near -Lincoln, which had possibly been begun by Bishop Remigius; that of -Colchester was built by his steward [p072] Eudo at his command, and -was accounted of the king’s foundation. Matilda, daughter of Henry and -Maud, left a benefaction to lepers at York. - -KING STEPHEN reconstructed St. Peter’s hospital, York, after a great -fire. (Cf. Pl. XXIV, XXV.) His wife, MATILDA of BOULOGNE, founded St. -Katharine’s, London, which continues to this day under the patronage of -the queens-consort. Henry II made considerable bequests for the benefit -of lazars, but it is characteristic that his hospital building was in -Anjou. RICHARD I endowed Bishop Glanvill’s foundation at Strood. KING -JOHN is thought to have founded hospitals near Lancaster, Newbury and -Bristol. He is sometimes regarded as the conspicuous patron of lepers. -Doubtless this may be partly attributed to the fact that at the outset -of his reign the Church secured privileges to outcasts by the Council -of Westminster (1200). There seems, however, to be some ground for his -charitable reputation. Bale, in his drama _Kynge Johan_, makes England -say concerning this king:— - - “Never prynce was there that made to poore peoples use - So many masendewes, hospytals and spyttle howses, - As your grace hath done yet sens the worlde began.” - . . . . . . - “Gracyouse prouysyon for sore, sycke, halte and lame - He made in hys tyme, he made both in towne and cytie, - Grauntynge great lyberties for mayntenaunce of the same, - By markettes and fayers in places of notable name. - Great monymentes are in Yppeswych, Donwych and Berye, - Whych noteth hym to be a man of notable mercye.”[57] - -Indeed, as the Suffolk satirist knew by local tradition, King John did -grant the privilege of a fair to the lepers of Ipswich. [p073] - - -[Illustration: _PLATE VI._ - -a. ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S, GLOUCESTER - -b. ST. MARY’S, CHICHESTER] - -HENRY III erected houses of charity at Woodstock, Dunwich and Ospringe, -as well as homes for Jews in London and Oxford. He refounded St. John’s -in the latter city, and laid the first stone himself; he seems also to -have rebuilt St. John’s, Cambridge, and St. James’, Westminster. The -king loved Gloucester—the place of his coronation—and he re-established -St. Bartholomew’s, improving the buildings (Pl. VI) and endowment. -The new hospitals of Dover and Basingstoke were committed to his care -by their founders. Of Henry III’s charities only that of St. James’, -Westminster, was for lepers; but St. Louis, who was with him while on -crusade, told Joinville that on Holy Thursday (i.e. Maundy Thursday) -the king of England “now with us” washes the feet of lepers and then -kisses them. The ministry of the good queen Maud was thus carried on to -the fifth generation. - - * * * * * - -If history tells how Maud cared for lepers and provided for them in St. -Giles’, London, tradition relates that ADELA of LOUVAIN, the second -wife of Henry I, was herself a leper, and that she built St. Giles’, -Wilton. A Chantry Certificate reports that “Adulyce sometym quene of -Englande” was the founder. The present inmates of the almshouse are -naturally not a little puzzled by the modern inscription _Hospitium S. -Egidii Adelicia Reg. Hen. Fund_. The local legend was formerly to be -seen over the chapel door in a more intelligible and interesting form:— - - “This hospitall of St. Giles was re-edified (1624) by John Towgood, - maior of Wilton, and his brethren, adopted patrons thereof, by the - gift of Queen Adelicia, wife unto King Henry [p074] the First. This - Adelicia was a leper. She had a windowe and dore from her lodgeing - into the chancell of the chapel, whence she heard prayer. She lieth - buried under a marble gravestone.” - - Although in truth the widowed queen made a happy marriage with -William d’Albini, and, when she died, was buried in an abbey in -Flanders, she did endow a hospital at that royal manor—maybe to shelter -one of her ladies, whose affliction might give rise to the tale of “the -leprosy queen” and her ghost. When a person of rank became a leper, the -terrible fact was not disclosed when concealment was possible. This is -illustrated by another Wiltshire tradition—that of the endowment of the -lazar-house at Maiden Bradley by one of the heiresses of Manser Bisset, -dapifer of Henry II. The story is as old as Leland’s day; and Camden -says that she “being herselfe a maiden infected with the leprosie, -founded an house heere for maidens that were lepers, and endowed the -same with her owne Patrimonie and Livetide.” MARGARET BISSET was -certainly free from all taint of leprosy in 1237, when she sought and -gained permission to visit Eleanor of Brittany, the king’s cousin. She -was well known at court at this time, and a Patent Roll entry of 1242 -records that:—“At the petition of Margery Byset, the king has granted -to the house of St. Matthew [_sic_], Bradeleg, and the infirm sisters -thereof, for ever, five marks yearly . . . which he had before granted -to the said Margery for life.” Another contemporary deed (among the -_Sarum Documents_) may support the legend of the leper-lady. It sets -forth how Margaret Bisset desired to lead a celibate and contemplative -life; and therefore left her lands to the leper-hospital of Maiden -Bradley on condition that she herself was maintained there. [p075] - -Many famous churchmen, statesmen and warriors were hospital builders. -Among the episcopal founders who figured prominently in public affairs -were the following. RANULF FLAMBARD—“the most infamous prince of -publicans” under William Rufus—founded Kepier hospital, Durham. The -warlike HENRY de BLOIS, half-brother of Stephen, erected St. Cross near -Winchester. HUGH de PUISET, being, as Camden says, “very indulgently -compassionate to Lepres,” gathered them into his asylum at Sherburn, -but it is hinted that his bounty was not altogether honestly come by. -Again, “the high-souled abbot” SAMPSON—he who dared to oppose Prince -John and also visited Richard in captivity—was the founder of St. -Saviour’s, at Bury St. Edmunds. - -Even in the troublous days of Stephen there were barons who were tender -towards the afflicted. WILLIAM LE GROS, lord of Holderness, was one of -these. He was the founder of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Newton-by-Hedon, for -a charter speaks of “the infirm whom William, Earl of Albemarle, placed -there.” The _Chartulary of Whitby_ relates how the earl—“a mighty -man and of great prowess and power”—was wasting the eastern parts of -Yorkshire. Nevertheless he “was a lover of the poor and especially of -lepers and was accustomed to distribute freely to them large alms.” -Abbot Benedict therefore bethought him of a plan whereby he might save -the threatened cow-pastures of the abbey from devastation: he permitted -the cattle belonging to the Whitby hospital to join the herds of the -convent; consequently the earl was merciful to that place on account of -the lepers, and the herds fed together henceforth undisturbed. - -[Illustration: 11. THE TOMB OF RAHERE - -(Founder and first prior of St. Bartholomew’s)] - -Another charitable lord was RANULF de [p076] GLANVILL—“justiciary -of the realm of England and the king’s eye”—who with his wife Berta -founded a leper-hospital at West Somerton upon land granted to him by -Henry II. His nephew GILBERT de GLANVILL built St. Mary’s, Strood, -near his cathedral city of Rochester (_circa_ 1193); the loyal bishop -declaring in his charter that it was founded amongst other things -“for the reformation of Christianity in the Holy Land and for the -liberation of Richard the illustrious king of England.” After the royal -captive had been freed, he endowed his faithful friend’s foundation -with seven hundred acres of land. Among the leading men of the day -who built hospitals were Geoffrey Fitz-Peter and William Briwere, -Peter des Roches and Hubert de Burgh, together with Hugh and Joceline -of Wells. Yet another distinguished bishop of this period must be -[p077] mentioned, namely, WALTER de SUFFIELD, who was very liberal to -the poor, especially in his city of Norwich. During his lifetime he -established St. Giles’ and drew up its statutes. He directed that as -often as any bishop of the See went by, he should enter and give his -blessing to the sick, and that the occasion should be marked by special -bounty. His will shows a most tender solicitude for the welfare of the -house, which he commended to his successor and his executors. - -Benefactors included not only men eminent in church and state, but -“others of divers estates,” clerical and lay commoners. Foremost -of these stands RAHERE, born of low lineage, but court-minstrel -and afterwards priest. In obedience to a vision, he determined to -undertake the foundation of a hospital. He sought help from the Bishop -of London, by whose influence he obtained from Henry I the site of -St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield. While many founders are forgotten, men -delight to honour Rahere. The chronicler, who had talked with those who -remembered him, records how he sympathized with the tribulation of the -wretched, how he recognized their need, supported them patiently, and -finally helped them on their way. Rahere’s character is delightfully -portrayed in the _Book of the Foundation_:— - - “whoose prouyd puryte of soule, bryght maners with honeste probyte, - experte diligence yn dyuyne seruyce, prudent besynes yn temperalle - mynystracyun, in hym were gretely to prayse and commendable.” - -Other clerical founders include William, Dean of Chichester (St. -Mary’s), Walter the Archdeacon (St. John’s, Northampton), Peter the -chaplain (Lynn), Guarin the [p078] chaplain (Cricklade), Walter, -Vicar of Long Stow, etc. HUGH THE HERMIT was reckoned the founder of -Cockersand hospital, which grew into an abbey:— - - “Be it noted that the monastery was furst founded by Hugh Garthe, an - heremyt of great perfection, and by such charitable almes as [he] dyd - gather in the countre he founded an hospitall.” - -The leading townsfolk of England have long proved themselves -generous. GERVASE of Southampton is in the forefront of a line of -merchant-princes and civic rulers who have also been benefactors of -the needy. Gervase “le Riche” was evidently a capitalist, and it is -recorded that he lent moneys to Prince John. His responsible office was -that of portreeve; it may be that while exercising it, he witnessed -sick pilgrims disembark and was moved to help them. Certainly, about -the year 1185, Gervase built God’s House (Pl. VII) beside the quay, -and his brother Roger became the first warden. Leland’s version is as -follows:— - - “Thys Hospitale was foundyd by 2 Marchauntes beyng Bretherne - [whereof] the one was caullyd Ge[rvasius] the other Protasius. . . . - These 2 Brethern, as I there lernid, dwellyd yn the very Place wher - the Hospitale is now. . . . These 2 Brethern for Goddes sake cause[d] - their House to be turnid to an Hospitale for poore Folkes, and - endowed it with sum Landes.” - -Among other citizen-founders of this period may be named Walter and -Roesia Brune, founders of St. Mary’s, Bishopsgate, London; Hildebrand -le Mercer, of Norwich; and William Prodom and John Long, of Exeter. -[p079] - -[Illustration: _PLATE VII._ GOD’S HOUSE, SOUTHAMPTON] - - -THIRD PERIOD (1272–1540) - -Few royal builders or benefactors can be named at this time. EDWARD -I, who, from various motives, set his face like a flint against the -Jews, was a beneficent patron to those who were prepared to submit to -Baptism; and he reorganized and endowed his father’s House of Converts. -His charity, however, was of a somewhat belligerent character and -partook of the nature of a crusade. He was always extremely harsh -towards the unconverted Jew; his early training as champion of the -Cross in the Holy Land helped to make him zealous in ridding his own -kingdom of unbelievers. But before finally expelling them, he did -his best for their conversion, enlisting the help of the trained -and eloquent Dominican brethren. Edward with justice ordained that -as by custom the goods of the converts became the king’s, he should -henceforth “provide healthfully for their maintenance”; and he granted -them a moiety of their property when they became, by Baptism, “sons -and faithful members of the Church.” The chevage, or Jewish poll-tax, -and certain other Jewish payments, were appropriated to the _Domus -Conversorum_, over £200 being paid annually from the Exchequer. -Edward took an interest in “the king’s converts” and drew up careful -regulations for them. ELEANOR, his consort, was a benefactor of the -royal hospital near the Tower, and she was also by tradition the -founder of St. John’s, Gorleston. - -The unhappy RICHARD II desired in his will that five or six thousand -marks should be devoted to the maintenance of lepers at Westminster and -Bermondsey.[58] [p080] The reference to “the chaplains celebrating -before them for us” seems to imply that the king was the patron if -not the founder; possibly one house was that of Knightsbridge. The -will of HENRY VII provided for the erection of three great charitable -institutions. He was at least liberal in this, that he began in his -lifetime the conversion of his palace of Savoy into a noble hospital. -(Pl. XIV.) Its completion at the cost of 10,000 marks was the only -part of his plan carried out, and of the 40,000 marks designed to be -similarly expended at York and Coventry, nothing more is heard. - -The great lords of this period who were founders are led by two -distinguished kinsmen and counsellors of Edward III—each a HENRY of -LANCASTER and Steward of England. The father, when he was becoming -blind, erected St. Mary’s at Leicester for fifty poor (1330), and -his son doubled the foundation. RICHARD, EARL of ARUNDEL—the victor -of Sluys—began to found the Maison Dieu, Arundel, in 1380, but he -was executed on a charge of treason; and the work ceased until his -son, having obtained fresh letters-patent from Henry V (1423), set -himself to complete the design. Several notable veterans of the French -campaign may be mentioned as hospital builders, namely, MICHAEL de la -POLE (Kingston-upon-Hull), SIR ROBERT KNOLLES (Pontefract), WALTER, -LORD HUNGERFORD (Heytesbury) and WILLIAM de la POLE (Ewelme); when -the latter became unpopular and was executed as a traitor, his wife -Alice—called on her tomb _fundatrix_—completed the building and -endowment of God’s House. (Pl. XVII.) - -[Illustration: _PLATE VIII._ HOSPITAL OF ST. CROSS, WINCHESTER - -GATEWAY AND DWELLINGS BUILT BY CARDINAL BEAUFORT] - -Although the benevolence of bishops now chiefly took the form of -educational institutions, some well-known prelates [p081] erected -hospitals. BUBWITH—Treasurer of England under Henry IV—planned St. -Saviour’s, Wells, but it was not begun in his lifetime. BEAUFORT—Lord -Chancellor and Cardinal—refounded St. Cross, but, owing to the York and -Lancaster struggle, the design was not fully carried out. His rival -CHICHELE—the faithful Primate of Henry V—built not only All Souls, -Oxford, but the bede-house at Higham Ferrers. There is a tradition -that while keeping the sheep by the riverside he was met by William of -Wykeham, who recognized his talents and provided for his education. -He afterwards desired to found a college in the place where he was -baptized, and of this the almshouse formed part. WILLIAM SMYTH—founder -of Brasenose—restored St. John’s during his short episcopate at -Lichfield. When translated to Lincoln, he turned his attention to St. -John’s, Banbury, and bequeathed £100 towards erecting and repairing its -buildings, in addition to £60 already bestowed upon it. “This man,” -says Fuller, “wheresoever he went, may be followed by the perfume of -Charity he left behind him.” - -It was undoubtedly townsfolk who were the principal founders of -the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The name of many an old -merchant-prince is still a household word in his native place, where -some institution remains as a noble record of his bounty. St. John’s, -Winchester, for example, was erected by an alderman, JOHN DEVENISH, its -revenues being increased by another of the family and by a later mayor; -and the memory of benefactors was kept fresh by a “love-feast and merry -meeting” on the Sunday after Midsummer Day. WILLIAM ELSYNG established -a large almshouse near Cripplegate. He was a mercer of influential -position, being given a licence to travel in the [p082] king’s -service beyond seas with Henry of Lancaster; and it may have been this -nobleman’s charitable work in Leicester that inspired the foundation -known as “Our Lady of Elsyngspital.” - -A more famous London mercer, RICHARD WHITTINGTON, proved himself the -“model merchant of the Middle Ages”; Lysons records his manifold -beneficent deeds. Although he did not live long enough to carry out -all his schemes, his executors completed them, and in particular, the -almshouse attached to St. Michael Royal. In a deed drawn up after -his death (1423) and now preserved in the Mercers’ Hall, is a fine -pen-and-ink sketch which depicts the passing of this “father of the -poor.” (Pl. IX.) John Carpenter and other friends stand round the sick -man; nor are we left in doubt as to the significance of the group at -the foot of the bed—evidently twelve bedemen, led by one who holds a -rosary in token of his intercessory office—it being recorded in the -document that:— - - “the foresayde worthy and notable merchaunt, Richard Whittington, the - which while he leued had ryght liberal and large hands to the needy - and poure people, charged streitly on his death bed us his foresayde - executors to ordeyne a house of almes, after his death . . . and - thereupon fully he declared his will unto us.”[59] - -The same benefactor not only repaired St. Bartholomew’s, but added a -refuge for women to St. Thomas’, Southwark, as is set forth by William -Gregory, one of Whittington’s successors in the mayoralty:— - -[Illustration: _PLATE IX._ THE DEATH OF RICHARD WHITTINGTON] - - “And that nobyl marchaunt Rycharde Whytyngdon, made a new - chamby[r] with viij beddys for yong weme[n] that hadde done a-mysse - in truste of a good mendement. And he [p083] commaundyd that alle - the thyngys that ben don in that chambyr shulde be kepte secrete - with owte forthe, yn payne of lesynge of hyr leuynge; for he wolde - not shame no yonge women in noo wyse, for hyt myght be cause of hyr - lettyng of hyr maryage.” - -“Verily,” we exclaim with Lysons, “there seems to be no end to the good -deeds of this good man.” - -Nor were other places without their public-spirited townsmen. Unlike -“Dick” Whittington who died childless, THOMAS ELLIS left twenty-three -sons and daughters: nevertheless this large-hearted draper provided an -almshouse for his poorer neighbours in Sandwich. - -The wealth of WILLIAM BROWNE of Stamford and of ROGER THORNTON -of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was proverbial when Leland visited those -industrial centres and saw the charities which they had established. -Browne, founder of the bede-house (Fig. 5), “was a Marchant of a very -wonderful Richeness.” Thornton, a very poor man, reported to have been -a pedlar, who rose to be nine times mayor, was remembered as “the -richest Marchaunt that ever was dwelling in Newcastelle.” While in -this way many that were rich made offerings of their abundance, there -were those, too, who gave of their penury. Such was “ADAM RYPP, of -Whittlsey, a poor man, who began to build a Poor’s Hospital there, but -had not sufficient means to finish it.” His work was commended to the -faithful by briefs from Bishop Fordham of Ely (1391–4). - - -TOMBS OF FOUNDERS AND BENEFACTORS - -[Illustration: 12. JOHN BARSTAPLE - -(Burgess of Bristol)] - -Many benefactors associated themselves so closely with their bedemen -that they desired to be buried within the precincts of the hospital. -Robert de Meulan, one of the [p084] Conqueror’s lords, is said to have -founded and endowed Brackley hospital, where his heart was embalmed. -His descendant, Roger, Earl of Winchester, a considerable benefactor in -the time of Henry III, “ordered a measure to be made for corn in the -shape of a coffin, and gave directions that it should be placed on the -right side of the shrine, in which the heart of Margaret his mother -lay intombed,” providing that it should be filled thrice in a year for -ever for the use of the hospital.[60] The chapel [p085] continued to -be a favourite place of interment, for Leland says:—“There ly buryed in -Tumbes dyvers Noble Men and Women.” Bishop Suffield directed that if he -should die away from Norwich—as he afterwards did—his heart should be -placed near the altar in the church of St. Giles’ hospital. The blind -and aged Henry of Lancaster and Leicester was buried in his hospital -church, the royal family and a great company being present (1345); and -there likewise his son was laid. Few founders’ tombs remain undisturbed -in a spot still hallowed by divine worship, but some have happily -escaped destruction. Rahere has an honoured place at St. Bartholomew’s. -The mailed effigy of Sir Henry de Sandwich—lord warden of the Cinque -Ports—remains in the humbler St. Bartholomew’s near Sandwich. The -fine alabaster monument of Alice, Duchess of Suffolk, is in perfect -preservation at Ewelme. The rebuilt chapel of Trinity Hospital, -Bristol, retains a monumental brass of the founder (Fig. 12) and his -wife. - - -AIMS AND MOTIVES OF BENEFACTORS - -It is sometimes asserted that the almsgiving of the Middle Ages was -done from a selfish motive, namely, that spiritual benefits might be -reaped by the donor. Indeed it is possible that the giver then, like -some religious people in every age, was apt to be more absorbed in the -salvation of self than in the service of others; but the testimony -of deeds and charters is that the threefold aim of such a man was to -fulfil at once his duty towards God, his neighbour, and himself. That -he was often imbued with a true ministering spirit is shown by his -personal care for the comfort of [p086] inmates. Doubtless the hidden -springs of charity were as diverse as they are now: not every name on -a modern subscription list represents one that “considereth the poor.” -No one could imagine, for instance, that Queen Maud and King John had a -common motive in their charity to lepers; or that the bishops Wulstan -and Peter des Roches were animated by the same impulse when they -provided for the wants of wayfarers. - -The alleged motives of some benefactors are revealed in documents. -Henry de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, refers to St. Cross—“which I for -the health of my soul and the souls of my predecessors and of the kings -of England have founded . . . that the poor in Christ may there humbly -and devotedly serve God.” Herbert, Bishop of Salisbury, in making a -grant to clothe the lepers of a hospital in Normandy, says that:—“Among -all Christ’s poor whom a bishop is bound to protect and support, those -should be specially cared for whom it has pleased God to deprive -of bodily power,” and these poor inmates “in the sorrow of fleshly -affliction offer thanks to the Lord for their benefactors with a joyous -mind.” Matthew Paris writes of Henry III that “he being touched with -the Holy Ghost and moved with a regard to pity, ordained a certain -famous hospital at Oxon.” - -In the case of Rahere, the foundation of St. Bartholomew’s was an act -of gratitude for deliverance from death, and the practical outcome of a -vision and a sick-bed vow. While Rahere tarried at Rome, - - “he began to be uexed with greuous sykenesse, and his doloures, - litill and litill, takynge ther encrese, he drew to the extremyte of - lyf. . . . Albrake owte in terys, than he auowyd yf helthe God hym - wolde grawnte, that he myght lefully returne to his contray, [p087] - he wolde make and hospitale yn recreacion of poure men, and to them - so there i gaderid, necessaries mynystir, after his power.” - -Now and again a benefactor evinces deep religious feelings, as shown in -the charter of Bishop Glanvill at the foundation of St. Mary’s, Strood:— - - “Bearing in mind the saying of the Lord: ‘I was an hungred, and ye - gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, - and ye took Me in;’ . . . And seeing that the Lord takes upon Himself - the needs of those who suffer . . . we have founded a hospital in - which to receive and cherish the poor, weak and infirm.” - -Another founder showed the zeal of Apostolic days; a layman of -Stamford, Brand by name, made an offering to God and held nothing back. -This we learn from a papal document (_circa_ 1174):— - - “Alexander the bishop to his beloved son Brand de Fossato, greeting - . . . we having, been given to understand . . . that you, guided by - divine inspiration, having sold all you did possess, have erected a - certain hospital and chappel . . . where you have chose to exhibit a - perpetual offering to your creator.”[61] - -The meritorious aspect of almsgiving was sometimes uppermost. Hugh -Foliot, Bishop of Hereford, in founding his hospital at Ledbury, sets -forth the importance and advantage of exercising hospitality. He -illustrates the point by the case of the patriarchs, who were signally -rewarded for their hospitality:— - - “Bearing in mind therefore that . . . almost nothing is to be - preferred to hospitality, and that so great is its value that Lot and - [p088] Abraham who practised it were counted worthy to receive angels - for guests . . . we have built a certain hospital for strangers and - poor people.” - -The Church continued to teach the imperative duty of almsgiving. It is -stated in the will of Henry VII that in the one act of establishing a -hospital the Seven Works of Mercy might be fulfilled:— - - “And forasmuch as we inwardly consideir, that the vij. workes of - Charite and Mercy bee moost profitable, due and necessarie for - the saluation of man’s soule, and that the same vij. works stand - moost commonly in vj. of theim; that is to saye in uiseting the - sik, mynistring mete and drinke and clothing to the nedy, logging - of the miserable pouer, and burying of the dede bodies of cristen - people. . . . We therefor of our great pitie and compassion . . . - have begoune to erecte, buylde and establisshe a commune Hospital in - our place called the Sauoie . . . to the laude of God, the weale of - our soule, and the refresshing of the said pouer people, in daily, - nightly and hourely exploytyng the said vj. works of Mercy, Pitie, - and Charity.” - -To the hospital which he had provided, the founder looked not only -for spiritual and temporal profit in this life, but above all for -help to his soul in the world to come. The desire for the prayers -of generations yet unborn was a strong incentive to charity. The -bede-houses testify to a purposeful belief in the availing power of -intercession. Thus the patrons of Ewelme speak in the statutes of -“prayoure, in the whiche we have grete trust and hope to oure grete -relefe and increce of oure merite and joy fynally.” The same faith is -expressed by the action of the merchants and mariners of Bristol in -1445. Because - - “the crafte off maryners is so auenturous that dayly beyng in ther - uiages ben sore vexed, trobled and deseased and [p089] distried, - the which by gode menys of the prayers and gode werkes might be - graciously comforted and better releced of such trobles,” - -they wished to found a fraternity to support, within the old hospital -of St. Bartholomew (Fig. 13), a priest and twelve poor seamen who -should pray for those labouring on the sea, or passing to and fro into -their port. - -[Illustration: 13. ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S HOSPITAL, BRISTOL - -(Called in 1387 _the Domus Dei by Frome Bridge_)] - -An earnest desire to make the world better is shown in one foundation -deed, dating probably from the middle of the fourteenth century. It -concerns Holy Trinity, Salisbury, erected by Agnes Bottenham on a spot -where a [p090] house of evil repute had existed “to the great perils -of souls”:— - - “The founders, by means of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have - ordained thirty beds to the sustentation of the poor and infirm - daily resorting thither, and the seven works of charity are there - fulfilled. The hungry are fed, the thirsty have drink, the naked are - clothed, the sick are comforted, the dead are buried, the mad are - kept safe until they are restored to reason, orphans and widows are - nourished, lying-in women are cared for until they are delivered, - recovered and churched.” - -The aim of pious benefactors was indeed the abiding welfare of their -bedemen. The hard-headed, warm-hearted business men of Croydon and -Stamford, no less than the ladies of Heytesbury and Ewelme, expressed -a hope that the _Domus Dei_ on earth might be a preparation for the -eternal House of God. In the words of the patrons of Ewelme, they -desired the poor men so to live:— - - “that aftyr the state of this dedely [mortal] lyf they mowe come - and inhabit the howse of the kyngdome of heven, the which with oure - Lordes mouth is promysed to all men the which bene pore in spirit. So - be yt.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[57] Camden Soc., 1838, pp. 82, 85. - -[58] Rolls of Parl. 1 Henry IV, vol. iii. 421. - -[59] T. Brewer, _Carpenter’s Life_, p. 26. - -[60] Bridges’ _History_, I, 146, - -[61] F. Peck’s _Annals of Stanford_, v. 15. - - - - -[p091] - -CHAPTER VII - -HOSPITAL INMATES - - - “_To the master and brethren of the hospital of St. Nicholas, - Scarborough.—Request to admit John de Burgh, chaplain, and grant - him maintenance for life, as John has been suddenly attacked by the - disease of leprosy, and has not wherewith to live and is unable - through shame to beg among Christians._” (Close Roll, 1342.) - -Though a visit to a modern infirmary calls forth in us, doubtless, -passing thoughts of admiration for the buildings and the arrangements, -what draws most of us thither is the bond of brotherhood. It is the -inmates of the wards who are to us the centre of attraction. Looking -upon the sufferers, we desire to know their circumstances, their -complaints, their chance of cure. Nor is it otherwise in studying the -history of ancient institutions. The mere site of an old hospital may -become a place of real interest when we know something of those who -once dwelt there, when we _see_ the wayworn pilgrim knocking at the -gate, the infirm man bent with age, the paralysed bedridden woman, and -the stricken leper in his sombre gown, and realize what our forefathers -strove to do in the service of others. - -In many cases the link between the first founder and first inmate was -very close, being the outcome of personal relations between master and -servant, feudal lord and tenant. It was so in the case of Orm, the -earliest hospital inmate whose name has been handed down to us. [p092] -This Yorkshireman, who lived near Whitby eight hundred years ago, -“was a good man and a just, but he was a leper.” The abbot, therefore, -having pity on him, founded a little asylum, in which Orm spent the -rest of his days, receiving from the abbey his portion of food and -drink. In the same way Hugh Kevelioc, Earl of Chester, built a retreat -outside Coventry for William de Anney, a knight of his household, which -was the origin of Spon hospital for the maintenance of such lepers as -should happen to be in the town. - - -(i) PERSONS MIRACULOUSLY CURED - -In dealing with mediæval miracles it may not unnaturally be objected -that we are wandering from the paths of history into the fields of -fiction; but it is absolutely necessary to allude to them at some -length because they played so important a part in the romantic tales -of pilgrim-patients. We shall see that sufferers were constantly being -carried about in search of cure, and in some cases were undoubtedly -restored to health. This was an age of faith and therefore of infinite -possibilities. It would appear that “marvels” were worked not only -on certain nervous ailments, but on some deep-seated diseases. It is -a recognized fact that illness caused by emotion (as of grief) has -oftentimes been cured by emotion (as of hope). Possibly, too, not a -few of the persons restored to health were suffering from hysteria -and nervous affections, which complaints might be cured by change of -scene and excitement. In the _Book of the Foundation_ is the story of -a well-known man of Norwich who would not take care of his health, -and therefore “hadde lost the rest of slepe,” which alone keeps the -nature sound and whole. His [p093] insomnia became chronic, and by the -seventh year of his misfortune he became very feeble, and so thin that -his bones could be numbered. At length he betook himself to the relics -of St. Bartholomew; there, grovelling on the ground, he multiplied his -prayers and began to sleep—“and whan he hadde slepte a grete while he -roys up hole.” - -On the other hand the conviction is forced upon us that many, perhaps -most, of the so-called miracles were not genuine. Some diseases might -have been feigned by astute beggars. Although experienced doctors and -skilled nurses to-day are quick to detect cases, cleverly simulating -paralysis, epilepsy, etc., the staff in a mediæval hospital would -probably not discover the deception. When one such person became the -hero of a dramatic scene of healing, the officials would joyfully -acknowledge his cure, without intention of fraud. The narratives come -down to us through monk-chroniclers, whose zeal for their home-shrines -made them lend a quick ear to that which contributed to their fame. In -those days people were uncritical and were satisfied without minute -investigation. - -[Illustration: 14. ST. BARTHOLOMEW - -(Twelfth-century seal)] - -There is, indeed, little information about early hospital inmates -unless they were fortunate enough to receive what was universally -believed in those days to be miraculous [p094] healing. Startling -incidents are related by contemporary writers, whose vivid and -picturesque narratives suggest that they had met witnesses of the -cures related. The twelfth-century chronicler of St. Bartholomew’s, -Smithfield, gives us eyes to see some of the patients of that famous -hospital. - - -(1) _Patients of St. Bartholomew’s._—The cripple Wolmer, a well-known -beggar who lay daily in St. Paul’s, was a most distressing case. He -was so deformed as to be obliged to drag himself along on all fours, -supporting his hands on little wooden stools. (Cf. Pl. XX.) His story -is extracted from Dr. Norman Moore’s valuable edition of the faithful -English version of the _Liber Fundacionis_, dating about the year 1400. - - “There was an sykeman Wolmer be name with greuous and longe langoure - depressid, and wrecchid to almen that hym behylde apperyd, his feit - destitute of naturall myght hyng down, hys legges cleuyd to his - thyis, part of his fyngerys returnyd to the hande, restynge alwey - uppon two lytyll stolys, the quantite of his body, to hym onerous, he - drew aftir hym. . . .” - -For thirty winters Wolmer remained in this sad condition, until at -length he was borne by his friends in a basket to the newly-founded -hospital of St. Bartholomew, where his cure was wrought by a miracle as -he lay extended before the altar in the church:— - - “. . . and by and by euery crokidness of his body a litill & - litill losid, he strecchid un to grownde his membris & so anoon - auawntynge hym self up warde, all his membris yn naturale ordir was - disposid. . . .” - -The scene of this incident was, presumably, that noble building which -we still see (Fig. 11), and which was then [p095] fresh from the hand -of the Norman architect and masons. - -Aldwyn, a carpenter from Dunwich, once occupied a place in St. -Bartholomew’s. His limbs were as twisted and useless as those of -Wolmer; his sinews being contracted, he could use neither hand nor -foot. Brought by sea to London, the cripple was “put yn the hospitall -of pore men,” where awhile he was sustained. Bit by bit he regained -power in his hands, and when discharged was able to exercise his craft -once more. - -Again the veil of centuries is lifted and we see the founder himself -personally interested in the patients. A woman was brought into the -hospital whose tongue was so terribly swollen that she could not close -her mouth. Rahere offered to God and to his patron prayer on her behalf -and then applied his remedy:— - - “And he reuolvynge his relikys that he hadde of the Crosse, he depid - them yn water & wysshe the tonge of the pacient ther with, & with the - tree of lyif, that ys with the same signe of the crosse, paynted the - tokyn of the crosse upon the same tonge. And yn the same howre all - the swellynge wente his way, & the woman gladde & hole went home to - here owne.” - -Perhaps the most startling cure was that of a maid deaf, dumb, blind -of both eyes and crippled. Brought by her parents to the festival of -St. Bartholomew in the year 1173, she was delivered from every bond of -sickness. Anon she went “joyfull skippyng forth”; her eyes clear, her -hearing repaired, “she ran to the table of the holy awter, spredyng -owte bothe handys to heuyn and so she that a litill beforne was dum -joyng in laude of God [p096] perfitly sowndyd her wordes”; then weeping -for joy she went to her parents affirming herself free from all -infirmity. - -In the foregoing narratives it will be noticed that hospital and shrine -were adjacent. This convenient combination not being found elsewhere, -incurable patients were carried to pilgrimage-places. Two of the -chief wonder-workers were St. Godric of Finchale and St. Thomas of -Canterbury, who both died in 1170. Reginald of Durham narrates the cure -by their instrumentality of three inmates from northern hospitals.[62] - - -(2) _The Paralytic Girl and the Crippled Youth._—A young woman who had -lost the use of one side by paralysis, was brought from the hospital -of Sedgefield (near Durham) to Finchale, where the same night she -recovered health. The poor cripple of York was not cured so rapidly. -Utterly powerless, his arms and feet twisted after the manner of -knotted ropes, this most wretched youth had spent years in St. Peter’s -hospital. At length he betook himself as best he could to Canterbury, -where he received from St. Thomas health on one side of his body. -It grieved him that he was not worthy to be completely cured, but -learning from many witnesses the fame of St. Godric, he hastened to -his sepulchre; falling down there, he lay in weakness for some time, -then, rising up, found the other side of his body absolutely recovered. -The lad returned home whole and upright, and this notable miracle was -attested by many who knew him, and by the procurator of the hospital. - - -(3) _A Leper Maiden._—The touching tale of a girl who was eventually -released from the lazar-house near [p097] Darlington (Bathelspitel) is -also related by Reginald, and transcribed by Longstaffe. - - “There is a vill in the bishopric called Hailtune - [Haughton-le-Skerne] in which dwelt a widow and her only daughter - who was grievously tormented with a most loathsome leprosy. The - mother remarried a man who soon began to view the poor girl with the - greatest horror, and to torment and execrate her. . . . She fled for - aid to the priest of the vill, who, moved with compassion, procured - by his entreaties the admission of the damsel to the hospital of - Dernigntune [Darlington], which was almost three miles distant, and - was called Badele.” - -There the maiden remained three years, growing daily worse. After -describing her horrible symptoms and wasted frame, the chronicler -narrates her marvellous cure at Finchale. Thrice did the devoted mother -take her thither until the clemency of St. Godric was outpoured and -“he settled and removed the noxious humours.” When at length the girl -threw back the close hood, her mother beheld her perfectly sound. The -scene of this pitiful arrival and glad departure was that beautiful -spot at the bend of the river Weir, now marked by picturesque ruins. -The complete recovery was attested by all, including the sheriff and -the kind priest, Normanrus. We reluctantly lose sight of the delivered -damsel, wondering whether the cruel step-father received her less -roughly when she got home. It is simply recorded that never did the -disease return, and that she lived long to extol the power given by God -to His servant Godric. - - -(4) _A Taunton Monk._—Seldom do we know the after-life of such -patients, but a touching picture shows us one cleansed of his leprosy, -serving his former fellow-inmates. This was John King, a monk of -Taunton Priory. Prior [p098] Stephen tells how he was smitten with -terrible and manifest leprosy, on which account he was transferred to -a certain house of poor people, where he stayed for more than a year -among the brethren. The prior’s letter, after declaring how the fame of -St. Thomas was growing throughout the world, refers to divers miracles, -by one of which John was completely cured. Returning from Canterbury, -he was authorized to gather alms for his former companions:— - - “We . . . earnestly implore your loving good will for the love of God - and St. Thomas, that you listen to the dutiful prayer of our brother - John, wonderfully restored to health by God, if you have power to - grant it. For he earnestly begs you to help by your labour and your - alms the poverty of those sick men whose company he enjoyed so - long.”[63] - -Two similar instances of service are recorded. Nicholas, a cripple -child cured at St. Bartholomew’s, was sent for a while to serve in -the kitchen,—“for the yifte of his helth, he yave the seruyce of his -body.” In the same way a blind man who had been miraculously cured by -the merit of St. Wulstan (1221), afterwards took upon himself the habit -of a professed brother in the hospital of that saint in Worcester. He -had been a pugilist and had lost his sight in a duel, but having become -a peaceable brother of mercy, he lived there honourably for a long -while.[64] - - -(ii) CROWN PENSIONERS - -Leaving the chronicles, and turning to state records, we find that -the sick, impotent and leprous were recipients of royal favour. An -early grant of maintenance was [p099] made in 1235 to Helen, a blind -woman of Faversham whom Henry III caused to be received as a sister -at Ospringe hospital. Similar grants were made from time to time to -faithful retainers, veteran soldiers or converted Jews (who were the -king’s wards). - - -_Old Servants, Soldiers, etc._—The most interesting pensioners were -veterans who had served in Scotland and France. The year of the battle -of Bannockburn (1314), a man was sent to Brackley whose hand had been -inhumanly cut off by Scotch rebels.[65] There are several instances of -persons maimed in the wars who were sent for maintenance to various -hospitals. One of the many grants of Richard II was made—“out of -regard for Good Friday”—to an aged servant, that he should be one of -the king’s thirteen poor bedemen of St. Giles’, Wilton. Another of -Richard II’s retainers, a yeoman, was generously offered maintenance at -Puckeshall by Henry IV.[66] - - -_Jewish Converts._—The House of Converts was akin to a modern -industrial home for destitute Jewish Christians, inmates being kept -busily employed in school and workshop. During the century following -the foundation of these “hospitals,” many converts are named, _Eve_, -for instance, was received at Oxford, and _Christiana_ in London. -Usually admitted after baptism, they were enrolled under their new -names. _Philip_ had been baptized upon St. Philip and St. James’ Day, -and _Robert Grosseteste_ was possibly godson of the bishop. Converts -were brought from all parts. We find John and William of Lincoln, -Isabel of Bristol and her boy, [p100] Isabel of Cambridge, Emma of -Ipswich, etc.[67] A century later pensioners must have been immigrants, -since all Jews resident in England had been expelled in 1290. A Flemish -Jew, baptized at Antwerp in the presence of Edward III, was granted -permission to dwell in the London institution with a life-pension of -2_d._ a day:— - - “Inasmuch as our beloved Edward of Brussels has recently abandoned - the superstitious errors of Judaism . . . and because we rejoice in - Christ over his conversion, and lest he should recede from the path - of truth upon which he has entered, because of poverty . . . we have - granted to him a suitable home in our House of Converts.” - -Theobald de Turkie, “a convert to the Catholic Faith,” was afterwards -received, together with pensioners from Spain, Portugal, France, and -Italy. A chamber was granted to Agnes, an orphan Jewess of tender -age and destitute of friends, the child of a convert-godson of -Edward II. A later inmate, of whose circumstances we would fain know -more, was Elizabeth, daughter of Rabbi Moyses, called “bishop of the -Jews” (1399). Converts frequently had royal sponsors. Henry V stood -godfather to Henry Stratford, who lived in the _Domus Conversorum_ -from 1416–1441. There was a certain risk in being called after the -sovereign, nor was it unknown for the king’s converts to change their -names. As late as 1532 Katharine of Aragon and Princess Mary stood -sponsor to two Jewesses. - - -(iii) INMATES OF SOME LAZAR-HOUSES - - -(1) _Lincoln Invalids._—Near Lincoln is a spot still pointed out as -the “Lepers’ Field.” Formerly it was known as the Mallardry or as Holy -Innocents’ hospital. [p101] Had one visited this place in the days of -Edward I, ten of the king’s servants—lepers or decrepit persons—would -have been found there, together with two chaplains and certain -brethren and sisters. Thomas, a maimed clerk, was one of the staff, -but after thirty years he incurred the jealousy of his companions, who -endeavoured to ruin his character while he was absent on business. -Brother Thomas appealed to the king, and justice was administered -(1278). Some time afterwards the household became so quarrelsome that -the king issued a writ, and a visitation was held in 1291 to set -matters straight. In 1290 William le Forester was admitted to the -lepers’ quarters, his open-air life not having saved him from disease. -Dionysia, a widow, took up her abode as a sister the same year, and -remained until her death, when another leper was assigned her place. -An old servant of the house past work was admitted as pensioner, and -also a blind and aged retainer whose faithfulness had reduced him to -poverty, he having served in Scotland and having moreover lost all his -horses, waggons and goods in the Welsh rebellion. But strangest of -all the residents in the hospital of Holy Innocents was the condemned -criminal Margaret Everard. She was not a leper, but had once been -numbered among the dead. Mistress Everard, of Burgh-by-Waynflete, was -a widow, convicted of “harbouring a thief, namely, Robert her son, -and hanged on the gallows without the south gate of Lincoln.” Now the -law did not provide interment for its victims, but it seems that the -Knights Hospitallers of Maltby paid a yearly sum to the lepers for -undertaking this work of mercy at Canwick.[68] On this memorable [p102] -occasion, however, the body being cut down and already removed near -the place of burial—the lepers’ churchyard—the woman “was seen to draw -a breath and revive.” We learn from a Patent Roll entry (1284) that -pardon was afterwards granted to Margaret “because her recovery is -ascribed to a miracle, and she has lived two years and more in the said -hospital.” - - -(2) _The Lancastrian falconer and Yorkist yeoman._—A certain Arnald -Knyght, who had been falconer to Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI, -caused a habitation to be built for himself on the site of the hospital -by the Whiteditch, near Rochester, in order that there he might spend -his days in divine service. In consideration of his age and of his -infirmity of leprosy, Henry VI granted to Arnald and Geraldine his -wife not only the building recently erected, but the lands and rents -of St. Nicholas’ hospital. Edward IV afterwards granted a parcel of -land between Highgate and Holloway to a certain leper-yeoman “to the -intent that he may build a hospital for the relief of divers persons -smitten with this sickness and destitute.” This man—half-founder, -half-inmate—soon succumbed, for a record four years later states that -“the new lazar-house at Highgate which the king lately caused to be -made for William Pole . . . now deceased” was granted for life to -another leper, Robert Wylson, a saddler, who had served well “in divers -fields and elsewhere.”[69] - - -(3) _The Mayor of Exeter._—Shortly before 1458, St. Mary Magdalene’s, -Exeter, had a prominent inmate in the sometime mayor, Richard Orenge. -In 1438 Richard William, [p103] _alias_ Richard Orenge, is mentioned -as a tailor; he is also described as being a man of French extraction -and of noble family. Once he had been official patron of the asylum, -but when the blow fell, he threw in his lot with those to whom he had -formerly been bountiful. There, Izacke says, he finished his days and -was buried in the chapel. - -[Illustration: 15. SEAL OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE HOSPITAL] - - -(4) _Two Norfolk lepers._—We learn incidentally through a lawsuit -that about the year 1475 the vicar of Foulsham, Thomas Wood, was in -seclusion in a London lazar-house:—“and nowe it is said God hathe -visited the seid parsone with the sekenes of lepre and is in the -Spitell howse of knygtyes brygge beside Westminster.”[70] Why the -priest came up from the country to Knightsbridge does not appear; it -would seem, however, that the Norfolk manor was temporarily in the -king’s hands, so that possibly the crown bailiff procured his removal. -One of the latest leper-inmates whose name is recorded ended his days -at Walsingham. The patron of the Spital-house left it in 1491 to John -Ederyche, a leper of Norwich, and Cecily his wife, stipulating that -after their decease, one or two lepers—“men of good conversation and -honest disposition”—should be maintained there. [p104] - - -(iv) SOLITARY OUTCASTS - -It must not be supposed that there were no lepers save those living -in community. To use the old phrase, there was the man who dwelt in a -several house and he who was forced to join the congregation without -the camp. To lepers “whether recluses or living together” the Bishop of -Norwich bequeathed five pounds (1256). Hermit-lazar and hospital-lazar -alike fulfilled the legal requirement of separation. It may be noticed -that the service at seclusion implies that the outcast may dwell alone. -In early records, before the king habitually imposed “corrodies” on -charitable institutions, pensioners are named who were not inhabiting -lazar-houses. Philip the clerk was assigned a tenement in Portsmouth, -which was afterwards granted to God’s House on condition that Philip -was maintained for life, or that provision was made for him to go to -the Holy Land (1236). Long afterwards, in 1394, Richard II pensioned a -groom of the scullery from the Exchequer, but provided for one of his -esquires in a hospital.[71] - -In hermitage and hospital alike service was rendered to the leper in -his loneliness. The little cell and chapel at Roche in Cornwall is said -to have been a place of seclusion for one “diseased with a grievous -leprosy.” Since no leper might draw from a spring, his daughter Gundred -fetched him water from the well and daily ministered to his wants. - -Mediæval poems tell of solitary or wandering lepers as well as of those -residing in communities. In the romance _Amis and Amiloun_, the gentle -knight is stricken with [p105] leprosy. His lady fair and bright -expels him from his own chamber. He eats at the far end of the high -table until the lady refuses to feed a _mesel_ at her board—“he is so -foule a thing.” His presence becoming intolerable, a little lodge is -built half a mile from the gate. The child Owen alone is found to serve -Sir Amiloun, fetching food for his master until he is denied succour -and driven away. Knight and page betake themselves to a shelter near -a neighbouring market-town, and depend for a time upon the alms of -passers-by. The next stage is that of wandering beggars.[72] - -In the _Testament of Cresseid_ the leper-heroine begged to go in secret -wise to the hospital, where, being of noble kin, they took her in with -the better will. She was conveyed thither by her father, who daily -sent her part of his alms. But Cresseid could not be resigned to her -affliction, and in a dark corner of the house alone, weeping, she made -her moan. A leper-lady, an old inmate, tries in vain to reconcile her -to her fate—it is useless to spurn herself against the wall, and tears -do but double her woe—but in vain:— - - “Thus chiding with her drerie destenye, - Weiping scho woik the nicht fra end to end.” - -This “Complaynt of Cresseid” is affecting in its description of the -lamentable lot of a woman whose high estate is turned into dour -darkness: for her bower a leper-lodge; for her bed a bunch of straw; -for wine and meat mouldy bread and sour cider. Her beautiful face is -deformed, and her carolling voice, hideous as a rook’s. Under these sad -conditions, Cresseid dwells for the rest of her life in the spital.[73] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[62] Surtees Soc., Vol. 20, pp. 376, 432–3, 456–7. - -[63] Chron. and Mem., 67, i. 428–9. - -[64] Chron. and Mem., 36, iv. p. 413. - -[65] Close 8 Edw. II, m. 35 _d_. - -[66] Pat. 8 Ric. II, pt. ii. m. 22; 9 Hen. IV, pt. ii. m. 14. - -[67] Close Rolls _passim_. - -[68] P.R.O. Chanc. Misc. Bundle 20, No. 10. - -[69] Pat. 21 Hen. VI, pt. i. m. 35, pt. ii. m. 16; 12 Edw. IV, pt. ii. -m. 6; 17 Edw. IV, pt. i. m. 1. - -[70] P.R.O., Early Chancery Proceedings, Bundle 60, No. 93. - -[71] Pat. 20 Hen. III, m. 13; 17 Ric. II, pt. ii. m. 14. - -[72] H. M. Weber, _Metrical Romances_, II, 269. - -[73] R. Henryson, _Testament of Cresseid_ (Bannatyne Club). - - - - -[p106] - -CHAPTER VIII - -HOSPITAL DWELLINGS - - - “_He_” [_Lanfranc_] “_built a fair and large house of stone, and - added to it several habitations for the various needs and convenience - of the men, together with an ample plot of ground._” (Eadmer’s - History.) - -The Canterbury monk mentions the foundation of Archbishop Lanfranc’s -two hospitals. The lepers’ dwellings on the hill-side at Harbledown -were merely wooden houses. The architecture of St. John’s was more -striking: _lapideam domum decentem et amplam construxit_. The edifice -(_palatium_) was divided in two parts, to accommodate men and women. -As Eadmer was living until 1124, he saw the hospital shortly after its -erection. He may even have watched the Norman masons complete it, and -the first infirm occupants take up their abode. - -Before considering the plan of hospital buildings, it will be -of interest to learn how they impressed men of those days. The -twelfth-century writer of the _Book of the Foundation_ betrays his -unfeigned admiration of St. Bartholomew’s. The hospital house was at a -little distance from the church, which was “made of cumly stoonewerke -tabylwyse.” The traditional commencement of the work was that Rahere -playfully acted the fool, and thus drew to himself a good-natured -company of children and servants: “with ther use and helpe stonys and -othir thynges profitable to the bylynge, lightly he gaderyd to [p107] -gedyr,” until at length “he reysid uppe a grete frame.” When all was -finished and he had set up the sign of the cross “who shulde not be -astonyd, ther to se, constructe and bylyd thonorable byldynge of pite.” - -Matthew Paris gives sketches and brief descriptions of three hospitals -in his _Chronica Major_.[74] St. Giles’, near London—“the memorial of -Matilda the Queen”—seems to consist of hall and chapel with an eastern -tower and another small tower at the south-west (Fig. 10); of the -_Domus Conversorum_, London, he says, “Henry built a decent church, fit -for a conventual congregation, with other buildings adjoining” (Fig. -3); St. John’s, Oxford, he calls _quoddam nobile hospitale_. (Fig. 1.) -The chronicler died in 1259, and these sketches were probably made -about ten years previously, when the two latter houses were newly built. - -[Illustration: 16. HOSPITAL OF ST. JOHN, EXETER] - -[Illustration: 17. HOSPITAL OF ST. ALEXIS, EXETER] - -Two thirteenth-century seals depict hospitals at Exeter. Mr. Birch -describes that of St. John’s as “a church-like [p108] building of -rectangular ground-plan, with an arcade of three round-headed arches -along the nave, roof of ornamental shingles, and crosses at the -gable-ends.” The artist contrives to show not only one side, but one -end, apparently the west front, with entrance. (Fig. 16.) The other -seal is that of the neighbouring hospital of St. Alexis “behind St. -Nicholas.” (Fig. 17.) The beautiful seal of St. John’s, Stafford -(reproduced by the kindness of the Society of Antiquaries) shows -architectural features of the transition period between the Early -English and Decorated styles. The windows are triple-lancets with a -delicately-pierced trefoil above; and an arcade runs round the base. -(Fig. 18.) - -[Illustration: 18. ST. JOHN’S, STAFFORD] - -Casual references to building in progress occur in records, but they -give little information. As early as 1161–3 Pipe Rolls mention works -going on at the houses of the infirm at Oxford; there is one entry of -over £8 spent on repairs. In 1232 timber was being sent to Crowmarsh -to make shingles for the roof of the hospital [p109] church. Land was -granted to St. Bartholomew’s, Gloucester, for the widening of their -chancel (1265); it is of interest to compare this fact with the elegant -Early English work shown in Lysons’ view. (Pl. VI.) There occurs on -another roll a licence to lengthen the portico of the Maison Dieu, -Dover (1278). - -The arrangement of most of these buildings is unknown, for frequently -not a vestige remains. In many cases they grew up with little definite -plan. A private dwelling was adapted, further accommodation being -added as funds permitted. The domestic buildings were usually of wood -and thatched, which accounts for the numerous allusions to fire. Even -St. John’s, Canterbury, which was chiefly of stone, was burnt in the -fourteenth century, but some traces of Norman work remain. (Pl. III.) - -In time of war, houses near the Border or on the South Coast suffered. -The buildings of God’s House, Berwick-on-Tweed, were cast down by -engines during a siege. The master and inmates implored aid in their -sore extremity, declaring that in spite of all efforts to repair the -buildings, the work was unfinished, and that they could not endure -the winter without being utterly perished.[75] The same year (1333) -the destroyed hospital at Capelford-by-Norham was being rebuilt. St. -Nicholas’, Carlisle, was levelled to the ground more than once, and -Sherburn was partly demolished at the time of the Battle of Neville’s -Cross. The same story of attack and fire comes from houses at -Southampton and Portsmouth. - -Before proceeding to any classification of buildings, some of the -component parts may be mentioned. The precincts were often entered by -a gateway beneath a [p110] tower. (Pl. VIII, XVI.) Sometimes, as at -Northallerton, there was a hospice near the gate, especially intended -for wayfarers who were too feeble to proceed; and an almonry, as at St. -Cross, for the distribution of out-relief. - -The mode of life in different hospitals affected their architectural -arrangement. The warden and professed members of the staff were -expected to live in community. The master of St. John’s, Ely, was -charged not to have delicate food in his own chamber, but to dine in -the refectory. In most houses the rule was relaxed, and the warden -came to have private apartments, and finally, a separate dwelling. -(Pl. XVI, XXI.) In large institutions, the dining-hall was a fine -building. The “Brethren Hall” at St. Cross (about 36 × 20 feet) -consists of four bays, and has a handsome chestnut ceiling. (Pl. X.) -The beautiful refectory at St. Wulstan’s, Worcester (48 feet × 25 feet -8 inches), adjoins another long, narrow hall; these buildings present -interesting features—such as the screen, a coved canopy over the dais, -and a loft from which reading was given during meals. The screen, -gallery and oriel are reproduced in _Domestic Architecture during -the Tudor Period_. The title of “minstrels’ gallery,” given by J. H. -Parker to the screen at the western end of the hall, has been called -in question; but as the same name is found at St. Cross it may be -remarked that in such institutions minstrels were called in to perform -on festal days, for the account rolls of St. Leonard’s, York (1369), -and St. John’s, Winchester[76] (1390), allude to it. The hospital was -a semi-secular house, and such halls were occasionally used for public -affairs. Permission was granted in 1456 that the hall and kitchen of -St. Katherine’s Maison Dieu, [p111] Newcastle, might be used by -young couples for their wedding dinner and the reception of gifts, -because at that time houses were not large. Leland notes that Thornton -“buildid St. Katerines Chapelle, _the Towne Haulle_, and a Place for -poor Almose Menne.” If the above-mentioned kitchen was as magnificent -as that of St. John’s, Oxford (now incorporated into Magdalen College), -a wedding-feast or civic banquet might well take place there. - -[Illustration: _PLATE X._ HALL OF ST. CROSS, WINCHESTER] - -The transaction of business was conducted in the chapter-house or in -an audit-room. At Ewelme, for example, there was a handsome chamber -above the steps leading from the almshouse into the church, and the -audit-room at Stamford is still in use. - -The development of hospital buildings has been admirably dealt -with by F. T. Dollman. In his earlier work (_Examples of Domestic -Architecture_, 1858), he illustrates in great detail seven ancient -institutions; a reprint with additions followed (1861). The subject -calls for a more exhaustive study, which is now being undertaken by -a competent architect. In this chapter nothing is attempted beyond a -brief indication of the prevalent styles. Frequently, however, the -original construction can be barely conjectured, for only a part -is left, and that has probably suffered from alteration. Dollman -distinguishes four principal modes of arrangement:— - - (i) Great hall—infirmary or dormitory—with chapel at the eastern end. - - (ii) As above, with chapel detached, and entered from without. - - (iii) Suite of buildings, usually quadrangular; chapel apart. - - (iv) Narrow courtyard. [p112] - -i. HALL WITH TERMINATING CHAPEL - -[Illustration: 19. ST. MARY’S, CHICHESTER] - - -(a) _Infirmary._—The early form of a hospital was that of a church. -A picturesque fragment of St. James’, Lewes, is figured in _Beauties -of Sussex_;[77] the foundations remained within memory, consisting, -apparently, of nave, aisles and chancel, the dimensions of the latter -being about 34 × 15 feet. From an ancient deed in the Record Office, -this building is shown to have been the sick-ward with its chapel; -it refers to the “sick poor in the great hall of the hospital of -Suthenovere.” Mention is frequently made of chapels “within the -dormitory” or “in the infirmary,” and of beds “in the hospital on -the west of the church.” The statutes of Kingsthorpe show how this -arrangement met the patients’ spiritual wants:— - - “In the body of the house adjoining the chapel of the Holy Trinity - there should be three rows of beds joined together in length, in - which the poor and strangers and invalids may lie for the purpose - of hearing mass and attending to the prayers more easily and - conveniently.” [p113] - -[Illustration: 20. ST. NICHOLAS’, SALISBURY - - _Black._ Extant remains (xiii. cent.). - _Tint._ Site of destroyed walls. - _Dotted lines._ Probable arrangement of original buildings. - _AA._ The Chapels. - _BB._ Cubicles. - _C._ Latrines. - _D._ Porch. - _E._ Old Hospital. - _F._ Covered way.] - -The finest remaining example of such an infirmary is St. Mary’s, -Chichester. (Pl. XVIII.) It is now a great hall of four bays, and seems -originally to have been longer by two bays. (See Ground-plan, Fig. -19.) The hall measures over 84 feet, and opens into a chapel 47 feet -in length. A wide and lofty roof with open timbers spans the whole -building, the pitch of the roof being such that the north and south -walls are unusually low. (Pl. VI.) The Domus [p114] Dei, Portsmouth, -was of similar construction. Its thirteenth-century chapel still exists -as the chancel of the Royal Garrison Church, the nave and aisles of -which replace the infirmary, or “Nurcery” as it is called in one -document. - -The early French hospitals were usually of three wings, as at St. -Jean, Angers, built by Henry II. It is probable that the same design -was commonly adopted in England. St. Bartholomew’s, London, had three -chapels—besides those now called “St. Bartholomew’s the Great” and -“the Less”—and possibly these three were terminating chapels of an -infirmary. At St. Nicholas’, Salisbury, a double-hall opened into two -chapels. (Fig. 20, Ground-plan.) Here there are some traces of Early -English work, which can almost be dated, for an entry of 1231 records a -grant of timber,[78] and Bishop Bingham completed the hospital before -1244. Buckler’s sketches (Pl. XV) give some idea of the charm of the -existing buildings, which are mainly of the fourteenth century. - - -(b) _Almshouse._—The infirmary-plan became a model for some of the -later almshouses. A fine example remains at Higham Ferrers (about -1423). The dimensions of this building were as follows:—Hall, 63 × 24 -feet; Chapel, 17 feet, 10 inches × 20 feet. Wooden screens subdivided -the dormitory; and the statutes directed that each bedeman should join -in evening prayers at his chamber door. Although not so secluded as the -separate-tenement type, the early arrangement was good, for inmates -had the benefit of air from the spacious hall, with its fine and lofty -oak ceiling. Modern examples of this cubicle-system are still seen at -Wells, St. Mary’s, Chichester, and St. Giles’, Norwich. In the latter -case, the dormitory forms [p115] part of a church adapted for the -purpose; the compartments communicate with a corridor-hall and are -open above to the panelled ceiling of St. Helen’s church with its -heraldic devices. The early fifteenth-century Maison Dieu at Ripon was -not unlike that of Higham Ferrers. The ruined chapel exists, with the -arch which led into the domicile. By means of a partition, four men, -four women and two casual guests were accommodated, and the priest had -apartments at the west end. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XI._ ST. MARY MAGDALENE’S, GLASTONBURY - -(_a_) VIEW FROM THE WEST. (_b_) GROUND-PLAN] - -St. Saviour’s, Wells, was a contemporary foundation. Leland -remarks:—“The Hospitale and the Chapelle is buildid al in lenghth under -one Roofe.” This interesting old dwelling-place still exists, but has -lost its former character, as has also the Glastonbury almshouse for -men, of which a view and ground-plan are shown on Plate XI. - -Slightly different again was the plan of a two-storied block, having -a chancel-like chapel with a roof of lower pitch. Sherborne almshouse -(Dorset) was built thus. It opens to both stories of the adjoining -domicile; this is done on the upper floor, by means of a gallery in -which the women sit during service. - -Later, it was customary for the chapel to extend to the height of the -whole building under one roof, as at Browne’s hospital, Stamford. (Fig. -5.) Although the lofty chapel corresponded in height to both stories, -only the lower one—which in this case was the dormitory—communicated -with it. This block formed part of a suite ranging round a quadrangle. -A ground-plan and views of this imposing almshouse, with descriptions -of its architectural features, are found in Wright’s history. There is -a striking similarity of construction between it and [p116] Wigston’s -hospital, Leicester (figured by Nichols[79]). Both were good specimens -of the domestic Perpendicular style. - -The earlier almshouse in Leicester, called the “Newark” (afterwards -known as Trinity) was a large building. Nichols’ view (1788)[80] shows -a range of dwellings below, others above with dormer windows in the -roof, clumsy chimneys, a bell-cote, and at one end a chancel-like -extension. There must originally have been extensive buildings to -accommodate the hundred poor. Leland says: “The large Almose House -stondith also withyn the Quadrante of the Area of the College”; and -of the church associated with it Camden says that “the greatest -ornament of Leicester was demolished when the religious houses were -granted to the king.” Bablake hospital, Coventry (_circa_ 1508), which -was somewhat similar to the Leicester almshouse, still exists. This -“Hospitall well builded for ten poore Folkes,” as Leland reports, -formed a simple parallelogram; below, ambulatory, hall, dining-room, -and kitchen; above, dormitories. - - -ii. HALL WITH DETACHED CHAPEL - -Of a great hall with separate chapel, Dollman cites one instance, St. -John’s, Northampton. Here the hospital was a parallelogram, the chapel -touching it at one corner, but not communicating with it; another -detached building, sometimes called the Master’s House, was probably -the refectory. (Plan and details, Dollman; see also T. H. Turner, -_Domestic Architecture_, Vol. III.) From the engraving (Frontispiece) -it would seem that the Maison [p117] Dieu, Dover, was similarly -designed; at the north-east angle is the chapel, three bays of which -may still be seen. The various apartments existing in 1535 are -mentioned in the Inventory.[81] “The Great Chamber called the Hoostrye” -(hostelry or guest-hall) was probably the common-room and refectory, -but besides trestle-tables, settle and seats, the furniture included -a great bedstead and a little one; this hall contained an inner room. -There were four other small bed-chambers, a _fermery_ (infirmary) with -accommodation for fifteen persons, besides day-room, kitchens, etc. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XII._ - -PLAN OF THE LEPER HOSPITAL OF ST. GILES, LONDON - -(_a_) GATE. (_b_) CHAPEL AND PARISH CHURCH. (_c_) HOSPITAL MANSION. -(_d_) POOL CLOSE. (_e_) ORCHARD. (_f_) COTTAGES. (_g_) HOUSES, ETC., OF -DR. BORDOY. (_h_) GARDENS. (_i_) WALLS. (_l_) GALLOWS. - -THE CHURCH OF ST. GILES IN THE FIELDS - -(_a_) PARISH CHURCH. (_b_) HOSPITAL CHURCH. (_c_) BELL TOWER. (_d_, -_e_) ALTARS. (_f_) ST. MICHAEL’S CHAPEL. (_g_) SCREEN DIVIDING -CHURCHES. (_h_) WESTERN ENTRANCE.] - - -iii. GROUP OF BUILDINGS AND CHAPEL - - -(a) _Leper-house._—Although originally lepers had a common dormitory, -the plan began to be superseded as early as the thirteenth century, -when a visitation of St. Nicholas’, York, shows that each inmate had -a room to himself. The rule at Ilford was that lepers should eat and -sleep together “so far as their infirmity permitted.” The dormitory -afterwards gave place to tenements. The Harbledown settlement in -the eighteenth century is shown in Pl. II, the buildings being -named by Duncombe, master and historian of the hospital. Facing the -“hospital-chapel” were the “frater-house” and domestic quarters. -The chantry-house by the gateway was, doubtless, the residence of -the staff. (See p. 147.) The original dwellings must have been more -extensive, for they sheltered a hundred lepers. The view of Sherburn -(Durham) may reproduce the later mediæval design. (Fig. 21.) In some -cases a cloister ran round the buildings. The statutes of St. Julian’s -leper-hospital ordained “that there be no standing in the corridor -(_penticio_), which extends in [p118] length before the houses of the -brothers in the direction of the king’s road.” - -[Illustration: 21. SHERBURN HOSPITAL, NEAR DURHAM] - -The Winchester leper-house was quadrangular. It existed until 1788, and -was drawn and described in _Vetusta Monumenta_. (Fig. 22, Pl. XXI.) A -row of habitations extended east and west, parallel to them was the -chapel; the master’s house connected the two; the fourth side being -occupied by a common hall. Probably St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, was -of a similar character. (Pl. XXII.) The long building which remains -north of the chapel has four windows above and four below, as though -to accommodate the eight brethren. When dwellings ranged round an -[p119] enclosure, it was usual to have a well in the centre. Such -“lepers’ wells” may still be seen on the site of St. Mary Magdalene’s, -Winchester, and at Lyme Regis. - -[Illustration: 22. PLAN OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE’S, WINCHESTER] - -The lepers’ chapel was almost invariably a detached building. Sherburn -had a fair-sized church, which is still in use, besides two chapels, -one of which communicated with the quarters of the sick (_capella -interior infra domum infirmorum_). The above were large institutions; -but at St. Petronilla’s, Bury St. Edmunds—which might be described as -a cottage-hospital for lepers—the chapel and hall were under one roof. -The projection on the right (more clearly seen in Yates’ engraving) was -the [p120] refectory. The window of the chapel shown in Pl. XXVIII -still exists, though the ruin is not _in situ_. - - -(b) _Almshouse._—The modern design of almshouse, consisting of cottages -each with its own fireplace and offices, developed during the fifteenth -century. Thus about the year 1400, Grendon’s new charity in Exeter -became known as the “Ten Cells.” It was directed by the founder at -Croydon (1443) that every inmate have “a place by himsilf in the -whiche he may ligge and reste.” Some of these tenement almshouses were -quadrangular, whilst others consisted of a simple row of dwellings. -The contemporary charities established at Ewelme and Abingdon -illustrate the two variations of what was in reality the same type. The -picturesque almshouse at Ewelme, dating about 1450, is shown in Pl. -XVII. The founder’s intention was thus expressed in the statutes:— - - “We woll and ordeyne that the minister . . . and pore men have and - holde a certeyn place by them self within the seyde howse of almesse, - that is to sayng, a lityl howse, a celle or a chamber with a chemeney - and other necessarys in the same, in the whiche any of them may by - hym self ete and drynke and rest, and sum tymes among attende to - contemplacion and prayoure.” - -The buildings (of which Dollman gives views, ground-plan, etc.) were -quadrangular, consisting of sitting-rooms below, with bedrooms above. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XIII._ FORD’S HOSPITAL, COVENTRY] - -Formerly, inmates gathered round an open hearth (compare Pl. X) or -in a capacious ingle-nook, like that in use at St. Giles’, Norwich. -The chimney—which originally signified fireplace—is a new feature -indicating a change of life. At Ludlow, for example, Hosyer’s almshouse -was constructed with thirty-three chambers [p121] and in every -chamber a chimney. Those at St. Cross are slender and unobtrusive, but -the later erections at St. John’s, Lichfield, are oppressive in size. - -Of the simple row of tenements, a beautiful example remains at -Abingdon. (Pl. XXVI.) It was founded by the Gild of the Holy Cross -for thirteen impotent men and women. The present hospital consists -of fourteen dwellings (with a central hall reconstructed in Jacobean -times); the timbered cloister has recently been carefully repaired. -The Spital Almshouse near Taunton, rebuilt by Abbot Beere about 1510, -consists of a simple two-storied row of cottages, with a covered way in -front. - - -iv. NARROW COURTYARD - -Ford’s hospital at Coventry (Pl. XIII) is placed in a class by itself. -This half-timbered house is a perfect gem of domestic architecture. The -oaken framework, the elaborately-carved verge-boards of the gables, the -varied tracery of the windows, the slender pinnacled-buttresses, alike -call for admiration. Entering the doorway, a narrow court (39 × 12 -feet) is reached, perhaps the most beautiful part of the building. Each -dwelling communicates with the bed-chamber above, and at either end -were the chapel and common hall. Dollman gives the ground-plan, etc.; -Garner and Stratton’s recent work on Tudor Domestic Architecture also -contains lovely plates of the western front, courtyard and rich details. - - -v. CRUCIFORM PLAN - -The ground-plan of the great Savoy hospital was cruciform, which is -unusual. It would appear from the [p122] following extract from Henry -VII’s will, that he himself superintended the architectural design:— - - “We have begoune to erecte, buylde and establisshe a commune Hospital - . . . and the same we entende with Godd’s grace to finish, after the - maner, fourme and fashion of a plat which is devised for the same, - and signed with our hande.” - -When completed, this was one of the most notable things of the -metropolis. In 1520, some distinguished French visitors were -entertained at a civic banquet. “In the afternoon, inasmuch as they -desired amonge other things to see the hospital of Savoy and the king’s -chapell at the monastery of Westminster, they were conueyed thither -on horseback.”[82] The engraving (Pl. XIV) shows an imposing pile of -buildings. - - * * * * * - -Hospital buildings were good of their kind, and the chapels were of -the best that could be provided. In Leland’s eyes Burton Lazars had -“a veri fair Hospital and Collegiate Chirch”; Worcester could show -“an antient and fayre large Chappell of St. Oswald”; St. John’s, -Bridgwater, was “a thing notable” even to that insatiable sight-seer. -Of the finest examples, most have vanished. At St. Bartholomew’s the -Great, Smithfield, however, a portion survives of those “honourable -buildings of pity” which astonished twelfth-century onlookers; and -the noble church and quadrangles of St. Cross, Winchester (Pl. VIII), -show the scale upon which some were designed. The church of the -Dunwich leper-house (Pl. XXVIII) was 107 feet in length. (Ground-plan, -_Archæologia_, XII.) Part of the apse remains, showing a simple arcade -of semicircular arches, the [p123] chancel being ornamented with -intersecting arches. A treatise of Queen Mary’s time describes this -church as “a great one, and a fair large one, after the old fashion -. . . but now greatly decayed.”[83] - -[Illustration: _PLATE XIV._ SAVOY HOSPITAL, LONDON - -(_a_) HOSPITAL BUILDINGS (_c_) CHAPEL] - -The most ancient, and, from an architectural point of view, one of -the most interesting chapels remaining, is that of St. Bartholomew, -Rochester; the domed apse with its own arch, writes the chaplain, is -rare even in the earliest Norman churches. (Ground-plan, see _Journal -Arch. Assoc._, XI.) Norman work may be seen in chapels at Sherburn, -Gloucester and Stourbridge, and in the fine hospital-hall at High -Wycombe. Beautiful specimens of the Early English style remain at St. -Bartholomew’s, Sandwich; the Domus Dei, Portsmouth; and St. Edmund’s, -Gateshead. The latter chapel, built by Bishop Farnham about 1247, is -still in use, for the graceful ruin drawn by Grimm (Pl. XXX) has been -restored. It is described in Boyle’s _Guide to Durham_:—“The west front -has a deeply-recessed central doorway, flanked by two tiers of arcades, -whilst over these is an upper arcade, the alternative spaces of which -are pierced by lancet lights”, etc. The chapel at Bawtry has a fine -Early English window and a handsome niche at the eastern end. - -Among disused or misused chapels may be named St. Mary Magdalene’s, -Gloucester; St. Laurence’s, Crediton; Stourbridge; Poor Priests’, -Canterbury; St. Mary Magdalene’s, Durham; some, like the last-named, -are beyond restoration. St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, and St. James’, -Tamworth, long desecrated or deserted, are now being restored as houses -of prayer. St. Katherine’s, [p124] Exeter, has recently been given to -the Church Army, for the use of the destitute poor resorting to the -Labour Home. - -[Illustration: 23. CHAPEL OF ABBOT BEERE’S ALMSHOUSE, GLASTONBURY - -(For interior see Fig. 25)] - -Ancient chapels remain attached to almshouses in the following places:— - - Bawtry; Bristol (Three Kings of Cologne); Canterbury (St. John, St. - Thomas); Chichester; Gloucester (St. Margaret); Honiton; Ilford; - Lichfield; Oakham; Ripon (St. John Baptist, St. Mary Magdalene); - Rochester; Salisbury; Sandwich; Sherborne; Sherburn; Stamford; - Wimborne; Winchester (St. John’s); Glastonbury (2); Leicester - (Trinity); Tiverton; Wells. - -Those of Wilton (St. John), Taddiport near Torrington, and Holloway -near Bath, are now chapels-of-ease; that of St. John and St. James, -Brackley, is used in connection with Grammar School and Parish -Church; Roman Catholics worship in St. John’s, Northampton, and -French Protestants use the Anglican liturgy in [p125] St. Julien’s, -Southampton; the chapel of the Domus Dei, Portsmouth, is part of the -Garrison Church; St. Mark’s, Bristol, is the Lord Mayor’s Chapel; St. -Edmund’s, Gateshead (Holy Trinity), and St. Cross, Winchester, are -Parish Churches. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[74] Chron. and Mem., 57, iii. 262–3. - -[75] Cal. of Documents relating to Scotland, III, p. 199. - -[76] The original hall stands west of the chapel, and is let as a -public dining-hall. - -[77] J. Rouse, 1825, Pl. 76. - -[78] Close 16 Hen. III, m. 17. - -[79] Leicestershire, Vol. I, pt. ii. 495. - -[80] Bibliographica Top. Brit., viii. facing p. 718. - -[81] M. E. C. Walcott, _Arch. Cant._, VII, pp. 273–80. - -[82] B.M., MS. Calig. D. vii. f. 240. - -[83] Weever, _Funeral Mon._, ed. 1767, p. 459. - - - - -[p126] - -CHAPTER IX - -THE CONSTITUTION - - - “_It is agreed amongst men of religion that order be observed, - because without order there is no religion._” (Rules of St. John’s, - Nottingham.) - -We now turn to the inner working of the hospital and inquire how the -lives of inmates were ordered. - -Early charitable institutions were under a definite rule, either that -of the diocesan bishop or of the monastic order with which they were -in touch. In the Constitutions of Richard Poore of Sarum (_circa_ -1223), one clause is headed: “Concerning the Rule of Religion, how -it is lawful to found a _xenodochium_.” Persons desiring so to do -shall receive a form of government from the bishop, “since too great -diversity of forms of religion brings in confusion to the church of -God.” Laymen therefore applied for an episcopal constitution; the -burgesses of Nottingham, for instance, charged Archbishop Gray with -the drawing up of an “Ordination” for St. John’s (1231–4). Even when -a community was under a monastic house, the diocesan was often asked -to compile statutes, as Grossetête did for Kingsthorpe and Bishop -Stratford for Ilford; but the abbot of St. Albans drew up his own -code for St. Julian’s. There was apparently a definite Anglican Rule, -for “The Statutes of St. James’ according to the Use of the Church of -England” were promulgated at Canterbury in 1414. [p127] - -Founders and patrons also had a voice in the matter, sometimes drawing -up the rule and submitting it to their Father in God; thus the -Ordinances of St. Mark’s, Bristol, made by the patron and “exhibited to -the Bishop” (1268) are entered in the registers. - -Most hospitals followed a definite system, at least in theory, as to -admission, observation of regulations and penalties for disobedience. - - -1. NOMINATION AND ADMISSION - - -(_a_) Appointments to all offices were usually in the patron’s hands. -In a few privileged houses (e.g. Dover, Gloucester, Oxford, Cambridge, -Norwich) the staff brothers had licence to elect their superior from -amongst themselves, and to nominate him to the patron. Officials and -inmates alike were admitted by a religious ceremony, of which the vow -formed a prominent part. At St. Katherine’s, Bedminster, the following -oath was taken before induction by the master:— - - “I,——, promise perpetual observance of good morals, chastity, and - denial of property . . . according to the rule of the Hospital St. - Katherine, near Bristol, in the diocese of Bath and Wells, which I - henceforth profess as ordained by the holy fathers . . . and I will - lead my life according to regular discipline.” - -The selection of honorary workers on the hospital staff is dealt with -in one of the deeds of St. Mary’s, Chichester (formerly preserved at -University College, Oxford, but now in the Bodleian):— - - “If any one seeks the Hospital of St. Mary, at Chichester, let the - Warden examine whether he is in sound or in infirm health. If in - sound health, whether male or female, let the [p128] Warden consider - whether he is a person of good conversation, of honest life and - character, likely to be useful to the House, whether in serving or - labouring for the poor. If he should be found such, the Warden shall - first point out to him the poverty of the House, the poorness of the - food, the gravity of the obedience, and the heavy duties, which may - possibly deter him and induce him to recall his purpose. But if he - perseveres in knocking, then with the counsel of the Lord Dean and - the brethren of the House, he may be received in the name of the - Lord, without the intervention of any money or any compact, unless - he has any property of his own and is disposed to resign it into - the hands of the Warden. But if the character of the man who seeks - admission be insufficient he must be repelled entirely.”[84] - -A brother or sister being admitted to St. John Baptist’s, Reading, was -professed in the adjoining church. _Veni Creator_ and certain prayers -were said as the candidate knelt before the altar; after the sprinkling -with holy water he or she then received the habit or veil, a kiss -of charity being bestowed by the rest of the household. A discourse -followed upon the rules and benefits of the society. The Office for the -admission of members to the staff of St. John’s, Nottingham, is given -in the _Records of the Borough_. One prayer, at the benediction of the -religious habit, shows the spirit in which hospital officials were -expected to enter upon their duties:— - - “O Lord Jesus Christ, who didst deign to put on the covering of our - mortality, we beseech the immense abundance of Thy goodness, that - Thou mayst so deign to bless this kind of vestment, which the holy - fathers have decreed should be borne by those who renounce the world, - as a token of innocence and humility, that this Thy servant, who - shall [use it], may deserve to put on Thee,” etc. [p129] - -[Illustration: _PLATE XV._ HOSPITAL OF ST. NICHOLAS, SALISBURY - -(_a_) SOUTH-EAST VIEW. (_b_) WEST VIEW] - -As the brother changed his dress, the Scripture was repeated concerning -putting off the old man and putting on the new in righteousness. The -versicles “Our help is in the name of the Lord,” “Save Thy servant,” -etc., were also used, together with prayers for the Gift, for increase -of virtue, for light and life. - - -(_b_) Almsmen, too, were usually admitted by a solemn oath. That taken -at Oakham is typical:— - - “I.—— the which am named into a poor man to be resceyued into this - Hospital after the forme of the Statutes and ordanacions ordeyned - . . . shall trewly fulfille and obserue all the Statutes . . . in - as moche as yey longen or touchen me to my pour fro hensuorthwardys - . . . without ony fraude soe helpe me God and my Holydom and by these - holy Euangelies the whiche y touche and ley my honde upon.” - -At Sandwich, after being sworn in, the person was introduced by the -mayor to the rest of the fraternity, and was saluted by them all; -and after paying the customary gratuities, the new inmate was put in -possession of his chamber. - -The ancient form of admission to St. Nicholas’, Salisbury, contains -such injunctions as:— - - “N. thu shalt be trewe and obedient to the maistre of this place. - - “Item, thu shalt kepe pees yn thy self, and do thy deuoyrs that euery - brother and sustre be in parfyte pees, loue and charite, eche with - othre.” - -Few foundations have retained their religious and social life with -less change than this hospital, of which Canon Wordsworth has given -us a complete history. Following the old traditions, the present -inmates give a new member the right hand of fellowship when he is duly -installed. [p130] - - -(_c_) Lepers, like other paupers, were admitted either at the patron’s -will or at the warden’s discretion. The custody of the Crown hospital -at Lincoln was at one time committed to the sheriffs, who were -charged to notify a vacancy to the king or his chancellor “so that -he might cause a leper to be instituted in place of the deceased, in -accordance with the ancient constitution.” Later it was stated that -they were admitted of the king’s gift, or by the presentation of the -mayor. In some instances the right of nomination was held jointly. -There were eight beds in the Hexham Spital, four being open to poor -leper-husbandmen born within the Liberty, whilst the archbishop and -prior might each appoint two tenants. - -A patron or donor often kept the nomination to one bed or more. Thus -the founder of St. Sepulchre’s lazar-house, Hedon, reserved the right -to present one man or woman, whole or infirm; he even made prudent -provision to sustain any afflicted object allied to the patron within -the fourth degree of blood. As early as 1180, a subscriber to St. -Nicholas’, Carlisle, stipulated that two lepers from Bampton should -be received. According to some statutes the candidate had also to be -approved by his future companions; “without the consent and will” of -the Colchester lepers, no brother could gain entrance, and the same -rule obtained at Dover. The little Sudbury hospital maintained three -lepers; when one died or resigned, his comrades chose a third; if they -disagreed, the mayor was informed, and the selection devolved upon the -vicar. An examination by the warden into the candidate’s condition -and circumstances was sometimes ordered, as at Dover. At Harbledown -sufficient knowledge of the simple formulas of the faith was required. -[p131] - -To enter a leper-hospital in early days practically involved the -life of a “religious,” especially in hospitals attached to monastic -houses. The vow of an in-coming brother at St. Julian’s is given in the -Appendix to Matthew Paris:— - - “I, brother B., promise, and, taking my bodily oath by touching - the most sacred Gospel, affirm before God and all His saints . . . - that all the days of my life I will be subservient and obedient to - the commands of the Lord Abbot of St. Albans and to his archdeacon; - resisting them in nothing, unless such things should be commanded, - as would militate against the Divine pleasure. I will never commit - theft, nor bring a false accusation against any one of the brethren, - nor infringe the vow of chastity.” - -He goes on to promise that he will not hold or bequeath anything -without leave; he will be content with the food, and keep the rules on -pain of punishment, or even expulsion. The oath at St. Bartholomew’s, -Dover, is found in the register:— - - “I,——, do promise before God and St. Bartholomew and all saints, - that to the best of my power I will be faithful and useful to the - hospital, . . . to be obedient to my superior and have love to - my brethren and sisters. I will be sober and chaste of body; and - a moiety of the goods I shall die possessed of, shall belong to - the house. I will pray for the peace of the church and realm of - England, and for the king and queen, and for the prior and convent - of St. Martin, and for the burgesses of Dover on sea and land, and - especially for all our benefactors, living and dead.” - -After making this vow, the brother was sprinkled with holy water and -led to the altar, where he received the warden’s blessing on bended -knees. The form of general benediction was prescribed (with special -collects if the [p132] candidate were a virgin or a widow), and a -prayer was said at the consecration of the habit.[85] - - -2. REGULATIONS - -The general rule of poverty, chastity and obedience was supplemented by -detailed statutes. - - -(a) _Rules concerning Payment and Property._—There are some instances -of compulsory payment by statute. If the candidate at Dover satisfied -the warden’s inquiries, he might be received into the community after -paying 100 shillings, or more if he could. Even then gratuities were -expected; half a mark was offered to the warden and half a mark -distributed among the brethren and sisters. The entrance fee sounds -prohibitive, but the _Liber Albus_ records a similar custom in London -under the title _Breve de C solidis levandis de tenemento Leprosorum_. -This edict authorized the levying of 100_s._ from lepers’ property to -be delivered to their officers for their sustenance. - -Sometimes hospital statutes provided against this practice. Thus the -chancellor’s ordinances for St. Nicholas’, York (1303), forbade the -admission of any one by custom or by an agreement for money or goods, -but without fear of simony the property of an in-coming brother might -be received if given spontaneously and absolutely. The statutes are of -special interest because evidently framed to reform abuses recently -exposed; and the details of the cross-questioning by the jury and the -replies of witnesses in that visitation are recorded. We learn, for -example, that most of the inmates had been received for money “each for -himself 20 marks more or less”; one, indeed, [p133] with the consent -of the community, paid 23 marks (£15. 6_s._ 8_d._), a considerable -sum in those days. Under special circumstances the patron sometimes -countenanced a bargain. Thus when a healthy candidate for admission to -St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, promised repairs to the chapel, the timber -of which was decayed, he was received contrary to rules by the king’s -express permission (1321). - -The question of the property of the warden, officials and inmates now -comes before us. The staff were frequently under the three-fold vow -which included poverty. The rule at St. John’s, Nottingham, was as -follows:— - - “And no one shall be a proprietor, but if any one have any property, - he shall resign it to the warden or master before seven days . . . - otherwise he shall be excommunicated. . . . But if it shall be found - that any one has died with property, his body shall be cast out from - Christian burial, and shall be buried elsewhere, his property being - thrown upon him by the brethren, saying, ‘Thy money perish with - thee.’” - -The same enactment is found at St. Mary’s, Chichester, unless, indeed, -the offender make a death-bed confession. But poor people sojourning -there retained their possessions, and could dispose of them by will:— - - “If he has anything of his own let the warden take charge of it and - of his clothes, until he is restored to health; then let them be - given to him without diminution, and let him depart, unless, of his - own accord, he offer the whole, or part, to the house. If he die, - let his goods be distributed as he hath disposed of them. If he die - intestate, let his property be kept for a year, so that if any friend - of the deceased shall come and prove that he has a claim upon it, - justice may not be denied to him. If no one claim within the year, - let it be merged into the property of the hospital.” [p134] -A total renunciation of personal goods was required of the inmates of -leper-hospitals in early days. Alms received by the wayside went into -the common chest, as did money found within the enclosure; if picked up -outside, the finder might keep it. The lepers of St. Julian’s might not -appropriate or bequeath anything without the consent of the community. -A singular article in the oath of admission was this:—“I will make it -my study wholly to avoid all kinds of usury, as a monstrous thing, and -hateful to God.” In the Dover statutes trading and usury were strictly -forbidden. - -The leper’s clothing and furniture were all that he could call his own. -In the disposal of such meagre personal effects, a precedent was found -in the _heriot_—the best chattel of a deceased man due to the feudal -lord. An ancient French deed relating to St. Margaret’s, Gloucester, -ordains that “when a brother or sister is dead, the best cloth that -he hath the parson shall have in right of heriot.” At Lynn, the bed -in which he died, and his chest, if he had one, were appropriated by -the hospital, as well as his best robe and hood. These rules indicate -that the leper furnished his own apartment. The Office at seclusion -enumerates the clothing, furniture and other articles necessary. -(_Appendix A._) - -One of the questions asked by the official visitor of St. Mary -Magdalene’s, Winchester, was whether the goods of deceased inmates -went to the works of the church after the settlement of debts. In some -hospitals, the rule of poverty was not held, or it was relaxed as -time went on. By the will of William Manning, _lazer_, of the house -of Monkbridge, York (1428), he requests that half a pound of wax be -burnt over his coffin; he leaves 6_d._ to the [p135] works going on -at the Minster, 6_d._ to the Knaresburgh monks, and the residue to his -wife. In the old Scottish version of Troylus and Cresseid, the latter -makes her testament before dying in the spital-house. She had lived in -poverty, but a purse of gold had lately been thrown to her in alms. Her -cup and clapper and her ornament and all her gold the leper folk should -have, when she was dead, if they would bury her. The ruby ring, given -her long ago by her lover, was to be carried back to him by one of her -companions. - -Pensioners of the better class were expected to provide all necessary -articles, and to contribute what they could to the funds. Money -acquired during residence was divided, a portion being retained by the -individual; at his death, either half his goods or the whole belonged -to the community. The Heytesbury statutes directed:— - - “that euery poreman in his first Admyssion all such moueable goodes - as he hath, pottis, pannys, pewter vessel, beddyng, and other - necessaries, if he haue eny such thynges, to bryng hit within into - the hous. And if he haue eny quycke catell, that hit be made monay - of. And halfe the saide monay to be conuerted to y^e use of y^e hous, - and y^e other halfe to y^e poreman to haue to his own propre use.” - -The goods of a deceased member were distributed to those who should -“happe to overlyve,” whether “gownes, hodys, cotys, skertys, hosyn or -shone.” It was ordained at Higham Ferrers that when an almsman died, -his goods were taken into the storehouse, and either dealt out to the -other poor men, or sold to a new inmate for the benefit of the rest. - - -(b) _Rules of Conduct._—Social intercourse within the house and with -the outside world was clearly defined. Among [p136] habited brethren -and sisters, the sexes were rigidly separated, excepting at worship or -work. In the case of inmates who were not professed, men and women seem -to have lived a common life, meeting in refectory, day room, etc. - -As to the intercourse of lepers with the outside world, there was a -curious admixture of strictness and laxity. The ordinances of early -lazar-houses show that the theory of contagion had little place in -their economy. They recognized that the untainted need not be harmed -by slight communication with the infected. When visitors came from a -distance to Sherburn they were permitted to stay overnight. The lepers -of St. Julian’s were allowed to see friends—“if an honest man and true -come there, for the purpose of visiting an infirm brother, let him -have access to him, that they may mutually discourse on that which -is meet”—but no woman was admitted except a mother, sister or other -honest matron. The general public was protected, inmates not being -permitted to frequent the high-road or speak to passers-by (1344). At -the time of seclusion, the leper was forbidden henceforth to enter -church, market or tavern. At St. Julian’s, the mill and bakehouse were -likewise forbidden. The statutes of Lynn required that the infirm -should not enter the quire, cellar, kitchen or precincts, but keep the -places assigned in church, hall and court. So long as they did not eat -or drink outside their own walls, lepers might roam within a defined -area. The Reading lepers might never go out without a companion. At -Harbledown they might not wander without permission, which was granted -for useful business, moderate recreation, and in the event of the -grievous sickness or death of parents and friends. [p137] - -Such rules were more a matter of discipline than of public health. -It was not merely lepers who were required to keep within bounds, -for ordinary almsmen had similar restrictions. At Croydon they were -forbidden to walk or gaze in the streets, nor might they go out of -sight of home, excepting to church. - -The rules of St. Katherine’s, Rochester, were drawn up by the innkeeper -Symond Potyn. He stipulates that if the almsmen buy ale, it shall be -consumed at home:— - - “also that none of them haunt the tauerne to go to ale, but when - theie have talent or desier to drynke, theire shall bye theare - drynke, and bringe yt to the spitell; - - “also that none of them be debator, baretor, dronkelew, nor rybawde - of his tounge.”[86] - -If any thus offend, the prior with twain good men of Eastgate shall go -to the Vicar of St. Nicholas’ and the founder’s heirs, who “shall put -them oute of the same spittle for euermore, withoute anie thing takinge -with them but theare clothinge and their bedde.” - - -(c) _Supervision._—In ecclesiastical hospitals, the approved method of -maintaining order was by weekly chapter, at which correction was to be -justly administered without severity or favour. The injunctions at St. -John’s, Nottingham, were as follows:— - - “They shall meet at least once in each week in chapter, and excesses - shall be there regularly proclaimed and corrected by warden or - master; and the chapter shall be held without talking or noise, and - those who have transgressed shall humbly and obediently undergo - canonical discipline.” [p138] -At stated periods of a month or a quarter, the statutes were openly -recited, usually in the vulgar tongue. After the revision of the -ordinance of St. Nicholas’, York, it was ordered that the keepers -should read the articles aloud in their church on the eve of St. -Nicholas. - -Internal authority was vested in the warden, whose power was sometimes -absolute; but in the case of hospitals dependent upon a religious -house, grave offences were taken to head-quarters. For external -supervision, the hospital was dependent upon the patron or his agents, -who were supposed to inspect the premises, accounts, etc., yearly. -This civil visitation was frequently neglected, especially that of the -chancellor on behalf of the Crown. Abuses were apt to accumulate until -a royal commission of inquiry and reformation became obligatory. Where -an institution was under the commonalty, their representatives acted -as visitors. At Bridport (1265), the town administered the endowment -of the manorial lord; the provosts conducted a yearly investigation -whether the brethren and lepers were well treated and the chaplains -lived honestly. In London, there were officials who daily inspected the -lazar-houses; these “overseers” and “foremen” seem to have been busy -citizens who undertook this work on behalf of the corporation (1389). -As late as 1536 a gentleman was appointed to the office of visitor of -“the spyttel-howses or lazar cotes about thys Citye.” - - -3. PENALTIES - -The punishments inflicted by the warden were chiefly flogging, fasting -and fines, but he could also resort to the stocks, suspension and -expulsion. The regulations of [p139] St. Mary’s, Chichester, show the -discipline suggested for offenders:— - - “If a brother shall have a quarrel with a brother with noise and - riot, then let him fast for seven days, on Wednesdays and Fridays, - on bread and water, and sit at the bottom of the table and without a - napkin. . . . If a brother shall be found to have money or property - concealed from the warden, let the money be hung round his neck, and - let him be well flogged, and do penance for thirty days, as before.” - -The rules were particularly rigorous in lazar-houses. Among the lepers -of Reading, if a brother committed an offence, he was obliged to sit -during meals in the middle of the hall, fasting on bread and water, -while his portion of meat and ale was distributed before his eyes. -The penalties to which Exeter lazars were liable were fasting and the -stocks. Punishment lasted one day for transgressing the bounds, picking -or stealing; three days for absence from chapel, malice, or abusing a -brother; twelve days for reviling the master; thirty days for violence. -At Sherburn the prior did not spare the rod. “After the manner of -schoolboys” chastisement was to be meted out to transgressors, and -the lazy and negligent awakened. “But if any shall be found to be -disobedient and refractory, and is unwilling to be corrected with the -rod, let him be deprived of food, as far as bread and water only.” -Equally severe was the punishment at Harbledown for careless omission -of appointed prayers. Delinquents made public confession the following -Friday, and received castigation. “Let them undergo sound discipline, -the brethren at the hands of the prior, and the sisters from the -prioress.” The following day the omitted devotions were to be repeated -twice. [p140] - -In the case of almsmen of a later period corporal punishment was never -practised. If a poor pensioner at Heytesbury, after instruction, -could not repeat his prayers properly, he must be put to “a certayne -bodely payne, that is to say of fastyng or a like payne.” In most -fifteenth-century almshouses, however, the inmates were no longer -boarded, but received pocket-money, which was liable to forfeiture. An -elaborate system of fines was worked out in the statutes of Ewelme. -The master himself was fined for any fault “after the quality and -quantitye of his crime.” The fines were inflicted not only upon those -who were rebellious, or neglected to clean up the courtyard and weed -their gardens, but also upon those who arrived in church without their -tabards, or were unpunctual:— - - “And if it so be that any of theym be so negligent and slewthfull - that the fyrst psalme of matyns be begon or he come into his stall - that than he lese i_d._, and yf any of thayme be absent to the - begynnyng of the fyrst lesson that thanne he lese ii_d._; And for - absence fro prime, terce, sext and neynth, for ich of thayme i_d._ - Also if any . . . be absent from the masse to the begynnyng of the - pistyll . . . i_d._, and yf absent to the gospell . . . ii_d._” etc. - -Industry, punctuality and regularity became necessary virtues, since -the usual allowance was but 14_d._ weekly. - -The rules of the contemporary almshouse at Croydon were stringent. -After being twice fined, the poor man at his third offence was to be -utterly put away as “incorrectable and intolerable.” When convicted -of soliciting alms, no second chance was given:—“if man or woman -begge or aske any silver, or else any other good . . . let him be -[p141] expellid and put oute at the first warnyng, and never be of the -fellowship.” - -Expulsion was usually reserved for incorrigible persons. “Brethren -and sisters who are chatterboxes, contentious or quarrelsome,” sowers -of discord or insubordinate, were ejected at the third or fourth -offence. Summary expulsion was the punishment for gross crimes. The -town authorities of Beverley discharged an inmate of Holy Trinity for -immorality. The ceremony which preceded the expulsion of an Ilford -leper is described by a writer who obtained his information from the -leger-book of Barking Abbey:— - - “The abbesse, beinge accompanyed with the bushop of London, the - abbot of Stratford, the deane of Paule’s, and other great spyrytuall - personnes, went to Ilforde to visit the hospytall theere, founded for - leepers; and uppon occacion of one of the lepers, who was a brother - of the house, having brought into his chamber a drab, and sayd she - was his sister. . . . He came attyred in his lyvery, but bare-footed - and bare-headed . . . and was set on his knees uppon the stayres - benethe the altar, where he remained during all the time of mass. - When mass was ended, the prieste disgraded him of orders, scraped - his hands and his crown with a knife, took his booke from him, gave - him a boxe on the chiek with the end of his fingers, and then thrust - him out of the churche, where the officers and people receyved him, - and putt him into a carte, cryinge, _Ha rou, Ha rou, Ha rou_, after - him.”[87] - -This public humiliation, violence and noise, although doubtless -salutary, are a contrast to the statute at Chichester, where pity and -firmness are mingled:— - - “If a brother, under the instigation of the devil, fall into - immorality, out of which scandal arises, or if he be disobedient - [p142] to the Superior, or if he strike or wound the brethren or - clients . . . then, if he prove incorrigible, he must be punished - severely, and removed from the society like a diseased sheep, lest - he contaminate the rest. But let this be done not with cruelty and - tempest of words, but with gentleness and compassion.” - -[Illustration: _PLATE XVI._ - -THE WARDEN’S HOUSE, SHERBURN - -HOSPITAL OF ST. GILES, KEPIER] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[84] Sussex Arch. Coll., 24, pp. 41–62. - -[85] _Lieger Book_, Bodl. Rawl. MS. B. 335. - -[86] Hist. of Rochester, ed. 1817, p. 215. - -[87] Hearne, _Curious Discourses_, ed. 1775, i. 249. - - - - -[p143] - -CHAPTER X - -THE HOUSEHOLD AND ITS MEMBERS - - - “_No more brethren or sisters shall be admitted than are necessary to - serve the infirm and to keep the goods of the house._” (St. John’s, - Nottingham.) - -The hospital family varied widely in size and in the arrangement of its -component parts, but this chapter, like the preceding, is concerned -chiefly with the type of institution which had a definite organization. -The establishments for infected persons will first be considered. - - -(i) THE LEPER HOUSEHOLD - - -(a) _The Master._—“The guidance of souls is the art of arts,” says -St. Gregory: particularly difficult is the guidance of souls in -ailing bodies. Lanfranc realized that men of special gifts should be -selected for the care of his Harbledown lepers. He not only arranged to -supply all they might need on account of the nature of their illness, -but appointed men to fulfil this work “of whose skill, gentleness -and patience no one could have any doubt.” The Oxford statutes -ordained that the master be “a compassionate priest of good life and -conversation, who shall reside personally and shall celebrate mass -daily, humbly and devoutly.” He was required to visit the infirm, to -console them as far as possible, and confer upon them the Sacraments -of the Church.[88] The priest [p144] serving lepers was permitted to -dispense rites which did not pertain to other unbeneficed clergy; thus -the Bishop of London commanded the lepers’ chaplain at Ilford to hear -their confessions, to absolve the contrite, to administer the Eucharist -and Extreme Unction. The ideal man to fill the unpleasant post of -lepers’ guardian as pictured in foundation deeds and statutes was hard -to find: men of the type of St. Hugh and Father Damien—separated indeed -by seven centuries, but alike in devotion—are rare. Two Archbishops of -Canterbury witness to the scarcity in a deed referring to Harbledown -(1371, 1402). After stating that clergy are required to celebrate the -divine offices in St. Nicholas’ Church, the document declares:— - - “It may be at present, and very likely will be in future, difficult - to find suitable stipendiary priests who shall be willing to have - intercourse in this way with the poor people, especially as some of - these poor are infected with leprosy; and this hospital was founded - especially for sick persons of this sort.” - -The master might himself be a leper. An inquisition of 1223 showed -that at St. Leonard’s, Lancaster, it had formerly been customary for -the brethren to elect one of the lepers as master.[89] In 1342 the -prior of St. Bartholomew’s, Rochester, was a leper. The regulations -at Ilford provided for a leper-master and secular master, but those -of Dover merely said that the master may be a leper. Although the law -offered privileges to communities governed by a leper-warden (see p. -196), it does not appear to have been a common custom to appoint one. -In hospitals dependent upon a monastery, some monk was selected to -superintend the lazar-house. - - -(b) _The Staff._—It has been said that leper-hospitals [p145] were -“heavily staffed with ecclesiastics.” There were indeed three at -Lincoln, Ilford and Bolton to minister to ten or twelve men, but they -conducted the temporal as well as spiritual affairs of the society. At -Bolton, for example, the priests had to administer the manor which was -held by the hospital. It was more usual to have only one chaplain in a -household of thirteen. This was a favourite number, the figure being -regarded with reverence as suggestive of the sacred band of Christ and -His Apostles: “for thirteen is a convent as I guess,” writes Chaucer. -There were to be at Sherburn “five convents of lepers, that is of the -number of sixty-five at the least”; five priests ministered to them, of -whom one acted as confessor, and used also to visit the bedridden and -read the Gospel of the day to them. - -The collection of alms also fell upon the staff, for as it was said at -Bridport “lepers cannot ask and gather for themselves.” The procurator -or proctor therefore transacted their business. It was ordained at -St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, that the clerk serving in the chapel -should collect alms and rents and act as proctor. The staff sometimes -included other untainted persons. Two healthy brethren at this Oxford -leper-house were to be skilled agricultural labourers, able also to -make enclosures and cover houses. - - -(c) _Attendants._—Domestic and farm service was also done by paid -attendants. There were female-servants in the Sherburn leper-house, -who undertook laundry and other work, and one old woman cared for the -bedridden. - - -(d) _Leper Inmates._—Among the larger asylums, the approximate -accommodation was as follows:—Harbledown 100, Sherburn 65, St. Giles’, -London 40, St. Nicholas’, [p146] York 40, Thanington near Canterbury -25, Dover 20, Plymouth 20, Bodmin 19, Winchester 18. There were 13 beds -at Carlisle, Exeter, Gloucester, Reading, etc. In some towns there were -several small hospitals. Numbers were of course liable to fluctuation, -and often apply to a company of infected and healthy persons, as at St. -Nicholas’, York. “They used to have, and ought to have, forty brethren -and sisters, as well lepers as others; now they have thirty-two only.” -(1285.) By an inquisition taken in 1291, it was reported that a former -master had admitted thirty-six, of whom four were received _pro Deo_ -because they were lepers, but the rest for money. The king commanded -that henceforth none should be received without special mandate, -inasmuch as the funds scarcely sufficed for the multitude already -maintained. The same abuse is noticeable a century earlier, for in -1164 Pope Alexander III forbade the patrons of St. James’, Thanington, -to admit into the sisterhood any who were not infected, for healthy -women had been importunately begging admission.[90] It was complained -in 1321, that St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, was occupied by healthy and -sturdy men; and that at St. Leonard’s, Lancaster, there were six whole -and three lepers (1323). Both were originally intended solely for the -diseased, the inmates of St. Leonard’s being called by Henry III “our -lepers of Lancaster.” - -It has been represented, as a proof that isolation was non-existent, -that lepers and untainted persons lived a common life, eating and -sleeping together. This was evidently not the case. The sheriff of -Lincoln received orders that at Holy Innocents’ “the chaplains and -brethren are to reside in one house, the lepers by [p147] themselves -and the sisters by themselves.”[91] The statutes at Ilford and Dover -give similar directions. The priests at Sherburn slept apart in a -chamber adjoining the church, but the Harbledown staff lacked such -accommodation until in 1371 it was ordained that they should henceforth -dwell in a clergy-house—“a home separate from the sick persons and near -to them.” - -[Illustration: 24. SEAL OF THE LEPER-WOMEN OF WESTMINSTER] - -When both sexes were admitted, they lived apart, a woman with the title -of prioress being selected to rule the female community. Some houses -were set apart for women, e.g. Alkmonton, Thanington, Bristol (St. -Mary Magdalene), Newbury (St. Mary Magdalene), Bury (St. Petronilla), -Woodstock, Clattercot, Hungerford, Arundel, Westminster, whilst one -left behind it the name of “Maiden” Bradley. It sometimes happened -that a married couple contracted the disease. A clerk smitten with -leprosy and his wife with the same infirmity were seeking admission -to St. Margaret’s, Huntingdon, in 1327. By the Ilford statutes, no -married man was admitted unless his wife also vowed chastity. On no -account was a married person received at Dover without the consent of -the party remaining _in seculo_, and then only upon similar conditions. -In this connection a passing reference may be made to the marriage -laws. Although by the laws of the Franks leprosy was a valid reason for -[p148] divorce, later Norman laws considered separation unjustifiable; -this latter was the attitude of the Church, which is given fully in -the Appendix to the Lateran Council of 1179.[92] Yet the pathos of the -leper’s lot is suggested by the declaration of Amicia, a woman of Kent -in 1254—that in truth at one time she had a certain Robert for husband, -but that now he had long been a leper and betook himself to a certain -religious house, to wit, the leper-hospital at Romney.[93] - -For many reasons the leper-household was most difficult to control: -it is small wonder that abuses crept in. Men forcibly banished were -naturally loth to submit to rigorous discipline. They were persons -who would never have dreamed of the religious life save by pressure -of circumstances; moreover, the nature of their infirmity caused them -to suffer from bodily lassitude, irritability and a mental depression -bordering upon insanity; in the life of St. Francis is a description -of his ministry to a leper so froward, impious, abusive and ungrateful -that every one thought him possessed by an evil spirit. London lepers -were evidently not less refractory. From early days the city selected -two men as keepers and overseers at St. Giles’, the Loke and Hackney; -these officials, who were accustomed to visit the lazar-houses daily -and to chastise offenders, were granted exemption from inquests, -summonses, etc., on account of this “their meritorious labour, their -unpleasant and onerous occupation.” (1389.) The London edict of 1346 -confirms the undoubted fact that lepers are specially tempted to a -loose life. Banished from the restraining influences of home and public -opinion, they [p149] were found in haunts of vice. The master of the -lazar-house had no means of enforcing control. If the leper escaped -and fell into evil habits none could prevent it: indeed, this did but -ensure the liberty he craved, for the ultimate punishment of inmates -was expulsion. - - -(ii) THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE INFIRMARY AND ALMSHOUSE - - -(a) _The Master_ or Warden, who was also known as prior, _custos_, -keeper or rector, was usually a priest, but occasionally a layman. One -of the early masters of St. Mark’s, Bristol, was a knight, Henry de -Gaunt, whose mailed effigy remains in the chapel. Crown hospitals were -often served by chaplains and clerks, but the appointment of “king’s -servants,” yeomen or knights, is noticeable during the fourteenth -century. - -It is rarely recorded that the custodian of the sick was a physician, -but the absence of the title _medicus_ in no way proves that he and his -helpers were ignorant of medicine. In early days, indeed, it was only -the clergy, religious or secular, who were trained in the faculty, and -the master and his assistants must have acquired a certain intimacy -with disease; they would have a knowledge of the herbals, of the system -of letting blood, and other simple remedies. An important medical work, -_Breviarium Bartholomæi_, was written late in the fourteenth century by -John Mirfield of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield. He acknowledges that -it is a compilation for the benefit of those who could not afford to -buy the treatises whence it was derived; but he adds that part had been -personally communicated to him and was supported by the experience of -others. The fine manuscript copy in Pembroke [p150] College, Oxford, -includes a list of medical ingredients, herbs, etc.[94] - -In some instances the warden _is_ described as a physician. When the -chaplain of St. John’s, Bridport, was incapacitated, Master John de -Brideport, physician, was deputed to act for him (1265). The Duke of -Lancaster presented his foreign doctor, Pascal de Bononja, to the -Preston hospital (1355). “Louis the physician,” who held St. Nicholas’, -Pontefract (1399–1401), may be identified with Louis Recouchez, king’s -physician, who was then appointed to the hospital at Westminster. It is -possible that visiting doctors and barber-surgeons attended hospitals. -In an inventory of Elsyng Spital a debt of xxxvij_s._ ij_d._ was due -to Robert the leech, and of x_s._ to Geoffrey the barber. One of the -inquiries at the Dissolution of religious houses was:—“Whether the -maister of the house doo use his brethren charitably when they be syke -and diseased; and whether, in tyme of their sykenes, he doo procure -unto them physicions.” - -The duties—and temptations—of a warden are suggested by the “Articles -of Inquisition touching the Savoy” (1535). Not only was inquiry made -whether the master visited the poor at least twice a week, and the sick -twice daily, but also:— - - “Whether he be mercifull, beningne and louyng to the poore; and not - skoymys [squeamish] or lothesome to uisite theym or to be among theym. - - “Whether he or his ministers by his sufferance do take in suche as - they reken moste clene of the poore, and repell theym that they reken - most sore or deseased, for auoydyng of their owne lothesomenes or - contagion.” [p151] - -[Illustration: _PLATE XVII._ GOD’S HOUSE, EWELME] - -The qualifications and duties of the head of an almshouse are defined -in the minute regulations of fifteenth-century founders. The master -of Ewelme must be an able and well-disposed person in body and soul, -one who could counsel and exhort the poor men to their comfort and -salvation. He had to conduct frequent services, and was warned to omit -none—not even “for plesaunce of lorde or lady”—save “if he be let by -sekenesse or prechyng of the worde of God, or by visitacion of Fadyre -and modir.” The master of God’s House, Exeter, might not be absent -more than once or twice a year, his recess never exceeding three weeks -and three days. At Wells, a chaplain of commendable life, manners -and learning was sought—one “circumspect and expert in spiritual and -temporal things, and free from all infamous vice.” The ale-house -and hunting were forbidden to the warden of Heytesbury, as well as -“inhonest playes, as of the Dees, cartes or of the hande-ball.” He must -never be absent at night, nor for long by day, although it was lawful -for recreation to walk a mile or two at certain times. He had, indeed, -little leisure, for he conducted certain services both in the chapel -and parish church, and kept school, besides ruling the almshouse. - -The model master did not exist only in the imagination of founders, -although he occurred rarely. Among good men who are not forgotten where -they fulfilled their duty, mention must be made of John de Campeden, -warden and benefactor of St. Cross. His friend William of Wykeham -placed him in charge of that despoiled and dilapidated institution. He -ruled wisely and spent large sums upon restoration. After a faithful -stewardship of twenty-eight years, his death occurred in 1410. His -memorial brass [p152] retains its place before the altar. The brasses -of several wardens are also preserved at Greatham. - - -(b) _The Staff: Brethren and Sisters._—These offices became in some -cases mere honorary posts; there was no salary attached to them, but -officials were supplied with food and clothing. The sisterships at St. -Katharine’s-near-the-Tower used to be given by the queen to her ladies. -Of the eight sisters at St. Leonard’s, York, some were workers (see -p. 154), but others lived apart from the rest in a place built for -them near the hospital, and were mere pensioners enjoying provision of -food, clothing, fuel and bedding. Unprotected women were often glad -to relinquish some little property by arrangement, and be settled for -life. “Brothers” might be priests, monks or lay-brethren. The staff -of St. John’s, Oxford, consisted of three Augustinian chaplains—one -being elected master—with six lay-brethren and six sisters. At Lechlade -two brothers distinguished for kindness and courtesy were selected to -exercise hospitality with charity and cheerfulness, and to watch over -the sick.[95] Of thirteen brethren at Kepier, six were chaplains, and -the rest acted as steward, keeper of the tannery, miller, etc. The -brethren of St. John’s, Ely, were forbidden to play with dice, or to be -present at such play, but were to give themselves to contemplation and -study of Scripture, one or two being deputed to wait upon the infirm. -Each lettered brother of St. Leonard’s, York, was directed to study at -his desk in the cloister two or three times a day. - -The “proctor” was the financial agent of the community. He held -an important post, and had occasionally an official seal. It was -sometimes his duty to deliver a [p153] charity-sermon—“to preach and -to collect alms.” When the traffic in indulgences began, the proctor -became a “pardoner.” (See p. 189.) Spurious agents abounded, for the -post was lucrative. A man was arrested as feigning himself proctor of -St. Thomas’, Canterbury; another was convicted of receiving money, -beasts, legacies and goods ostensibly for that house.[96] The collector -received gifts in kind, and the following appeal was put forward by -St. John’s, Canterbury:—“if any one wishes to give . . . ring, brooch, -gold, silver, cows, heifer, sheep, lamb or calf, let him send and -deliver it to our proctor.” Sister Mariana Swetman was licensed to -collect alms on behalf of that hospital (1465), an interesting instance -of a woman virtually holding the office of proctor. - -Ministering women have long laboured in our infirmaries for the -benefit of the sick, carrying on their works of mercy side by side -with men. “The lay sisters shall observe what we have above ordained -to be observed by the brethren, as far as befits their sex,” decreed -Archbishop Gray for St. John’s, Nottingham (1241). One of the men, -corresponding to the monastic _infirmarer_, was responsible for -the sick ward; thus a brother of Northallerton held the office of -_procurator infirmorum in lectulis_, whilst two sisters watched by the -sick, especially at night, and a third attended to household affairs. -At Bridgwater, women “not of gentle birth but still fit for the -purpose” assisted in nursing; they lodged in a chamber adjoining the -infirmary and were to be always careful and ready both by night [p154] -and day to help the sick and to minister to them in all things. - -The work of women among the sick developed further during the fifteenth -century; they evidently took a prominent part in the management of -the larger infirmaries. A lady, corresponding perhaps to the matron -of to-day, was in authority at York. By a will of 1416, money was -bequeathed for distribution among the helpers and inmates of St. -Leonard’s at the discretion of Alice _materfamilias_. Long before -(1276) the officers had included not only a brother called Gamel -_de Firmaria_, but a sister named Ann _medica_;[97] and in 1385 the -principal sister was known as Matilda _la hus-wyf_.[98] In some -institutions there were already distinct ranks among nursing women. The -pious poet Gower remembers in his will (1408) the staff and patients of -four London hospitals; he leaves sums of money not only to the master -and priests of St. Thomas’, Southwark, but “to every sister professed” -and “to each of them who is a nurse of the sick.” - -Woman’s sphere in hospital life was confined to work by the bedside and -domestic duties. Occasionally they were found to undertake what was not -fitting. The prior of Christchurch, Canterbury, made a visitation of -the daughter-hospital of St. James, Thanington, after which he issued a -deed of reformation (1414). A curious clause occurs in these statutes:— - - “We command that no one of the sisters . . . or any other woman - soever while divine service is being celebrated in the chapel should - stand or sit in any way round or near the altars or should presume to - serve the priests celebrating the [p155] divine offices or saying the - canonical hours, since, according to the first foundation of the said - hospital its chaplains or priests ought to have a clerk who ought to - officiate in the aforesaid matters.” - -In addition to regular brethren and sisters, there were -under-officials. The staff of the larger institutions included clerks -in minor orders, who assisted in worship and work. In almshouses where -there was no resident master, a trustworthy inmate held a semi-official -post. Thus at Donnington there were thirteen pensioners, and “one at -their head to be called God’s minister of the poor house.” When the -“tutor” at Croydon went out of doors, he ordained “oon of his fellawes -moost sadde [serious] and wise to occupy his occupacion for him till he -come ageyne.” - - -(c) _Attendants_, etc. Serving men and women were employed to wait -upon the infirm and upon the staff. Lanfranc ordered that the poor of -St. John’s, Canterbury, should have careful servants and guardians, -lest they should need anything. When the poll-tax was levied in Oxford -(1380), there were twelve servants, artisans and farm-labourers working -at St. John’s. In the immense establishment at York there were sixteen -male and female servants, besides a host of other stipendiaries—two -or three cooks, bakers, brewers, smiths and carters, a ferrywoman, -twelve boatmen, etc. Working-class officials called the “man harbenger” -and “woman harbenger” were employed to attend to beggars passing the -night at St. John’s, Sandwich. At the Maison Dieu, Dover, two women -made the beds, served the poor and washed their clothes. The position -of the female attendant in an almshouse is well described by the name -[p156] “sister-huswiff” used at Heytesbury. The ideal woman to hold -the post is pictured in the statutes of Higham Ferrers; of good name -and fame, quiet and honest, no brawler or chider, she should be “glad -to please every poor man to her power.” She had minute directions as to -housekeeping and other duties which would fill the day, and in illness -she must visit the patients at night. The keeper of the five married -couples at Ford’s hospital, Coventry, was required “to see them clean -kept in their persons and houses, and for dressing their meats, washing -of them, and ministering all things necessary to them.” - - -(d) _The Sick and Infirm._—Having described the officials, it will -be well to form some idea of the number of the infirm to whom they -ministered. The largest establishment of this kind was St. Leonard’s, -York; and at Easter 1370, there were 224 sick and poor in the -infirmary, besides 23 children in the orphanage. About the same time -there were 100 brothers and sisters at St. John’s, Canterbury. A large -number of patients were cared for in the London hospitals of St. -Bartholomew, St. Thomas and St. Mary. St. Giles’, Norwich, accommodated -30 poor besides 13 aged chaplains, and 40 persons were maintained -at Greatham. The majority of permanent homes were smaller, thirteen -beds being a usual number. Many hospitals were obliged to reduce the -number of patients as the revenues diminished. In the year 1333, St. -Bartholomew’s, Gloucester, supported 90 sick, lame, halt and blind; but -two centuries later Leland notes that it once maintained 52, but now -only 32. - -Of pilgrim, patient and pensioner, little can be recorded. Temporary -inmates came and went, receiving refreshment and relief according to -their needs. Some of the resident [p157] poor were chronic invalids, -but others were not too infirm to help themselves and assist others. - -The frequent attendance at prayers certainly gave the almsfolk constant -occupation, and they were required to be busy at worship or work. The -poor men of Croydon were charged “to occupy themsilf in praying and in -beding, in hering honest talking, or in labours with there bodies and -hands.” Inmates at Ewelme must be restful and peaceable, attending to -prayer, reading or work; their outdoor employment was to “kepe clene -the closter and the quadrate abowte the welle fro wedis and all odyr -unclennesse.” (Pl. XVII.) It was directed at Higham Ferrers that in -springtime each poor man should help to dig and dress the garden, or if -absent, give the dressers a penny a day. In the same way, at Sandwich, -an inmate’s allowance was stopped if he failed to render such service -as he could. Those brothers at Ewelme who were “holer in body, strenger -and mightier” were commanded to “fauer and soccour and diligently -minister to them that be seke and febill in all behofull tyme. - - - - -[p158] - -CHAPTER XI - -THE CARE OF THE SOUL - - - “_The brothers and sisters must pray continually, or be engaged in - work, that the devil may not find them with nothing to do._” - - (Statutes of St. Mary’s, Chichester.) - -The daily life in a hospital was essentially a religious life. -From warden to pauper, all were expected to pay strict attention -to the faith and give themselves to devotion. “The brethren and -sisters serving God” were fully occupied with prayer and work. “A -representation of a mediæval hospital shows the double hall, the priest -is administering the last rites of the Church to one patient, the -sisters are sewing up the body of another just dead, mass is being sung -at the altar, a visitor is kneeling in prayer.”[99] - - -1. THE SERVICES - -The offices consisted of mass and the canonical hours. All who could -rise attended the chapel on bended knees, the bedridden worshipping -simultaneously. Even sick people could join in the intercessions; thus -the master of St. John Baptist’s, Bath, agreed that the name of a late -canon of Wells should be daily recited before the brethren, sisters and -poor in the infirmary (1259). - -[Illustration: _PLATE XVIII._ ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL, CHICHESTER] - - -(a) _The Staff._—In regular hospitals helpers were directed to keep -the canonical hours unless reasonably hindered, [p159] each being -expected to pray according to his powers and education. The lettered -repeated the _Hours_ and _Psalter_ of the Blessed Virgin, _Placebo_ -and _Dirige_, penitential psalms and litany. Those who did not know -the offices said _Paternoster_, _Ave Maria_, _Gloria Patri_, and -_Credo_. The brethren rose early for mattins; after prime and tierce, -mass was celebrated; sext and none followed. They then gave themselves -to household duties, until the day closed with vespers and compline. -Attendance at the night offices sometimes caused them to fall sick with -the cold, on which account the brethren of St. John’s, Bridgwater, -asked the bishop for relief (1526). Accordingly they were allowed to -hold their first service at 5 a.m. in summer and 6 a.m. in winter, -provided that they first rang a bell to waken travellers, workmen and -others, that they might attend mass and ask God’s blessing before going -about their work.[100] - - -(b) _Lepers._—When a leper was solemnly set apart, he was counselled -to say devoutly every day _Paternoster_, _Ave Maria_, _Credo in Deum_, -_Credo in Spiritum_; he was to say often _Benedicite_ and protect -himself with the sign of the Cross. In most leper-houses inmates were -required to hear mass daily and keep the canonical hours. At Dover, -they were instructed not only to say their two hundred _Paternosters_ -and _Aves_ by day, but as many at night; one brother roused the -slumbering by ringing the dormitory bell, and the prayers were repeated -sitting erect in bed. At St. James’, Chichester, a similar custom was -confirmed in 1408; the first hour after midnight, the brethren (unless -too feeble) had to rise together from their cubicles and say the night -office. The prayers included not only [p160] the Creed, Lord’s Prayer -and Salutation, but intercessions for the Catholic Church, king and -queen and benefactors; if omitted, they must be said next day. Bishop -Stratford of London, in compiling regulations for Ilford (1346) writes:— - - “We also command, that the lepers omit not attendance at their church - . . . unless prevented by grievous bodily infirmity: they are to - preserve silence there, and hear mattins and mass throughout, if they - are able; and whilst there, to be intent on prayer and devotion, as - far as their infirmity permits them.” - -At Sherburn those unfit to leave their beds were to raise themselves at -the sound of the bell and join in worship, or in extreme weakness, to -lie still and pray. - - -(c) _Almsmen._—Inmates of almshouses were frequently under a solemn -vow regarding religious exercises. By the oath upon admission to St. -Bartholomew’s, Sandwich, (Pl. XIX) each individual bound himself to - - “be obedient w^t hooly deuocyon prayyng for the founder of this - place . . . and in especiall I shall be at the bedys [bedes] in the - churche, and at matynys, and atte messe, and euensong and complyne, - as the custome of maner is and usage—so help me God, and all holy - dome, and all seints of heuen.” - -[Illustration: _PLATE XIX._ ST. BARTHOLOMEW’S HOSPITAL, SANDWICH - -(_a_) CHAPEL. (_b_) GATEWAY] - -The offices were sometimes grouped into morning and evening worship. -Potyn directed that his almsmen at Rochester should say at a certain -hour morning and evening “our ladie sawter.” As this Psalter of the -Blessed Virgin was the standard form of worship for the unlettered, -a knowledge of it was required before admission to a hospital. At -Heytesbury, the examination was conducted after entrance:—“and if he -cannot perfitely, we wull that he be charged to cunne [learn] sey -[p161] y^e said Sawter, his Pater Noster, Ave and Credo, as well -as he canne.” The keeper was to teach the ignorant, and if he were -still found defective in repetition, penance was prescribed until his -knowledge were amended. - - “We wull also that euerich of y^e poremen other tymes of y^e day - when they may beste entende and have leyser, sey for y^e state and - all y^e sowlis abovesaide, iij sawters of y^e most glorious Virgyne - Mary. Every sawter iii times, 50 aues, with xv paternosters & iii - credes. . . . And furthermore, that thei say euery day onys our Lady - Sawter for all Christen soulis.” - -After supper when the household attended chapel, all that could joined -in _De Profundis_ “with y^e versicles and orisons accustomed to be -saide for dede men.” At the close a bedeman said openly in English the -bidding prayer. - -The almsmen of Ewelme after private prayer by their bedside, attended -mattins and prime soon after 6 a.m., went at 9 a.m. to mass, at 2 p.m. -to bedes, at 3 p.m. to evensong and compline. About 6 o’clock the final -bidding prayer was said around the founders’ tombs:— - - “God have mercy of the sowle of the noble prince Kyng Harry the Sext - and of the sowles of my lord William sum tyme Duke of Suffolke, and - my lady Alice Duchesse of Suffolke his wyfe, oure fyrst fownders, and - of theyr fadyr and modyr sowles & all cristen sowles.” - -The ministry of intercession was fostered in hospital chapels. A -collect, breathing humble and trustful petitions, was drawn up by -Wynard, Recorder of Exeter, who built God’s House in that city:— - - “O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy upon Thy - servant William founder of this place, as Thou wilt and as Thou - knowest best; bestow upon him strong hope, [p162] right faith and - unshadowed love, and grant to him a good end, which is a gift above - all others. _Amen._” - -The bidding prayer directed for the use of almsmen at Lichfield -included petitions for the founder and for the royal family:— - - “O God, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, pourest - the gifts of charity into the hearts of the faithful, grant to Thy - servant William the bishop, our founder, and grant to Thy servants - and to Thy handmaids, for whom we implore Thy clemency, health of - mind and of body; that they may love Thee with all their strength, - and with all joyfulness perform such things as please Thee, through - Christ our Lord. _Amen._” - -The pious custom of remembering benefactors is continued at Lambourn. -The little almshouse was founded in 1501 by John Isbury, who is buried -in the adjoining church. Every morning at 8, the senior almsman repeats -the prayer for the soul of the founder, after which the pensioners -attend mattins. The vicar recently recovered a part of the original -prayer (in brass) from off the tomb. - - -2. THE CHAPEL - -The life of the community centred in the chapel. Of the chaplains at -St. John’s, Chester, two served in the church and “the third in the -chapel before the poor and feeble sustained in the said hospital.” -There were three chapels in St. Leonard’s, York (Pl. XXV), including -“St. Katherine in the sick hospital” and “St. Michael in the -infirmary.” Henry III was present at the dedication of the Maison Dieu, -Dover,[101] and again long afterwards when an altar was consecrated to -St. Edmund by Richard [p163] of Chichester. Every hospital had one or -more altars. Portable super-altars were occasionally kept, these being -probably used when the infirmary did not adjoin the chapel. - -In order to gain an idea of the external side of worship, some -account of the accessories of a chapel, such as lights, decoration -and ornaments, must be given. Lights were kept burning day and night -before the altar. For this purpose oil lamps with rush wicks, and wax -tapers were required. The two Sandwich hospitals obtained their supply -of tapers thus. When the mayor and townsmen came in procession to St. -Bartholomew’s on the patronal festival, many bore wax lights which they -left in the chapel for use during the year. St. John’s hospital, not -being equally favoured, arranged otherwise, for the inmates agreed that -if any one reviled another with vicious language, brawling in ungodly -fashion, he should pay four lb. of wax to the light of the church. -The altar expenses at Holy Trinity, Bristol, included payments for -standards, candlesticks and lamps. The wax-maker received 5_s._ 10_d._ -for ten lb. of new wax for the Sepulchre light, and 8½_d._ for a -“wachyng tapir for the Sepulcre” (1512).[102] - -The chapel was adorned with paintings and carvings. The figure of -St. Giles now preserved in Lincoln Cathedral was brought there from -the hospital of that name. When St. Mary Magdalene’s chapel, Durham, -was being rebuilt, the sum of 15_s._ 1_d._ was paid for painting an -image of the patron-saint. Alabaster heads of the Baptist were kept at -St. John’s, Exeter, and Ewelme. The inventory and valuation of Holy -Trinity, Beverley, [p164] enable one to picture the appearance of the -sanctuary. The ornaments included an alabaster representation of the -Trinity with painted wooden tabernacle, a well-carved and gilded image -of the Blessed Virgin and Child (worth 40s.) with sundry small pictures -and crucifixes. - -Books, plate and vestments were frequently the gift of benefactors by -will. The founder bequeathed to St. Giles’, Norwich, “the gilt cup -which was the blessed Saint Edmund’s” (i.e. probably the Archbishop’s); -he left a Bible to the hospital and a missal to the master. -Office-books were costly, the manual and missal at Holy Trinity, -Beverley, being valued at £4 each. A master of Sherburn bequeathed to -that house a richly-illuminated New Testament (_Argenteus Textus_), -besides cloths of gold and brocade. John of Gaunt gave to his Leicester -foundation “his red garment of velvet embroidered with gold suns.” -When festal services were held at St. Mary’s, Newcastle (Pl. XXVII), -three gold chalices were seen upon the altar, whilst the celebrant -wore one of the beautifully-embroidered garments of the hospitals, -which included one wrought with peacocks, another bordered with roses, -and “one entire vestment of bloody velvet, woven about with a golden -fringe.” - -Many valuables fell a prey to dishonest wardens. Frequent allusions -are made to defects in the books, jewels, etc., of hospital chapels -and of their being withdrawn, put into pledge, or sold. The treasures -had often dwindled considerably before the final pillage, which partly -accounts for entries in Chantry Surveys, etc., “plate and ornaments -none.” But as late as the sixth year of Edward VI, some traces -remained of ornate services. St. John’s, [p165] Canterbury, possessed -ecclesiastical robes of black velvet, red velvet and white fustian, -and a cope of Bruges satin. Some of these were removed, but amongst -articles left for the ministration of divine service were “one cope of -blewe saten of bridgs, one cope of whytt fustyan.” - -[Illustration: 25. ANCIENT HOSPITAL ALTAR, GLASTONBURY] - -The fittings of such chapels have seldom survived, but original -altar-stones remain in two hospitals at Ripon, as well as at Stamford -and Greatham; the ancient slab found in the floor at Trinity Hospital, -Salisbury, has this year been restored to its place. The altar (Fig. -25) in the women’s almshouse at Glastonbury (Fig. 23) has a recess -in the masonry under the south end of the altar-slab. At [p166] -Chichester and Stamford sedilia and stalls with misericords may be -seen. Wall-paintings remain at Wimborne, and fragments of ancient glass -at St. Cross; St. Mark’s, Bristol; St. Mary Magdalene’s, Bath; Trinity, -Salisbury; Sherborne; and Stamford. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[88] Close 9 Edw. II, m. 18 _d_. - -[89] Cited Vict. Co. Hist. _Lancs._ ii. 165. - -[90] Chron. and Mem., 85, pp. 75–6. - -[91] Pat. 12 Edw. I, m. 16. - -[92] Cap. 2, 3, _vide Conciliorum Omnium_, ed. 1567, III, 700. - -[93] Assize Roll No. 361, 39 Hen. III, m. 28. - -[94] Hist. MSS., 6th R. 550. - -[95] Bishop Giffard’s Register, ii. 391. - -[96] Pat. 6 Edw. II, pt. i. m. 15. Pat. 17 Edw. II, pt. i. m. 10. -Compare inscription upon Watts’ Almshouse, Rochester (1579); poor -people to be sheltered “provided they be not rogues nor proctors.” -The law authorizing proctors was repealed in 1597. Cf. _Fraternity of -Vagabonds_. - -[97] Chron. and Mem., 71, _Historians of York_, iii. 202–3. - -[98] _Arch. Journ._ 1850. - -[99] Besant, _London, Med. Ecc._, p. 256. - -[100] W. Hunt, _Diocesan Hist._, pp. 158–9. - -[101] Charter Roll 16 Hen. III, m. 19. - -[102] MS. in Municipal Charities Office. - - - - -[p167] - -CHAPTER XII - -THE CARE OF THE BODY - - - “_Let there be in the infirmary thirteen sick persons in their beds, - and let them be kindly and duly supplied with food and all else - that shall tend to their convalescence or comfort._” (Statutes of - Northallerton.[103]) - -In considering the provision for material comfort in hospitals, one -must distinguish between residents and sojourners. Board and clothing -had to be found for the leper or the almsman, and the sick needed food -and shelter for a time. Travellers either called for doles in passing, -or required supper, bed and breakfast. Upon every pilgrim, sick or -well, spending the night at St. Thomas’, Canterbury, four-pence was -expended from the goods of the hospital. Bodily necessaries of life may -be classified under the headings food, fuel, baths, bedding and clothes. - - -1. FOOD - - -(a) _Food for resident pensioners._—There was of course a wide -difference between the lot of the ill-fed lazar who lodged in some -poor spital dependent upon the chance alms of passers-by, and that of -the occupant of a well-endowed institution. At the princely Sherburn -hospital, each person received daily a loaf (weighing five marks) and -a gallon of beer; he had meat three times a week, and on other days -eggs, herrings and cheese, besides [p168] butter, vegetables and salt. -The statutes laid stress upon the necessity of fresh food, and it was -forbidden to eat the flesh of an animal which had died of disease. -This was wise, for the constant consumption in the Middle Ages of -rotten meat, decayed fish and bread made from blighted corn predisposed -people to sickness and aggravated existing disease. Forfeited victuals -were granted to the sick in hospitals at Oxford, Cambridge, Sandwich, -Maldon, etc. The Forest law directed that if any beast were found dead -or wounded, the flesh was to be sent to the leper-house if there were -one near, or else be distributed to the sick and poor; Dr. Cox in his -_Royal Forests_ cites instances of the lepers of Thrapston and Cotes -benefiting by this statute. - -Salt meat was largely consumed, but it was insufficiently cured on -account of the scarcity of salt. Bacon was a most important article -of food; one of the endowments of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Winchester, -consisted of four flitches annually. About Christmas-tide, according to -the “Customal of Sandwich,” each person at St. Bartholomew’s received a -hog with the inwards and all its parts. The lepers at St. Albans had a -similar custom, but they made their own selection for the salting-tub -at Martinmas:—“we desire that the pigs may be brought forward in their -presence . . . and there each, according to the priority of entering -the hospital, shall choose one pig.” - -In some households, a meat-allowance was given to each person, perhaps -two-pence a week, or a farthing a day. There were vegetarians among -the residents at Southampton, for the account-rolls mention Sister -Elena who for a time “ate nothing that had suffered death”, [p169] and -Sister Joan, “who does not eat flesh throughout the year.” In those -days of murrain they were prudent, for it is recorded that an ox was -killed for consumption in the house “because it was nearly dead.” - -In the later almshouses the inmates received wages and provided their -own victuals, which were cooked by the attendant. It was directed at -Higham Ferrers:— - - “That every poor man shall buy his meat upon the Saturday . . . and - deliver it to the woman, and she shall ask them which they will have - against Sunday, and the rest she shall powder up against Wednesday; - she shall upon Sunday set on the pot and make them good pottage, and - shall give every man his own piece of meat and a mess of pottage in - his dish, and the rest of the pottage shall be saved until Monday.” - -The remainder was served up on Wednesday by the careful housewife, who -was directed to buy barm on Fridays for the bread-making. - -Baking was done once a fortnight at St. Bartholomew’s, Sandwich, -the allowance to each person being seven penny loaves. The exact -provision of brown and white bread is sometimes given in regulations. -Oats “called La Porage” was provided for the poor in the Leicester -almshouse, where there was a porridge-pot holding sixty-one gallons. -Ancient cooking utensils are preserved at St. Cross, Winchester, at St. -John’s, Canterbury, and at Harbledown. - -In most hospitals there was a marked difference between daily diet -and festival fare. Festal days, twenty-five in number, were marked at -Sherburn by special dinners. St. Cuthbert was naturally commemorated; -his festival [p170] in March and the day of his “Translation” in -September were two-course feasts; but the first falling in Lent, Bishop -Pudsey provided for the delicacy of fresh salmon, if procurable. Both -at Sherburn, and at St. Nicholas’, Pontefract, there was a goose-feast -at Michaelmas, one goose to four persons. The “Gaudy Days” at St. Cross -were also marked by special fare. - - -(b) _Food for casuals._—Out-door relief was provided in many hospitals. -St. Mark’s, Bristol, was an almonry where refreshment was provided for -the poor. Forty-five lb. of bread made of wheat, barley and beans, was -given away among the hundred applicants; the resident brethren “each -carrying a knife to cut bread for the sick and impotent” ministered to -them for two or three hours daily. A generous distribution of loaves -and fishes took place at St. Leonard’s, York, besides the provision of -extra dinners on Sundays. - -Special gifts were also provided occasionally, on founders’ days or -festivals. At St. Giles’, Norwich, on Lady Day, one hundred and eighty -persons had bread and cheese and three eggs each. Maundy Thursday was -a day for almsgiving, when all lepers who applied at the Lynn hospital -were given a farthing and a herring. “Obits” were constantly celebrated -in this way. The eve of St. Peter and St. Paul, being the anniversary -of Henry I’s death, was a gala-day for lepers within reach of York; -bread and ale, mullet with butter, salmon when it could be had, and -cheese, were provided by the Empress Matilda’s bounty, in memory of her -father. The ancient glass reproduced on Pl. XX depicts hungry beggars -to whom food is being dealt out. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XX._ THE BEGGARS’ DOLE] - -The Maison Dieu, Dover, kept the memorial days of [p171] Henry III -and of Hubert de Burgh and his daughter. The fare and expenses on such -occasions are recorded, _viz._:— - - “Also in the daye of Seynt Pancre yerely for the soule - of Hughe de Burgo one quarter of whete vj. viij_d._ - - Also the same daye if it be flesshe day one oxe and if it - be fisshe day ij barells of white heryng xx_s._”[104] - -Probably the annual distribution of three hundred buns at St. -Bartholomew’s Hospital, Sandwich, is handed down from some ancient -custom on the patronal festival, but almost all these charities came -to an end at the Dissolution. The Commissioners who visited St. Cross, -however, (1535) allowed the continuation of daily dinners to the -hundred poor, on condition that distribution was made - - “to them who study and labour with all their strength at handywork to - obtain food; and in no case shall such alms be afforded to strong, - robust and indolent mendicants, like so many that wander about such - places, who ought rather to be driven away with staves, as drones and - useless burdens upon the earth.” - -The “Wayfarer’s Dole” still given at St. Cross is the only survival of -the former indiscriminate entertainment of passers-by. - - -2. FIRING AND LIGHTS - -The wood necessary for firing was collected from the vicinity by -permission of the manorial lord. In Henry III’s charter to St. John’s, -Oxford (1234), he granted wood from Shotover “to cook the portions -of the poor and to warm the poor themselves.” He also permitted the -gathering of faggots for St. John’s, Marlborough, one [p172] man going -daily for dry and dead wood “to collect as much as he can with his -hands only without any iron tool or axe, and to carry the same to the -hospital on his back for their hearth.” Early rolls record constant -grants of firewood. St. Leonard’s, York, was supplied with turves from -Helsington Moor. - -The supply of fuel was regulated by the calendar. A benefactor (_circa_ -1180) granted to the lepers of St. Sepulchre’s near Gloucester, a load -of firewood “such as a horse can carry” daily from November 1 to May -3, and thrice a week for the rest of the year. From Michaelmas to All -Saints, the lepers of Sherburn—unconscious of the coalfield all around -them—had for their eight fires two baskets of peat daily, after which -until Easter four baskets were supplied; on festivals extra fuel was -given, and at Christmas great logs were specially provided. Finally it -was directed that:—“if any leprous brother or sister shall be ill so -that his life is despaired of, he shall have fire and light and all -things needful until he amend or pass away.” - - -3. BEDDING - -In early days, the sick and poor were laid on pallets of straw, but -wooden bedsteads were probably introduced late in the twelfth century. -A dying benefactor left to the brethren of St. Wulstan’s, Worcester, -the bed on which he lay and its covering of _bys_, or deer-skin -(1291).[105] A Durham founder bequeathed money to “amend the beds what -tyme they shall happyne to be olde or defective” (1491). A strange -civic duty was performed at Sandwich. It was customary for the mayor -and townsmen, as [p173] “visitors” of St. John’s House, to examine the -condition and number of the feather-beds, and bedding, and to ascertain -if all was kept very clean. Where travellers came and went, it was no -light task to supply fresh linen. At St. Thomas’, Canterbury, an annual -payment of xlvj_s._ viij_d._ was made “to Rauf Cokker keper of the seid -hospitall and his wif for kepyng wasshyng of the bedds for poure peple” -(1535). The same year, the inquiry made into the condition of the Savoy -hospital included these items:— - - “Whether the hundred beddes appoynted by the founder be well and - clenely kept and repayred, and all necessaries to theym belongyng. - - “Whether any poore man do lie in any shetes unwasshed that any other - lay in bifore.” - - -4. TOILET - -Bathing and laundry arrangements are occasionally mentioned. The -regulations for the Sherburn lepers direct a strict attention to -cleanliness. Two bath-tubs (_cunæ ad balneandum_) were supplied; heads -were washed weekly; and two laundresses washed the personal clothing -twice a week. In the fifteenth-century statutes of Higham Ferrers -matters of health and toilet are detailed. None might be received “but -such as were clean men of their bodies”; and if taken ill, a bedeman -was removed until his recovery. Every morning the woman must “make -the poor men a fire against they rise and a pan of fair water and a -dish by it to wash their hands.” The barber came weekly “to shave them -and to dress their heads and to make them clean.” When the Savoy was -officially visited in 1535, the authorities were asked [p174] “whether -the bathes limitted by the founder be well obserued and applyed.” - -As to hair-dressing, “tonsure by the ears” was commonly used by the -staff. After profession at Chichester it was directed:—“then let the -males be cropped below the ear; or the hair of the women be cut off -back to the middle of the neck.” Among the instructions in the register -of St. Bartholomew’s near Dover is one about the round tonsure, and -there is a marginal note as to the mode of shaving the head. The -visitation of St. Nicholas’, York (_temp._ Edward I), showed that -formerly brethren and sisters were tonsured, but that Simon, recently -master, had allowed them to change both habit and tonsure.[106] - - -5. CLOTHING - - -(a) _The habit of the staff._—The dress worn by the master and his -fellow-workers was usually monastic or clerical, but it varied -considerably, for the priests might be regulars or seculars, the -brethren and sisters religious or lay persons. Occasionally the warden -was not in orders; it was directed at St. Leonard’s, York, that “when -the master is a layman, he shall wear the habit of the house.” In an -ecclesiastical type of foundation, the dress was commonly after the -Augustinian fashion, consisting of black or brown robe, cloak and hood, -with a cross on the outer garment; white and grey were occasionally -worn by officials of both sexes. The Benedictine brethren of St. -Mark’s, Bristol, were clothed in a black habit with a quaint device, -namely, “a white cross and a red shield with three white geese in -the [p175] same.” Secular clerks had more latitude in costume; the -sombre mantles were enlivened by a coloured badge, a pastoral staff at -Armiston, a cross at St. John’s, Bedford, etc. - - -(b) _The almsman’s gown._—The early type of pensioner’s habit is -perpetuated at St. Cross. Ellis Davy, having sober tastes, provided -for his poor men at Croydon that “the over-clothing be darke and -browne of colour, and not staring neither blasing, and of easy price -cloth, according to ther degree.” This stipulation was probably copied -from the statutes of Whittington’s almshouse, which as a mercer he -would know. The usual tendency of the fifteenth century was to a -cheerful garb. The bedeman of Ewelme had “a tabarde of his owne with -a rede crosse on the breste, and a hode accordynge to the same.” The -pensioners at Alkmonton received a suit every third year, alternately -white and russet; the gown was marked with a tau cross in red. At -Heytesbury the men’s outfit included “2 paire of hosyn, 2 paire of -shone with lether and hempe to clowte theme, and 2 shertys”; the woman -had the same allowance, with five shillings to buy herself a kirtle. -The two servitors at St. Nicholas’, Pontefract, wore a uniform “called -white livery.” - - -(c) _The leper’s dress._—The theory of the leper’s clothing is -described in the statutes of St. Julian’s; they ought “as well in -their conduct as in their garb, to bear themselves as more despised -and as more humble than the rest of their fellow-men, according to the -words of the Lord in Leviticus: ‘Whosoever is stained with the leprosy -shall rend his garments.’” They were forbidden to go out without the -distinctive habit, which covered them almost entirely. The outfit named -in the _Manual_ consisted of [p176] cloak, hood, coat and shoes of -fur, plain shoes and girdle. - -The hospital inmate in his coarse warm clothing was readily -distinguished from the ragged mendicant. The brothers and sisters -at Harbledown were supplied with a uniform dress of russet, that is -to say, a closed tunic or super-tunic; the brethren wore scapulars -(the short working dress of a monk), and the sisters, mantles. At St. -Julian’s hospital, the cut of the costume was planned; thus the sleeves -were to be closed as far as the hand, but not laced with knots or -thread after the secular fashion; the upper tunic was to be worn closed -down to the ankles; the close black cape and hood must be of equal -length. The amount of material is recorded in the case of Sherburn, -_viz._ three ells of woollen cloth and six ells of linen. At Reading -the leper’s allowance was still more liberal, for the hood or cape -contained three ells, the tunic three, the cloak two and a quarter; -they also received from the abbey ten yards of linen, besides old -leathern girdles and shoes. - -Lepers were forbidden to walk unshod. At Sherburn, each person was -allowed fourpence annually for shoes, grease being regularly supplied -for them. Inmates of both sexes at Harbledown wore ox-hide boots, -fastened with leather and extending beyond the middle of the shin. High -boots were also worn by the brethren at St. Julian’s “to suit their -infirmity”; if one was found wearing low-cut shoes—“tied with only one -knot”—he had to walk barefoot for a season. - -For headgear at Harbledown, the men used hoods, and the women covered -their heads with thick double veils, white within, and black without. -Hats were sometimes [p177] worn, both in England (Fig. 9) and in -France. (Fig. 26.) In the Scottish ballad (_circa_ 1500), Cresseid is -taken to the lazar-house dressed in a mantle with a beaver hat. This -was probably a secular fashion. - -[Illustration: 26. A LEPER - -(With clapper and dish)] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[103] Surtees, Vol. 56. Gray’s Register, p. 181. - -[104] _Val. Ecc._, i. 56. - -[105] Giffard’s Register, p. 388. - -[106] P.R.O. Chanc. Misc. 20, No. 13. - - - - -[p178] - -CHAPTER XIII - -HOSPITAL FUNDS - - - “_To the which hospitals the founders have given largely of their - moveable goods for the building of the same, and a great part of - their lands and tenements therewith to sustain impotent men and - women._” - - (Parliament of Leicester.) - -Endowments were to a certain extent supplied by the patron, but were -supplemented by public charity. The emoluments included gifts of money, -food and fuel, grants of property, admission fees, the profits of -fairs, and collections. Receipts in kind are seldom recorded, and the -changing scale of values would involve points beyond the scope of this -volume. Particulars may be found in the extant manuscripts of certain -hospitals and abbeys, in _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, etc. Extracts from the -account-books of St. Leonard’s, York, have been published in a lecture -by Canon Raine. The finance of such an institution, with scattered and -extensive property, necessitated a department which required a special -clerk to superintend it, and the exchequer had its particular seal. -Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission give details of the working -expenses of hospitals at Southampton and Winchester. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXI._ ST. MARY MAGDALENE’S, WINCHESTER - -(_a_) MASTER’S HOUSE AND CHAPEL. (_b_) CHAPEL] - - -1. ENDOWMENTS - - -(a) _Endowments in money._—The earliest subscriptions are recorded -in the Pipe Rolls, consisting of royal alms [p179] (_Eleemosynæ -Constitutæ_) paid by the Sheriff of the county from the profits of -Crown lands. Three entries in the year 1158 will serve as specimens:— - - _Infirmis de Dudstan. xxs._ _Infirmis super Montem. lxs._ _Infirmis - de Lundon. lxs._ - -At first sight this seems not to concern hospitals; but a closer -examination proves that sums are being paid to sick communities—in fact -to lazar-houses. For the lepers of Gloucester dwelt in the suburb of -Dudstan, and the infected inmates of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Winchester, -were known locally as “the infirm people upon the hill”—now Maun Hill. -The grant was paid out of the farm of the city until, in 1442, the -citizens were unable to contribute that and other sums on account of -pestilence and depopulation. The infirm of London were the lepers of -St. Giles’; and the sixty shillings, originally granted by Henry I and -Maud, was still paid in Henry VII’s reign, for a writ of 1486 refers -“to the hospitallers of St. Giles for their annuity of lx_s._” Between -the years 1158 and 1178 subscriptions were paid to _infirmi_ at the -following places:— - - Regular payments—“Dudstan,” Hecham, Hereford, Lincoln, London, - Maldon, Newport, Richmond, Rochester, St. Albans, St. Edmunds, - Shrewsbury, “Super Montem.” Occasional payments—Barnstaple, Barnwell - or Stourbridge, Bradley, Burton Lazars, Chichester, Clattercot, - Derby, Canterbury and Harbledown, Ely, Ilford, Leicester, Liteport, - Newark, Northampton, Oxford, Saltwood, and Windsor. - -Of the latter, some were grants on account of a vacant bishopric. -In addition to the above, sums were given to [p180] _leprosi_ of -Southampton and Peterborough, and to hospitals of Gravesend, of -Norwich, and “of the Queen.” These contributions vary from 12_d._ -paid to Hereford up to £6 given to Hecham (Higham Ferrers). In some -cases corn and clothing were also contributed. There is a contemporary -representation of one of these “infirm” persons on the seal of the -lepers of Lincoln, dating from the days of Henry II and St. Hugh. The -document to which it is attached contains a covenant between Bullington -Priory and the hospital of the Holy Innocents, Lincoln, concerning a -rent of three shillings from the hospital. - -[Illustration: 27. DOCUMENT AND SEAL OF THE LEPERS OF LINCOLN] - -Revenues also consisted largely in annual rents arising from land and -house property, some being appropriated to specific works. An early -grant to St. Bartholomew’s, Gloucester (_circa_ 1210), was to be -expended upon the maintenance of a lamp in the chapel, and shoes for -inmates, whilst the sum of 5_d._ was to go towards the provision of -five beds. - - -(b) _Endowments in kind._—The kings were generous in grants from royal -forests. Henry III granted one old oak from Windsor to the sick of St. -Bartholomew’s, London (1224). He afterwards gave to St. Leonard’s, -[p181] York, “licence to take what they need in the forest of -Yorkshire for building and burning, and also of herbage and pasture for -flocks and anything needful for their ease, as they had in the time of -Henry II.” Food was also supplied by patrons, especially in what might -be termed manorial hospitals, consisting generally of a grant of tithes -on produce. Another form of endowment was to impropriate livings. St. -Giles’, Norwich, owned six manors and the advowson of eleven churches. -When funds were low at Harbledown, the archbishop impropriated Reculver -church, thus augmenting the income by parochial tithes. This disgusted -the parishioners who sought redress, thinking it “ill to be subject to -lepers.” - - -2. BEQUESTS - -The money chest, larder and wardrobe were replenished largely by -legacies. Amongst the earliest recorded are those of Henry II and his -son, William Longespée. Henry left a large sum to religious houses in -England and Normandy, and particularly to lepers. Longespée bequeathed -cows to lepers in the hospitals of Salisbury, Maiden Bradley and -Wilton, as well as to St. John’s, Wilton, and St. Bartholomew’s, -Smithfield (1225). Men in humbler circumstances were likewise generous. -A certain William de Paveli left 12_d._ each to eight hospitals in -Northampton, Brackley, Towcester, Newport Pagnell, Hocclive and -Stra[t]ford (_circa_ 1240).[107] Wills abound in references of a -similar character. Early legacies were made to the hospital as a body, -but when the renunciation of individual property by the staff ceased, -money was given to individuals; a benefactor of St. [p182] Giles’, -Norwich, left 20 marks to the master and brethren, 40_d._ each to other -officials, and 2_s._ to each bed (1357).[108] Gifts were frequently -made to patients; Stephen Forster desired that 100_s._ should be given -away in five city hospitals, besides five marks in pence to inmates -of St. Bartholomew’s, Bristol (1458). An endowment of penny doles -was provided by Lady Maud Courtenay in Exeter, namely thirteen pence -annually for twenty years “to xiii pore men of Symon Grendon is hous” -(1464). Testamentary gifts were also made in the form of clothes, -bedding, utensils, etc. The founder of St. Giles’, Norwich, left to it -“the cup out of which the poor children drank,” probably some vessel of -his own hitherto lent for the scholars daily meal. - - -3. PROFITS BY TRADING - -The fair was a great institution in mediæval England, and the funds of -privileged charities were assisted in this way. At Maiden Bradley the -leprous women and their prior held a weekly market and an annual fair. -The Chesterfield fair was exchanged for a yearly payment of six pounds -of silver from the royal Exchequer, which indicates the value set upon -it. The most notable hospital-fairs were that of the leper-house near -Cambridge (originally held in the close and still held on Stourbridge -Common), and those connected with St. Bartholomew’s and St. James’ -near London. The story of the former has been told by H. Morley; and -the “May-Fair” of St. James’ leper-house was also famous. These galas -were usually at the patronal festival and lasted two or three days, -but occasionally these profitable festivities were carried on for a -fortnight. Fairs were held at the following hospitals:— [p183] - - Aynho, Bath (Holloway), Bury (St. Nicholas, St. Saviour), Baldock, - Colchester (St. Mary Magdalene), Devizes (St. James & St. Denys), - Dover (Buckland), Harting, Ipswich, Lingerscroft, Newbury, Newport, - Newton Garth, Racheness, Royston (St. Nicholas), Swinestre near - Sittingbourne, Thetford (St. John), Wycomb (2), etc. - -This curious and interesting custom survives in connection with St. -Bartholomew’s, Newbury. The fair, originally granted by charter of King -John (1215),[109] still takes place annually on the day and morrow of -St. Bartholomew (_Old Style_), upon lands belonging to the hospital. -A “Court of Pie Powder” is held on the morrow of St. Bartholomew’s -day; the proctor of this ancient charity with the steward and bailiff -attend, and proclamation is made opening the Court. Tolls derived from -stallages are collected, together with an impost of 2_d._ on every -publican in Newbury (the latter due being resisted in a few cases). -The following day the Court meets again, when the proceeds are divided -amongst the almsmen.[110] - - -4. ADMISSION FEES - -A considerable pecuniary benefit accrued to hospitals by the custom of -receiving contributions from newly-admitted members of the household. -In some cases a benefaction was made when persons were received into a -community; thus Archbishop Wichwane as patron granted permission for a -certain Gilbert and his wife to bestow their goods upon Bawtry hospital -and dwell there (1281).[111] [p184] - - -5. INVOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS - -Rates were levied for hospital maintenance on an organized system in -some foreign countries. Sometimes a compulsory Hospital Sunday Fund was -instituted, one penny being demanded from the richer, one halfpenny -from the middle-class, and a loaf from lesser folk. In England, -however, the only obligatory support was an occasional toll on produce, -perhaps first ordered by the feudal lord, but afterwards granted by -custom. The Bishop of Exeter (1163) confirmed to lepers their ancient -right to collect food twice a week in the market, and alms on two -other days,—a custom resented by the citizens. (See p. 54.) King John -conferred upon Shrewsbury lazars the privilege of taking handfuls of -corn and flour from sacks exposed in the market (1204). By charter of -the Earls, the Chester lepers were entitled to extensive tolls—upon -salt, fish, grain, malt, fruit and vegetables, to a cheese or salmon -from every load, and even one horse from the horse-fair. The lepers of -St. Mary Magdalene’s, Southampton, received “from time immemorial” a -penny upon every tun of wine imported. - -The mayor and commonalty of Carlisle granted every Sunday to the lepers -a pottle of ale from each brew-house of the city, and a farthing -loaf from every baker who displayed his bread for sale on Saturday. -Their hospital was also endowed “time out of mind” with a corn-tax -known as the “thraves of St. Nicholas” from every carucate of land in -Cumberland. (The _thrave_ is variously computed at twelve, twenty or -twenty-four sheaves.) This county had a heavy poor-rate, for the great -York hospital collected likewise from every plough working in [p185] -the northern Archiepiscopate (Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and -Yorkshire). These “thraves of St. Leonard,” or “Petercorn,” belonged to -the hospital by virtue of Athelstan’s gift, which had been originally -granted to him by his northern subjects in recognition of his -destruction of wolves. The lands of the Durham Bishopric contributed -“thraves of St. Giles” to Kepier hospital. The collection of such tolls -was a constant difficulty, for it was resented by landowners, who had -also the ordinary tithes to pay. - - -(6) VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS - - -(a) _Donations._—At first, freewill-offerings were mainly in kind. The -earliest collector whose name occurs is Alfune, Rahere’s friend. While -the founder was occupied at St. Bartholomew’s, Alfune was wont “to -cumpasse and go abowte the nye placys of the chirche besily to seke -and prouyde necessaries to the nede of the poer men, that lay in the -hospitall.” It fell on a day that as Alfune visited the meat-market, -he came to a butcher whose persistent refusal of help grieved him. -After working what was regarded as a miracle, Alfune won him over, and -departed with flesh in his vessel: henceforth butchers were more prompt -to give their alms. Almsmen used sometimes to collect in person. It -was customary for some of the brothers of St. John’s House to “attend -the churches in Sandwich every Sunday, with a pewter dish, soliciting -money to buy meat for dinner on that day.” Another brother was deputed -to travel on an ass through Kent asking alms—“and he collects sometimes -ten shillings a year, sometimes a mark, above his expenses.” - -All save richly-endowed houses were dependent upon [p186] casual -charity. In St. Mary’s, Yarmouth, it is recorded “live a multitude of -poor brethren and sisters, for whose sustenance a daily quest has to be -made.” One of the London statutes, enrolled in _Liber Albus_, directs -that lepers shall have a common attorney to go every Sunday into the -parish-churches to gather alms for their sustenance. Lest charitable -offerings should diminish when lepers were removed from sight, a clause -was added to the proclamation of 1348:—“it is the king’s intention -that all who wish to give alms to lepers shall do so freely, and the -sheriff shall incite the men of his bailiwick to give alms to those so -expelled from the communion of men.” It would appear from a London will -of 1369, that special chests were afterwards provided; for bequests are -then made to the alms-boxes (_pixidibus_) for lepers around London. -Alms-boxes were carried about by collectors, and also hung at the gate -or within the hospital. The proctor of the staff went on his mission -with a portable money-box; upon one occasion, a false proctor was -convicted of pretending to collect for St. Mary of Bethlehem, for which -fraud he was pilloried, the iron-bound box with which he had paraded -the streets being tied round his neck. Boxes of this kind, sometimes -having a chain attached, remain in almshouses at Canterbury, Leicester -and Stamford. It was directed by the statutes of Higham Ferrers that -a common box with a hole in the top should be set in the midst of the -dormitory so that well-disposed people might put in their charity; at -certain times also two of the poor men were to “go abroad to gather -up the devotions of the brotherhood,” the contents being afterwards -divided. - - -(b) _Small Subscriptions._—Some fraternities formed [p187] -associations for the maintenance of charities. That of St. John -Baptist, Winchester, helped to support St. John’s hospital with the -shillings contributed by its 107 members. The modern hospital of St. -Leonard, Bedford, is kept up on this principle. - - -(c) _Appeals authorized by the King._—The work of the proctor was -not confined to the neighbourhood. Having first possessed himself of -letters-testimonial, he journeyed in England, or even in Wales and -Ireland. A “protection” or warrant was necessary, for unauthorized -collectors were liable to arrest; it was in the form of a royal letter -addressed to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, bailiffs, -lieges, etc. Henry III pleads with his subjects the cause of St. -Giles’, Shrewsbury:—“that when the brethren come to you to beg alms, -you will favourably admit them, and mercifully impart to them your alms -of the goods conferred by God upon you.” Many letters-patent license -the proctors, messengers or attorneys to collect in churches, or, as at -St. Anthony’s, Lenton (1332), in towns, fairs and markets. Sometimes -the collector went forth supported by Church and State; as when the -king issued mandates (1317, 1331) to welcome the proctor of the Romsey -lepers “authorized by John, Bishop of Winchester and other prelates.” - - -(d) _Appeals authorized by the Church, as Briefs, Indulgences, -etc._—Bishops likewise issued briefs, or letters of recommendation, -on behalf of institutions in their own dioceses or beyond. The infirm -of Holy Innocents’, Lincoln, received from their diocesan a mandate -(1294), ordering the parochial clergy to allow their agent to solicit -alms after mass on three Sundays or festivals each year; later, the -stipulation was added, that the Cathedral [p188] fabric fund should -not suffer thereby. A typical document is found in the Winchester -Register in favour of St. Leonard’s, Bedford (1321). The mandate was -addressed to the archdeacons, deans, rectors, vicars and chaplains, -commanding them to receive accredited messengers of that needy -hospital, to cause their business to be expounded by the priest during -mass, after which the collection should be delivered without deduction. -The brief was in force for two years and the clergy were bidden to help -effectually by word and example at least once a year. - -Episcopal Registers include many such documents, some being granted on -special occasions, to make good losses by murrain, to enlarge premises, -or to rebuild after fire, flood or invasion. Some briefs were not -unlike modern appeals, with their lists of presidents and patrons; -for that on behalf of Romney hospital (1380) was signed by both -archbishops and eleven bishops. It was a recognized source of raising -funds. John de Plumptre in making arrangements for his almshouse at -Nottingham (1414), provided that the widows, for the bettering of their -sustenance, should “have and hold an episcopal bull and indulgence -. . . procured from the archbishops and bishops of England, Wales and -Ireland.”[112] - -It is curious to watch the increase of the privileges offered. The -earlier bishops remitted penance for seven or thirteen days, those of -a later period, for forty days. Roman indulgences knew no such limits. -The form of a papal brief (1392) was as follows:— - - “Relaxation of seven years and seven _quadragene_ to penitents who - on the principal feasts of the year and those of [p189] St. James in - the month of July and the dedication, the usual octaves and six days; - and of a hundred days to those who during the said octaves and days - visit and give alms for the sustentation and recreation of the chapel - of St. James’ poor hospital without the walls, London.” - -William, Lord Berkeley directed the executors of his will (1492):— - - “to purchase a pardon from the court of Rome, as large as may be had, - for this Chapple [Longbridge], from evensonge to evensonge, in the - feast of Trinity for ever, for pleyne remission to them that will be - confessed and contrite.” - -Offerings stimulated by such pardons were in money or in kind. A deed -belonging to the Bridport Corporation sets forth that the writer has -seen letters from famous ecclesiastics—including St. Thomas and St. -Edmund of Canterbury—in favour of Allington leper-house, one being an -indulgence of Alexander IV:— - - “Item, to alle thos that gevyn broche, rynge, boke, belle, candell, - vestimente, bordclothe, towelle, pygge, lambe, wolle, peny, or - penyworthe, be whiche the sayde hows and hospitale is amended and - mentaynde, the sayd Pope grauntethe the remission of the vijth parte - of penance injunct[ed].” - -Thus the questionable trade of the pardoner[113] was often carried on -by the hospital proctor; moreover, spurious bulls were circulated. -The abuses to which the practice gave rise were recognized by Bishop -Grandisson, who announced that questors collecting alms in the diocese -of Exeter were forbidden to preach, or to sell fictitious privileges, -or unauthorized pardons. A papal exhortation [p190] on behalf of -St. Anne’s, Colchester (1402), forbids these presents to be sent by -pardoners (_questuarii_). Those who bought a pardon from the proctor -of St. John’s, Canterbury, were informed that the benefit of 30,000 -_Paternosters_ and _Ave Marias_ was freely imparted to them. But -although indulgences were liable to abuse, it must be remembered that -authorized pardons extended to penitents only—to those who, being -contrite, had already confessed and received absolution and penance. -Upon the indulgenced feast of St. Michael, so many people flocked -to St. Mary’s, Leicester, that a special staff of confessors became -necessary. - - -7. ALMS OF PILGRIMS - -Such visits to hospitals lead to the further consideration of -pilgrimage and devotion to relics, which directly affected charity. -An indulgence was offered to penitents visiting Yarmouth hospital -and the sacred relics therein and giving a helping hand to the poor -inhabitants. The Maison Dieu at Dunwich possessed a holy cross of great -reputation “whither many resorted to adore it, who bestowed much alms.” -When the precious relic was carried away and detained “by certain -evil-wishers” connected with St. Osith’s Abbey, the inmates were -greatly impoverished.[114] The abbot having been prosecuted, came into -chancery in person and rendered the cross to the king, who restored it -to the master and brethren “to remain in the hospital for ever.” Holy -Cross, Colchester, claimed to keep a portion of the true Cross; an -indulgence was offered by various bishops to those paying pilgrimage -visits and contributing to the hospital. (See pp. 248–9.) [p191] - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXII._ LEPER HOSPITAL OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW, -OXFORD] - -Other treasures visited by pilgrims were of a more personal character. -Anthony à Wood found records of choice things formerly preserved in -St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, whereby it was enriched:—“they were possest -of St. Edmund the Confessor’s combe, St. Barthelmew’s skin, the bones -of St. Stephen, and one of the ribbes of St. Andrew.” The first and -foremost of the sacred relics was evidently a personal possession of -the local saint, Archbishop Edmund Rich, a native of Abingdon:—“Those -that were troubled with continuall headaches,” (University students, -perhaps) “frenzies, or light-headed, were by kembing their heads with -St. Edmund’s combe restored to their former health.” On high days -and holy days these treasures were exposed to view in the chapel. -(Pl. XXII.) They were of so great value that the authorities of Oriel -College, having acquired the patronage, appropriated them, “which -caused great complaints from these hospitalliers.” - -[Illustration: 28. A HOSPITAL ALMS-BOX] - -The alms of pilgrims and other travellers were a valuable asset in -the funds, for it was customary for those so journeying to spend much -in charity by the way. On the penitential pilgrimage of Henry II to -Canterbury (1174) “as he passed on his way by chapels and hospitals -he did his duty as a most devout Christian and son of Holy Church -by confession of sin and distribution of offerings and gifts.”[115] -Halting at Harbledown he left the sum of forty marks, probably -because the hospital belonged to the bereaved archbishopric. Long -afterwards, another king—John of France—passed along the road, leaving -at sundry hospitals a substantial proof of his gratitude for release -from captivity. Among his [p192] expenses are included gifts to -“les malades de 4 maladeries depuis Rocestre jusques à Cantobérie, -pour aumosne”; also to the communities of St. James’, St. John’s at -the Northgate, St. Mary’s, and Harbledown, and to the brethren of -Ospringe; whilst the king gave as much as twenty nobles to the Maison -Dieu, Dover, where he was received as a guest.[116] Situated close to -the highway, on the hill which eager travellers were about to climb -to catch their first sight of the grand tower of Canterbury, the -Harbledown lepers benefited by the gifts of pilgrims for three and -a half centuries. Treasured in the hospital (Pl. V) was a relic of -“the glorious martyr” to whose shrine they wended. “This fragment -of his [p193] shoe supports this little community of poor men,” says -Ogygius in the _Colloquy on Pilgrimages_,[117] where Erasmus describes -his visit to Canterbury with Dean Colet sometime before the year -1519. Shortly after leaving the city, where the road becomes steep -and narrow, there is, he says, a hospital of a few old men. One of -the brethren runs out, sprinkles the travellers with holy water, and -presently offers them the upper part of a shoe, set with a piece of -glass resembling a jewel. This the strangers are invited to kiss. (Bale -satirizes this custom where he says, “here ys the lachett of swett -seynt Thomas shewe.”) Colet is indignant, but Erasmus, to appease the -injured brother, drops a coin into his alms-box. The quaint old box is -still kept at Harbledown, and is figured above. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[107] Madox, _Formulare Ang._, p. 424. - -[108] P.R.O. Ancient Deeds, A 11562. - -[109] Charter Roll 17 John, m. 8. - -[110] Communicated by the Town Clerk. - -[111] Surtees Soc., 114, p. 278. - -[112] Records of Nottingham, ii. 99. - -[113] The word was retained after the Reformation, e.g. 1573, “paid -to a pardoner that gathered for the hospital of Plympton” (T. N. -Brushfield, _Devonshire Briefs_). - -[114] Prynne, _Usurpation of Popes_, p. 1137, and Close 34 Edw. I, m. 1. - -[115] Chron. and Mem., 67, i. 487. - -[116] Soc. de l’Histoire de France, 1851, p. 194. - -[117] Pilgrimages of Walsingham and Canterbury—Ed. Nichols, 1849, p. 63. - - - - -[p194] - -CHAPTER XIV - -RELATIONS WITH CHURCH AND STATE - - - “_As to other hospitals, which he of another foundation and patronage - than of the King, the Ordinaries shall enquire of the manner of the - foundation, estate and governance of the same . . . and make thereof - correction and reformation according to the laws of Holy Church, as - to them belongeth._” - - (Parliament of Leicester.) - -Attention having been already called to the internal constitution of -hospitals, we must now consider their relation to those in authority. -The position of such a house was necessarily complicated; there arose -a difficulty in reconciling its subordinate, yet partly independent -character. We must see, first, how its welfare depended to a certain -extent on king and bishop; secondly, its position with regard to the -parochial system; and thirdly, how far it was affected by monasticism. - - -(i) RELATIONS WITH THE KING AND THE BISHOP - -The hospitals of England have never been exclusively in the hands -of Church or State. The relations which they bore to each may be -subdivided under the headings of Constitution, Jurisdiction and Finance. - - -(a) _Constitution._—As we have seen, the Church, usually represented by -the diocesan bishop, was responsible for the rule and statutes by which -a hospital was guided. - - -(b) _Jurisdiction._—In the province of administration, visitation and -reform, king and bishop played their [p195] respective parts. Speaking -generally, the bishop was administrator, and the king protector; -to the former, matters of religious observance and conduct were -referred, to the latter, questions of temporal privilege, immunity from -taxation, etc. Both had rights as “visitors.” Faithfully conducted, -ecclesiastical visitation might be of great use, but owing to the huge -extent of dioceses, it was infrequent and inadequate, and where the -king was patron, the diocesan bishop’s visitation was prohibited. Under -Henry III, the royal almoner undertook the keeping of Crown hospitals, -but afterwards this duty fell to the Chancellor, who alone had the -right of visitation; the diocesan bishop had no jurisdiction in such -houses except by special arrangement, as in the Statute directing that -ordinaries “by virtue of the king’s commission to them directed” shall -take inquisitions and return them into chancery. Royal interposition -was not customary unless the king were patron; thus an order to inquire -into waste at certain hospitals was cancelled because the king had -erred in believing that they were founded by his progenitors. When -investigations were commanded, they were committed to a local jury, who -were to find by inquisition on oath of the good men of the county how -far rules had been observed, and they possessed full power “to deal -with the hospital as well in the head as in the members.” Detailed -accounts of such special visitations may be found among _Chancery -Miscellanea_ in the Record Office. - - -(c) _Finance._—The Lateran Council of 1179 decreed that -leper-communities should not pay tithe from gardens and orchards, nor -of the increase of cattle, and this was ratified in the Provincial -Council of Westminster in 1200. The [p196] Church wished to go a -step further and ordain that neither lazar-house, Domus Dei nor poor -hospital should pay taxes, which was set forth by Gregory X; entries -upon Papal Registers in 1278 declare that certain English houses, -including Ospringe, should share this immunity. But the decree was -not necessarily accepted in England, remission of taxation being a -royal prerogative; Ospringe was a Crown hospital to which exemption -was renewed from time to time of the king’s grace. In the cases of -lazar-houses, a curious distinction was made, witnessing incidentally -to national independence—“And let not the goods of lepers be taxed -where they are governed by a leper” (_par Sovereyn meseal_). This -rule occurs in the First Statute of Westminster (3 Edw. I),[118] and -afterwards in rolls and writs dated 1297, 1307, etc.[119] It was -evidently in allusion to this custom that, in remitting a wool-tax, it -is stated that St. Bartholomew’s, Rochester, was governed by a leprous -prior (1342), but a few years later the king granted it freedom from -taxation for ever. Many houses were freed by charter from local and -general contributions and tolls. - -Land-tenure may be included under finance. Before the enactment of -the Statute _De Religiosis_, benefactors met with no hindrance in -promoting any plan for endowment, but after 1279 permission was sought -“to alienate land in mortmain.” On payment of a small fine, communities -were empowered to accept property to a certain value. This developed -into the “licence to found” named in fourteenth-century rolls, and -subsequently into incorporation. [p197] - - -(ii) RELATIONS WITH THE PARISH PRIEST - -Before the foundation of a hospital chapel, special permission -was required from the bishop, with a guarantee that it should not -interfere with the parochial system. It was necessary clearly to -define privileges, lest friction should arise. Grants in civil and -ecclesiastical registers include “a chapel, bell and chaplain,” -oblations, sepulture and “the cure of souls.” - - -(a) _Oblations._—One quarter of the offerings received at St. -Katharine’s, Ledbury, was reserved for parochial use. Unless some -definite scheme was arranged, disputes quickly arose. A serious -collision of interests occurred at Brough. The tiny hostel, founded -with the sanction of bishop and archbishop (1506), developed into a -pilgrimage-place. The injured vicar, with solemn ritual, cursed with -bell, book and candle all concerned with such oblations as were made -in the chapel. The founder, however, called forth upon his parson -the archbishop’s censure “as an abandoned wretch and inflated with -diabolical venom for opposing so good a work.” The priest in turn -appealed to the Pope. At length it was agreed that 20s. yearly should -be paid to the mother-church.[120] - - -(b) _Public and private Worship, Bells, etc._—Agreements as to -public worship on certain occasions were made between the parish and -institutions within its boundary. The biographer of the Berkeley -family, quoting from the episcopal register (1255), records:— - - “That all the seculars in the hospitall of Longbridge, exceptinge - a Cooke, and one person to kepe sick folkes, should in the spetiall - solemne dayes, come to Berkeley Church and there [p198] should - receive all the ecclesiasticall Sacraments, (except holy bread and - holy water) unles it bee by the dispensation and leave of the Vicar - of Berkeley.”[121] - -To infringe such rules meant trouble. One Easter (1439), the chaplain -of St. Leonard’s, Leicester, permitted two of the warden’s servants -to receive the Sacrament from him there, instead of repairing to the -parish church; but the following Sunday he was forced to do public -penance. - -The curious restriction of repeating divine service with closed doors -and in an undertone was made at St. John’s, Nottingham, when the -patronal feasts were being celebrated in the parish. The rule for -ordinary days was that of St. James’ near Canterbury (1414), namely, -that the canonical hours be said audibly after the sounding of the -handbells or bells according to ancient custom. - -[Illustration: 29. GLASTONBURY] - -The possession of a bell in a turret required a special licence, lest -outside worshippers should attend. A chapel being added to St. Mary -Magdalene’s, Bristol (1226), the stipulation was made [p199] “but the -leprous women shall have no bells except handbells, and these shall not -be hung up.” It was agreed at Portsmouth (1229) that the two bells in -God’s House should not exceed the weight of those of the parish church, -and should only ring at set hours. The _Annals of Dunstable Monastery_ -show how important the matter was considered:— - - “In the same year (1293) the lepers of Dunstaple set up a mighty bell - outside the precincts of their house on two timbers; but the prior - . . . brought that bell within our jurisdiction; which afterwards he - restored to them yet so that they should by no means use that or any - other bell for calling together our parishioners or other people.” - - -(c) _Burial Rights._—The privilege of sepulture rendered the community -more independent, and secured to it certain fees and legacies. A -popular institution like St. Leonard’s, York, or St. John’s, Exeter, -derived benefits from the burial of benefactors. There is a will -entered on the Patent Roll of 1341 whereby a certain Vincent de -Barnastapolia requested to be interred in the cemetery of St. Mark’s, -Bristol, to which house he left a considerable legacy.[122] The -conferring or denial of a place of sepulture seems to have been without -rule, and was a matter of favour and circumstance. Thus St. Oswald’s, -Worcester, had a cemetery (probably because it was originally a -leper-house), whilst St. Wulstan’s had none. - - -(d) _Worship and Burial of Lepers._—To lepers both chapel and graveyard -were willingly granted. This was an early custom in England, as the -Norman architecture of several chapels shows (e.g. Rochester, _circa_ -1100). The [p200] Gloucester lazars were granted burial rights before -1160, when they already possessed a chapel, the chancel of which still -stands; the bishop’s licence made the usual stipulation that none but -lepers should be interred.[123] A fresh impetus was given to spiritual -provision for outcasts by the Lateran Council of 1179. Pope Alexander -III decreed as follows:— - - “Seeing that it is very remote from Christian piety that those who - seek their own and not the things of Jesus Christ do not permit - lepers . . . to have churches or burial places of their own, nor to - be assisted by the ministry of a priest of their own, we ordain that - these lepers be permitted to have the same without any contradiction.” - -This privilege, it was declared, must not be prejudicial to the rights -of ancient churches. - - * * * * * - -Digressing from the immediate subject of spiritual provision for the -outcast, one point must be made clear. It is sometimes thought that -the strict parochial discipline of mediæval England would insist upon -the attendance of the leper at his parish church on certain occasions; -others on the contrary suppose that the leper was excommunicate. -The popular belief is that the Church provided for his worship the -so-called “leper’s window,” frequently shown in old edifices. The -existence of low-side-windows at such places as Bridgnorth and Spondon, -where there were leper-colonies, is considered circumstantial evidence -of their origin and purpose. But name and idea alike are of entirely -modern growth, arising from a misinterpretation of a wall-painting at -Windsor, which Mr. Street took to represent the [p201] communicating -of a leper through an aperture. Administration would have been both -difficult and irreverent; the opening, moreover, is often so situated -that any such act would be physically impossible. A manuscript -chronicle, indeed, records how Blase Tupton, who was dwelling near St. -Chad’s, Shrewsbury, about the year 1409, had a gallery made so that she -might join in public worship:— - - “Blase . . . cam by chance to be a leeper, and made the oryell which - goythe allong the west side of the churche-yarde, throughe which - she cam aloft to heare serveys throughe a doore made in the churche - wale, and so passyd usually uppon the leades unto a glasse wyndowe, - throughe which she dayly sawe and hard dayly serveys as longe as shee - lyvyd.”[124] - -Now Blase was doubtless a privileged person, being the daughter of the -well-known townsman who had founded the almshouse adjoining St. Chad’s; -and though now and again a lazar might make his way to a churchyard to -gaze upon the holy mysteries, it is certain that only those living in a -community with a chapel and priest could be confessed and receive the -Blessed Sacrament. Most antiquaries are of opinion that the popular -theory of the object of lowside-windows is untenable. - - * * * * * - -Careful provision was made for the religious observances of the -untainted inmates of a hospital as well as for the leprous. They might -use the chapel except on the greater festivals when they were required -to attend the parish church and make oblations there. At St. Mary -Magdalene’s, Bristol, the infected confessed to their chaplain, but the -rest to the parish priest. No parishioner of Bedminster might attend -the chapel on Sundays or [p202] festivals to receive the blessed -bread and holy water, the distribution of which to other than inmates -would infringe parochial rights.[125] It was provided by the founder’s -statutes at Sherburn that on Sundays the lepers should receive “the -sprinkling of holy water, blessed bread, and other things which are -fitting.” - - -(e) _Free Chapels._—These were “places of worship exempted from all -relation to the mother church and also from episcopal jurisdiction, -an exemption which was an equivocal privilege, obtained immediately -from the Crown, or appended to ancient manors originally belonging -to the Crown.”[126] St. John’s, Oxford, was a privileged proprietary -chapel. The king withheld the right of visitation from the bishop -of the diocese, who, in turn, seems to have refused to sanction and -consecrate a graveyard. Henry III called in the Roman Pontiff to -arbitrate; whereupon “the pope at the instance of the king commanded -the Bishop of Lincoln to provide a burial ground for the hospital -of Oxford, for the brethren of the hospital and for the poor dying -therein, the indemnity of the mother church and of the king as patron -being provided for.”[127] The kings contrived to evade the Bishop -of Lincoln’s rightful authority. Edward I wrote to request Bishop -Giffard of Worcester to confer holy orders upon a brother “because the -same hospital is the king’s free chapel where the diocesan ought to -exercise no jurisdiction.” The Close Roll of 1304 emphasizes the fact -that the house was wholly independent and therefore “quit of payments, -procurations and other exactions of the ordinary.”[128] [p203] - -A few royal hospitals were subordinate to the Crown and the papal see. -That of Basingstoke, with its “free chapel of the king”, was granted -immunity from episcopal control by Cardinal Ottobon (1268). The Maison -Dieu, Dover, was taken under immediate papal protection by a bull of -Nicholas III (1277). A unique case occurs where the lay founder of an -almshouse at Nottingham gained for it freedom from the jurisdiction -of the ordinary or judges, and subjection alone “to St. Peter and the -Apostolic See” (1402).[129] - - -(f) “_The Cure of Souls._”—Whereas the “free chapel” had no parochial -obligations, there were hospital churches to which full parochial -rights were attached. How or why such houses as St. Paul’s, Norwich, -and Armiston came to possess “the cure of souls” is uncertain; -the little chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, Durham (now a ruin), was -also a rectorial parish church. More curious is the fact that -several _leper-hospitals_ acquired this peculiar advantage. Thus in -Northampton, although St. John’s was “no parish church, but only for -the company there inhabiting,” St. Leonard’s was a “liberty” having -parochial rights, not only of burial, but of Baptism. St. Nicholas’, -York, required as master, “a fit clerk who shall be able to answer for -the cure of souls belonging to the parish church of that hospital.” The -Lincoln leper-house had similar rights. - - -(g) _Almshouses and the Parish Church._—Many of the later almshouses -were closely connected with the parish. At Ewelme, for example, the -almsmen resorted to the church constantly, and their presence was -regarded as so important that even absence on pilgrimage was [p204] -deprecated. Those institutions which had no chaplain of their own were -brought into close touch with the parish priest, as at Croydon, where -the poor men went every day to the church to “here all manner divine -service there to be songe and saide.” - - -(h) _Collegiate Foundations._—Several large almshouses possessed -collegiate rights or formed part of a college (e.g. St. Mary’s, -Leicester; Shrewsbury, Tong, Heringby). Sometimes, as at Higham -Ferrers, there existed side by side a parish church, a bede-house for -pensioners, and a college for the priests and clerks. - - -(iii) RELATIONS WITH MONK, KNIGHT AND FRIAR - -Inquiry must now be made concerning the relation between hospitals -and monastic life. Although the religious orders directly influenced -certain houses, others were totally unconnected with them. Canon -Raine says that St. Leonard’s, York, was more of a secular than an -ecclesiastical establishment; he regards it as principally a lay -institution, although religion was, of course, a strong element in its -working. In this hospital “which is of no order” (says a Papal Letter, -1429) the master might be a layman. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXIII._ ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL, WILTON - -(_a_) SOUTH-EAST VIEW. (_b_) NORTH VIEW] - - -1. _The Monastic Orders_ - -Here it must be borne in mind that we have nothing to do with -the infirmary and guest-house within conventual walls. Only such -institutions are included as had an individual, though it may be -subordinate, existence. Some hospitals were founded by an abbot -or prior; these were chiefly dependent upon the mother-house for -staff, income, food and clothing; they had an individual [p205] -dedication-name, but often no common seal (e.g. Bury, Peterborough). -Others had a more independent existence, as indicated by the possession -of separate seals (e.g. Reading, Abingdon). A community which was -under the direct control of a religious house was of a more monastic -type than others. There was also the hospital established by a private -patron, and merely placed under the administration of some monastery; -here the endowment was distinct, and the staff might or might not be -members of the convent. - -It is in truth often difficult to discriminate between hospital -and priory; sometimes they are indistinguishable in aim and scope. -This was especially the case with the English Order of St. Gilbert; -the two Gilbertine houses at Lincoln and that of Clattercot were -actual infirmaries. Similarly, several foundations of the Order of -the Holy Sepulchre were pilgrims’ hostels served by a few canons. -In certain cases hospitals developed into priories, some losing -their distinctively eleemosynary character (e.g. Tandridge, Creak, -Cockersand), while in others a mere change of name took place, as at -Maiden Bradley. In the case of St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, priory -and hospital existed side by side, with separate organization, revenue -and seals. Sometimes the titles were used interchangeably; and at -Wilton the “priory” (Pl. XXIII) was merely a hospital governed by a -prior. - -Many institutions observed the Augustinian rule. Austin canons, -according to Canon Venables, were “regular clergy, holding a middle -position between monks and secular canons, almost resembling a -community of parish priests living under rule.” The five largest -London infirmaries were served by Augustinians. [p206] Those of St. -Thomas’, Southwark, dressed after the manner of clergy of secular -cathedrals and collegiate churches. The case of an Augustinian master -of St. Thomas’ shows that constitutions differed widely; with the -Bishop of Winchester’s consent, he was transferred to Sandon hospital -(Surrey); but being uneasy, he applied to the pope for absolution -from his vow and sought permission to live “according to the custom -of Sandon.” St. Bartholomew’s was likewise governed by Austin canons, -although a papal document states that it “has not been approved by the -apostolic see and is not subject to any regular order.” Elsyngspital -was founded for secular clergy, but, “taught by experience”, regulars -were substituted within twelve years. Among other Augustinian houses -may be named Newcastle (St. Mary’s), Brackley, Newstead, Bridgwater, -Southampton, and Dover. The Benedictine rule was followed by the staff -of St. Mark’s, Bristol, Strood, and of course in all hospitals under -Benedictine monasteries. - - -2. _The Military Orders_ - -Of the origin and introduction of these Orders more will be said under -the heading of St. John Baptist and St. Lazarus in Part Two. Here we -are rather concerned with the relations which existed between the -knightly brethren and hospitals in general. - - -(a) _Knights Hospitallers and Templars._—Both Orders were the -recognized guardians of travellers, and much of their work was akin -to that of the hospital for wayfarers. Thus King Stephen gave the -Yorkshire manor of Steynton upon Blakhommer to the Master of the -Temple:—“to find a chaplain to celebrate divine service daily and to -[p207] receive and entertain poor guests and pilgrims there, and to -ring and blow the horn every night at dusk lest pilgrims and strangers -should lose their way.” (Richard I afterwards re-granted the land to -the Hospitallers.)[130] Similar hospitality was doubtless provided in -all commanderies and preceptories. Although these were often called -“hospitals” (e.g. at Greenham in Berks, Sutton-at-Hone, etc.) they are -not included among the foundations enumerated in this volume. - -Indeed, although these Orders exercised a certain influence upon -hospitals, there was little actual intercourse. St. Cross, Winchester, -was originally placed under the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, but -the connection was of short duration; the habit and cross worn by the -present pensioners serve as a reminder of this fact. The patronage -of St. Saviour’s, Stydd by Ribchester, and St. Leonard’s, Skirbeck, -afterwards came into the hands of the Order. St. Thomas’ hospital in -Cheapside was under the Templars, but since it was not suppressed with -their preceptories (_circa_ 1312), it may be classed among independent -foundations. The full title remained (1340) “the master and brethren -of the Knights Templars of the Hospital of St. Thomas the Martyr of -Aeon of Canterbury.” It may be here observed that the misleading title -“Commandery” often accorded to St. Wulstan’s, Worcester, suggests -a link with the Knights of St. John which did not exist; although, -curiously enough, the masters of both the Worcester hospitals were -frequently named “preceptor.” - - -(b) _Knights of St. Lazarus._—Although, as has been said, commanderies -and preceptories proper are not included, the leper-hospitals of the -Order of St. Lazarus must of [p208] necessity find a place. The -principal one was at Burton Lazars, founded by a crusading Mowbray. -Two important hospitals, those of London and Lincoln, were annexed -to it by Edward I and Henry VI respectively. The staff of the former -are referred to (1337) as the master and brethren of St. Giles of the -Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem in England; soon after it appeared -that the master of St. Giles’ was not carrying out the traditions of -the charitable Knights, having “ousted the lepers and put in brethren -and sisters of his Order who were not diseased.” It is said that all -English leper-houses were in some way subject to Burton Lazars, but in -truth this was not so. It was the parent-house of cells at Carlton in -Moreland, Choseley and Tilton, the property at the former place being -charged with the support of four lepers, but whether maintained there -or at Burton Lazars is not stated. Spondon (or Locko) was originally -subordinate to a French house. In time of war, Edward III ordered that -the money hitherto paid over to the foreign superior, should henceforth -be given to King’s Hall, Cambridge (1347). That same year the master of -Burton was also preceptor of “la Maudeleyne,” Locko. - -[Illustration: 30. SEAL OF ST. ANTHONY’S, LONDON] - - -(c) _Monks of St. Anthony._—The Order of St. Anthony was likewise an -offshoot of that of St. John. Two of the hospitals in honour of this -saint were definitely under Antonine monks, _viz._ London and Hereford. -St. Anthony’s, London, was frequently called a [p209] preceptory. At -first it was “alien,” subject to the mother-house of Vienne, but it -afterwards became naturalized. It was stated in 1424 that on account -of international war and of the Schism (i.e. in the Papacy, 1378–1417) -few or none of the French canons had come to England; in 1431 a canon -of Vienne was appointed warden, but was subsequently replaced by one of -the King’s clerks. St. Anthony’s, York, was independent of the Order. - - -(d) _“Alien” Hospitals._—There were other hospitals subordinate to -foreign convents. The Great St. Bernard in Savoy established an -offshoot at Hornchurch; Altopassu in Italy maintained St. James’, -Thurlow; the leper-house near Rye was affiliated to Fécamp. Farley, -near Luton, was under Suntingfield by Boulogne; the staff were at one -time brethren of the Order of St. William of the Desert.[131] The -varying fortunes of the hospital near Charing Cross may be learnt from -Dr. Jas. Galloway’s _Story of St. Mary Roncevall_. Alien houses had -a chequered history, being confiscated in time of war, and most were -suppressed before the general Dissolution. - - -3. _The Friars_ - -By word and deed, St. Francis preached the duty of serving lepers. “He -appointed that the friars of his Order, dispersed in various parts of -the world, should for the love of Christ diligently attend the lepers -wherever they could be found. They followed this injunction with the -greatest promptitude.”[132] In England, however, it would appear -that there was not that close association between [p210] friars and -hospitals which existed in Italy. Led by national reformers, the work -of tending lazars had long been carried on. The great majority of -refuges for them were founded between 1084 and 1224 before the brethren -arrived in this country. Speaking of the friars’ labours, Green says -that “their first work lay in the noisome lazar-houses,” and Brewer -alludes to “their training for the leper-hospitals,” but there seems to -be little or no definite record of such service in this country. There -were, however, many individual outcasts, who had not the comfort of the -hospital, and to these the new-comers may have ministered. - -A few hospitals—not for lepers—were indeed appropriated to the -Mendicant Orders, or served by them. The association is of the -slightest, and usually of short duration. Thus the Bamburgh spital had -probably disappeared when Richard II gave its chapel to the Friars -Preachers, “in part remuneration for a cross made from the wood of the -Holy Cross presented by them to the king” (1382). The Crutched Friars -once had some connection with Holy Cross, Colchester. The relation -between hospitals and the Bethlehemite and Maturin Orders was closer, -and dated from the friars’ first century of work. St. Mary of Bethlehem -in London was founded upon land belonging to that community, members -of which were its original officials. Deeds of 1348 call them “the -Order of the Knighthood of St. Mary of Bethlehem”; possibly the link -with the Holy Land led them to adopt this military title. Maturin or -Trinitarian houses were more akin to the infirmary and pilgrim-hostel -than were any other friaries; one-third of their revenue was spent -in relieving local poor. Their houses (often called “hospitals”) are -[p211] not included in the present volume, save when they were not -merely friaries. For example, Stephen, Archdeacon of Wilts, who was -rector and patron of Easton Royal, founded there a house for indigent -travellers (1246).[133] The master was a Trinitarian brother, but he -was presented by the patron, to whom he and the other priests owed -obedience; in 1287 the same man was minister of Easton and of the -house of St. Mary Magdalene by Hertford. St. Laurence’s, Crediton, was -served by the Hounslow Maturin convent. The almsmen of God’s House, -Donnington, worshipped in the adjacent Trinitarian Chapel. - - * * * * * - -To recapitulate: the hospital was a semi-independent institution, -subject to royal and episcopal control in matters of constitution, -jurisdiction and finance, yet less trammelled in organization than most -religious houses. It formed a part of the parochial system, and had -also links of one kind and another with monastic life. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[118] Chron. & Mem., 72, _Reg. Malmes._ i. 232. - -[119] Pat. 25 Edw. I, pt. ii. m. 11; Rolls of Parl. I, 239_b_. - -[120] Nicolson and Burn, _Antiq. of Westmorland_, ed. 1777, i. 574. - -[121] J. Smyth, _Lives of Berkeleys_, i. 70. - -[122] Pat. 15 Edw. III, pt. i. m. 14. - -[123] Chron. and Mem., 33, i. 147. ii. 7. - -[124] Owen and Blakeway, _Hist. of Shrewsbury_, 1825, ii. p. 257. - -[125] Chron. and Mem., 97, p. 173. - -[126] Chetham Soc. F. R. Raines, _Lancashire Chantries_. - -[127] Pat. 22 Edw. I, m. 3. - -[128] Close 32 Edw. I, m. 2 _d_. - -[129] Cal. Pap. Reg. vol. v. p. 489. - -[130] Close 14 Edw. III, m. 13. - -[131] Pat. 37 Hen. III, m. 17. - -[132] Chron. & Mem. 4. _Monumenta Franciscana_, vol. i. p. xxv., from -“Mirror.” - -[133] Chron. and Mem., 97, pp. 301–6. - - - - -[p212] - -CHAPTER XV - -DECLINE OF THE HOSPITALS - - - “_Many hospitals . . . be now for the most part decayed, and the - goods and profits of the same, by divers persons, spiritual and - temporal, withdrawn and spent to the use of others, whereby many men - and women have died in great misery for default of aid, livelihood - and succour._” - -Such is the preamble to the Statute for the reformation of hospitals -(1414). Responsibility for use and abuse rested with the patron, but -more immediately with the warden into whose hands he committed the -administration. If this chapter is necessarily devoted to the seamy -side of hospital life, let no one suppose that officials were all bad, -or even all careless. There were men “in whose purity of conscience -the king confides,” chosen for “probity, character and knowledge.” Yet -upright, thrifty and faithful wardens were far from common, and it -does not sound hopeful when one and another was appointed “during good -behaviour.” - - -_Abuses by Patrons._—On the whole hospitals were well-treated by -their patrons. Their first founders especially showed both generosity -and care, but in many cases the descendants became indifferent and -neglected that careful selection of wardens which would have done much -to avert evils. But one of the outstanding grievances against patrons -was their claim to “maintenance” free of charge whenever they desired -it. They and the official “visitors” [p213] sometimes used these -institutions as hostelries for themselves and their retinue. In the -regulations of St. John’s, Bridgwater (1219), which the bishop drew up -for the manorial lord, it is said:—“We expressly forbid that either -the rich or powerful, whether of diocesan rank or ordinary people, or -the ministers and stewards of the patron, should lodge, sojourn or be -entertained and be a burden.” It was rather to be a _Domus libera Dei_, -founded only for the poor of Christ. The kings exercised their right to -lodge at the Maison Dieu, Dover (see Frontispiece), on their journeys -to France. The hospital made a complaint, however, when Edward, eldest -son of Edward I, was suddenly lodged there with the chancellor and -their suite by the marshal of the household. - -The “corrody” was an even greater, because a permanent, burden. The -privilege of board and lodging was frequently given away by patrons -as a reward for service, but sometimes it was created by grant of the -community itself, or sold by greedy officials. This grievance marks -a period of decline. Whereas Henry III pensioned his nurses from the -Exchequer, Edward I imposed upon hospitals the maintenance of old -servants of the Crown, sending a former damsel of the queen-mother and -her man-servant to Ospringe to be maintained for life. He appointed -only to houses of royal foundation, but his son went further, demanding -admission, for example, to the episcopal hospital at Worcester. Caring -little that Bishop Wulstan was the founder, Edward II declares that -“the hospitals in the realm were founded by the king’s progenitors for -the admission of poor and weak persons, and especially of those in the -king’s service who were unable to work.” An order is sent to Oxford to -admit the king’s [p214] chaplain to St. John’s, finding him and his -clerk food, drink, robes, shoe-leather, wood, litter, and a fitting -dwelling-place. The Statute of 1314–15 condemned the tyrannous practice -of burdening religious houses in this manner. - -Edward III was checked in the first year of his reign by a more -forcible enactment entitled, “There shall be no more grants of -Corrodies at the King’s Requests.” It states that many have been -hitherto grieved by such requests “which have desired them by great -threats, for their clerks and other servants, for great pensions and -corrodies.” Edward declares that he “will no more such things desire, -but where he ought”; and henceforth letters patent of this character -are less numerous. Where the demand was considered unjust, resentment -sometimes took the form of violence. Thus in 1341 the master of St. -John’s, Oxford, with eight men, assaulted and imprisoned a certain -Alice Fitz-Rauf; they carried her off by night with veiled face, threw -her into a filthy place, and so left her, having taken away the writ -requesting her reception into the hospital. More often a mild protest -was made by officials; they acquiesce “of mere courtesy,” but beg to be -excused in future. Forgetting that the courtesy of one generation may -be the custom of the next, the much-abused York hospital submits (1331) -provided the demand shall not form a precedent. Fifty years later, -a strong-minded master of that house refuses to admit a man at King -Richard’s command, replying that it was “founded for the bed-ridden and -not for the able-bodied.” - -Cases of oppression “by divers persons spiritual and temporal” are -recorded. Even the mitred abbot of St. [p215] Albans was more than -once at fault. In 1223 the pope commanded him not to lay burdens on -the leper women of St. Mary’s by virtue of patronage; and an early -Chancery Proceeding shows that another abbot had oppressed the poor -sick brethren and feeble folk of St. Julian’s. The Rolls of Parliament -reveal that an abbot of Colchester (_temp._ Edward I) withheld the -accustomed pension and tithe from “les povere freres malades” of St. -Mary Magdalene’s; by cunning and force he abstracted their common seal -and muniments, and flung their charters into the fire. At Durham the -inmates of St. Mary Magdalene’s begged redress of grievances (_temp._ -Edward II). Some previous almoner of the priory, they declared, had -defrauded them of food and clothing; he had even obtained their -muniments by bribing the guardian with the gift of a fur cloak. The -prior and convent, however, endorse the petition: “but be it known that -this complaint does not contain truth for the most part.”[134] - -Monastic houses were not as zealous as formerly in the service of -the needy. The great abbey of St. Augustine, Canterbury, had built -and maintained the daughter hospital of St. Laurence; but in 1341 -this is declared to be of a foundation so weak that it falls very far -short of what is sufficient for their sustenance. The lay patron of -West Somerton leper-house entrusted its custody to Butley Priory on -condition that the usual number of inmates were maintained. A later -prior withdrew the victuals and reduced the revenue from £60 to 10 -marks, until after twenty years of neglect, it was said (1399) “the -place where the hospital of old time was is now desolate.” [p216] -Reading Abbey, which once cherished its charitable institutions, -treated them ill in later days. When Edward IV travelled through the -town (1479), wrongs were reported to him, including “howsys of almes -not kept”; the abbot had appropriated the endowments and destroyed the -buildings. The prior and convent of Worcester themselves suppressed -St. Mary’s, Droitwich, in 1536, and “expelled the poor people to their -utter destruction.” - -Contention about patronage was another very serious evil, causing -continual litigation. The representatives of the first founder, and -those of subsequent benefactors, fell out as to their respective -claims. The Crown was ever ready to usurp patronage, on plea of -foundation, wardship, voidance of See, etc. Thus from generation to -generation, St. Leonard’s, York, was claimed by the Crown, whereas much -of its property had been a gift to the clergy of the minster by Saxon -and Norman sovereigns. A jury of 1246 decided in favour of the Dean and -Chapter against royal patronage, but subsequently the Crown recovered -it once more.[135] Such disputes were not limited to words. The See -of Winchester being void, Edward II nominated a warden to St. Cross, -afterwards declaring that he had recovered the presentation against -the bishop. The writ was seized and the arm of the king’s messenger -was broken in the contest. The practice of keeping important posts -unfilled was another abuse. A petition made in Parliament concerning -this evil (1314–15)[136] maintained that hospitals were impoverished -and destroyed during vacancy by temporary guardians, in reply to which, -remedy was promised. The warden of St. [p217] Nicholas’, Pontefract -(in Queen Philippa’s patronage), complained that during the last -voidance, goods had been lost to the value of £200. - -Patrons neglected personal supervision. The founders of Ewelme inserted -in the statutes one clause concerning the imperative duty of visitation -by their representatives; for, in their experience:— - - “Diuerse places of almesse had been yfounded of grete pite and - deuocion to be rewled by many ryght resonable rewlis and statutis - . . . yitte for defaute of dew execucion of the same and of dew - uisitacion and correccion of the brekers of them such sede howses - haue bene by myslyuyng and negligence ybought to grete heuynesse and - at the last to grete desolacon.” - - -_Abuse by Wardens and Officials._—Doubtless wardens were responsible -for the chief part of maladministration. Misrule by incapable and -untrustworthy men was as frequent as it was fatal. The masters and -their deputies had not the moral qualities of wisdom and honesty to fit -them for so difficult a post. Master Hugh, warden of St. John and St. -Thomas’ at Stamford, reduced it to such a condition that he petitioned -for liberty to resign (1299). The abbot of Peterborough committed it -to a neighbouring rector until “through the blessing of God its most -high guardian, it shall arrive at a more flourishing estate.” After -four months, however, Hugh was restored to office, and matters became -worse. He defrauded the poor of their alms, locked up the rooms where -strangers and sick should have been accommodated, and neglected the -chapel. Meanwhile the mild abbot died; a new superior interfered and -Hugh was again deposed. But having enlisted the mediation of the bishop -and archdeacon, he, after a solemn oath of “reformation of all my -excesses,” [p218] was actually entrusted for the third time with the -wardenship.[137] - -A more interesting figure is the incorrigible Thomas de -Goldyngton—warden of St. Nicholas’, Carlisle, and St. Leonard’s, -Derby—who appears upon the roll as a flagrant offender, although a -keen medical man. In 1341 he is perilously near forfeiting his Crown -appointments for acting as leech to Scottish rebels; in 1348 he -“exercises the office of the surgery of the commonalty [of Derby], -neglects the duties of the wardenship and has dissipated and consumed -the goods and alienated the lands to the great decay of the hospital.” -Thomas had been previously warned after sundry visitations, for -instance (1343): “the king commands the master at his peril to observe -all the rules, constitutions and ordinances of the hospital [Carlisle] -in their entirety.”[138] It seems doubtful whether this energetic -person ever became an exemplary house-surgeon and physician at that -mediæval royal infirmary of Derby. - -The staff like the warden defied authority, as is shown by visitation -reports. The brethren and sisters of St. Nicholas’, York, were -cross-questioned by the jury. The general evidence was that they were -living as they pleased, carrying on business, omitting services, -and wandering. The sisters mostly confessed to knowing nothing, but -one deposed that the brethren were disobedient; whilst the chaplain -reported that “all are disobedient and do not observe humility.”[139] - -Community life was doubtless trying to the temper, and there were -occasionally disturbances serious enough [p219] to reach the king’s -ears. Throughout the reign of Edward II, the name of Nicholas de Staple -occurs periodically on Close Rolls. Brother Nicholas first appears as -an official of the Maison Dieu, Ospringe, who had become intolerable to -his fellows. The king, in response to an appeal, orders him to transfer -himself promptly to St. John’s, Oxford, to remain until further notice: -“the king wishing to avoid damages and dangers and dilapidations of -the goods of the hospital that, it is feared, will arise if Nicholas -remain there any longer, on account of the dissensions between him and -the other brethren.” The disturber of the peace retires from parchment -publicity for thirteen years, when an order is sent to retain him for -life as a chaplain-brother. Finally, after a visit of twenty years -to Oxford (whither he was “lately sent to stay for some time”), the -life-sentence is remitted, and he is allowed to return to Ospringe. -Two years before Nicholas vanishes, Oxford becomes a reformatory for -another Ospringe brother, Thomas Urre, whom the king caused to be -amoved on account of bad conduct, and because he excited all manner -of disputes. Small wonder that a subsequent visitation of St. John’s -should reveal misrule, dissolute living, disobedient and quarrelsome -brothers, sisters and ministers. - -A few years later, the household at Newton in Holderness is in a like -condition, witness the following entry:— - - “Commission . . . to make inquisition and certify the king whether, - as he is informed, William Lulleman, chaplain, (who pretends to be - deaf and for that cause has at the king’s request been admitted to - his hospital of Newton to have his sustenance there,) is sometimes - lunatic and mad, and daily stirs up dissension between the brothers - and sisters of the hospital, and [p220] so threatens them and the - poor residing there, and bears himself so importunately that he - cannot have his conversation among the master and brethren, nor can - the brethren and sisters live in peace while he is conversant among - them.”[140] - -The offender was then removed, but imagine with what feelings the -warden of Newton received the king’s messenger four years later, and -unfastening the roll read as follows:— - - “To the master and brethren, etc. Request to admit William Lulleman - of Bernleye, chaplain, who is detained by severe sickness, and to - give him maintenance for life.”{140} - -Edward III, wishing to guard against the reception of unworthy -men, forbade the master of Ospringe to admit any brother without -special orders; and he removed one for notorious excesses and -disobediences.[141] St. Thomas’, Birmingham, was found in a miserable -plight, because “vile reprobates assumed the habit that they might -continue their abominable lives _sub velamine Religiositatis_, and then -forsake it, and cause themselves to be called hermits.”[142] No clerk -could be ordained without a “title,” but hospitals were apt to offer -this to unproved persons, which was fatal to the tone of the household. -St. John’s, Ely, was usually governed by clergy under rule, but in -1454 the Bishop of Dunkeld was collated to the mastership, because no -regulars could be found capable of effecting its recovery from ruin and -wretchedness. - -The decline of hospitals was largely owing to the fact that many -wardens were non-residents and pluralists. It was actually possible to -represent one as having died; [p221] several appointments are revoked -because the master is discovered to be “alive and well,” so that it was -by “false suggestion that the office was reported as void.” Meanwhile -such men were being supported from the hospital funds; an absentee -governor of God’s House, Southampton, took his share of the best of its -goods, living at its expense in a private mansion in the country. The -king nominated to Crown foundations men constantly employed on service -elsewhere, and a mastership was a mere stepping-stone to preferment. - -Not only did clergy hold a benefice and hospital together, but -sometimes one man held no less than three hospitals. About 1350, the -“lack of clergy by reason of the pestilence” was a serious matter. On -this plea the Bishop of Winchester appointed his nephew, a youth in his -eighteenth year, as warden at Portsmouth; before long the latter held -also the mastership of St. Cross, an archdeaconry, and two canonries. -Such practices, begun of necessity, were continued in the century of -lax Church life which followed. “One of the boys of the king’s chapel” -was given the wardenship of Ilford hospital in 1405. The mischief -that happened through the plurality and non-residence of parochial -and hospital clergy was at length insisted on in Parliament, when -in response to the petition of the Commons, reformation was ordered -(1425). St. Nicholas’, Pontefract, had been “ruled by secular masters, -some of whom hardly ever went there”; but in 1438 the management was -undertaken by the prior of Nostell. - -Dispensations from Rome were answerable for many bad appointments, -as is shown by entries in the papal registers of 1427. The master of -Newton Garth, for [p222] example, was Thomas Bourgchier—“who is in -his sixteenth year only, is of a race of great nobles, and holds the -said hospital, without cure, wont to be assigned to secular clerks”; -moreover it was granted that after his twentieth year he might hold two -houses, resigning or exchanging them at will. This youthful official -seems to have been following in the footsteps of his ambitious namesake -and contemporary, who secured constant promotion and finally “wore the -mitre full fifty-one years,” and died Primate and Cardinal. Well might -the founders of Ewelme almshouse provide that, if possible, the master -should be “a degreed man passed thirty winters of age.” - -Money was at the root of most ill-doing. Among the articles concerning -ecclesiastical reform set forth by Henry V and published by the -University of Oxford is one (No. 42) _De Reformatione hospitalium_, -stating that the poor and needy of the hospitals have been cast out, -whilst the officials convert the goods to their own purposes. The roll -of “evil dispenders” is a long one. - -St. Leonard’s, York, is a notable example of the reduction of income -by abuse and misfortune. In Canon Raine’s lecture upon its history, -he gives extracts from its account-books, which are here given in -brief. The receipts for the year 1369–1370 amounted to over £1,369, the -expenditure to £938. By 1409 the income had fallen to £546. The number -of patients declined proportionably, falling from 224 in 1370 to 199 -in 1377; and though it rose to 206 in 1423, it was reduced to 127 in -1462. From these facts several conclusions are drawn. The industrial -and self-supporting character of the hospital was relaxed because war -and pestilence left England shorthanded; land was uncultivated and -the hospital lost its thraves of [p223] corn. All this is true, but -much of the misery lay at the door of the wardens. One unscrupulous -master made 500 marks yearly by the traffic in pensions; in 1391 the -hospital was “charged with corrodies[143] sold and given, oppressed by -the excessive expenditure of its heads, and laden with debt, so that -its remaining revenues are insufficient to support master, brethren -and sisters or the poor and needy inmates, whereby the hospital is -threatened with extinction.” On another occasion the poor “Cremettes” -(as the inmates were called[144]) made a petition to the king because -their master had put the chalices and ornaments of the hospital in -pledge, etc. There are preserved in the Record Office a number of -documents relating to visitations of this house; these confirm the -evidence of contemporary Patent Rolls. - -At Gloucester the sale of pensions, jewels, corn, and even of beds, -is reported; bed-money was extracted from the poor (20_s._ from one, -and 6_s._ 8_d._ from another, who had lost his legs). Part of St. -Bartholomew’s was unroofed, pigs had access to it, the inmates lacked -food and clothing, whilst the utmost depravity prevailed in the -household (1380). One extravagant warden of God’s House, Portsmouth, -spent eight or nine hundred marks yearly, yet kept no hospitality:— - - “butt the master will not obey to that and so seruys the powr pepull - at hys pleysure, that ys, with uere cowrse bred and smaller drynke, - wiche ys contrary to all good consyens.” - -When a warden was to be elected to the Maison Dieu, Dover (1533), a -certain John de Ponte announced to Cromwell:—“The master is dead, and -a great benefice [p224] is fallen unto the king, with which you may -oblige your friends or take it yourself, and I will serve the same.” If -such was the prevalent tone of those in authority, it is small wonder -that Brinklow wrote about the year 1536:—“I heare that the masters of -your hospitals be so fat that the pore be kept leane and bare inough.” -There is strong censure upon the administration of the London hospitals -in the petition for their re-foundation (1538); they had been provided -to relieve the poor, but “nowe a smalle nomber of chanons, preestes and -monks be founden for theyr own synguler proffytt lucre and commodytye -onely,” and these do not regard “the myserable people lyeing in the -streete offendyng every clene person passyng by the way.” About the -year 1536, Robert Copland, in _The hye way to the Spyttell hous_, says:— - - “For I haue sene at sondry hospytalles - That many haue lyen dead without the walles - And for lacke of socour haue dyed wretchedly - Vnto your foundacyon I thynke contrary. - Moche people resorte here and have lodgyng, - But yet I maruell greatly of one thyng - That in the nyght so many lodge without.” - -Many charitable institutions were in a languishing condition. Some, -of course, had never been endowed, whilst others had only slender -resources. Frequently the depreciation in money had caused a shrinkage -in a once-adequate revenue; sometimes the land had been filched away by -neighbouring landowners. Writing of Sherborne, Leland observes that the -almshouse “stondith yet, but men get most of the land by pece meales.” -He notes the dilapidated state of houses here and there; at Beverley -“ther was an Hospital of St. Nicholas, but [p225] it is dekayid,” -and at St. Michael’s, Warwick, “the Buildings of the House are sore -decayed.” The condition of St. John’s, Lutterworth, described in the -Certificate of 1545, was such that no hospitality was kept;[145] there -were “noe pore men within the same Hospytal remaynyng or inhabityng; -and the house, with the chapel, gretly in decaye and ruyne.” At -Stoke-upon-Trent, it appeared that there was a priest called master -of St. Loye’s hospital, but he did not know to what intent or deed of -charity it was founded.[146] Frequently the possessions had dwindled -until they barely sufficed to support a chaplain, and no charity was -distributed. The Certificate of St. John’s, Calne, states that abuse -is apparent, because there are no paupers, but all profits go to the -master; these, however, only amounted to 66_s._ 5_d._ St. John’s, -Bedford, was worth 20_s._ a year, and “there is found neuer a poore -person nor hath not ben by the space of many yeres.” In some cases the -foundation had entirely dropped out of existence, as at Winchcombe, -where Leland notes that “now the Name onely of Spittle remaineth.” - -The Statute of 1545 stated that it was well known that the governors -and wardens of hospitals, or the greatest number of them, did not -exercise due authority nor expend the revenues in alms according to the -foundation. The avowed object of the Act was “to reduce and bring them -into a more decent and convenient order. - - - - -[p226] - -CHAPTER XVI - -THE DISSOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS HOUSES AND ITS EFFECT UPON HOSPITALS - - - “_The hospital . . . is like to go to utter decay. . . . For my own - part I think often, that those men which seek spoil of hospitals - . . . did never read the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew; for if they - did, and believed the same, how durst they give such adventure?_” - - (Archbishop Grindal, letter to Burleigh, 1575.) - -When the Primate wrote thus to the Lord Treasurer, he added:—“that if -any hospitals be abused (as I think some are) it were a more Christian -suit to seek reformation than destruction.” Although the decline of -some hospitals led to the dissolution of many, it by no means follows -that such a course was justifiable. - -Speaking generally, charities which had outlived their usefulness -had already been suppressed before the general Dissolution and their -property transferred to other purposes. The leper-houses of Windsor -and Huntingdon, for example, were evidently deserted and ruinous when -they were annexed to Colleges at Cambridge (1462); and the hospitals of -Romney, Aynho and Brackley had been appropriated to Magdalen College, -Oxford (1481–5) because they were no longer carrying out the founder’s -intentions. St. John’s, Reading, and St. Bartholomew’s, Bristol, had -already been converted into schools, the latter as recently as 1532. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXIV._ AMBULATORY OF ST. LEONARD’S, YORK] - -In most of the existing hospitals good work was being [p227] -done; the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ and Chantry Surveys show that -money was expended upon useful charities. Layton’s report of St. -Mary’s, Leicester, that it was “well kept and honest men therein” -was true of many almshouses throughout the land. Where evils are -complained of, they were not so much breaches of morality on the part -of the household, as neglect and wastefulness in administration. A -carefully-regulated commission to inquire into matters of finance -could well have rectified abuses in ill-managed institutions. -Had justice and magnanimity held sway instead of rapacity and -selfishness, the old houses of mercy would have been refreshed and -their utility doubled just when a far wider charity was needful on -account of the annihilation of benevolent monasteries. This was done -in some foreign countries. Through the protection of Gustavus Vasa, -Swedish lazar-houses survived the Reformation. In Denmark, Dominican -and Franciscan friaries were transformed into hospitals, and the -leper-houses subsequently became places of isolation for contagious -diseases. In France, where there was no ecclesiastical upheaval, -decayed hospitals were reformed (1545) and put under the control of the -bourgeois class (1561). - -The various Acts of Henry VIII’s reign show that the oppression of the -poor was not at first intended. The Statute for the suppression of -vagrancy (1530–1) approved the charitable work of hospitals. One clause -in that of 1535–6 required that those who entered into possession of -the lands of religious houses should provide hospitality and service -for the poor as of old. In the draft for the bill of 1539 the Commons -proposed that the greater monasteries not dissolved should build -bede-houses in which [p228] to maintain for life ten poor men over -sixty years of age. - -Here, indeed, was a golden opportunity to increase the benevolent -institutions of the country. Much that was becoming useless might have -been transformed into a great and permanent benefit. Charitable relief -might have been placed under public control upon a sound religious -and financial basis. But reformation too often proved to be mere -destruction, as “Mors” shrewdly remarks:— - - “Your pretence of putting downe abbeys, was, to amend that was amisse - in them. . . . It is amended euen as the deuell amended his dames - legge (as it is in the prouerbe) whan he shuld haue set it ryght, he - bracke it quyte in peces.”[147] - -It is evident that the monastic system had been gradually losing its -hold on the nation. The idea of partial disendowment had also been -working in men’s minds, no one foreseeing that the plunder of rich -foundations would ultimately lead to the robbery of poor people. In -1410 the Commons petitioned in the Parliament of Westminster that the -surplus wealth of ecclesiastics might be transferred to other uses, -and that destitute persons might benefit by the provision of new -hospitals. Henry IV replied that he would deliberate upon the matter, -and although no revised appropriation of funds then took place, he did -afterwards suppress certain alien priories, a policy which was followed -by Henry V. In 1414 the above proposal was renewed in the Parliament -of Leicester, but the astute Chichele undertook that the clergy -should supply money for the wars:—“a thrust was made at all [p229] -Abbies,” says Fuller, “which this Archbishop, as a skilful Fencer, -fairly put by.” In the following century Wolsey, not anticipating the -wholesale destruction which was to follow, sought to dissolve certain -small priories in order to assist educational institutions (1523). A -contemporary writer observes that by this precedent “he did make loose -in others the conscience towardes those houses.” - -The people desired the reformation of hospitals and an extension of the -system. Sir John Oldcastle’s bill in 1414 proposed the foundation of -new institutions each to be endowed with one hundred marks yearly. The -Commons suggested that money now wasted by churchmen might maintain a -standing army and also suffice to provide:— - - “an hundred houses of alms, to the relief of poor people . . . with - oversight of two true seculars unto every house. And also with - provision that every township should keep all poor people of their - own dwellers, which could not labour for their living, with condition - that if more fell in a town than the town could maintain, then the - said almshouses to relieve such townships.”[148] - -A similar plan was proposed by Brinklow about the year 1542. He -probably uttered what was in the minds of many when he suggested -measures for the re-distribution of ecclesiastical wealth. One chapter -of his _Complaint_ contains “A Godly aduisement howe to bestowe the -goodes and landes of the Bisshops &c. after the Gospell, with an -admonytion to the Rulers, that they loke better upon the hospitals.” A -part might, he thought, be given in alms to the blind, sick and lame, -to free schools, or to needy maidens for marriage portions, etc. [p230] -Poorhouses and parish doctors should be provided, and he adds:— - - “Item, part of these forsayde goodes may be employed to this use, - that in euery hundreth, good towne or citie, certein houses be - mainteined, to lodge and kepe pore men in, such as be not able to - labour, syck, sore, blind, and lame, and euery one of them to haue - wherwith to liue, and to haue poore whole women to minister unto - them. . . . Let Physycians and Chyrurgians be founde in euery suche - town or cyte, where such houses be, to loke uppon the Poore in that - Town, and in all other Joyninge unto it and they to lyue uppon their - stipend onely, without taking any penny of their pore, uppon payne of - lousing both his eares and his stipend also.” - -Henry VIII proposed to the Commons very much what their predecessors -had suggested to Henry IV and Henry V, omitting, nevertheless, the -clause relating to a hundred new almshouses. If they would grant him -the religious houses, these should not be converted to private uses, -and the army would be strengthened and taxes reduced. No provision, -however, was made for these projects, but the king was put in -possession of the monasteries, and then of the chantries, hospitals and -free chapels. The Parliament, in granting the hospitals to the king and -his heirs for ever, expressed its confidence in the royal benevolence -towards them and desire for their improvement:— - - “The Kinges Highnes of his most godlie and blessed disposicion - entendeth to have the premisses used and exercised to more godlie and - uertuouse purposes and to reduce and bringe them into a more decent - and convenient order, for the commoditie and welthe of this his - realme and for the suertie of the subjects.” - -When the king went to prorogue Parliament, he seems to [p231] have -alluded in his “Oration,” as set forth by Foxe, to the above expression -of their hopes and wishes:— - - “Surely if I, contrary to your expectation, should suffer the - ministers of the church to decay; . . . or poor and miserable people - to be unrelieved; you might say that I, being put in so special - a trust, as I am in this case, were no trusty friend to you, nor - charitable man to mine even-christened, [fellow Christians], neither - a lover of the public wealth, nor yet one that feared God, to whom - account must be rendered of all our doings. Doubt not, I pray you, - but your expectation shall be served more godly and goodly than you - will wish or desire, as hereafter you shall plainly perceive.” - -But although Henry VIII thus professed to remember the higher court of -justice, his conduct gave no evidence of it. Brinklow ventured upon -a reminder in _A Supplication of the Poore Commons_,[149] published -shortly after the king’s speech:— - - “We beseke you (most deare Soueraine) euen for the hope you haue - in the redemption of Christ, that you call to remembraunce that - dreadfull daye, whan your Highnesse shall stande before the judgement - seat of God in no more reputation then one of those miserable - creatures which do nowe daylye dy in the stretes for lack of theyr - dwe porsion.” - -He continues to point out in forcible language that the portion -due by God’s ordinance to poor impotent folk, the lame, blind, lazar -and sore members of Christ—who once had been lodged in hospitals and -almshouses—is now given by the king and his nobles to “reward those -gnatonical elbowhangers, your chaplaines.” In spite of the vehement -abuse of parasitical clergy in which the above writer indulges, it was -in the main lay-people rather than churchmen who divided the spoils. -Fuller—who quaintly [p232] writes that “this king made three meals, or -(if you will) one meal of three courses, on Abbey-lands, besides what -Cardinal Wolsey (the king’s taster herein) had eaten beforehand”—goes -on to say “yet surely more tendernesse was used to hospitalls,” and -finds “very few of them finally suppressed.” But hospital endowments -did certainly form a substantial dish at Henry’s feast, to which many -royal favourites were bidden. Some fell with the smaller priories -(1536), a few with the greater houses (1539), and others were -extinguished under the Act for dissolving chantries, free chapels, -hospitals, and guilds (1545); a further Act of confiscation marked -the first year of Edward VI’s reign (1547). In some places charities -were indiscriminately swept away. A manuscript history of Gorleston -records, for example, that “Henry VIII ordered that all the premises of -. . . the Hospitals of St. James, St. John, St. Bartholomew, St. Luke, -and the church and hospital of St. Nicholas . . . should be sold.” No -consistent plan was followed, but—whether under ecclesiastical or lay -control—charities were destroyed or spared at will. Speaking generally, -institutions in private hands were suppressed, those in the possession -of corporate bodies, retained. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXV._ ST. LEONARD’S, YORK] - -Few houses of Crown patronage escaped. The Commissioners, announcing -to Cromwell (1537) the dissolution of certain northern monasteries, -add:—“We have also altered the howse of Sancte Leonerdes in Yourke, -after suche ordre and fassion as we trust shall appeir to your lordship -to be to the kinges honour and contentacion.”[150] In truth the -alteration meant annihilation for St. Leonard’s; and St. Nicholas’ -hospital in the same city also [p233] disappeared. In London, the -Savoy, fresh from the hand of the builder, was dissolved. The sisters -of St. James’, Westminster, surrendered (receiving life-pensions), -whereupon “the king builded there a goodly Mannor, annexing thereunto -a Parke.”[151] The Maison Dieu, Dover, a rich foundation with good -buildings near the quay, was declared suitable for a victualling yard -(1544) which it eventually became. - -Hospitals attached to a cathedral or see were usually, but not always, -spared. In the bishopric of Durham, for example, the houses of Sherburn -and Greatham survived, but neither Kepier nor the bishop’s hospital at -Northallerton. God’s House, Portsmouth, was surrendered and became an -armoury; in the Library of the Society of Antiquaries is a document of -1547 concerning “Munycions within the Churche at Goddeshouse.”[152] St. -John’s, Ely, was spared, yet only for a while. The episcopal hospitals -at Bath and Norwich remained in use, but under the municipality. - -If directly dependent upon a monastic house, the fate of a hospital was -practically sealed. Take, for instance, the case of St. James’, near -the gate of Lewes Priory. From the monastery now demolished thirteen -men and one woman had had all their living; wherefore Peter Thompson -and the bedefolk begged relief (1538).[153] Hospitals of lay-foundation -which had been subsequently placed under monastic supervision, but -with distinct endowments, fell as forming part of the sequestrated -property. In some cases the Crown kept up charities for a time. The -[p234] return of pensions in 1552 shows that sums were paid out of the -tenements of Nostell Priory to inmates of St. Nicholas’, Pontefract. -The poor dwelling in the so-called “Kings Majesty’s almshouses” at -Glastonbury (formerly abbey-pensioners) were also granted weekly -allowances. This was generous, for although Henry VIII and Edward VI -were fond of giving their names to charitable institutions, they too -often gave little else. - -The two Statutes authorizing the dissolution of Chantries, etc. -(1545–1547) extinguished or reduced in means, some houses of charity. -When an almshouse was spared, the Crown sometimes demanded an -acknowledgment; at Beverley the rents in 1545 include a new item of £4 -paid by the town to the king and queen for the Trinity Maison Dieu. -“Hospitals” were not rightfully within the scope of the second Act. -Thus Foster’s almshouse in Bristol being, as the certificate states:— - - “for the helpynge relief and comforte of a certeyn nomber of poore - people there to contynue and haue their liuinge from tyme to tyme for - euer, is without the compasse of the statute and the King’s Majestie - not entitled thereunto by force of the same.” - -In the preface to the _Yorkshire Chantry Surveys_, it is stated -that most, if not all, of the hospitals which were returned on the -certificates there printed were left undissolved, save that in a few -cases funds were transferred to educational purposes. Testimony is -borne in 1552 to the usefulness of one of the Pontefract almshouses, -where fourteen bedemen were supported:— - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXVI._ ABINGDON ALMSHOUSES] - - “Thes persons be called cremettes and le pore and agyd people, - and placyd in a howse, callyd Seynt Nycoles Hospytell, [p235] and - when any of them dyeth another ys placyd in the dedes roome, and ys - very convenyent to be contynuyd, as well for the helpe of the pore - and agyd people of the towne as for others.” - -In many places, however, endowments were seized by virtue of this Act. -A sixteenth-century MS. states:— - - “Item, there ar within the towne and parishe of Taunton xliiij^{or} - almshowses full of poore people whereunto there was certen Lande - belonginge which by the Suppression of Chaunteries was taken - awaie soe that now thinhabitaunts doe beare the whole burden them - selues.”[154] - -The dissolution of fraternities also affected the maintenance of the -poor. Of almshouses associated with gilds at Colchester, Stratford -and Abingdon, none survived save the latter, which was incorporated -by Edward VI. St. John’s hospital in Winchester outlived the -fraternity annexed to it. St. Thomas’, York, which had been united to -Corpus Christi Gild, weathered the storm, its officials afterwards -diplomatically inviting the mayor and aldermen “to be brether with us -in the same hospital.” - -Those houses were fairly secure which were already the property of -municipal authorities, who indeed received fresh patronage at this -time (e.g. at Canterbury, Norwich, Bath)—a policy which obtained the -support of the great middle-class. At this crisis the public-spirited -action of more than one corporation saved charities from extinction. -In the Survey for Wiltshire (1548), quoted by Mr. Leach in _English -Schools at the Reformation_, the following entry is made:—“There is -an Hospitall within Marleborowe . . . wiche the sayd mayre and commons -humbly desyre the Kingis Highnes and his mooste Honourable councell -[p236] to conuerte into a Free scole for the inducement of youth.” But -before the townsmen obtained their school, it was necessary to sell -the stock of plate intended to pass from mayor to mayor, “as hath byn -credibly reported,” says a book formerly belonging to the Chamber. To -cite another example, the corporation of Bristol received St. Mark’s -as a “gift,” that is, the sum of £1000 was paid into the treasury -of the Court of Augmentations, besides an annual rent of £20. The -city obtained part of the property in return on easy terms, for, as -Fuller would observe, there were “many good bargains, or rather cheap -pennyworths, bought of abbey lands.” It is said that more than half the -purchase-money was raised by the sale of church plate. - -In London, the citizens, under the leadership of the Lord Mayor, made -an urgent petition to Henry VIII (1538) for the re-foundation of -certain hospitals:— - - “for the ayde and comforte of the poore sykke, blynde, aged and - impotent persones, beyng not able to helpe theymselffs, nor - hauyning any place certeyn whereyn they may be lodged, cherysshed - and refresshed tyll they be cured and holpen of theyre dyseases - and syknesse. For the helpe of the said poore people, we enforme - your grace that there be nere and w^{t}yn the cytye of London three - hospytalls or spytells, comenly called Saynt Mary Spytell, Saynt - Bartylmews Spytell, and Saynt Thomas Spytell, . . . fownded of good - devo[~c]on by auncyent fathers, and endowed w^t great possessions and - rents.” - -The petitioners promise that if the king will grant the governance of -these hospitals to them with their possessions, they shall be reformed -and their usefulness increased:— - - “A greatter nombre of poore nedy sykke and indygent persones shalbe - refresshed maynteyned comforted fownde heled [p237] and cured of - theyre infyrmytyes frankly and frely, by phisicions, surgeons, and - appotycaryes, . . . so that all impotent persones not able to labor - shall be releued . . . and all sturdy beggars not willing to labor - shalbe punisshed, so that w^t Godd’s grace fewe or no persones shalbe - seene abrode to begge or aske almesse.” - -It appears that no response was made to this appeal until 1544. St. -Mary’s had been dissolved, never to be restored, St. Thomas’ was -deserted, and St. Bartholomew’s, “vacant and altogether destitute of -a master and all fellows or brethren.” After six years’ delay, the -king heeded the petition. He was exceedingly anxious to emphasize -his compassionate character and eager desire for the improvement of -hospitals. If the petitioners had invited him to win the name of -conservator, defender and protector of the poor, he writes as though he -were indeed all these:— - - “We being of the same [hospital] so seised, and, divine mercy - inspiring us, desiring nothing more than that the true works of piety - and charity should not be abolished there but rather fully restored - and renewed according to the primitive pattern . . . and the abuses, - in long lapse of time lamentably occurring, being reformed, we have - endeavoured . . . that henceforth there be comfort to the prisoners, - shelter to the poor, visitation to the sick, food to the hungry, - drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and sepulture to the dead - administered there . . . we determine to create, erect, found and - establish a certain hospital.” - -By virtue of these letters-patent the name of the ancient institution -was to be “The House of the Poor in West Smithfield of the foundation -of King Henry VIII.” The noble “founder” is commemorated by the gateway -and by a portrait in the Common Room; whilst a window in [p238] the -hall depicts Sir R. Gresham receiving the “foundation-charter.” - -If the “creation” of St. Bartholomew’s—after above four hundred years -of usefulness—was due to Henry VIII, its preservation was due almost -entirely to the good citizens of London. Its former possessions -being now vested in the Crown, the king agreed by an Act of Common -Council to endow it to the extent of 500 marks a year (about £333). -The citizens—“thinkying it for their partes rather to litle then -enough”—gladly met the offer with a similar sum annually; they also -raised nearly £1000 for initial expenses and opened the repaired and -refitted hospital for one hundred patients. They agreed henceforth -to buy and provide all manner of apothecary’s ware, and all that was -necessary for making salves and all other things touching physic -or surgery, for the healing of inmates. From this time onwards the -citizens interested themselves in this great institution which they -supported nobly. It did not become a municipal hospital, but was under -the guidance of the Lord Mayor and Governors. - -By the same covenant the king “gave” St. Mary’s of Bethlehem to the -city. Stow says:—“It was an Hospitall for distracted people. . . . -the Mayor and Communalty purchased the patronage thereof with all the -landes and tenementes thereunto belonging, in the yeare 1546, the same -yeare King Henry the eight gave this Hospitall unto the Cittie.” In -other words, the citizens bought back that which had already been in -the guardianship of the city for about two hundred years. - -In “The Ordre of St. Bartholomewes”[155] drawn up in [p239] 1552, a -report is given, so that all might know how things were administered -and support the work. During the preceding five years, eight hundred -persons had been discharged healed, and ninety-two had died. The -charity had been carried on in spite of great difficulties, and now -there was a design to increase it:— - - “The Citie of their endlesse good wil toward this most necessarie - succour of their pore brethren in Christ, . . . wyshe al men to be - most assuredly perswaded, that if by any meanes possible thei might, - they desire to enlarge the benefyght to a thousand.” - -A wish is expressed that all almoners and houses of alms might be -stirred up to do likewise “at this tyme namely, when the mysery of -the poore moste busily semeth to awake.” This same year the manor of -Southwark was purchased and St. Thomas’ repaired, so that whereas it -lately accommodated forty sick, it was reopened with 260 beds for the -aged, sick and sore. This “Hospitall of great receite for the poore, -was suppressed but againe newly founded and indowed by the benevolence -and charitie of the citizens,” says Stow. King Edward’s letters-patent -(1551) describe the miserable condition of the sick poor lying and -begging in the streets, “to their no small grief and pain and to the -great infection and molesting of his subjects. The king desiring the -health of the citizens in general no less than the cure of the sick, -therefore grants permission to the mayor and corporation to undertake -the work.” - -The work of the re-founded houses of St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, and -Bethlehem was supplemented in 1553 by Christ’s Hospital for fatherless -children, and Bridewell for the correction of idle vagabonds. These -institutions [p240] were provided partly from Edward VI’s private -purse and partly from the dissolved Savoy Hospital and Grey Friars. -Their initiation was due to the influence of Ridley, Bishop of London, -who took counsel with the Lord Mayor as to the condition of the poor, -and reported it to the young king. With the charitable provision after -1547 we are not, however, concerned, and only the ultimate effect of -the general Dissolution remains to be shown. - - * * * * * - -For, happily, this volume is no history of obsolete institutions. The -heritage of the past is to a certain extent ours to-day, and we can -rejoice in the uninterrupted beneficence of St. Bartholomew’s which -receives in the twentieth century as in the twelfth, “languishing men -grieved with various sores.” Words spoken by the Prince Consort in -reference to another foundation at once ancient and modern, are equally -true of St. Bartholomew’s and of the sister-hospital of St. Thomas:— - - “It holds to this day the same honourable position in the estimation - of the country which it did in the time of its first formation, - exemplifying the possibility, in this happy country, of combining - the general progress of mankind with a due reverence for the - institutions, and even forms, which have been bequeathed to us by the - piety and wisdom of our forefathers.”[156] - -More has come down to us than perhaps we realize. Canterbury retains -three venerable houses of alms. St. Mary’s, Chichester; St. Nicholas’, -Salisbury; and St. Giles’, Norwich, are still peaceful retreats in old -age. In the city of Winchester—St. Cross is not merely a monument of -unchangeable usefulness, but increased funds [p241] enable it to give -pensions in various parts of England to the value of £1200; the site of -St. Mary Magdalene’s is occupied by an isolation hospital, a portion of -the original endowment maintaining a small almshouse; while St. John’s -has been greatly enlarged. - -[Illustration: 31. GATEWAY OF ST. JOHN’S, CANTERBURY] - -Even where no ancient stones bear witness, modern bricks or coins -may be eloquent, for a part of the original [p242] endowment may -be applied to a renewed institution. For instance, the funds of the -demolished leper-hospital at Chichester are applied to a modern -infirmary. Sums arising from the “Lazarhouse Charity” (Launceston) or -“Magdalene Lands” (in Devonshire) are now and again expended upon food -and fuel for the poor. And although York shows in the fragment of St. -Leonard’s but a memorial of fallen greatness, what appears to be a -remnant of its rich revenues is still paid to thirty-one poor people, -for the curious name “Cremitt Money” is surely derived from the inmates -of that hospital, commonly known as “cremettes” (a corruption of -_eremites_). The connection is clear enough in the case of the “Almsmen -of St. Bartholomew” at Oxford, and “St. Nicholas’ Almsmen” at Carlisle, -who represent former occupants of leper-houses. Again, the relation may -be intimate even when a modern charity perpetuates the ancient only by -force of association and memory. St. Leonard’s, Bedford, was revived in -1889, the original charity for the sick, paralysed, and lepers having -lapsed at the Dissolution. No endowments survived, but it is supported -locally. The present foundation is an association of religious and -philanthropic persons who supply nourishing diet to invalids in their -homes and assist them when convalescent. Thus, although the sole trace -of old buildings is one pillar-shaft serving as a sun-dial, the charity -itself is a living memorial of the ancient hospital.[157] - -Finally, St. Leonard’s, Sudbury, and Sherburn House, Durham, illustrate -to what advantage the old order may yield place to new. The income -of St. Leonard’s, originally designed for three lepers, supplemented -by [p243] voluntary contributions, is applied to the maintenance of -fourteen beds for sick patients, the hospital being fully equipped with -modern medical and surgical appliances whilst maintaining the former -religious traditions. Sherburn, once a home for sixty-five outcasts, -was transformed into an almshouse when the scourge was removed. In -that “haunt of ancient peace” many are now sheltered in time of age -or chronic sickness; they worship daily in the old church; they are -visited and cheered by a master who has devoted his life to them, and -whose work is a labour of love. The revenues and practical benefits of -the hospital continue to increase; a modern dispensary is fitted up -there, by means of which hundreds of out-patients from the neighbouring -city are relieved. - - “It is this renewing of itself which brings to English institutions - greatness, stability, and permanence. Thus the great traditions of - the past can be happily, wisely, and usefully combined with the - highest aspirations of the present and future.” - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[134] Surtees Soc., 95, p. 238. - -[135] Chron. and Mem., 71, iii. 162–5. - -[136] Rot. Parl., i. 303. - -[137] Peck, _Annals of Stanford_, ix. 32. - -[138] Pat. 17 Edw. III, pt. i. m. 25_d_. - -[139] Yorks. Arch. Assn. Record Series, xxiii. Inq. ii. p. 123 et sq. - -[140] Pat. 16 Edw. III, pt. ii. m. 22 _d_. Close 20 Edw. III, pt. i. m. -4 _d_. - -[141] Close 6 Edw. III, m. 29 _d_. - -[142] Lichfield Reg., 1344, Wm. Salt, Soc. i. - -[143] See p. 213. - -[144] See p. 242. - -[145] It had been declining for above a century; a Papal Letter -(1435–6) states that for fifty years, on account of the diminution of -its fruits, etc., there were no brethren in the hospital. - -[146] Aug. Off., Chantry Certificate 40 (36). - -[147] _Complaint of Roderyk Mors_, ch. xiiij. - -[148] Fabyan, _Chronicles_, ed. 1811, p. 578. - -[149] Early Eng. Text Soc., 77. - -[150] Camden Soc., 1843, p. 166. - -[151] Stow, _Survey of City of Westminster_, bk. vi. p. 4. - -[152] MS. Soc. Antiq. cxxix. f. 274. - -[153] Cal. of Letters and Papers, Hen. VIII, 13. i. 383. - -[154] B.M. Add. 30277, f. 3. - -[155] Early Eng. Text Soc. Extra liii. App. xvi. - -[156] Speeches, p. 104. - -[157] Communicated by the Secretary. - - - - -[p244] - -PART TWO - -NOTES ON HOSPITAL PATRON SAINTS - - - “_Hospitals . . . founded to the honour of God and of His glorious - Mother._” (Parliament of Leicester.) - -The words “GOD’S HOUSE,” and “MAISON DIEU” were familiar enough in -mediæval England. A hospital was the house of God, for therein Christ -was received in the person of the needy:—“I was a stranger and ye took -Me in, sick, and ye visited Me.” It was also built in His Name and to -His honour, for the principle underlying all dedications was, says -Hooker, that they “were consecrated unto none but the Lord only.” But -with God’s Name that of one of His saints was often associated, and by -this the hospital was commonly called; thus a charter of Basingstoke -ran:—“I have given and granted to God and to the glorious Virgin His -Mother, and to my venerable patron St. John the Baptist the house -called St. John.” - - -THE HOLY TRINITY.—Hospitals bearing this title are not very numerous, -though it often occurs as first of a group. There are a few single -dedications early in the thirteenth century, which may be partly -attributed to the institution of the Feast of Trinity by St. Thomas -of Canterbury. Two hundred years later it was a fairly common [p245] -dedication for almshouses. The seals depict various symbols. The -“majesty” representing the Three Persons, occurs at Walsoken; the -Almighty seated upon a rainbow (Salisbury); our Lord enthroned -(Berkeley); whilst a triple cross ornaments the Dunwich seal. Bonde’s -almsmen at Coventry bore upon their gowns “the cognizance of the -Trinity.” - - -THE HOLY SAVIOUR; CHRIST; CORPUS CHRISTI.—The Second Person of the -Godhead is seldom commemorated, but the dedication to the Blessed -Trinity was regarded as synonymous, for the almshouse at Arundel -occurs indifferently as Christ’s or Holy Trinity. The Maison Dieu at -York, commonly called Trinity, was properly that of the Holy Jesus—or -Christ—and the Blessed Virgin, and the chantry certificate is headed -“The Hospital of the Name of Jhesus and Our Blessyd Ladye.” St. -Saviour was the invocation of houses at Norwich and Bury, and the -fair in connection with the latter charity was held at the feast of -the Transfiguration. “Y^e masendew of Chryste” at Kingston-upon-Hull -was originally “Corpus Christi,” but it is remarkable to find that -rarely-preserved dedication-name upon an Elizabethan table of rules. -The seal of the Holloway hospital, near London, shows Christ (with the -orb) and St. Anthony. - - -THE HOLY GHOST.—This sacred title, closely associated with the mediæval -charities of Germany and famous in Rome, was rarely used in England. -At Sandon (Surrey) was a hospital “commonly called of the Holy -Ghost,”[158] though an alternative name occurs. A hidden dedication -is sometimes revealed, for the houses usually known as St. Thomas’, -Canterbury, St. Margaret’s, Taunton, [p246] St. John’s, Warwick, and -St. John’s, Hereford, are mentioned once in documents as being built -in honour of the Holy Ghost as well as of the saints named; all the -above instances refer to the years 1334–1353. At Lyme there was the -suggestive commemoration of the “Blessed Virgin and Holy Spirit.” - - -THE ANNUNCIATION; ST. GABRIEL; ST. MICHAEL; THE HOLY ANGELS.—Two -fourteenth-century foundations at Leicester and Nottingham commemorate -the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin. The seal of the former house -depicts St. Gabriel delivering his salutation. A kindred thought -underlies the dedication “to our lady St. Mary the Mother of Christ and -to St. Gabriel the Archangel” at Brough. (It is noteworthy that the -parish church was St. Michael’s.) Another institution, built by Bishop -Bronescombe of Exeter, who had a special devotion to the Archangel, -left its name to Clist Gabriel. The more ancient dedication to St. -Michael occurs at Whitby and elsewhere in Yorkshire. Michael de la Pole -founded an almshouse at Kingston-upon-Hull, partly in honour of “St. -Michael the Archangel and all archangels, angels and holy spirits.” A -fraternity at Brentford commemorated “The Nine Orders of Holy Angels,” -and in the Valor it is termed _hospitalis Angelorum_. - - -THE BLESSED VIRGIN; THE THREE KINGS OF COLOGNE; THE HOLY INNOCENTS.—The -statement referring to hospitals in general as “founded to the honour -of God and of His glorious Mother” explains more than one difficult -point. First, numerous as are the dedications to St. Mary, they -are fewer than those of some other saints, for instance, St. Mary -Magdalene. Secondly, a certain number of houses are set down as having -two patrons, yet the second [p247] saint appears to eclipse the -Blessed Virgin; that of Newport in Essex (given as St. Mary and St. -Leonard) usually bore St. Leonard’s name and kept its fair on his -festival. In many such cases there was in truth no double dedication; -and although gifts were made by charter to found a hospital at Bristol -“in honour of God, St. Mary and St. Mark”, later documents omit the -formula and call it “the house of St. Mark.” - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXVII._ HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIN, -NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE] - -On the other hand many houses were dedicated solely in honour of the -Blessed Virgin, including five important institutions in London alone. -In addition to St. Mary (without Bishopsgate), St. Mary of Roncevalles -(Charing Cross) and Our Lady of Elsyng (Cripplegate), there was St. -Mary’s hospital or the House of Converts,—a witness to the doctrine -of the Incarnate Christ,—and St. Mary of Bethlehem, a name chosen on -account of the founder’s intense reverence for the holy Nativity. Stow -quotes the deed of gift made by Simon, “son of Mary”:— - - “having speciall and singulor deuotion to the Church of the glorious - Virgin at Bethlehem, where the same Virgin brought forth our Saviour - incarnate . . . and where [to] the same Child to us there borne, - the Chiualrie of the heavenly Company sang the new Hymne _Gloria in - excelsis Deo_.” - -The Holy Innocents were commemorated in the ancient leper-house outside -Lincoln. The existing chapel of an almshouse in Bristol built “in the -honour of God and the Three Kings of Cologne” (Leland’s _fanam trium -regum_) is the sole witness in the way of dedication in England to the -veneration of the Magi. The title is said to have been the choice of an -Abbot of Tewkesbury at the close of the fifteenth century. [p248] - - -HOLY CROSS AND HOLY SEPULCHRE.—Names commemorating the Death and -Burial of the Saviour are not infrequent. The history of St. Cross, -Winchester, touches that of the Knights of Jerusalem, with whom both -name and badge are connected. (See p. 207.) On the common seal the -master and priests are shown kneeling at the foot of the Cross; the -descent from the Cross is depicted upon the walls of the church. -This dedication is also appropriately associated with the hospitals -usually known as St. Mary Magdalene’s at Stourbridge and near Bath, -the fairs of which houses were held on the festivals of the Invention -and Exaltation of the Holy Cross. The chapel of St. Thomas of Acon -in Cheapside—under the Knights Templars—was dedicated to St. Cross. -The church attached to St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, was probably -named out of veneration for the relics of “the tree of life” which the -founder used in healing (see p. 95); and once exemptions were granted -“out of the king’s reverence for the Holy Cross, in honour of which the -church of the hospital of St. Bartholomew is dedicated.”[159] - -The connection between St. Helen and the Holy Cross is best told in -reference to the hospital at Colchester. Although authentic records -only carry its history back to 1251, an illustrious antiquity is -claimed in an episcopal indulgence purporting to be issued about -1406. The tradition is quoted (but with modernized spelling) from the -_Antiquarian Repertory_:— - - “Moreover, in the year of our Lord 670, Constantine, the son of the - blessed and holy woman Saint Elyn, sent his mother unto Jerusalem to - inquire of the Holy Cross that our Saviour Christ Jesu died upon, - likewise as it was shewed to him by [p249] token in the air and also - by revelation of the Holy Ghost. Then the holy woman, seeing the Will - of Almighty God, departed out of the town of Colchester where she - was born (there where the said hospital is founded in the honour of - Almighty God, the holy Cross and St. Elyn) and took her journey unto - Jerusalem and there . . . did win the same Cross. . . . Then the holy - victorious woman gave laud and loving to God and took one part of the - Holy Cross and closed it with gold and sent it to her hospital to - Colchester evermore to be abiding, with her ring, her girdle, and her - purse, with other 24 curious reliques.” - -Finally, after relating a visit of St. Thomas of Canterbury to that -house, the story of the relic, inciting to devotion, pilgrimage visits -and contributions, is brought up to date:— - - “Also in the year of our Lord 1401, there came thieves unto the - hospital by night and brake up the locks where the glorious relique - was, and took it away . . . then they took the blessed Holy Cross (as - it was, closed in gold the weight of 21 ounces) and cast it into the - pond, but it would not sink . . . and so the folks that did pursue - took it up and brought it home to the place again.” - -This Colchester foundation was associated with the gild of St. -Cross (p. 18) and other gilds of that name maintained charities at -Stratford-on-Avon, Abingdon and Hedon. In the latter place the hospital -of St. Sepulchre gave its title to Newton St. Sepulchre. There were -pilgrim-houses at Nottingham and Stamford with the same dedication. - - -ST. JOHN BAPTIST, ST. MARY MAGDALENE AND ST. LAZARUS.—The cult of -these saints is intertwined with the history of the Religious Military -Orders of Jerusalem. The work of the Knights Hospitallers was to care -for sick and [p250] needy pilgrims. They maintained two important -infirmaries at Jerusalem, St. John’s for men, and St. Mary Magdalene’s -for women. Grateful guests returning from pilgrimage bore the report -of these houses far and wide; thus it came to pass that, throughout -Europe, hospitals unconnected with the order were founded, and by -force of association consecrated in honour of these saints. That of -St. John Baptist, Lechlade, is referred to in one deed as “St. John -of Jerusalem.” Such “houses of St. John” were usually for travellers. -One writer remarks that almost every town had a place to accommodate -the sick and wayfarers, and that they “were invariably dedicated to -St. John Baptist in connection with his wandering life.” Although this -saint did not monopolize the protection of strangers, he was certainly -adopted as patron by some hundred hospitals (excluding commanderies of -the Order of St. John). - -Lanfranc’s foundation in his cathedral city was placed by him under -the patronage of St. John Baptist, on one of whose festivals (August -29) the archbishop had been consecrated. The hospital at Thetford kept -a fair on that day called “The Decollation of St. John Baptist”; but -the lepers of Harting celebrated their wake on June 24, “The Nativity -of St. John Baptist.” The strange customs connected with this latter -festival were especially observed in houses of which he was patron; -in memory of St. John Baptist it was usual at Sherborne for a garland -to be hung up on Midsummer Eve at the door of St. John’s, which the -almsmen watched till morning. - -Seals usually depict the saint with his symbol of the Holy Lamb; -sometimes he points to a scroll (_Ecce Agnus Dei_). In two instances -(Banbury and Bristol) a patriarchal [p251] cross, one of the symbols -of the Knights Hospitallers, is shown; this double-armed cross is -likewise found on the gable of St. John’s, Northampton, where it is -considered a unique architectural feature. - -St. Lazarus became the guardian of lepers partly through the influence -of the Order whose aim was to relieve the sick, and especially the -leprous, members of their brotherhood. They were introduced into -England in Stephen’s reign, when the hospital of the Blessed Virgin -and St. Lazarus was founded at Burton, afterwards known as Burton St. -Lazarus. The seal of this house depicts a bishop carrying in one hand a -fork or trident,[160] in the other a book; Dugdale ascribes the figure -to St. Augustine, but Mr. de Gray Birch attributes the mitred effigy to -St. Lazarus, traditional Bishop of Marseilles. Of the other dedications -to St. Lazarus little is known, some being of doubtful authenticity. - -[Illustration: 32. SEAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE’S, BRISTOL] - -The question naturally arises—why were lepers called _lazars_ in -common parlance, and why was _Lazarus_ chosen as their patron? A -curious confusion of ideas is revealed. The original person intended -was he who lay full of sores at the rich man’s gate. The banner of a -Flemish lazaretto displays scenes from the life of this Lazarus, who -appears clad as a mediæval leper, and carries a clapper.[161] The same -idea was familiar in England. David of Huntingdon having founded a -leper-house, Aelred the chronicler prays at his death:—“Receive his -soul into the bosom of Abraham with Lazarus whom he did not despise -but cherished.” A similar allusion occurs in Langland’s [p252] _Piers -the Plowman_: “And ich loked in hus lappe · a lazar lay ther-ynne.” -The _lazarus ulceribus plenus_ of the allegory, however, soon became -associated with the historical Lazarus of Bethany. Thus a colony of -north-country lepers dwelt in Sherburn hospital founded “in honour of -the Saviour, the Blessed Virgin, St. Lazarus, and his sisters Mary and -Martha.” This dedication was abbreviated into St. Mary Magdalene, and -the principal altar was in her honour. St. Mary Magdalene, universally -identified with St. Mary of Bethany, was thus commonly involved in the -curious double personality of St. Lazarus. In England, she was the most -popular of leper-patrons, no one save St. Leonard attaining to half her -number of dedications. We are told that St. Lazarus held this place -in France, St. James in central Europe, St. George in the North; but -in England, the Magdalene was supreme. The “Maudlin-house” was almost -synonymous with leper-hospital. Place-names testify to the devotion of -our forefathers to St. Mary Magdalene, and in several places “Mawdlyn -lands” mark the site of a leper-colony. - - -ST. BARTHOLOMEW had sixteen hospitals in England, chiefly in the South. -An old hymn, quoted by Dr. Norman Moore, describes the Apostle’s -medical powers. “Lepers he cleanses”—and to him were dedicated ancient -lazar-houses at Rochester, Oxford, Dover, etc. “The sick [p253] he -restores”—the Apostle having appeared to Rahere, sick with fever in -Rome (perhaps, it is suggested, upon the island of St. Bartholomew in -the Tiber), he builds upon his recovery a house of healing near London, -which for nearly eight hundred years has been a place of restoration. -“The lunatic are made whole”—and the _Book of the Foundation_ tells of -such a cure at St. Bartholomew’s:— - - “ther yn a shorte space his witte was recoueryd, where a litill - tyme he taried, blessyng God that to his apostles hath uouchsaf to - commytte his excellent power, to hele syke, to clense lepers, and to - caste owte feendys.” - -At St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, a relic was treasured, namely, a portion -of the saint’s skin. The legend of his martyrdom is depicted upon the -seal of the Gloucester foundation, and he is shown knife in hand on the -Rochester seal. (Tail-piece of this chapter.) - - -ST. JAMES.—Of all the Apostles, St. James has the largest number of -hospitals, namely, twenty-six partly or wholly dedicated to him. This -is doubtless due to the fact that his shrine at Compostella was the -goal of Christendom, and the miracles of “Santiago” world-famous. St. -James’, Northallerton, was named as the direct result of a pilgrimage -to Compostella in the year 1200 by Philip, Bishop of Durham. Several -ports (Dunwich, Seaford, Shoreham) had houses in his honour. Hospital -seals depict the saint as a pilgrim, with water-bottle and scrip, -whilst one shows the token of escallop shells. - - -ST. JAMES & ST. JOHN.—Whereas there was apparently no parish in England -commemorating the brother-apostles, three hospitals (Aynho, Royston, -and Brackley) bore this double name. About Brackley, indeed, there is -some [p254] uncertainty. It occurs as “St. John and St. James” (1226), -“St. James and St. John Apostle” (1227); but also as “St. John Baptist” -(1301, 1471). The seal shows two figures, of which one scantily clad -and bearing a palm suggests the Baptist. - - -ST. JOHN EVANGELIST & ST. JOHN BAPTIST appear in conjunction at Exeter, -Sherborne, Newport Pagnell, Northampton, and Leicester. The original -and usual title at Exeter was St. John Baptist; but in 1354 Bishop -John de Grandisson, a benefactor, mentions “St. John the Baptist -and Fore-runner of Christ and St. John His Evangelist and Apostle.” -The seal of Northampton shows both saints with their symbols, and -the appellations BAPTI and EWA are placed over the figures. On the -Leicester seal the eagle of the Apostle is shown, and the scroll in -its talons may represent the _Ecce Agnus Dei_. When “St. John” occurs, -the dedication commonly proves to be to the Baptist; and even where -the Evangelist is expressly named, some later document reverts to his -namesake, e.g. Blyth, Burford, Castle Donington, Cirencester. - -[Illustration: 33. SEAL OF ST. MARK’S, BRISTOL] - - -ST. MATTHEW, ST. MARK, and ST. LUKE were not uncommemorated. “The -house of St. Matthew” at Maiden Bradley, which occurs on one Patent -Roll (1242), was commonly called St. Mary’s; the double dedication is -mentioned in the Obituary Roll of Prior Elchester of Durham (1484), -viz.: _Eccles. B. Mar. et S. Math. Ap._ The fair, granted [p255] in -1215, was upon the vigil and feast of St. Matthew the Apostle. The -name of St. Mark’s, Bristol, is preserved in the existing chapel of -the hospital; the seal (Fig. 33) shows the saint writing his gospel, -the lion by his side. “The lepers of St. Luke the Evangelist at the -bridge-end of Beghton” are mentioned in 1334, but the locality is not -identified. There was also a hospital of St. Luke at Gorleston. - - -ST. ANDREW; _St. Thomas_; ST. STEPHEN.—There were dedications to St. -Andrew at Flixton, Denwall, Cokesford, and Hythe. It seems probable -that the last named was a re-foundation of St. Bartholomew’s, for “St. -Andrew” only occurs during the few years following its restoration -by Hamo, Bishop of Rochester, of which See that saint was patron. -It is improbable that any of the hospitals of St. Thomas were under -the patronage of that Apostle, although Tanner erroneously gives an -instance at Birmingham. They sprang up when St. Thomas the Martyr -of Canterbury was of paramount popularity. The ambiguous “St. -Thomas-on-the-Green” at Sherborne, for example, is referred to by -Leland as the “free chapel of Thomas Becket.” St. Stephen, the almoner -of the Early Church, was the appropriate patron of several houses of -charity, including three in the eastern counties. One was at Bury St. -Edmunds, where there were preserved in the abbey “certain drops of St. -Stephen’s blood which sprung from him at such time as he was stoned.” -The seals of Norwich and Hempton show their patron respectively as -martyr and minister. - - -ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE; ST. PAUL THE HERMIT; ST. PETER; ST. -PETRONILLA.—Although St. Peter and St. Paul are commemorated in -hundreds of parish-churches, their [p256] hospitals number only nine, -including those in York and London which were adjuncts of cathedrals -and borrowed their dedication-names. At Norwich, St. Paul the Hermit -was associated with his namesake. St. Peter and his daughter St. -Petronilla were patrons of leper-houses for priests and maidens at Bury -St. Edmunds. The virgin saint was famous locally and the skull of St. -Petronilla or Pernell, which was preserved in the abbey, was considered -efficacious in sickness. Indeed, the eastern counties were rich in her -relics, for a casket from the treasury of a Norwich priory, lent to -Henry III, contained, it was said, “of St. Petronella, one piece.” - -[Illustration: 34. SEAL OF ST. CLEMENT’S, HODDESDON] - - -ST. CLEMENT; ST. LAWRENCE.—There were dedications to the Bishop of Rome -in Oxford, Norwich and Hoddesdon. On one seal, the last-named house -is called “the hospital of St. Clement” (Fig. 34), upon another “of -St. Anthony”; both depict not only the hermit but a mitred saint in -vestments, with hammer and horse-shoe. The connection with the forge -is not clear, but St. Clement is referred to as patron of ironworkers -in Sussex, and of blacksmiths in Hampshire. He was popularly regarded -rather as the seamen’s saint, and was invoked by mariners of a -fraternity of St. Clement connected with St. Bartholomew’s hospital, -Bristol. St. Lawrence the deacon, whose liberality [p257] towards -the sick and poor was proverbial, was guardian of twelve hospitals, -chiefly for lepers. This beloved martyr of Rome was venerated in -Canterbury, and the lepers dependent upon St. Augustine’s Abbey were -under his protection on a site now marked by St. Lawrence’s Cricket -Ground. “Lawrence Hill,” Bristol, also preserves the memory of a -leper-house. The old seal of St. Lawrence’s, Bodmin, shows the martyr -with his gridiron. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXVIII._ - -HOSPITAL OF ST. PETRONILLA, BURY ST. EDMUNDS - -HOSPITAL OF ST. JAMES, DUNWICH] - - -ST. NICHOLAS.—The dedications in this name amount to twenty-nine, -eleven being in Yorkshire. St. Nicholas’, leper-house, Harbledown, was -founded by the Italian Lanfranc, whose native land had just acquired -the bones of the benevolent bishop, translated to Bari in 1087. The -hospitals of Royston and Bury St. Edmunds kept their fairs at the -festival of his “Translation.” So great was his popularity that Miss -Arnold-Forster remarks that if any dedication to St. Nicholas could -be traced in Derbyshire, he would have the distinction of being found -in every county. This one lack among the parish churches to which she -refers, is supplied by the existence of a hospital in his honour at -Chesterfield, and of an almshouse chapel at Alkmonton. - - -ST. ANTHONY.—Whereas few churches were consecrated in memory of this -hermit, twenty-one houses of charity were partly or wholly dedicated -to him. His aid was invoked when pestilence (_feu sacré_) wasted -France, and the initiation of the Order of St. Anthony spread his -fame. The French priory at Lenton maintained a hospital for “such as -were troubled with St. Anthony’s fire,” i.e. erysipelas. An indulgence -offered to contributors towards St. Anthony’s in London refers to -inmates “of whom [p258] some are so tortured and scorched by burnings -as of the pit, that being deprived of all use of their limbs, they -seem to be rather horrible deformities than human beings.” The saint -was invoked against contagion and all diseases. In England most of his -foundations were for lepers. One of the latest lazar-houses (Holloway, -1473) had a chapel of St. Anthony; but the full title on the seal is -“Holy Jesus and St. Anthony.” - -The seals of the London, Hoddesdon, and Holloway hospitals (Figs. 30, -34) show St. Anthony with his tau cross, bell, and pig. When it was -forbidden for swine to roam in the streets, the Antonine monks retained -the right to turn out their pigs, which were distinguished by a bell. -Although the York hospital was not under the Order, the master claimed -one pig out of every litter. As late as 1538, when the London house of -St. Anthony had been appropriated to Windsor, licence was given “to -collect and receive the alms of the faithful, given in honour of God -and St. Anthony, . . . together with swine and other beasts.” - - -ST. AUGUSTINE; ST. BENEDICT; ST. BERNARD.—Whether the “hospital -for lepers of St. Augustine” at Newport (Isle of Wight) should be -considered a true dedication is hard to say; like the “Papey” in -London it may merely have been a community under the Austin Rule. -A leper-house in Norwich bore the name of St. Bennet’s; although -situated in St. Benedict’s parish, this must be regarded as a genuine -dedication, for the common seal depicts the patron. “St. Nicholas and -St. Bernard’s” at Hornchurch took its designation from the Great St. -Bernard in Savoy. (See p. 209.) [p259] - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXIX._ THE HOSPITALITY OF ST. JULIAN - -FROM THE PAINTING BY C. ALLORI] - - -ST. JULIAN THE HOSPITALLER was a singularly appropriate guardian. -Gervase of Southampton was himself following the example of St. Julian -when he turned his home into a resting-place for travellers. Leland -refers to God’s House, Southampton, as “dedicate to Saynct Juliane the -Bisshop,” but it was rather the “good harbourer” who was renowned in -mediæval England. The saint has been depicted in art helping a leprous -youth out of the ferryboat and welcoming him to his house. (Pl. XXIX.) -At the passage of the river at Thetford was a hospital, the chapel of -which commemorated St. Julian; and the leper-house near St. Albans was -in his honour. - - -ST. ALEXIS.—The story of Alexis himself is some clue to the unique -dedication found at Exeter. He forsook his home for many years, and -when at last he returned he was recognized by no one, but his parents -welcomed the ragged stranger for the sake of their wandering son. St. -Alexis was therefore regarded as the patron of mendicants. - - -ST. GEORGE AND ST. CHRISTOPHER.—There were hospitals of St. George at -Tavistock and Shrewsbury; the latter gave his name to one of the gates -and contributed his cross to the arms of the town. That of Yeovil -was dedicated to “St. George and St. Christopher the Martyrs”; each -pensioner was to wear upon his breast a red cross “as a sign and in -honour of St. George the Martyr, patron of the house of alms.” The -squire of Thame put his bedemen under the care of St. Christopher, as -is set forth upon his tomb:— - - “that founded in the church of Thame a chantrie, vi pore men and a - fraternitye, In the worship of Seynt Cristofore to be relevid in - perpetuyte.” [p260] - -[Illustration: 35. SEAL OF ST. KATHERINE’S, BRISTOL] - - -ST. MARGARET; ST. KATHERINE; ST. URSULA.—There are eighteen houses in -honour of St. Margaret, and they are chiefly for lepers. It is possible -that in the case of Huntingdon the name may enshrine the memory of the -saintly lady of Scotland, who died in 1093, although, it is true, she -was not canonized until 1250; her son, David of Huntingdon, built St. -John’s in that town, and he may have founded St. Margaret’s, of which -his daughter and grandson were benefactors. The hospitals dedicated to -St. Katherine also number about eighteen. That royal saint was chosen -by Stephen’s queen as the protector of her charitable foundation for -women. Katharine of Aragon obtained for this house a gift of relics, -including part of the tomb of the saint sent by the Pope, “out of -respect for the Hospital of St. Katharine.” The seal of this house and -of that at Bristol (Fig. 35) show the saint crowned, [p261] with sword -and wheel, and the latter device was also worn on the habit. Wigston’s -hospital, Leicester, was named “St. Ursula and St. Catherine.” -Bonville’s almshouse at Exeter includes in its unique dedication St. -Ursula’s famed companions; it was in honour of “The Blessed Virgin, the -Eleven Thousand Virgins and St. Roch.” - - -ST. ANNE; ST. HELEN.—The mother of the Blessed Virgin was commemorated -at Ripon, and together with other saints at Norwich, Oakham, -Stoke-by-Newark, Brentford and Hereford. St. Helen, the mother of -Constantine, had hospitals at Derby and Braceford, besides that alluded -to under the title “Holy Cross.” - - -SAINTS OF FRANCE - - -ST. LEONARD.—The attitude of France to this hermit-saint was one of -deep devotion. Our Norman kings and nobles shared this veneration. -Foundations bearing his name at Chesterfield, Derby, Lancaster and -Nottingham, had privileges in the adjoining royal forests; and St. -Leonard’s, Launceston, was dependent on the Duchy. The hospital -at Northampton showed a crown upon its seal, and that of York -(re-dedicated to this saint by Stephen) bore the arms of England. St. -Leonard’s, Alnwick, was erected on the spot where the Scottish king -Malcolm fell. This saint had a reputation as a healer: “il était le -médecin des infirmes.” Some fifty-five charitable foundations had -St. Leonard for patron; they were mainly for lepers, and in certain -counties (notably Derby and Northampton) even St. Mary Magdalene had -to give place to him in this capacity. [p262] The “Hospital of St. -Leonard the Confessor” in Bedford was revived twenty years ago by a -band of brothers who met on St. Leonard’s Day and resolved to restore -the lapsed memory of this patron saint. - - -ST. GILES; ST. THEOBALD.—The houses of St. Giles number about -twenty-five. The chief one was that “in the fields” near London. He was -the cripples’ (and therefore the lepers’) patron, partly because he -himself suffered from lameness, and partly on account of the legend of -the wounded hart which fled to him, an incident depicted upon seals at -Norwich, Wilton and Kepier. Another French hermit, St. Theobald, shares -the dedication of the leper-house at Tavistock with St. Mary Magdalene. - - -ST. DENYS; ST. MARTIN; ST. LEGER; ST. LAUD; ST. ELIGIUS.—The hospital -at Devizes built by the Bishop of Salisbury was in honour of St. James -and St. Denys; the fair granted to the lepers was held on the vigil and -day of St. Dionysius. The charitable St. Martin occurs, with or without -St. John Baptist, at Piriho. St. Leger was commemorated at Grimsby. St. -Laud (or Lo) is an alternative patron at Hoddesdon. St. Eligius (or -Eloy) was venerated in houses at York, Stoke-upon-Trent, Cambridge and -Hereford. - - -ST. LOUIS; ST. ROCH.—These unique dedications are welcome among our -patron saints. That to the saintly king occurs in the Ely Registers, -contributions being invited in 1393 towards a chapel newly constructed -at Brentford (_Braynford_) in honour of the Blessed Anne and St. Louis -(_Ludovicus_) with houses for the reception of travellers. St. Roch, -who ministered to the plague-stricken of Italian hospitals in the -fourteenth century, [p263] was commemorated at Bonville’s almshouse in -Exeter, Rock Lane being a reminder of its chapel of St. Roch. - - -SAINTS OF ENGLAND - - -ST. OSWALD; ST. WULSTAN.—One hospital at Worcester “beareth the name -of St. Oswald as a thinge dedicate of ould tyme to him.” (See p. 2.) -The foundation of the other is ascribed to St. Wulstan himself. The -house grew in importance after the saint’s canonization in the year -1203, which followed a fresh display of miracles at his shrine. The -possession of the faithful bishop’s famous staff was disputed between -hospital and priory.[162] - -The common seal shows the patron in the act of benediction, staff in -hand. - - -ST. GODWALD; ST. DAVID.—The chapel of St. Wulstan’s was dedicated to -St. Godwald. “Some say he was a bishop” is Leland’s commentary. Miss -Arnold-Forster identifies him with Gulval, hermit-bishop in Wales. -St. David, the Welsh Archbishop (canonized 1120), was commemorated at -Kingsthorpe, by Northampton, the house being frequently called “St. -Dewi’s.” - - -_St. Brinstan_; ST. CHAD; _St. Cuthbert_, _etc._—Although Leland had -read that “St. Brinstane foundid an hospitale at Winchester,” nothing -is known of it. “Here is a hospital of St. Chadde,” he remarks at -Shrewsbury, referring to the church and almshouse. Two dedications -sometimes ascribed to St. Cuthbert, namely at Gateshead and Greatham, -within “the patrimony of St. Cuthbert,” hardly justify his inclusion -among patrons, although he is named in the deed of gift. The same may -be said [p264] of documentary allusions to St. Erkenwald, St. Hilda -and St. Richard in connection with foundations at Ilford, Whitby and -Chichester. - - -ST. ETHELBERT; ST. EDMUND, KING & MARTYR; ST. EDMUND, ARCHBISHOP & -CONFESSOR.—The royal Ethelbert and Edmund are included among our -saints. St. Ethelbert’s, Hereford, is attached to the cathedral and -shares its patron. In the case of the ten houses of St. Edmund, it is -not always possible to determine whether the Saxon king is intended or -Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury. The “spital on the street” in -Lincolnshire and the hospital by Doncaster Bridge were in honour of the -royal martyr; whilst those of Leicester and Windeham commemorated the -archbishop, the latter being founded by his devoted friend, St. Richard -of Chichester, who had recently attended the solemn “Translation” at -Pontigny. - -[Illustration: _PLATE XXX._ - -CHAPEL OF ST. EDMUND THE KING, SPITAL-ON-THE-STREET - -CHAPEL OF ST. EDMUND THE ARCHBISHOP, GATESHEAD] - -St. Edmund’s, Gateshead, has puzzled historians because the -designations vary between King, Archbishop, Bishop and Confessor. -Surtees and others concluded that all had reference to one foundation, -but Mr. J. R. Boyle proves that there were two with distinct -endowments, and that both chapels were standing a century ago. Now -it is recorded that Nicholas of Farnham was the founder of that of -“St. Edmund the Bishop.” A sidelight is thrown upon the subject by -Matthew Paris, whose narrative of the miraculous recovery of Nicholas -in 1244 through the agency of St. Edmund has escaped the notice of -local topographers. The emaciated sick man bade farewell and received -the last rites when he was restored by the application of a relic of -the archbishop. From this incident it seems likely that the hospital -was a [p265] votive offering and that it was consecrated soon after -Archbishop Edmund was enrolled among the saints. The papal letter -of canonization (1246) describes his beautiful character and the -miraculous events which followed his death. When it declares that “he -healed the swelling dropsy by reducing the body to smaller dimensions,” -the allusion is surely to the recent recovery of Bishop Nicholas, who -had been suffering from that infirmity. - -[Illustration: 36. A PILGRIM’S SIGN] - - -ST. THOMAS THE MARTYR OF CANTERBURY was believed to surpass all others -in powers of healing. His miracles were usually wrought by means of -water mixed with a drop of the martyr’s blood; this was carried away -in a leaden _ampulla_, and its contents worked wonders. (See Fig. 8.) -Others would purchase a “sign,” upon which was announced in Latin:—“For -good people that are sick Thomas is the best of physicians.” (Fig. 36.) -Many of these pilgrims to Canterbury lodged in the hospital of [p266] -St. Thomas (Pl. II), said to have been founded by the archbishop -himself, whose martyrdom is depicted on the walls of the hall. The -chapel was dedicated to his special patron, the Blessed Virgin. St. -Thomas’, Southwark, also claimed him as founder, and two other houses -were intimately connected with him. One was Becket’s early home in -Cheapside, enlarged by his sister Agnes and her husband, whose charter -grants land “formerly belonging to Gilbert Becket, father of the -blessed Thomas the Martyr . . . being the birthplace of the blessed -martyr.” Privileges were accorded to it long afterwards “from devotion -to the saint, who is said to have been born and educated in that -hospital.” (This foundation was usually called St. Thomas of Acon, but -it is believed that the designation had at first no connection with -Acres, but rather with the original owner of the property.) The second -house with family associations was at Ilford, for while Becket’s sister -was abbess of Barking, the lepers’ chapel was re-consecrated with the -addition of the name of St. Thomas. - -Nor were his friends less faithful, for when Becket’s chancellor -Benedict (afterwards his biographer) was transferred from Canterbury -to Peterborough, he completed a foundation in his honour. Probably -Benedict was also concerned in the choice of name at Stamford, -especially as that dependent house adopted St. John Baptist and St. -Thomas as joint patrons; for the fact that the new martyr’s body -was laid near the altar of the Baptist called forth from several -chroniclers (as Stanley points out) the remark that St. John Baptist -was the bold opponent of a wicked king. In a document relating to the -Stamford house, St. Thomas is referred to as “the proto-martyr,” but -the claim is hard to justify. He was [p267] commemorated with St. -Stephen at Romney, a dedication which would have given him abundant -satisfaction; for previous to his flight in 1164 he celebrated, -as having a special portent, the mass “in honour of the blessed -proto-martyr Stephen.” - -It is a far cry from Kent to Northumberland, but there existed at -Bolton a hospital of St. Thomas. Within a few miles had been fought the -Battle of Alnwick, a victory won, it was believed, as the result of -the king’s public penance the same day (1174). The date of foundation -is not recorded, but it was begun before 1225. About the same time -a hospital of St. Thomas was being built at Hereford, by one of -the Warennes, whose father had bitterly opposed the then unpopular -Chancellor. The new devotion to St. Thomas was fanned into flame by -the magnificent ceremony of 1220 on the removal of his body to its -wonderful shrine. Soon after this, a hospital was founded at Bec, and -the patronage annexed to the See of Norwich; it was consecrated by -Bishop Pandulph, who had taken a leading part in the “Translation,” -an event which was henceforth celebrated on July 7. For centuries the -shrine was held in high honour. The Letter Books of Christ Church, -Canterbury, record miracles in 1394 and 1445.[163] So notable was the -first of these that Richard II wrote to congratulate the archbishop, -acknowledging his thankfulness to “the High Sovereign Worker of -miracles who has deigned to work this miracle in our days, and upon a -foreigner, as though for the purpose of spreading . . . the glorious -fame of His very martyr,” adding a pious wish that it might result in -the conversion of those in error at a time when “our faith and belief -[p268] have many more enemies than they ever had time out of mind.” -Such signs were, in fact, an antidote to Lollardy, as is implied by the -public testimony of the Chapter to the cure of a cripple from Aberdeen -in 1445. - -The kings continued to pay pilgrimage visits, and even Henry VIII -sent the accustomed offerings to Canterbury. His subsequent animosity -towards St. Thomas was a political move, as is shown by the report of -Robert Ward in 1535; having spied at the hospital of St. Thomas of Aeon -a window depicting the flagellation of Henry II by monks at the shrine, -he pointed out to Thomas Cromwell that Becket was slain “in that he -did resist the king.” Bale afterwards alludes thus to this burning -question:— - - “A trayterouse knave ye can set upp for a saynte, - And a ryghteouse kynge lyke an odyouse tyrant paynte. - - * * * * * - - In your glasse wyndowes ye whyppe your naturall kynges.”[164] - -In 1538 Henry thought it expedient to inform his loving subjects that -notwithstanding the canonization of St. Thomas “there appeareth nothing -in his life and exteriour conversation whereby he should be called a -saint, but rather . . . a rebel and traitor to his prince.” Henceforth -few windows remained depicting the acts of the martyr,—though one -representation of the penance of Henry II is familiar to readers at the -Bodleian. The name was to be no longer perpetuated; “St. Thomas the -Martyr, Southwark,” becomes “Becket Spital” and then “St. Thomas the -Apostle,” whilst “Thomas House” is found at Northampton. [p269] - - -ALL SAINTS.—In spite of many general references to All Saints, the -invocation by itself was as rare for a hospital as it was common for -a church. Leland and the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ give the dedication -of the Stamford bede-house as “All Saints.” The founder had willed -that “there be for ever a certain almshouse, commonly called William -Browne’s Almshouse, for the invocation of the most glorious Virgin Mary -and of All Saints, to the praise and honour of the Name Crucified.” -The almsmen’s special chapel in the parish church of All Saints was -in honour of the Blessed Virgin. The existing silver seal shows the -Father, seated, supporting between His knees the Saviour upon the -Cross, whilst the Spirit appears as a Dove. - - -_Alternative Dedications, etc._ - -There is frequently an uncertainty as to the invocation, even with -documentary assistance. A Close Roll entry (1214) mentions a foundation -at Portsmouth in honour of Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin, St. Cross, -St. Michael and All Saints. Usually the name is simply “God’s House,” -but often St. John Baptist or St. Nicholas. The seal seems to suggest -the original designation, for it shows a Cross, with the Divine Hand, a -scroll and angels. Again, God’s House at Kingston-upon-Hull was called -Holy Trinity or St. Michael’s, or from its situation “the Charterhouse -hospital”; but its full title was “in honour of God, and the most -glorious Virgin Mary His Mother, and St. Michael the Archangel, and -all archangels, angels and holy spirits, and of St. Thomas the Martyr, -and all saints of God.” It may be observed that inasmuch as the -founder Michael Pole was Chancellor of England, [p270] he looked to -his predecessor in office St. Thomas as patron, no less than to his -name-saint. By the foundation-deed of Heytesbury almshouse, it was in -honour of “the Holy Trinity, and especially of Christ our Redeemer, -the Blessed Virgin Mary His Mother, St. Katherine and all saints.” -The almsmen wore the letters JHU. XRT. upon their gowns. The Chantry -Certificate, nevertheless, gives St. John’s. The original seal shows a -Cross and the name _domus elimosinaria_, but the post-Reformation seal -has St. Katherine. Varying dedications are sometimes merely mistakes. -It must, however, be remembered that occasionally hospital and chapel -had different patrons, and that both were sometimes rebuilt and, -re-consecrated. As civil and ecclesiastical archives continue to reveal -their long-hidden information, the dedication-names of many houses -will doubtless come to light, together with notices of foundations at -present unknown to us. - - * * * * * - -Some seventy titles of hospitals are here recorded, as compared with -over six hundred different dedications of parish churches. In some -instances the patron of a charitable institution bequeathed his name to -a parish. At Tweedmouth, St. Bartholomew of the hospital was powerful -enough to dispossess St. Boisil, the rightful patron of the place. The -parishes of St. Mary Magdalene, Colchester, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, -London, and St. Giles, Shrewsbury, have grown up round a former -leper-house. Several modern churches, such as St. John’s, Bridgwater, -occupy the site and carry on the name of an old foundation. - -In conclusion, it must be observed that since the subject of England’s -Patron Saints has been fully dealt with by [p271] Miss Arnold-Forster, -no attempt has here been made to make more than passing allusions -to the lives of hospital saints. The foregoing notes on saints were -suggested by her _Studies in Church Dedications_. - -[Illustration: 37. SEAL OF THE HOSPITAL OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW, ROCHESTER] - - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[158] Pat. 14 Hen. VI, pt. i. m. 4. - -[159] Pat. 16 Hen. VI, pt. ii. m. 17. - -[160] Probably intended to represent the clappers; compare design on -seal of St. Mary Magdalene’s, Winchester. - -[161] Lacroix, _Military and Religious Life_, 353. - -[162] F. T. Marsh, _Annals of St. Wulstan’s_, p. 5. - -[163] Chron. and Mem. 85, iii. 27–29. - -[164] Camden Society, _Kynge Johan_, p. 88. - - - - -[p273] - -APPENDIX A - -OFFICE AT THE SECLUSION OF A LEPER - - - [Translated from the _Manuale ad Usum Insignis Ecclesiæ Sarum_, - printed in _York Manual, &c._, _Appendix_, Surtees Society, Vol. 63, - p. 105^*.] - -_The Manner of casting out or separating those who are sick with -leprosy from the whole._[165] - -First of all the sick man or the leper clad in a cloak and in his usual -dress, being in his house, ought to have notice of the coming of the -priest who is on his way to the house to lead him to the Church, and -must in that guise wait for him. For the priest vested in surplice and -stole, with the Cross going before, makes his way to the sick man’s -house and addresses him with comforting words, pointing out and proving -that if he blesses and praises God, and bears his sickness patiently, -he may have a sure and certain hope that though he be sick in body -he may be whole in soul, and may reach the home[166] of everlasting -welfare. And then with other words suitable to the occasion let the -priest lead the leper to the Church, when he has sprinkled him with -holy water, the Cross going before, the priest following, and last -of all the sick man. Within the Church let a black cloth, if it can -be had, be set upon two trestles at some distance apart before the -altar, and let the sick man take his place on bended knees beneath it -between the trestles, after the manner of a dead man, although [p274] -by the grace of God he yet lives in body and spirit, and in this -posture let him devoutly hear Mass. When this is finished, and he has -been sprinkled with holy water, he must be led with the Cross through -the presbytery to a place where a pause must be made. When the spot is -reached the priest shall counsel him out of Holy Scripture, saying: -“Remember thine end and thou shalt never do amiss.” [Ecclus. vii. 36.] -Whence Augustine says: “He readily esteems all things lightly, who -ever bears in mind that he will die.” The priest then with the spade -(_palla_) casts earth on each of his feet, saying: “Be thou dead to the -world, but alive again unto God.” - -And he comforts him and strengthens him to endure with the words of -Isaiah spoken concerning our Lord Jesus Christ:—“Truly He hath borne -our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet did we esteem Him as a leper -smitten of God and afflicted” [Isa. liii. 4, Vulgate]; let him say -also: “If in weakness of body by means of suffering thou art made like -unto Christ, thou mayest surely hope that thou wilt rejoice in spirit -with God. May the Most High grant this to thee, numbering thee among -His faithful ones in the book of life. Amen.” - -It is to be noted that the priest must lead him to the Church, from -the Church to his house as a dead man, chanting the _Responsorium_ -Libera me, Domine, in such wise that the sick man is covered with a -black cloth. And the Mass celebrated at his seclusion may be chosen -either by the priest or by the sick man, but it is customary to say the -following:— - - _Introitus._ Circumdederunt me. _Quære in Septuagesima._ - - _Collecta._ Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, salus æterna credentium. - - _Epistola._ Carissimi, Tristatur quis vestrum. - - _Resp._ Miserere mei. - - _Vers._ Conturbata sunt. Alleluya. _V._ Qui sanat. - - _Si in Quadragesima, Tractus._ Commovisti. - - _Evangelium._ Intravit Jesus in Capharnaum. - - _Offertorium._ Domine, exaudi. - - _Secreta et Postcommunio in communibus orationibus._ - - _Communio._ Redime, Deus, Israel ex omnibus angustiis nostris. [p275] - -When leaving the Church after Mass the priest ought to stand at the -door to sprinkle him with holy water. And he ought to commend him to -the care of the people. Before Mass the sick man ought to make his -confession in the Church, and never again; and in leading him forth -the priest again begins the _Responsorium_ Libera me, Domine, with the -other versicles. Then when he has come into the open fields he does -as is aforesaid; and he ends by imposing prohibitions upon him in the -following manner:— - -“I forbid you ever to enter Churches, or to go into a market, or a -mill, or a bakehouse, or into any assemblies of people. - -Also I forbid you ever to wash your hands or even any of your -belongings in spring or stream of water of any kind; and if you are -thirsty you must drink water from your cup or some other vessel. - -Also I forbid you ever henceforth to go out without your leper’s dress, -that you may be recognized by others; and you must not go outside your -house unshod. - -Also I forbid you, wherever you may be, to touch anything which you -wish to buy, otherwise than with a rod or staff to show what you want. - -Also I forbid you ever henceforth to enter taverns or other houses if -you wish to buy wine; and take care even that what they give you they -put into your cup. - -Also I forbid you to have intercourse with any woman except your own -wife. - -Also I command you when you are on a journey not to return an answer to -any one who questions you, till you have gone off the road to leeward, -so that he may take no harm from you; and that you never go through a -narrow lane lest you should meet some one. - -Also I charge you if need require you to pass over some toll-way -(_pedagium_) through (?) rough ground (_super apra_), or elsewhere, -that you touch no posts or things (_instrumenta_) whereby you cross, -till you have first put on your gloves. - -Also I forbid you to touch infants or young folk, whosoever they may -be, or to give to them or to others any of your possessions. [p276] - -Also I forbid you henceforth to eat or drink in any company except that -of lepers. And know that when you die you will be buried in your own -house, unless it be, by favour obtained beforehand, in the Church.” - -And note that before he enters his house, he ought to have a coat -and shoes of fur, his own plain shoes, and his signal the clappers, -a hood and a cloak, two pair of sheets, a cup, a funnel, a girdle, a -small knife, and a plate. His house ought to be small, with a well, a -couch furnished with coverlets, a pillow, a chest, a table, a seat, a -candlestick, a shovel, a pot, and other needful articles. - -When all is complete the priest must point out to him the ten rules -which he has made for him; and let him live on earth in peace with his -neighbour. Next must be pointed out to him the ten commandments of God, -that he may live in heaven with the saints, and the priest repeats -them to him in the presence of the people. And let the priest also -point out to him that every day each faithful Christian is bound to say -devoutly _Pater noster_, _Ave Maria_, _Credo in Deum_, and _Credo in -Spiritum_, and to protect himself with the sign of the Cross, saying -often _Benedicite_. When the priest leaves him he says:—“Worship God, -and give thanks to God. Have patience, and the Lord will be with thee. -Amen. - - - - -[p277] - -APPENDIX B - - -TABULATED LIST OF MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS IN ENGLAND - - _i.e. Houses for Wayfarers, Sick, Aged and Infirm, Insane, and - Lepers, founded before 1547_. - - -EXPLANATION OF HEADINGS, REFERENCES, SIGNS, ETC. - - Dedication. When names are stated thus: “St. John [& St. Anthony],” - this signifies that the name in brackets is less - frequently used. - - Date. The date given is that of the first accredited reference. - The foundation was frequently earlier. _c._=_circa_; - _bef_=before. - - Founder. This term includes benefactor and re-founder. - - Patron. In the majority of cases entered as “Private,” the - advowson was vested in the Lord of the Manor. Where two - names are inserted they represent a change of patronage. - - L. i.e. Leper; this denotes the nominal aim of the charity, - which was not necessarily confined to lepers. - - * An asterisk signifies that there are considerable - architectural remains (chapel, hall, etc.). - - † Indicates slight architectural remains (e.g. masonry, - windows). - - ‡ This sign before a dedication-name implies that some - endowment exists under that name or the name of the - founder. - - Seal. Denotes that either a matrix or an impression is in - existence. A specimen is usually to be found in the - British Museum. _Soc. Antiq._ refers to the Society of - Antiquaries, London. - - Italics. The use of italics implies uncertainty. - - Foot-notes. “Patent” and “Close” refer to the printed Calendars of the - Public Record Office, space not permitting of fuller - details. - - -[p278] - -I. BEDFORDSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - Bedford | ‡St. John | 1216 | R. de | Town | — - | Baptist (Seal) | | Parys | | - | | | | | - Bedford | ‡St. Leonard | 1207 | — | Town, | - | | | | Private | L - | | | | | - Dunstable | St. Mary | 1209 | Prior | Priory | L - | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Eaton,[167] | — | 1291 | — | — | — - nr. Dunstable | | | | | - | | | | | - Farley,[168] by | St. John | 1198 | — | Various[169]| — - Leighton Buzzard| Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Hockcliffe | St. John | 1227 | — | Various[170]| — - (Occleve) | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Luton | St. John | 1287 | — | — | L - | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Luton | St. Mary | _bef_ | — | — | — - | Magd. (Seal) | 1377 | | | - | | | | | - _Stocwell,_ | _St. Mary_[171]| 1232 | — | — | — - _nr. Bedford_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Toddington | ‡St. John | 1443 | J. | — | — - | | | Broughton | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p279] - -II. BERKSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - Abingdon |‡St. John B. | 1280 | Abbot | Abbey | — - |(Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Abingdon(without)|St. Mary | 1336 | — | — | — - |Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Abingdon |*‡Almshouse[172]| 1441 | G. Barbar | Gild | — - | | | & J. de | | - | | | St. Helena | | - | | | | | - Childrey |‡Holy Trinity | 1526 | W. | — | — - |& St. Katharine | | Fettiplace | | - | | | | | - Donnington, |‡God’s House | 1393 | R. | Private | — - near Newbury | | | Abberbury | | - | | | | | - Fyfield |St. John Baptist| 1442 | J. Golafre | — | — - | | | | | - Hungerford |St. John Baptist| 1232 | King | Duchy of | — - | | | | Lancaster | - | | | | | - Hungerford |St. Laurence | 1228 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Lambourn |‡Holy Trinity | 1501 | J. Isbury | New Coll. | — - |(Seal) | | | Oxford | - | | | | | - Newbury |‡St. | 1215 | King[173] | Town | — - |Bartholomew | | | | - | | | | | - Newbury |St. Mary | 1232 | — | — | L - |Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Reading |St. Mary | _bef_ |Abbot Auchar| Abbey | L - |Magdalene | 1175 | | | - | | | | | - Reading |St. John B. | _c._ | Abbot Hugh | Abbey | — - |(Seal) | 1190 | | | - | | | | | - Reading |Almshouse | — | W. Barnes | — | — - | | | | | - Reading |Almshouse | _bef_ | Leche or | — | — - | | 1477 | Larder | | - | | | | | - Thatcham |Almshouse | 1433 | T. Lowndyes| Parish | — - | | | | | - Wallingford |St. John B. | 1224 | — | Town | — - |(Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Wallingford or |St. Mary | 1226 | — | Town | L - Newnham[174]|Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Windsor |St. John | 1316 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Windsor (without)|St. Peter | 1168 | — | Crown, Eton | L - | | | | College | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p280] - -III. BUCKINGHAMSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Aylesbury |St. John | xii | Townsmen | — | _L_ - | Baptist[175] | cent. | | |(_?_) - | | | | | - Aylesbury |St. Leonard{175}| xii | Townsmen | — | L - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Buckingham |St. John | _c._ | — | — | — - | Baptist[176] | 1200 | | | - | | | | | - Buckingham |St. Laurence | 1252 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Buckingham |Almshouse | 1431 | J. Barton | — | — - | | | | | - Lathbury |St. | 1252 | — | — | — - | Margaret[177] | | | | - | | | | | - Ludgershall | — | 1236 | — | Alien[178] | — - | | | | | - _Marlow, Great_ |_St. | 1384 | — | — | — - | Thomas_[179] | | | | - | | | | | - Newport Pagnell |St. Margaret | _c._ | — | — | - | | 1240 | | | L - | | | | | - Newport Pagnell |‡St. John B. | 1220 |J. de Somery| Private | L - (Bridge[180]) | [& St. John | | | | - | Ev.][181] | | | | - | (Seal[182]) | | | | - | | | | | - Newport Pagnell |_St. | _1232_|_J. de | — | — - | Leonard_[183] | |Peynton_ | | - | | | | | - Stratford, Stony | | | | | - (without) |St. John Baptist| _c._ | — | — | L - | | 1240 | | | - | | | | | - Wendover |St. John Baptist| 1311 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Wycombe, High |*St. John | _c._ | — | Town 1344 | — - |Baptist | 1180 | | | - | | | | | - Wycombe, High |St. Margaret & | 1229 | — | Crown | L - near | St. Giles[184]| | | | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p281] - -IV. CAMBRIDGESHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Barnwell, _v._ | | | | | - Stourbridge | | | | | - | | | | | - Cambridge | ‡St. Anthony | 1392 | — | — | L - | & St. Eligius | | | | - | | | | | - Cambridge | St. John Ev. | xii | H. Frost | Town, Bishop| - | (Seal[185]) | cent. | | | — - | | | | | - Cambridge | _St. Anne_ | 1397 | H. Tangmer | — | L - | | | | | - Cambridge | ‡Almshouse | 1469 | T. Jakenett| — | — - | | | | | - Ely | St. John | 1169 | Bishop | Bishop, | — - | Baptist[186] | | Nigel | Priory | - | | | | | - Ely | St. Mary | _bef_ | — | Bishop | — - | Magdalene{186} | 1240 | | | - | | | | | - Fordham | — | 1279 | — | Priory | — - | | | | | - Leverington | St. John | 1487 | — | — | — - | Baptist[187] | | | | - | | | | | - Long Stow | St. Mary B. V. | 1272 | Walter, | — | — - | | | Vicar | | - _Newton-by-Sea_ | _St. Mary B._ | 1401 | J. Colvill | Bishop | — - | _V._[188] | | | | - | | | | | - Royston, _v._ | | | | | - Herts | | | | | - | | | | | - Stourbridge by | *St. Mary Magd.| _bef_ | King | Town, Bishop| L - Cambridge | or St. | 1172 | | | - | Cross[189] | | | | - | | | | | - Thorney | — | 1166 | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - _Whittlesea_ | _Poor’s | 1391 | Adam Ryppe | — | — - | Hospital_[190] | | | | - | | | | | - Whittlesford | St. John | 1307 | W. Colvill | Bishop | — - (Duxford) | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Wicken | St. John[191] | 1321 | Lady | Spinney | — - | | | Basingburn | Priory | - | | | | | - Wisbech | St. John | 1343 | — | Bishop | — - | Baptist[192] | | | | - | | | | | - Wisbech (near | Spital | 1378 | — | — | L - Elm) | | | | | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p282] - -V. CHESHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Bebington | St. Thomas | 1183 | — | Private | L - | à Becket | | | | - | | | | | - Chester (without)| ‡St. Giles[193]| — | Earl | Earldom | L - | (_Seal_) | | | | - | | | | | - Chester (without | ‡St. John | 1232 | Earl | Earldom and | — - Northgate) | B.[194] (Seal) | | Randle | Birkenhead | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Chester | St. Ursula V | 1532 | R. and T. | — | — - | | | Smith | | - | | | | | - Denwall in Nesse | St. Andrew | 1238 | — | Bishop of | — - | | | | Lichfield | - | | | | | - Nantwich | St. Nicholas | _c._ | _W. | Private | — - | | 1087 | Malbank_ | | - | | | | | - Nantwich | St. Laurence | 1354 | — | Private | L - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p283] - -VI. CORNWALL[195] - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Bodmin | St. Anthony | 1500 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bodmin | St. George | 1405 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bodmin |St. | — | — | — | — - | Margaret[196] | | | | - | | | | | - Bodmin(Pontaboye)| ‡†St. Laurence | 1302 | — | — | L - | (Seal[197]) | | | | - | | | | | - Fowey, St. Blaise| — | | — | — | — - by | | | | | - | | | | | - Gild Martyn, | | | | | - _v._ Launceston| | | | | - | | | | | - Helston in | St. Mary M. or | 1411 | Archdeacon | Knights | — - Sithney | St. John | | or | Hosp. | - | Baptist | | Killigrew | | - | | | | | - Launceston | †St. Leonard | 1257 | Richard, | Earldom or | L - | (Seal[198]) | | Earl | Priory | - | | | | | - Launceston | St. Thomas à | | — | — | L - Newport by | Becket[199] | | | | - | | | | | - Liskeard, | St. Mary | 1400 | — | — | L - Menheniot nr. | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Newport, _v._ | | | | | - Launceston | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p284] - -VII. CUMBERLAND - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - _Bewcastle_ | _“Hospitale | 1294 | — | — | — - | de Lennh”_ | | | | - | | | | | - _Caldbeck_ | _Hospital | _bef_ | Gospatric | Carlisle | — - | House_ | 1170 | | Priory | - | | | | | - Carlisle | St. Nicholas | _bef_ | King | Crown, | L - (without) | | 1201 | | Priory | - | | | | | - Carlisle | House of St. | 1251 | — | — | — - | Sepulchre[200] | | | | - | | | | | - Carlisle | St. Catherine | xvi | — | — | — - (Castlegate) | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - _Keswick, | _House of | xvi | — | — | — - near_[201] | St. John_ | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Wigton, near |St. Leonard[202]| 1383 | — | Private | L - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p285] - -VIII. DERBYSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Alkmonton or |St. Leonard[203]| _c._ | R. de | Private | L - Bentley | | 1100 | Bakepuze, | | - | | | Blount | | - | | | | | - Ashbourne[204] | _St. John | 1251 | — | — | L - | Baptist_ | | | | - | | | | | - Castleton or | St. Mary B.V. | _bef_ | Peverell | Private, | — - High Peak[205] | | 1330 | | Crown | - | | | | | -Chesterfield, near| St. Leonard | 1195 | — | Crown, etc. | L - | | | | | - Chesterfield | St. Nicholas | 1276 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Chesterfield | St. John | 1334 | — | Manor | L - | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Derby | St. Leonard | 1171 | King | Crown | L - | (Domus Dei) | | | | - | | | | | - Derby | St. Helen | _c._ | R. de | — | — - | | 1160 | Ferrers | | - | | | | | - Derby | St. James [& | _c._ | Waltheof | Darley Abbey| — - |St.Anthony[206]]| 1140 | Fitz-Sweyn | | - | | | | | - Derby | St. John | 1251 | — | — | — - | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Derby | St. Katherine | 1329 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Peak, _v._ | | | | | - Castleton | | | | | - | | | | | - Spondon or Locko | ‡St. Mary | 1306 | — | Order of St.| L - | Magdalene[207] | | | Lazarus | -------------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p286] - -IX. DEVONSHIRE[208] - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Barnstaple | St. Mary | 1158 | — | — | L - | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Barnstaple | Holy Trinity | 1410 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Clist Gabriel | St. Gabriel the| 1276 | Bishop | Bishop | — - (Farringdon) | Archangel[209] | | Bronescombe| | - | | | | | - Collumpton | Almshouse | 1522 | J. Trott | — | — - | | | | | - Crediton | †St. Laurence | 1242 | — | Manor | — - | | | | (Bishop) | - | | | | | - Exeter (without | St. Mary M. | _bef_ | Bishop | Bishop, Town| L - Southgate) | (Seal) | 1163 | | | - | | | | | - Exeter | St. Alexis[210]| 1164 | W. Prodom | — | — - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Exeter |St. John B.[211]| 1220 | G. & J. | Town, Bishop| — - | [& St. John | | Long | | - | Ev.] (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Exeter | *‡God’s | 1436 | W. Wynard | — | — - | House[212] | | | | - | | | | | - Exeter | *‡St. | 1457 | J. Stevyns | — | — - | Katharine | | | | - | | | | | - Exeter | ‡St. Mary V., | 1407 | W. Bonvile | — | — - |Eleven Thousand | | | | - |Virgins | | | | - |& St. Roch[213] | | | | - | | | | | - Exeter |St. Anthony[214]| 1429 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Exeter | “Ten Cells” | 1399 | S. Grendon | — | — - | | | | | - Exeter | Almshouse | 1479 | J. Palmer | — | — - | | | | | - Exeter | Almshouse | 1514 | Moore | — | — - | | | Fortescue | | - | | | | | - Heavitree |‡_St. Loye_[215]| — | — | — | — - (Wonford) | | | | | - | | | | | - Honiton | *‡St. | 1374 | — | _Ford Abbey_| L - | Margaret | | | | - | | | | | - Moreton Hampstead| Almshouse | xv | — | — | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - [p287] | | | | | - | | | | | - Newton Bushell | — | 1538 | J. Gilberd | Mayor | L - | | | | Exeter | - | | | | | - Pilton | ‡St. | 1197 | — | — | L - | Margaret | | | | - | (Seal[216]) | | | | - | | | | | - Plymouth | [Holy Trinity | 1374 | — | — | L - | &] St. Mary M. | | | | - | | | | | - Plymouth | St. Mary B. V. | 1501 | — | — | — - | (Our Lady) | | | | - | | | | | - Plymouth | _Hospital | — | — | — | — - | House_ | | | | - | | | | | - Plympton | ‡[Holy | 1329 | — | _Priory_ | L - | Trinity &] St. | | | | - | Mary M. | | | | - | | | | | - Tavistock, near | St. Mary M. [& | 1338 | — | — | L - | St. Theobald] | | | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Tavistock | St. George | — | Tremayne | — | — - | | | | | - Teignmouth, near | ‡St. Mary | 1307 | — | — | L - | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Teignton, Kings, | | | | | - _v._ Newton | | | | | - Bushell | | | | | - | | | | | - Tiverton |*‡Almshouse[217]| 1520 | J. Greneway| Wardens of | — - | | | | Tiverton | - | | | | | - Torrington | Holy Trinity, | 1400 | re-f. R. | — | — - | St. John Ev. & | | Colyn | | - | St. John B. | | | | - | | | | | - Torrington, | *‡St. Mary | 1344 | Ann Boteler| Private | L - Little | Magdalene | | | | - (Taddiport) | | | | | - | | | | | - Totnes | ‡St. Mary M. | 1302 | — | — | L - | (Seal[218]) | | | | - | | | | | - Totnes | _Our Lady_ | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p288] - -X. DORSET - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Allington, _v._ | | | | | - Bridport | | | | | - | | | | | - Blandford, by | St. Leonard | 1282 | — | Private | L - | | | | | - Blandford |God’s House[219]| xvi | — | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Bridport | St. John | 1240 | — | Town | — - | Baptist | | | - | | | | | - Bridport or | St. Mary M. [& | 1232 | re-f. W. de| Private | L - Allington | St. Anthony] | | Legh | | - | | | | | - Dorchester | St. John | 1324 | — | Crown, Eton,| — - | Baptist | | | etc. | - | | | | | - Dorchester | Hospital | xvi | — | — | L - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Lyme | †St. Mary | 1336 | — | — | L - | B.V. & the | | | | - | Holy Spirit | | | | - | | | | | - Rushton, _v._ | | | | | - Tarrant | | | | | - | | | | | - Shaftesbury | ‡St. John B. | 1223 | — | Abbey, Crown| — - | (Seal[220]) | | | | - | | | | | - Shaftesbury | St. Mary | 1386 | — | Abbey | — - | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Sherborne | *‡SS. John | 1437 | Bishop, &c.| Governors | — - | B. & John Ev. | | | | - | | | | | - Sherborne | †St. Thomas | 1228 | — | Abbey, Crown| — - | à Becket | | | | - | | | | | - Tarrant Rushton | St. Leonard | 1298 | — | Private, | — - | | | | Twynham | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Wareham | Hospital{219} | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Wimborne | *†St. | 1241 | — | Manor (Duchy| L - | Margaret V. [& | | | of | - | St. Anthony] | | | Lancaster) | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p289] - -XI. DURHAM - - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._ | _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Barnard Castle | ‡St. John | _c._ | J. Balliol | Private | — - | Baptist | 1230 | | | - | | | | | - Darlington, near |“Bathele Spital”| _c._ | — | — | L - | | 1195 | | | - | | | | | - Durham |St. Leonard[221]| _c._ | — | — | L - | | 1200 | | | - | | | | | - Durham | †St. Mary | 1326 | J. Fitz | Priory | — - | Magdalene | | Alexander | | - | | | | | - Durham (Silver |Pilgrim | 1493 | — | — | — - Street) | House[222] | | | | - | | | | | - Durham _v._ | | | | | - Kepier, | | | | | - | | | | | - Sherburn | | | | | - | | | | | - Friarside, | †Hospital or | 1312 | — | Private | — - nr. Derwent | Hermitage | | | | - | | | | | - Gainford | — | 1317 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Gateshead | Holy | _c._ | H. de | — | — - | Trinity[223] | 1200 | Ferlinton | | - | | | | | - Gateshead |*St.Edmund, Abp.| _c._ | Bp. N. | Bishop, | — - | & Conf.{223} | 1247 | Farnham | Newcastle | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Gateshead | ‡St. Edmund, | 1315 | — | Bishop | — - | K. & M.[224] | | | | - | | | | | - Greatham | ‡St. Mary | 1272 | Bp. R. de | Bishop | — - | B.V.{224} | | Stichill | | - | (Seal[225]) | | | | - | | | | | - Kepier, by Durham| *St. Giles | 1112 | Bp. R. | Bishop | — - | (Seal) | | Flambard | | - | | | | | - Pelawe, by | St. Stephen | 1260 | — | — | — - | | | | | - _Sedgefield_[226]| — | _c._ | — | — | — - | | 1195 | | | - | | | | | - Sherburn | *‡Christ, B.V. | _c._ | Bp. H. | Bishop | L - | Mary, SS. | 1181 | Puiset | | - | Lazarus, Mary| | | | - | [Magd.] & | | | | - | Martha[227] | | | | - | | | | | - Staindrop | St. Mary B.V. | 1378 | Earl Nevill| — | — - | | | | | - _Werhale_[228] | — | 1265 | — | Bishop | — - | | | | | - Witton Gilbert | †St. Mary | _bef_ | Gilbert de |Durham Priory| L - | Magdalene | 1180 | la Ley | | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p290] - -XII. ESSEX - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Bocking | Maison Dieu | 1440 | J. Doreward| — | — - | | | | | - Braintree | St. James | 1229 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Colchester | ‡St. Mary | _bef_ | Henry I & | Abbey | L - (suburbs) | Magdalene | 1135 | Eudo | | - | | | | | - Colchester | Holy Cross [& | 1235 | W. de | _re-f_ St. | — - | St. Helen][229]| | Lanvalle | Helen’s Gild| - | (Seal[230]) | | | | - | | | | | - Colchester by | St. Katharine | 1352 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Colchester | _St. Anne_[231]| 1402 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Hedingham, Castle| — | _c._ | De Vere | — | — - | | 1250 | | | - | | | | | - Hornchurch | SS. Nicholas & | 1159 | Henry II | Alien,[232] | — - (Havering) | Bernard | | | New Coll. | - | | | | Ox. | - | | | | | - Ilford, Great | *‡St. Mary | _c._ | Adelicia, | Barking | L - | B.V. [and St. | 1150 | Abbess | Abbey | - | Thomas M.] | | | | - | | | | | - Layer Marney | St. Mary B.V. | 1523 | Lord Marney| — | — - | | | | | - Maldon, Little | †St. Giles[233]| _c._ | — | Various[234]| L - | | 1164 | | | - | | | | | - Newport | St. Leonard | 1157 | — | Dean of St. | L - (Birchanger) | | | | Martin’s | - | | | | | - South Weald,[235]| St. John | 1233 | Bruin | Private | L - Brook Street | Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Tilbury, East | St. Mary[236] | _bef_ | Earl | Earldom | — - | | 1213 | Geoffrey | | - | | | | | - Walthamstow | ‡Almshouse | xvi | G. Monnox | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p291] - -XIII. GLOUCESTERSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Berkeley, | Holy Trinity | 1189 | Maurice de | Private | — - Longbridge, near| (Seal) | | Berkeley | | - | | | | | - | | | | | - Bristol, without | St. Laurence | _bef_ | Prince John| Various[237]| L - Lawfords Gate | | 1208 | | | - | | | | | - Bristol Frome | †St. | _bef_ | — | Private | L(?) - Bridge |Bartholomew[238]| 1207 | | | - | | | | | - Bristol | *St. Mark | 1229 | Maurice de | Private | — - Billeswick | (Seal) | | Gaunt | | - | | | | | - Bristol | St. Katherine | 1219 | Robert de | Private | — - Bedminster[239] | (Seal) | | Berkeley | | - | | | | | - Bristol | St. Mary M. | 1219 | Thomas de | Private | L - Brightbow{239} | (Seal) | | Berkeley | | - | | | | | - Bristol | St. John B. | 1242 | King or | Crown, Town | — - Redcliffe{239} | (Seal) | | John Farcey| | - | | | | | - Bristol Lawfords | †Holy Trinity | ┌1396 | J. | Town | — - Gate | | └1408 | Barstaple | | - | | | | | - Bristol Steep | *‡Three Kings | 1492 | J. Foster | — | — - Street | of Cologne | | | | - | (chapel) | | | | - | | | | | - Bristol Long Row | ‡Almshouse | _c._ | S. Burton | — | — - | | 1292 | | | - | | | | | - Bristol Redcliffe| Almshouse | 1422 | W. Canynge | — | — - | | | | | - Bristol without | Almshouse | — | R. Magdalen| — | — - Temple Gate | | | | | - | | | | | - Bristol Lewin’s | _Trinity_ | 1460 | W. Spencer | — | — - Mead | | | | | - | | | | | - Bristol Redcliffe| — | 1471 | R. Forster | — | — - Gate | | | | | - | | | | | - [p292] | | | | | - | | | | | - Cirencester | *‡St. John |_bef_ |Henry I |Crown, Abbey | — - | Ev.[240] | 1135 | | | - | | | | | - Cirencester | ‡St. Laurence |xiii |Edith Bisset|Abbey | L - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Cirencester | ‡St. Thomas M. |1427 | W. |Weavers | — - | | | Nottingham | | - | | | | | - Gloucester | *‡S. Mary |_bef_ | — |_Lanthony | L - | Magdalene | 1160 | | Priory_ | - | | | | | - Gloucester or | *‡St. Margaret |_bef_ | — |Abbey, Town | L - Dudstan |or St. Sepulchre| 1163 | | | - | | | | | - Gloucester |‡St. | 1200 |Townsmen, |Crown | — - |Bartholomew[241]| | Henry III | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Lechlade |St. John | 1228 |Peter Fitz |Private | — - | Baptist[242] | |Herbert[243]| | - | | | | | - Longbridge, _v._ | | | | | - Berkeley | | | | | - | | | | | - Lorwing[244] | — | 1189 |Maurice de | — | — - | | | Berkeley | | - | | | | | - Redcliffe, _v._ | | | | | - Bristol | | | | | - | | | | | - St. Briavels |St.Margaret[245]| 1256 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Stow-in-Wold |Holy Trinity | — |Aylmer, Earl| — | — - | | | of Cornwall| | - | | | | | - Stow-in-Wold |Almshouse | 1476 | W. Chestre | — | — - | | | | | - Tewkesbury[246] | — | 1199 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Tewkesbury |Almshouse | — | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - Winchcombe |Spital | — | — | — | — - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p293] - -XIV. HAMPSHIRE - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Alton | St. Mary Magdalene | 1235 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Andover | St. John B.[247] | 1247 | — | Town | — - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Andover | St. Mary | 1248 | — | — | L - | Magdalene{247} | | | | - | | | | | - Basingstoke | St. John Baptist |_bef_ | W. de Merton|Merton | — - | | 1240| | College | - | | | | | - Christchurch | — | 1318 | — | — | L - [248] | | | | | - | | | | | - _Fareham_[249] | — | 1199 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Fordingbridge | St. John Baptist | 1283 | — |Bishop, St. | — - | | | | Cross, etc.| - | | | | | - Portsmouth | *God’s House or St. | 1224 | Peter des | Bishop | — - | John B. and St. | | Roches | | - | Nicholas[250] (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Portsmouth by | St. Mary M. [and St. | 1253 | — | — | — - | Anthony[251]] | | | | - | | | | | - Romsey | St. Mary M. and St. | 1317 | — | — | L - | Anthony[252] | | | | - | | | | | - Southampton | St. Mary Magdalene | 1173 | Townsmen |Town, Priory| L - (without) | | | | | - | | | | | - Southampton | *‡St. Julian or |_c._ | Gervase |Crown, | — - | God’s House (Seal) | 1197| | Queen’s | - | | | | College, | - | | | | Oxford. | - | | | | | - Southampton | St. John[253] | 1315 | — | — | — - | | | | | - [p294] | | | | | - | | | | | - Winchester |*‡St. Cross (Seal) |_c._ |Henry de |Knights, | — - (near) | | 1136| Blois| Bishop | - | | | | | - Winchester | ‡St. Mary Magd. | 1158 | Bishop | Bishop | L - (without) | (Seal[254]). | | | | - | | | | | - Winchester | *‡St. John B. |_c._ |John Devenish| Town | — - | (Seal[255]) | 1275| | | - | | | | | - Winchester | “Sisters’ Hospital” | 1393 | — |St. | — - | | | | Swithin’s| - | | | | | - Newport (Isle of| _St. Augustine_[256] | 1352 | — | Town | L - Wight) | | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -XV. HEREFORDSHIRE - - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Blechelowe, _v._| | | | | - Richards Castle| | | | | - | | | | | - Hereford (Wye | St. Thomas | 1226 |W. de Warenne| — | — - Bridge) | | | | | - | | | | | - Hereford | ‡St. Ethelbert | 1231 | — | Dean and | — - | | | | Chapter | - | | | | | - Hereford | St. Giles | 1250 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Hereford | ‡St. Giles | — | — | Town | L - | | | | | - Hereford |[Holy Ghost[257] &] | 1340 | — | Knights | — - | St. John | | | Hosp. | - | | | | | - Hereford | St. Anthony | 1294 | — | Order | — - | | | | (Vienne) | - | | | | | - Hereford | St. Anne and St. |xvi | — | — | L - | Loye[258] | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Ledbury | ‡St. Katharine | 1232 | Foliot, | Dean and | — - | | | Bishop | Chapter | - | | | | | - Richards Castle | St. John & St. Mary| 1397 | — | — | — - (Blechelowe) | M.[259] | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -[p295] - -XVI. HERTFORDSHIRE - - ----------------+-------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Anstey (Biggin) | St. Mary | 1325 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Baldock | | | | | L - (Clothall, by)| St. Mary Magdalene| 1226 | — | — | - | | | | | - Berkhampstead | St. John Baptist | 1216 | Fitz Piers, |Private; St.| — - | | |Earl of Essex|Thomas of | - | | | |Acon, London| - | | | | | - Berkhampstead | St. John Ev. | 1216 | — |Private; St.| L - | | | |Thomas of | - | | | |Acon, London| - | | | | | - Berkhampstead | St. James | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Berkhampstead | St. Leonard | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Berkhampstead |_St.Thomas M._[260]| 1317 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Broxbourne, _v._| | | | | - Hoddesdon | | | | | - | | | | | - Hertford | St. Mary | 1287 | — | — | — - (without) | Magdalene[261] | | | | - | | | | | - Hoddesdon | SS. Anthony & | 1391 | — | — | L - | Clement or St. | | | | - | Laud & St. Anthony| | | | - | (Seals) | | | | - | | | | | - Hoddesdon | Almshouse | xv | R. Rich | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Royston | [St. Mary B.V. & | 1227 | — | Private | — - | St. James or] St.| | | | - | John & St. James | | | | - | | | | | - Royston | St. Nicholas[262] | 1213 | Ralph | Private | L - | | | | | - [p296] | | | | | - | | | | | - St. Albans | St. Julian the | 1146 | Abbot | Abbey | L - (Eywood) | Confessor | | Geoffrey | | - | | | | | - St. Albans | St. Mary de la | 1202 | — | Abbey | L - (without) | Pré[263] (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - St. Albans | St. Giles[264] | 1327 | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - Stevenage | All Christian | 1501 | Hellard, | Parish | — - | Soul House | | Rector | | - | | | | | - Wymondley, | St. Mary[265] | 1232 | — | — | — - Little | | | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -XVII. HUNTINGDONSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - Huntingdon | St. John | 1153 | Earl David | Earldom, | — - | Baptist | | | Town | - | | | | | - Huntingdon | St. Margaret | 1165 | King | Crown | L - (without[266]) | | | Malcolm | (Scotland, | - | | | (_ben_) | England, | - | | | | etc.) | - | | | | | - | | | | | - Huntingdon | St. Giles[267] | 1328 | — | — | L - -----------------+----------------+-------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p297] - -XVIII. KENT - - -----------------+---------------------+-------+------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+---------------------+-------+------------+-----------+--- - _Bapchild_[268] | — | _c._ | — | — | — - | | 1200 | | | - | | | | | - _Blean_{268} |_St. John_ | _c._ | — | — | — - | | 1200 | | | - | | | | | - _Bobbing_ |_Spital_ | — |_George | _Private_ | L - | | | Clifford_ | | - | | | | | - Boughton-under- |Holy Trinity[269] | 1384 |Thomas atte | — | L - Blean | | | Herst | |etc. - | | | | | - Buckland, _v._ | | | | | - Dover | | | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |*‡St. John B. | _bef_ |Lanfranc |Archbishop | — - (Northgate) | (Seal) | 1089 | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |*‡St. Thomas M.[270] | _c._ Becket, |Archbishop | — - (Eastbridge) | [and the Holy Ghost]| 1170 | Langton | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |St. Nicholas and St. | 1293 |W. Cokyn | — | — - | Katharine[271] | | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |*‡[St. Mary B. V. | 1225 |_re-f._ S. |Archdeacon | — - | or] Poor Priests’ | | de Langton| | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |‡St. Mary B. V. | 1317 |J. Maynard |Town | — - | | | | | - Canterbury near |St. Laurence | 1137 |Hugh, Abbot |St. | L - | | | |Augustine’s| - | | | | | - Canterbury |*‡St. Nicholas | _bef_ |Lanfranc |Archbishop | L - Harbledown | (Seal) | 1089 | | | - | | | | | - Canterbury |St. James (_Seal_) | _bef_ | — |Christ- | L - Thanington | | 1164 | | church | - or Wynchepe | | | | | - | | | | | - Chatham, _v._ | | | | | - Rochester | | | | | - | | | | | - Dartford |St. Mary Magdalene | 1256 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Dartford |Holy Trinity | 1453 | Townsmen | Parochial | — - | | | | Governors | - | | | | | - [p298] | | | | | - | | | | | - Dover, Buckland | St. Bartholomew | 1141 | Monks | Priory | L - in | | | | | - | | | | | - Dover | *St. Mary B. V. | 1221 | Hubert de | Crown | — - | (Seal) | | Burgh | | - | | | | | - Gravesend, | | | | | - _v._ Milton | | | | | - | | | | | - Harbledown, _v._ | | | | | - Canterbury | | | | | - | | | | | - Hythe | ‡St. John Baptist | 1426 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Hythe | ‡St. Bartholomew |┌1276 | Townsmen | — | — - Saltwood[272] nr.|(Seal)[or St. Andrew]|└1336 |Bishop Haymo| — | - | | | | | - _Ivychurch_,[273]| — | 1229 | — |Private | — - near New Romney | | | | | - | | | | | - _Lullingstone_ | _Almshouse_ | — |Sir J. Peche| — | — - [274] | | | | | - | | | | | - Maidstone |*St. Peter & St. Paul| — |Abp. |Archbishop | — - |[& St.Thomas M.][275]| | Boniface | | - |(Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Maidstone(bridge)| Almshouse[276] | 1422 | Hessynden | — | — - | | | | | - Milton nr. | — | 1189 | — | Private | — - Gravesend | | | | | - | | | | | - Mepham | — | 1396 | Archbishop | — | — - | | | | | - Ospringe | ‡St. Mary B. V. | 1234 | Henry III | Crown | — - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Ospringe(without)| St. Nicholas[277] | 1241 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Ospringe | St. John[278] | 1343 | — | — | — - | | | | | - _Otford_ | — | _1228_| — | — |_L_ - | | | | | - Puckeshall | St. James | 1202 | — | — | L - or Tong | | | | | - | | | | | - Rochester | *‡St. Bartholomew |_bef_ | Bishop | Priory | L - (Langeport) | (Seal) | 1108 | Gundulf | | - | | | | | - [p299] | | | | | - | | | | | - Rochester | St. Nicholas[279] | 1253 | — | — | L - (Whiteditch) | | | | | - | | | | | - Rochester | ‡St. Katharine | 1316 | S. Potyn | Governors | L - (Eastgate) | | | | |etc. - | | | | | - Romney | St. Stephen and St. |_c._ | Adam de | Private | L - |Thomas M. (Seal[280])| 1180 | Cherring | | - | | | [281] | | - | | | | | - Romney | St. John Baptist | 1396 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Sandwich | *‡St. Bartholomew | _bef_ |Crawthorne, | Town | — - | (Seal) | 1227 | etc. | | - | | | | | - Sandwich | ‡St. John B. | _bef_ | — | Town | — - | (Seal[282]) | 1287 | | | - | | | | | - Sandwich | ‡St. Thomas M. | 1392 |Thos. Ellys | Town | — - | | | | | - Sandwich (Each | St. Anthony[283] | 1472 | — | — | L - End) | | | | | - | | | | | - Sevenoaks | St. John Baptist | 1338 | _re-f._ |Archbishop | — - | | |Cherwode & | | - | | | Multon | | - | | | | | - Sevenoaks | ‡Almshouse | 1418 | Sir W. | Parochial | — - | | | Sevenoke | Governors | - | | | | | - Sittingbourne | — | 1216 | Samuel | — | — - [284] | | | | | - | | | | | - Sittingbourne, | St. Leonard[285] | 1232 | — | — | L - Swinestre nr. | | | | | - | | | | | - Sittingbourne | Holy Cross{285} | 1225 | — | — | — - Swinestre nr. | | | | | - | | | | | - Strood | St. Mary B. V.[286] | 1193 | Bp. G. | Bishop or | — - | (Seal) | | Glanvill | Priory | - | | | | | - Sutton-at-Hone | Holy Trinity, St. | 1216 |FitzPiers & | — | — - | Mary, and All SS. | | W. de | | - | | | Wrotham | | - | | | | | - Thanington, _v._ | | | | | - Canterbury | | | | | - | | | | | - Tong, _v._ | | | | | - Puckeshall | | | | | - | | | | | - Wynchepe, _v._ | | | | | - Canterbury | | | | | - -----------------+---------------------+-------+------------+-----------+--- - - -[p300] - -XIX. LANCASHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._ | _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - Burscough | — | _bef_ | — | Priory | L - | | 1311 | | | - | | | | | - Clitheroe[287] | St. Nicholas | 1211 | Townsmen | Town | L - | | | | | - Cockersand | Hospital[288] | 1184 | Hugh Garth | — | L - | | | | |etc. - | | | | | - Conishead | Hospital{288} | 1181 | Penington | Priory | L - | | | or W. de | | - | | | Lancaster | | - | | | | | - Lancaster | St. Leonard | 1189 | Prince John| Various[289]| L - | | | | | - Lancaster | Almshouse, _St.| 1483 | J. Gardyner| Town | — - | Mary B. V._ | | | | - | | | | | - Lathom (Ormskirk)| — | 1500 | Sir | — | — - | | | T. Stanley | | - | | | | | - Preston in | St. Mary Magd. | _c._ | — | Honor, | L - Amounderness | (Seal[290]) | 1177 | | Crown | L - | | | | | - Stydd nr. |St. Saviour[291]| _bef_ | — | Knights | — - Ribchester | | 1216 | | | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p301] - -XX. LEICESTERSHIRE - - --------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - --------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Burton Lazars |[St. Mary B. V. and] | 1146 |R. de Mowbray|Order of | L - | St. Lazarus (Seal) | | | St. Lazarus| - | | | | | - Castle- |St. John Ev.[292] | xii |John Lacy |Earldom, | — - Donington | | cent. | | Crown | - | | | | | - Leicester |St. Leonard (Seal) | 1199 |William of |Earldom, | L - | | | Leicester | Crown, etc.| - | | | | | - Leicester |‡St. John Ev. and | 1200 | — | — | — - | St. John B. (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Leicester |St. Edmund Abp. and | 1250 | — | — | — - | Conf. | | | | - | | | | | - Leicester |St. Mary M. and St. | 1329 | — | — | L - | Margaret | | | | - | | | | | - Leicester |*‡Annunciation of | 1330 |Henry of |Duchy | — - |B. V. Mary[293] (Seal)| | Lancaster | (Collegiate| - | | | | Foundation)| - | | | | | - Leicester |‡St. Ursula [and | 1513 |W. Wigston | — | — - | St. Catherine] | | | | - | | | | | - Lutterworth |St. John B.[& St. | 1218 |Roise de | Private | — - | Anthony[294]] | | Verdon | | - | | | | | - Stockerston |St. Leonard | 1307 | — | Earldom | — - | | | | | - Stockerston |St. Mary [and All | 1465 |J. Boyvile | — | — - | Saints] | | | | - | | | | | - _Tilton_ | — | _1189_|_W. Burdett_ |_Burton | _L_ - | | | | Lazars_ | - --------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -[p302] - -XXI. LINCOLNSHIRE - - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - Boothby Pagnell |St. John Baptist | xii |Hugh of | — | L - | | cent. | Boothby | | - | | | | | - Boston[295] |St. John Baptist | 1282 | — |Private | — - (without) | | | |(Multon{295})| - | | | | | - _Carleton in_ |_St. Lazarus_ | _1301_|_De_ |_Order of_ | — - _Moreland_ | | |_Amundeville_|_St.Lazarus._| - | | | | | - Dunston, _v._ | | | | | - Mere | | | | | - | | | | | - _Edenham_[296] | — | 1319 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Elsham by |St. Mary & St. | 1166 | B. de | — | — - Thornton | Edmund[297] | | Amundeville | | - | | | | | - Glanford Bridge | |xii |Paynell |Selby Abbey | — - (Wrauby) | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Glanford Bridge |[Our Lord &] St. | 1441 |W. Tirwhit | — | — - (Wrauby) | John B. | | | | - | | | | | - Grantham by |St. Margaret | 1328 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Grantham |St. Leonard | 1428 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Grimsby |St. Mary M. & St. | 1291 | — | — | L - (without) | Leger | | | | - | | | | | - Grimsby |St. John[298] | 1389 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Holbeach |All Saints | 1351 |J. de | — | — - | | | Kirketon | | - | | | | | - Langworth |St. Margaret | 1313 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Lincoln without |Holy Innocents | _bef_ |Henry I |Crown, Burton| L - | [& St. Mary M.] | 1135 | | Lazars | - | (Seal)[299] | | | | - | | | | | - Lincoln without |†‡St. Giles | _c._ | — |Dean & | — - | | 1275 | | Chapter | - | | | | | - Lincoln |St. Leonard | 1300 | — | — |L - | | | | |etc. - | | | | | - Lincoln without |St. Bartholomew | 1314 | — | — |L - | | | | |etc. - | | | | | - Lincoln |St. Mary B. V. or | 1311 | — | — | — - | St. Mary M. | | | | - | | | | | - [p303] | | | | | - | | | | | - Lincoln without |Holy Sepulchre[300] | 1123 |Bp. Robert |Gilbertine | — - | | | Bloet | Order | - | | | | | - Lincoln without |St. Katherine{300} | 1123 |Bp. Robert |Gilbertine | — - | (Seal) | | Bloet | Order | - | | | | | - Louth |Spital | 1314 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Louth |Trinity Bedehouse |xvi | — |Gild | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Louth |_St. Mary B. V._ |xvi | — |Gild | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Mere or Dunston |St. John Baptist | 1243 |S. de Roppele|Bishop | L - | | | | | - Newstead by |St. Mary B. V.{300} |xii |W. d’Albini | — | — - Stamford[301] | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Partney |St. Mary Magdalene |_bef_ | — |Bardney | — - | | 1138| | Abbey | - | | | | | - Skirbeck |‡St. Leonard, | 1230 |T. de Multon |Knights | — - | afterwards St. | | | Hosp. | - | John Baptist | | | | - | | | | | - Spalding |St. Nicholas | 1313 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Spittal-on- |St. Edmund K.M. | 1322 |_re-f._ T. |Dean & | — - Street, Hemswell| | | Aston | Chapter | - | | | | | - Stamford, _v._ | | | | | - Northants | | | | | - | | | | | - Tattershall[302]|Holy Trinity | 1438 |R. Cromwell |Collegiate | — - | (Seal){302} | | | Foundation | - | | | | | - Thornton |St. James (chapel) | 1322 | — |Abbey | — - | | | | (probably) | - | | | | | - _Threckingham_ |_St. Lazarus_[303] | 1319 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Uffington, _v._ | | | | | - Newstead | | | | | - | | | | | - Walcot |St. Leonard | 1312 | — | — | L - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - - -[p304] - -XXII. MIDDLESEX AND LONDON - - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Brentford[304] | St. Anne & | 1393 | — | — | — - | St. Louis{304} | | | | - | | | | | - Brentford |Nine Orders of Holy | _c._ | J. Somerset | Fraternity | — - Syon by | Angels (_Seal_) | 1447 | | | - | | | | | - Hackney or | St. Katherine[305] | 1334 | — | — | L - Kingsland | | | | | - | | | | | - Holborn | | | | | - v. London | | | | | - | | | | | - Holloway | [Holy Jesus &] St. | 1473 | W. Pole | Crown | L - or Highgate | Anthony(Seal[306]) | | | | - | | | | | - _Hounslow_[307] | — | 1200 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Kingsland, | | | | | - _v._ Hackney | | | | | - | | | | | - Knightsbridge | St. Leonard[308] | 1485 | — |_Westminster| L - | (Seal) | | | Abbey_ | - | | | | | - London,[309] |St. Giles[310] | _bef._| Queen Maud |Crown, | L - Holborn | (Seal) | 1118 | | Burton | - | | | | Lazars | - | | | | | - London West |*‡St. | _c._ | Rahere | — | — - Smithfield | Bartholomew[311] | 1123 | | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - London by Tower | ‡St. Katharine | 1148 |Queen Matilda| Crown | — - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - London Cheapside| [St. Mary &] St. | _c._ |Fitz Theobald| Knights | — - | Thomas M. “of | 1190 | | Templars | - | Acon”[312] (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - London | St. John B.[313] | 1505 | Henry VII. | Crown | — - | (Seal) or “Savoy” | | | | - | | | | | - London | St. Anthony (Seal) | 1254 | — |Order of | — - Threadneedle St.| | | |Vienne, | - | | | |Crown, etc. | - | | | | | - London | St. Paul | 1190 | Henry, Canon| Dean & | — - Churchyard | | | | Chapter | - | | | | | - London |Holy Ghost, B.V.M., | 1424 | R. |Collegiate | — - Paternoster |St. Michael & All | | Whittington |Foundation | - | SS. | | | | - | | | | | - [p305] | | | | | - | | | | | - London, nr. | “St. Charity & St. | 1442 | 3 Priests | Fraternity | — - Aldgate | John Ev.”[314] | | | | - | | | | | - London without | St. Mary B. V. | 1197 | W. Brune | — | — - Bishopsgate | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - London without | St. Mary or “Domus | 1231 | Henry III. | Crown | — - Temple Bar | Conversorum”[315] | | | | - | | | | | - London nr. | St. Mary, | 1329 | W. Elsyng |Dean, etc., | — - Cripplegate | “ElsyngSpital” | | | of St. | - | (Seal) | | | Paul’s | - | | | | | - London without | ‡St. Mary of | 1247 | S. FitzMary | Order of | — - Bishopsgate | Bethlehem | | | Bethlehem, | - | (_Seal_[316]) | | | City | - | | | | | - London Charing | St. Mary “of |_bef_ | — | Alien | — - Cross | Rouncevall” (Seal) | 1231 | | | - | | | | | - London Crutched | Almshouse, St. | _c._ | J. Millborn | Drapers | — - Friars | Mary | 1524 | | | - | | | | | - — | St. James, | | | | - | _v._ Westminster | | | | - | | | | | - — | St. Thomas, | | | | - | _v._ Southwark, | | | | - | Surrey | | | | - | | | | | - Mile End[317] or|St. Mary Magd. | 1274 | — | — | L - Stepney | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Shoreditch[318] | Spital House | xvi | — | — | — - | |cent. | | | - | | | | | - Westminster | St. James (Seal) | xii | _re-f._ | Abbey, | L - | |cent. | Henry III. | Crown | - | | | | | - Westminster | Almshouse | xvi |Lady Margaret| — | — - | | cent. | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -[p306] - -XXIII. NORFOLK - - ---------------+------------------+---------+-------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._ | _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ---------------+------------------+---------+-------------+-------------+--- - | | | | | - Bec |St. Thomas M.[319]| 1224 | William de | Bishop | — - (Billingford) | (Seal) | | Bec | | - | | | | | - Boycodeswade, | | | | | - _v._ Cokesford | | | | | - | | | | | - Burnham Overy | St. Peter[320] or| 1200 | Cheney | — | — - or Peterstone | St. Nicholas | | | | - | | | | | - _Choseley_ | _St. Lazarus_ | _1291_ | — |_Burton | _L_ - | | | | Lazars_ | - | | | | | - Cokesford[321] | St. Andrew | _c._ | Hervey Beleth| Cokesford | — - | | 1181 | | Priory | - | | | | | - Creak, North | St. Mary[322] | 1221 | Robert de | — | — - (Lingerscroft) | | | Nerford | | - | | | | | - Croxton | Domus Dei | 1250 | — | Hospital, | — - | | | | Thetford | - | | | | | - Gaywood, _v._ | | | | | - Lynn | | | | | - | | | | | - Hardwick | St. Laurence | 1327 | — | Private | L - (S. Lynn)[323]| | | | | - | | | | | - Hautbois, Great| St. Mary (God’s | 1235 | Peter de | Horning | — - | House) | | Hautbois | Hospital | - | | | | | - Hempton | St. Stephen[324] | 1135 |De S. Martin | Private | — - (Fakenham) | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Heringby |God’s House (Seal)| 1447 |H. Attefenne | Collegiate | — - | | | | Foundation | - | | | | | - Hingham | Almshouse | 1483 | S. Lyster | — | — - | | | | | - Horning | St. James | 1153 |Abbot Daniel | Hulme Abbey,| — - | | | | Bishop | - | | | | | - Ickburgh or | SS. Mary & | 1323 | W. Barentun | Private | L - Newbridge | Laurence | | | | - | | | | | - Langwade | — | 1380 | — | — | L - (Oxburgh) | | | | | - | | | | | - [p307] | | | | | - | | | | | - Lingerscroft, | | | | | - _v._ Creak | | | | | - | | | | | - Lynn or Gaywood| ‡St. Mary Magd. | 1145 | Peter, | — | L - | (Seal{328}) | | Chaplain | |etc. - | | | | | - Lynn, Bishops | St. John Baptist | _c._ | Ulfketel |Town, Bishop | — - | | 1135 | | | - | | | | | - Lynn, West Lynn| — | — | — | — | L - | | | | | - Lynn, Cowgate | — | 1352 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Lynn, _v._ | | | | | - Hardwick | | | | | - | | | | | - Massingham | Domus Dei[325] | 1260 | — | Crown | — - | | | | | - Newbridge, | | | | | - _v._ Ickburgh | | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | St. Paul Ap.[326]| _bef._ | Bishop | Bishops and | — - | [&St. Paul, | 1119 | Herbert | Priory | - | Hermit] (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | *‡St. Giles, | 1246 |Bishop W. de | Bishops and | — - | etc.[327] (Seal)| | Suffield | Priory | - | | | | | - Norwich | St. Mary B.V. | 1200 | Hildebrond | Bishop | — - Conisford | (_Seal_[328]). | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich in | St. Saviour | 1297 |R. de Brekles| — | — - Coselany | | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | God’s House | xiii |John le Grant| Bishop | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | God’s House | 1292 | Robert de | — | — - | | | Aswardby | | - | | | | | - Norwich | Almshouse | — | Croom | — | — - | | | | | - Norwich | Almshouse | 1418 | Danyel | — | — - | | | | | - Norwich | Almshouse | — | Hugh Garzon | — | — - | | | | | - Norwich | St. Mary Magd. | _bef._ | Bishop | Bishop | L - (Sprowston) | (Seal{328}) | 1119 | Herbert | | - | | | | | - Norwich St. | [St. Mary &] St. | 1312 | Bishop | — | L - Austin’s Gate | Clement | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | _St. Mary | 1448 | — | — | L - Fybridge Gate | Magdalene_ | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich | St. Bennet | — | — | — | L - Westwick Gate | (_Seal_{328}) | | | | - | | | | | - [p308] | | | | | - | | | | | - Norwich Newport| _St. Giles_ | 1308 | Balderic | — | L - | | | | | - Norwich Nedham | St. Stephen | — | — | Horsham | L - | (_Seal_[329]) | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Norwich |_St. Leonard_[330]| _1335_ | — | — | — - _without_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Racheness | St. Bartholomew | xii | — | Castleacre | L - (Southacre) | | cent. | | Priory | - | | | | | - Somerton, West | St. Leonard | 1189 | R. de | Crown, | L - | | | Glanvill |Butley Priory| - | | | | | - Snoring Parva | — | 1380 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Sprowston, | | | | | - _v._ Norwich | | | | | - | | | | | - Thetford | St. John | xii | Roger Bigod | — | L - | Baptist{330} | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Thetford | St. Mary | xiii |J. de Warenne|Earldom, Town| L - | Magdalene{330} | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Thetford |St. Mary B.V.[331]| 1325 | — | Private | — - | | | | | - Thetford | St. Margaret | 1304 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Thetford | St. John[332] | — | — | Private | L - | | | | | - Thetford | God’s House{332} | 1319 | Earl of | Private, | — - | | | Surrey |Priory, etc. | - | | | | | - Walsingham | — | 1486 | — | Private | L - | | | | | - Walsoken | Holy Trinity | _bef._ | — | — | — - | (Seal) | 1200 | | | - | | | | | - Wymondham | — | — | — |Burton Lazars| L - (Westwade) | | | | | - | | | | | - Yarmouth | St. Mary B.V. | 1278 | T. Fastolf |Private, Town| — - | (Seal[333]) | | | | - | | | | | - Yarmouth | — | 1386 | Townsmen | Town | — - | | | | | - Yarmouth | — | 1349 | — | — | L - (Northgate) | | | | | - | | | | | - Yarmouth | — | 1349 | — | — | L - (Northgate) | | | | | - | | | | | - Yarmouth, | | | | | - Little, _v._ | | | | | - Gorleston, | | | | | - Suffolk | | | | | - ---------------+------------------+---------+-------------+-------------+--- - - -[p309] - -XXIV. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE - - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_|_Date._ | _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - Armston (in |St. John Baptist| 1231 | R. de | Private | — - Polebrook) | | | Trubleville| | - | | | | | - Aynho | St. James & | 1208 | Roger Fitz | Private, | — - | St. John [or | | Richard | Magd. Coll. | - | St. Mary & | | | Oxford | - | St. James] | | | | - | | | | | - Brackley |*St. James & St.| _c._ | Robert Earl| Private, | — - | John Ap. & | 1150 | of | Magd. Coll. | - | Ev.[334] (Seal)| | Leicester | Oxford | - | | | | | - Brackley | St. Leonard | 1280 | — | Private | L - (without) | (Seal[335]) | | | | - | | | | | - _Byfield_ | _St. John_[336]| _1313_ | — | — | — - | | | | | - Cotes by | St. Leonard | 1229 | — | Peterborough| L - Rockingham | | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Fotheringhay | — | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Grimsbury, _v._ | | | | | - Banbury, Oxon | | | | | - | | | | | - Higham Ferrers | St. James | 1163 | Ferrers | Private | — - [337] | [338] | | | | - | | | | | - Higham Ferrers |*‡Bede House | 1423 | Abp. | Collegiate | — - | | | Chichele | Foundation | - | | | | | - Kingsthorpe by |†St. David | 1200 | Peter Fitz | St. Andrew’s| — - Northampton | (Dewy) or | | Adam or | Priory | - | Holy Trinity | | King John | | - | | | | | - Northampton | St. Leonard | _c._ | King | Town | L - (Cotton) | (Seal) | 1150 | | | - | | | | | - [p310] | | | | | - | | | | | - Northampton |*‡St. John B. | _c._ | William, | Bishop of | — - |[& St. John Ev.]| 1140 | Archdeacon | Lincoln | - |(Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Northampton |‡St. | _c._ | Townsmen | Town | — - Northampton |Thomas-à-Becket | 1450 | | | - | | | | | - Northampton | Hospital | 1301 | — | — | L - (Northgate) | of Walbek | | | | - | | | | | - Northampton _v._ | | | | | - Kingsthorpe | | | | | - | | | | | - Peryho |[St. John B. &] | 1258 | Knyvet | Private, | — - (in Southwick) | St. Martin, | | | Cotherstoke | - | Bp.[339] | | | Coll. | - | | | | | - Peterborough | St. Thomas M. | _bef_ | Abbot | Abbey | — - | | 1194 | Benedict | | - | | | | | - Peterborough | St. Leonard | 1125 | Abbot | Abbey | L - near | | | | | - | | | | | - Rushden, _v._ | | | | | - Higham Ferrers | | | | | - | | | | | - Southwick, | | | | | - _v._ Peryho | | | | | - | | | | | - Stamford (Baron) | St. Giles | _bef_ | — | Peterborough| L - | | 1189 | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Stamford |†St. John B. & | _c._ |Siward, | Abbey | — - (without) |St. Thomas M. | 1174 |Brand de | | - | | |Fossato,etc.| | - | | | | | - Stamford | Holy Sepulchre | _bef_ | — | Abbey | — - | | 1189 | | | - | | | | | - Stamford |“_St. Logar_” | _bef | _W. de | — | — - (without) | [340] | 1199_ | Warenne._ | | - | | | | | - Stamford |*‡Bedehouse | _bef_ | W. Browne | — | — - | or All Saints | 1485 | | | - | (Seal)[341] | | | | - | | | | | - Thrapston | St. Leonard | 1246 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Towcester | St. Leonard | 1200 | — | Earl of | L - | | | | Pembroke | - -----------------+----------------+--------+------------+-------------+--- - - -[p311] - -XXV. NORTHUMBERLAND - - ----------------+---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - Alnwick, near |St. Leonard | xii |Eustace de |Private, | — - | | cent. | Vesci | Abbey | - | | | | | - Alribourn |St. Leonard | 1331 | — | Private | — - | | | | | - _Alwynton_ | — |_1272_ |_Bishop | — | — - | | | Philip_ | | - | | | | | - Bamborough |St. Mary Magdalene | 1256 | — | Crown | L - | | | | | - Berwick-on- |St. Mary | 1301 | — | — | — - Tweed[342] | Magdalene[343] | | | | - | | | | | - Berwick-on-Tweed| God’s House[344] | 1286 |Philip de | — | — - | | | Rydale | | - | | | | | - Berwick-on-Tweed| _St. Edward_[345] | 1246 | — | — | — - | | | | | - _Bolam_[346] | _St. Mary_ | 1285 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bolton (in |Holy Trinity or St. | 1225 |Robert de Ros|Rievaulx, | L - Allendale) | Thomas M. (Seal) | | | Kirkham | - | | | | | - Capelford by |St. Mary Magdalene | 1333 | — | — | — - Norham | | | | | - | | | | | - Catchburn nr. |St. Mary Magdalene | 1282 |Roger de | Private | — - Morpeth | | | Merlay | | - | | | | | - Corbridge | — | 1378 | — | — | L - | | | | | - _Eglingham, | — | 1331 | — | — | — - Harehope by_ | | | | | - [347] | | | | | - | | | | | - Elleshaugh by | — | 1240 | Umfreville | Bishop | — - Otterburn[348] | | | | | - | | | | | - Embleton[349] | — | 1314 | — | — | — - near | | | | | - | | | | | - Hertford | — | 1256 | Merlay | Private | — - Bridge[350] | | | | | - | | | | | - Hexham |St. Giles | 1200 | Archbishop |Archbishop, | L - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Hexham |Pilgrims’ Hospital | xiv | — | — | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Mitford nr. |St. Leonard | xii |William | Barony | — - Morpeth | | cent.| Bertram | | - | | | | | - [p312] | | | | | - | | | | | - Morpeth, _v._ | | | | | - Catchburn | | | | | - | | | | | - Newbiggin-by- | — | 1391 | — | Private | — - Sea[351] | | | | | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- |‡St. Mary Magdalene |_bef_ | _Henry I_ |Town | L - Tyne (without) | (Seal) | 1135 | | | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- |‡St. Mary B.V. (Seal)| _bef_ | Aselack |St. | — - Tyne | [& St. John Ev.] | 1189 | |Bartholomew’s| - (Westgate) | | | |Priory, Town | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- |St. Katherine | ┌1403 |R. Thornton |Private, | — - Tyne | (Maison Dieu) | └1412 | | Town | - (Sandhills) | | | | | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- | Trinity Almshouse | 1492 | — |Seamen’s | — - Tyne | | | | Gild | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- | Maison Dieu | 1475 | J. Ward | — | — - Tyne | | | | | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- | Maison Dieu | 1504 | C. Brigham | — | — - Tyne | | | | | - | | | | | - Newcastle-upon- | Maison Dieu | 1360 | W. Acton | — | — - Tyne | | | | | - | | | | | - Rothbury | — | xvi | — |Hulparke | — - | | cent. | | Priory | - | | | | | - Shipwash | — | 1379 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Tweedmouth | St. Bartholomew | 1234 | — | Bishop | L - (Spittal) | | | | | - | | | | | - Tynemouth, near | St. Leonard | 1293 | — | Priory | — - | | | | | - Warenford | _St. John Baptist_ | 1253 | — | Private | L - | | | | | - Warkworth | St. John Baptist | 1292 | — | Private, | — - | (Seal[352]) | | | Hulparke | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Wooler | St. Mary Magdalene | 1302 | — | Private | — - ----------------+---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+--- - - -[p313] - -XXVI. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE - - ---------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._|_Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ---------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - Bawtry (without) | *‡St. Mary | 1280 | _re-f._ | Archbishop | — - | Magdalene | | Robert | | - | | | de Morton | | - | | | | | - Blyth (without) | ‡St. John. | 1226 | W. de | Private | L - | Ev.[353] | | Cressy | | - | | | | | - Blyth (without) | St. Edmund | 1228 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Bradebusk, | | | | | - _v._ Gonalston | | | | | - | | | | | - Gonalston | St. Mary | 1252 | W. Heriz | Private | L - | Magdalene | | | | - Harworth, | | | | | - _v._ Bawtry | | | | | - | | | | | - Hodsock, | | | | | - _v._ Blyth | | | | | - | | | | | - Lenton | St. Anthony[354] | 1330 | — | Alien | — - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Newark | ‡St. Leonard | 1125 | Bishop | Bishop of | — - (without N. gate) | | | Alexander | Lincoln | - | | | | | - Newark | | | | | - _v._ Stoke by N. | | | | | - | | | | | - Newark (Milnegate) | Almshouse | 1466 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Newark (Churchyard) | Almshouse | 1466 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Newark (Appiltongate)| Almshouse | 1466 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Nottingham | St. John Baptist | 1202 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Nottingham | St. Leonard | 1189 | — | Town | L - | | | | | - Nottingham | St. Sepulchre | 1267 | — | _Palmers_ | — - | | | | | - Nottingham |_St. Michael_[355]| _1335_| — | — | — - | | | | | - Nottingham | St. Mary | 1330 | — | — | L - (Westbarre) | | | | | - | | | | | - Nottingham (Leen | ‡Annunciation | 1390 | J. | — | — - Bridge) | of B.V.M.[356] | | Plumptre | | - | | | | | - Southwell, near | St. Mary | 1255 | — | Archbishop | L - | Magdalene | | | | - | | | | | - Stoke-by-Newark, | St. Leonard & | _bef_ | — | Private, | — - within | St. Anne[357] | 1135 | | Crown | - ---------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - - -[p314] - -XXVII. OXFORDSHIRE - - - --------------------+------------------+-------+------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - --------------------+------------------+-------+------------+------------+--- - Banbury | St. John B. | 1241 | R. Whiting | Bishop of | — - | (Seal) | | | Lincoln | - | | | | | - Banbury | New Almshouse | 1501 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Banbury | St. Leonard | _bef_ | — | — | L - or Grimsbury[358] | | 1307 | | | - | | | | | - | | | | | - _Bicester_ | _St. Mary B. V. &| 1355 | N. Jurdan | — | — - | St. John B._[359]| | | | - | | | | | - Burford | S. John Ev.[360] | 1226 | — | Private | — - | (_Seal_)| | | | - | | | | | - Burford | Great Almshouse | 1457 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Clattercote in | St. Leonard | 1166 | — | Bishop, | L - Claydon[361] | (Seal)| | | Priory | - | | | | | - Cold Norton | _St. Giles_ | _c._ | — | Priory | — - | | 1158 | | | - | | | | | - Crowmarsh[362] in | St. Mary | 1142 | — | Osney | L - Bensington | Magdalene | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Ewelme | *‡God’s House | 1437 |De la Pole | Private | — - | (Seal)| | | | - | | | | | - Eynsham | — | 1228 | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - Newnham Murren, _v._| | | | | - Wallingford, Berks | | | | | - | | | | | - Oxford (without | *St. John B. | _c._ | _re-f._ | Crown | — - E. gate) | (Seal)| 1180 | Henry III | | - | | | | | - Oxford (without) | *St. Bartholomew | 1126 | Henry I | Crown, | L - | | | | Oriel Coll.| - | | | | | - Oxford (suburbs) | St. Giles[363] | 1330 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Oxford | St. Peter | 1338 | — | — | — - | | | | | - [p315] | | | | | - | | | | | - Oxford | St. Clement[364] | 1345 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Oxford | Domus Conversorum| 1234 | Henry III | — | — - | | | | | - Oxford | “_Bethlem_”[365] | 1219 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Thame | _St. | 1460 | R. | | — - | Christopher_[366]| |Quartermayne| | - | | | | | - Woodstock[367] | St. Mary V. & | 1339 | — | | - | St. Mary M.[368]| | | | - | | | | | - Woodstock (without) | St. Cross{368} | 1231 | — | — | L - --------------------+------------------+-------+------------+------------+--- - - -XXVIII. RUTLAND - - --------------------+-------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._| _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - --------------------+-------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - Casterton, Great | St. Margaret | 1311 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Oakham | *‡St. John Ev. | 1398 | W. Dalby | Private | — - | & St. Anne | | | | - | | | | | - Tolethorpe[369] | — | 1301 | John de | — | — - | | | Tolethorpe| | - --------------------+-------------------+-------+-----------+------------+--- - - -[p316] - -XXIX. SHROPSHIRE - - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - | | | | | - Bridgnorth | “Vetus Maladeria” | — | — | — | L - (without[370]) | | | | | - | | | | | - Bridgnorth |S. James (Seal[371])| 1224 | — | — | L - (without) | | | | | - | | | | | - Bridgnorth | St. John Ev. or | |R. le Strange|Crown, | — - | Holy Trinity, | | | Lilleshall | - | B.V.M. and St. John| | | Abbey | - | B. (Seal[372]) | | | | - | | | | | - Ludlow | Holy Trinity, St. | 1253 |P. Undergod | — | — - | Mary & St. John B. | | | | - | | | | | - Ludlow | _St. Giles_[373] | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - | | | | | - Ludlow | ‡Almshouse | 1486 | J. Hosyer |Palmers’ | — - | | | | Gild | - | | | | | - Nesscliff, | “_St. Mary de | _c._ |Le Strange | Private | — - Great Ness | Rocherio_” | 1250 | | | - | | | | | - Newport[374] | S. Giles | 1337 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Newport | ‡St. Nicholas[375] | 1446 | W. Glover, | Town | — - | | | etc. | | - | | | | | - Oswestry | St. John Baptist | 1210 |Bishop Reyner|Haughmond | L - | | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Richards Castle,| | | | | - _v._ Hereford- | | | | | - shire | | | | | - | | | | | - Shrewsbury |St. Giles | 1136 | King |Crown, Abbey| L - (without) | (Seal[376]) | | | | - | | | | | - Shrewsbury |S. John B. | 1221 | — |Crown, St. | — - (Frankvill) | (Seal[377]) | | | Chad’s | - | | | | | - Shrewsbury | St. George M.[378] | 1162 | — | — | — - | | | | | - | | | | | - Shrewsbury |St. Chad’s Almshouse| 1409 | B. Tuptun |Mercers’ | — - | | | | Fraternity | - | | | | | - [p317] | | | | | - | | | | | - Shrewsbury | ‡St. Mary’s | _c._ | Degory Watur|Drapers’ | — - | Almshouse | 1444 | | Fraternity | - | | | | | - Tong | St. Bartholomew | _c._ | De Bohun, |Private, | — - | | 1410 | Penbridge | Collegiate | - | | | | Foundation | - | | | | | - Wenlock, Much | St. John | 1267 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Whitchurch | — | xiii | Le Strange |Private, | — - | | cent. | (_ben._) | Haughmond | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -[p318] - -XXX. SOMERSET - - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - Bath | †‡ St. John | _c._ |Bishop John |Bishop, | — - | Baptist[379] | 1180 | or Reginald | Prior | - | | | | | - Bath Holloway | *‡ [St. Cross &] |_bef_ |Walter Hosate| Priory | L - or Lyncomb | St. Mary Magdalene | 1100 | | | - | | | | | - Beckington | Almshouse | 1502 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bedminster, | | | | | - _v._ Glos | | | | | - | | | | | - Bridgwater | St. John B. (Seal) | 1214 | W. Briwere | Private | — - | | | | | - Bridgwater | St. Giles | xiv | — | — | L - | | cent. | | | - Bristol _v._ | | | | | - Glos. | | | | | - | | | | | - Bruton[380] | — | 1291 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Croscombe | Almshouse[381] | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Glastonbury | *Almshouse |_bef_ | _re-f._ | Abbey | — - | (Women’s) | 1246 | Abbot Beere | | - | | | | | - Glastonbury | *‡St. Mary | xiii | — | Abbey | — - | Magdalene[382] | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Holloway, _v._ | | | | | - Bath | | | | | - | | | | | - Ilchester[383] | St. Margaret{383} | 1212 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Ilchester | Holy Trinity | 1217 | W. Dacres | Private | — - | | | | | - Ilchester | Almshouse | 1426 | R. Veal | — | — - | | | | | - [p319] | | | | | - | | | | | - Keynsham | St. John B. | xv | — | — | — - | (Seal[384]) | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Langport,[385] | St. Mary Magdalene | 1280 | — | Private, | L - near | | | | Glastonbury| - | | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - _Selwood_[386] | — | 1212 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Taunton (W. |*‡[Holy Ghost | 1185 | Abbot Beere | Priory | L - Monkton) |&[387]] St. Margaret| | (_ben_) | | - | | | | | - Wells | †St. John B. (Seal)| 1206 | Hugh & | Bishop | — - | | | Jocelyn | | - | | | | | - Wells |*‡St. Saviour[B.V.M.| 1436 | Bishop |Dean, Mayor,| — - | & All Saints] | | Bubwith | etc. | - | | | | | - Yeovil | ‡St. George & St. | 1477 | J. Wobourne | — | — - | Christopher | | | | - ----------------+--------------------+-------+-------------+------------+--- - - -[p320] - -XXXI. STAFFORDSHIRE - - ------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._|_Founder._ |_Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+----------+--- - | | | | | - _Cannock_ | _St. Mary_[388] | 1220 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Freeford, _v._ | | | | | - Lichfield | | | | | - | | | | | - Lichfield | *‡St. John B. | — | Bishop | Bishop | — - | (Seal) | | Roger | | - | | | | | - Lichfield | St. Leonard | 1257 | — | — | L - (Freeford) | | | | | - | | | | | - Lichfield | ‡Almshouse | 1504 | Milley | — | — - (Bacon Street) | | | | | - | | | | | - Radford, _v._ | | | | | - _infra_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Stafford | †St. John B. | 1208 |Earl Ralph | Private | — - (Forebridge) | (Seal[389]) | | | | - | | | | | - Stafford | St. Leonard | — |Earl Ralph | Private | — - | | | | | - Stafford | Holy Sepulchre | 1254 | — | Private | L - (Retford) | [or St. Lazarus] | | | | - | | | | | - Stoke-upon-Trent | St. Loye[390] | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Tamworth or | †St. James | 1285 | P. de | Private | — - Wigginton | | | Marmyon | | - | | | | | - Wigginton, _v._ | | | | | - _supra_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Wolverhampton | St. Mary B.V. | 1392 | Luson, | — | — - | | | Waterfall,| | - | | | etc. | | - ------------------+------------------+-------+-----------+----------+--- - - -[p321] - -XXXII. SUFFOLK - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - Beccles |St. Mary M. | 1327 | — | — | L - | [& St. Anthony] | | | | - | | | | | - Bury St. Edmunds| St. John Ev. | 1256 |Abbot Edmund | Abbey | — - | (God’s House) | | | | - | | | | | - Bury without | †St. Nicholas | _c._ | — | Abbey | — - Eastgate | | 1215| | | - | | | | | - Bury without | †St. Saviour[391] | _c._ |Abbot Sampson| Abbey | — - Northgate| | 1184 | | | - | | | | | - Bury without | St. Peter | xii |Abbot Anselm | Abbey | L - Risbygate| | cent.| | |etc. - | | | | | - Bury at | †St. Petronilla | xvi | — | Abbey | L - Southgate| | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Bury | St. Stephen[392] | — | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - Clare | Almshouse | 1462 |J. Bingley | — | — - | | | | | - Dunwich | *‡St. James (Seal) | 1199 |Prince John | — | L - | | | or W. de | | - | | | Riboff | | - | | | | | - Dunwich | ‡Holy Trinity or | 1251 | — | Crown | — - | Maison Dieu | | | | - | (Seal{392}) | | | | - | | | | | - Eye (without) | ‡St. Mary Magdalene | 1329 | — | Town | L - | | | | | - Gorleston[393] | St. Mary & St. | 1331 | — | — | L - |Nicholas (_Seal_[394])| | | | - | | | | | - Gorleston | St. James | — | — | — | L - | | | | | - Gorleston | St. John Baptist | xiii |_Queen | — | — - | | cent.| Eleanor_ | | - | | | | | - Gorleston | St. Mary Magdalene | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Gorleston | _St. Luke_ | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - [p322] | | | | | - | | | | | - Gorleston | _St. Bartholomew_ | xvi | — | — | — - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Hadleigh | Almshouse | 1497 |W. Pykenham, | — | — - | | | Rector | | - | | | | | - Ipswich | St. James[395] | 1199 | — | Bishop | L - | | | | | - Ipswich | St. Mary | 1199 | — | Bishop | L - | Magdalene{395} | | | | - | | | | | - Ipswich near | St. Leonard[396] | xvi | — | — | L - | | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Ipswich | _St. Thomas_{396} | — | — | — | L - | | | | | - Ipswich | Almshouse | 1515 |E. Dandy | — | — - | | | | | - Orford | St. Leonard | 1320 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Orford | St. John Baptist | 1389 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Sibton | †Hospital | 1264 | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - _Stratton-in- | — | — | — | — | L - Leverington_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Sudbury | Holy Sepulchre | 1206 |Wm. Earl of |Earldom of | — - | | | Gloucester | St. Clare,| - | | | | etc. | - | | | | | - Sudbury | Jesus Christ & St. | — |Countess | — | — - | Mary B.V. | | Amicia | | - | | | | | - Sudbury | ‡St. Leonard | 1372 |John Colneys | Governors | L - | | | | | - Thetford, _v._ | | | | | - Norfolk | | | | | - | | | | | - Thurlow, Great | St. James | 1291 | — |Alien, etc.| — - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - - -[p323] - -XXXIII. SURREY - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Bermondsey_ | — | 1399 |_Richard II_ | — | L - | | | | | - Croydon | ‡St. John Baptist | 1443 |Ellis Davy |Governors | — - | | | | | - Guildford | St. Thomas M.[397] | 1231 | — | — | — - | (Spital) | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-on- | | | | | - Thames |St. Leonard, Domus Dei| 1227 |King |Crown | L - | | | | | - Newington Butts | Our Lady & St. | xvi | — | — | — - | Katherine | cent.| | | - | | | | | - Reigate | St. Mary V. & Holy |_bef_ |W. de Warenne| — | — - | Cross[398] (Seal) | 1240 | | | - | | | | | - Sandon by Cobham|The Holy Ghost[399] | xii |R. de |Bishop; St.| — - | [or St. Mary M.] | cent. | Wateville | Thomas’, | - | (Seal[400]) | | | Southwark| - | | | | | - Southwark | ‡St. Thomas M.[401] | _bef_ |Becket, Peter| — | — - | (Seal) | 1215 | des Roches | | - | | | | | - Southwark | [St. Mary &] St. | 1315 | — | — | L - (Kent Street) | Leonard[402] | | | | - | | | | | - Tandridge | St James{398} | xii |Odo de | — | — - | | cent.| Dammartin | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - - -[p324] - -XXXIV. SUSSEX - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - Arundel | St. James | 1189 | Fitzalan | Earldom | L - | | | | | - Arundel | Holy Trinity or | 1380 | Fitzalan | Earldom | — - | Christ (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Battle | Pilgrim House, | 1076 | — | Abbey | — - | afterwards St. | | | | - | Thomas M.[403] | | | | - | | | | | - Bramber | St. Mary Magdalene | 1216 | — | Private | L - (Bidlington) | | | | | - | | | | | - _Buxsted_ | — | _1404_| _W. Heron_ | — | — - | | | | | - Chichester | *‡St. Mary | 1172 | William, | Dean & | — - | B. V. (Seal) | | Dean | Chapter | - | | | | | - Chichester | †‡St. James & | 1202 | Bp. | Crown | L - without Eastgate| St. Mary Magdalene | | Seffrid II | | - | (Seal[404]) | | | | - | | | | | - Chichester | St. Mary Magdalene | — | — | — | L - Loddesdown | | | | | - | | | | | - Chichester | — | — | — | — | L - _Rumboldswyke_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Chichester | — | — | — | — | L - _Stockbridge_ | | | | | - | | | | | - Cookham in | [St. Mary V. &] | 1272 | W. |Various | — - Sompting | St. Anthony | | Bernchius | [405] | - | | | | | - Harting | St. John Baptist | 1162 | H. Hoese | Private, | L - (Dureford) | | | |_Dureford | - | | | | Abbey_ | - | | | | | - Hastings | ‡St. Mary | 1293 | Petronilla | Town | — - | Magdalene | | de Cham | | - | | | | | - [p325] | | | | | - | | | | | - Hemsworth | St. Mary | 1251 | — | — | — - (in Burn) | Magdalene[406] | | | | - | | | | | - Lewes | St. James | — |W. de Warenne| Priory | — - | | | | | - Lewes (Westout) | St. Nicholas | _c._ |W. de Warenne| Priory | — - | | 1085 | | | - | | | | | - Pevensey | Holy Cross | 1292 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Pevensey | ‡St. John Baptist | 1302 | — | Town | — - or Westham[407]| | | | | - | | | | | - Playden, _v._ | | | | | - Rye | | | | | - | | | | | - Rye or Playden | St. Bartholomew | 1219 | — | Alien, | L - | | | |Crown, Town| - | | | | | - Seaford, near | St. James | 1171 | Roger de | Chichester| L - | | | Fraxeto | Cathedral | - | | | | | - Seaford, without| St. Leonard | _bef_ | Roger de | Chichester| — - | | 1256 | Fraxeto | Cathedral | - | | | | | - Shoreham | St. James | 1249 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Shoreham | St. Katherine[408] | 1366 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Sompting, | | | | | - _v._ Cookham | | | | | - | | | | | - Westham, | | | | | - _v._ Pevensey | | | | | - | | | | | - West Tarring | St. Mary | 1277 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Winchelsea[409] | †St. Bartholomew | 1292 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Winchelsea | †St. John | 1292 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Winchelsea | Holy Cross[410] | 1253 | — | — | — - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - Windeham | St. Edmund, | 1253 | Bishop | Bishop | — - | Conf.[411] | | Richard | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - - -[p326] - -XXXV. WARWICKSHIRE - - ----------------+-----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+-----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - Birmingham | [St. Mary V.[412] &] | 1286 | — | — | — - | St. Thomas M. | | | | - | | | | | - Bretford | St. Edmund[413] | 1180 | Turville | Private | L - (Wolstan) | | | | | - | | | | | - Coventry | St. John B. (Seal) | 1175 | Archdn. & | Priory | — - | | | Prior | | - | | | | | - Coventry |St. Mary Magd. | 1181 | Hugh | Various | L - Spon near | (Seal[414]) | | Keveliog | [415] | - | | | | | - Coventry | St. Leonard[416] | 1252 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Coventry | Hospital[417] | 1370 | William | — | — - | | | Walssh | | - | | | | | - Coventry Bablake| *‡Holy Trinity | 1507 | T. Bonde | Gild, etc.| — - | | | | | - Coventry | *‡Almshouse[418] | 1529 | W. Ford | — | — - | | | | | - Henley in Arden | — | _re-f_| — | Gild | — - | | 1449 | | | - | | | | | - Stratford-on- | Holy Cross (Seal)[419]| 1269 | — | Fraternity| — - Avon | | | | | - | | | | | - Studley | — | — | W. de | Priory | — - | | | Cantilupe | | - | | | | | - Warwick | [Holy Ghost[420] &] | _c._ | Earl Wm. | — | — - | St. John B. | 1183 | or Henry | | - | | | | | - Warwick | St. Michael | _c._ | Earl Roger | Earldom | L - | | 1135 | | | - | | | | | - Warwick | St. Thomas of | — | Earl | Knights | — - (without) | Canterbury | | | Templars| - | | | | | - Warwick | St. Laurence | 1255 | — | — | L - ----------------+-----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - - -[p327] - -XXXVI. WESTMORLAND - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - Appleby | St. Nicholas | _bef_ | — | Private, | L - | | 1240 | |Shap Abbey | - | | | | | - Brough under | St. Mary V. & | 1506 | J. | Shap Abbey| — - Stanemoor | St. Gabriel | | Brunskill | | - | | | | | - Kendal | St. Leonard | 1189 | De Ros | Private, | L - (Kirkby-in-) | | | | Conishead | - [421] | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Kirkby, _v._ | | | | | - Kendal | | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+-------------+-----------+--- - - -[p328] - -XXXVII. WILTSHIRE - - ----------------+----------------------+-------+--------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+--------------+-----------+--- - Bedwin | St. John Baptist[422]| — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bradford-on-Avon| St. Margaret[423] | 1235 | King |Shaftesbury| L - | | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Bradford-on-Avon| St. Katherine[424] | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Bradley, Maiden | St. Mary V. [and | _c._ | Manser and | — | L - | St. Matthew[425]] or | 1190 | Margery | | - | [St. Lazarus] (Seal) | | Bisset | | - | | | | | - Calne, near | St. John B. | 1202 | Lord Zouche | — | — - | [& St. Anthony[426]]| | | | - | | | | | - Chippenham | St. Laurence[427] | 1338 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Cricklade | St. John Baptist | 1231 | Guarin | Bishop of | — - | | | | Sarum | - | | | | | - Devizes | St. John Baptist | 1207 | — | Town | — - | | | | | - Devizes | St. James & St. Denys| 1207 | — | — | L - (Southbroom) | | | | | - | | | | | - Easton | — | 1246 | Stephen, | Private | — - Royal[428] | | | Archdeacon | | - | | | | | - Fugglestone, | | | | | - _v._ Wilton | | | | | - | | | | | - Heytesbury | †St. John or St. | _c._ | Walter, Lord | Various | — - | Katherine (Seal) | 1449 | Hungerford | | - | | | | | - Malmesbury |†St. John Baptist[429]| — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Malmesbury | St. Anthony[430] | 1245 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Malmesbury |St. Mary | _bef_ | — | — | L - (Burton by) | Magdalene[431] | 1222 | | | - | | | | | - [p329] | | | | | - | | | | | - Marlborough[432]| St. John Baptist | 1215 | Levenoth | Town | — - | | | | | - Marlborough | St. Thomas M. | _bef_ | — | Manor | — - | | 1246 | | (Crown), | - | | | | Gilbertine| - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Salisbury | *‡St. Nicholas[433] | 1214 | Bishop | Bishop, | — - (Harnham Bridge)| (Seal) | | | Dean & | - | | | | Chapter | - | | | | | - Salisbury | ‡Holy Trinity [& St. | _bef_ | Agnes | Town | — - | Thomas M.] (Seals) | 1379 |Bottenham[434]| | - | | | | | - Salisbury (East | — | 1361 | — | — | L - Harnham)[435]| | | | | - | | | | | - Sarum, Old[436] | — | 1195 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Sarum, Old or | St. John Baptist | 1231 | — | — | — - Stratford[437]| | | | | - | | | | | - Southbroom, | | | | | - _v._ Devizes | | | | | - | | | | | - Stratford, | | | | | - _v._ Sarum | | | | | - | | | | | - Trowbridge | Almshouse | 1483 | J. Terumber | — | — - | | | | | - Wilton or | †‡St. Giles [& St. | _c._ | Queen Adela |Crown, Town| L - Fugglestone | Anthony[438]] (Seal) | 1135 | | | - | | | | | - Wilton | *‡St. John Baptist | 1190 |Bishop Hubert | — | — - (Ditchampton) | | | | | - | | | | | - Wilton | ‡St. Mary Magdalene | 1307 | — | Abbey | — - | | | | | - Wootton Bassett | St. John Baptist | 1266 | P. Basset & | Various | — - | | | Rector | [439] | - ----------------+----------------------+-------+--------------+-----------+--- - - -[p330] - -XXXVIII. WORCESTERSHIRE - - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - Droitwich or | St. Mary B.V.[440]| _bef_ | Wm. de Dover, | Worcester | — - Dodderhill | (_Seal_) | 1285 | Rector | Priory | - | | | | | - Worcester, near | ‡St. Oswald[441] | _bef_ |_Bishop Oswald_| Worcester | L - | | 1205 | | Priory | - | | | | | - Worcester | _St. Mary_{441} | 1257 | — | — | L - | | | | | - Worcester | *St. Wulstan[442] | _c._ | Bishop Wulstan| Bishop | — - (without) | (Seal) | 1085 | | | - | | | | | - Worcester | Trinity Hall | xvi | — | Gild | — - | Almshouses | cent. | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - - -[p331] - -XXXIX. YORKSHIRE - - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ |_Date._| _Founder._ | _Patron._ | - | _Description._ | | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - _Aberford_[443] | — | _bef_ | — | — | — - | | 1454 | | | - | | | | | - Allerton, _v._ | | | | | - Northallerton | | | | | - | | | | | - Bagby[444] | — | _c._ | Mowbray | St. | — - | | 1200 | | Leonard’s,| - | | | | York | - | | | | | - Bawtry, _v._ | | | | | - Notts | | | | | - | | | | | - Beverley | St. Giles | _bef_ | Wulse | Abp., | — - | | 1223 | | Wartre | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Beverley in | St. Nicholas | _bef_ | — | Town | — - Friary by | | 1286 | | | - | | | | | - Beverley | | 1392 | — | Town | L - without | | | | | - Keldgate Bar | | | | | - | | | | | - | | | | | - Beverley | Holy Trinity | 1398 | John Ake | Town | — - Crossbridge | | | | | - | | | | | - Beverley | St. John _Baptist_| 1454 | — | — | — - Laithgate | | | | | - | | | | | - Beverley | St. Mary B.V. | 1442 | — | Gild, Town| — - without N. Bar| | | | | - | | | | | - Blyth, _v._ | | | | | - Notts | | | | | - | | | | | - Braceford[445], | St. Helen | _bef_ | — | Private | — - nr. Harpham | | 1389 | | | - | | | | | - Bridlington[446]| — | 1342 | — | Priory | — - | | | | | - Brompton, | | | | | - Brough, _v._ | | | | | - Catterick | | | | | - | | | | | - Broughton | St. Mary Magdalene| 1154 | Eustace | — | — - nr. Malton | | | FitzJohn | | - | | | | | - Catterick nr. | St. Giles | 1231 | _H. | Private | — - Brompton-on- | | | FitzRandolph_| | - Swale | | | | | - | | | | | - [p332] | | | | | - | | | | | - Clitheroe, | | | | | - _v._ Lancs | | | | | - | | | | | - Doncaster | St. Nicholas | 1213 | — | Beigham | — - | | | | Abbey | - | | | | | - Doncaster | St. James (Seal) | 1227 | — | Private, | L - | | | | St. Thos. | - | | | | of Acon | - | | | | | - Doncaster (by | St. Edmund K.[447]| 1318 | — | — | — - bridge) | | | | | - | | | | | - Doncaster | _St. Leonard_ | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - Edisford, | | | | | - _v._ Lancs | | | | | - | | | | | - Flixton[448] | St. Mary V. & | x | Acehorne | — | — - | St. Andrew | cent. | | | - | | | | | - Foulsnape, _v._ | | | | | - Pontefract | | | | | - | | | | | - Fountains | — | 1247 | Abbot John | Abbey | — - | | | (_ben._) | | - | | | | | - Gainsborough | Almshouse | 1495 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Hedon, Newton by| St. Sepulchre | 1205 | Alan | Private | L - | | | FitzHubert | | - | | | | | - Hedon or Newton | St. Mary Magd. | 1162 | Wm. le Gros | Earls of | L - Garth[449] | (Seal) | | | Albemarle,| - | | | | Crown | - | | | | | - Hedon | _St. Leonard_ | 1413 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Hessle | St. James[450] | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - _Hoperton_ | _Bedehouse_ | 1500 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Hutton Locras, | | | | | - _v._ Lowcross | | | | | - | | | | | - Killingwold- | St. Mary Magdalene| _c._ | — | Archbishop| — - grove[451] | | 1169 | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | God’s House | 1344 | J. de Kingston| — | — - Hull | | | | | - | | | | | - [p333] | | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | ‡Maison Dieu, or | 1365 | W. and | Private | — - Hull (Myton) | St. Michael, St. | | Michael Pole | | - | Thomas M., etc. or| | | | - | Holy Trinity | | | | - | (Seal)[452] | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- |Mariners or Trinity| 1369 | — | Fraternity| — - Hull |and Blessed Virgin | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- |Corpus Christi[453]| _1416_| John Gregg | — | — - Hull | | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- |Holy Trinity or New| 1482 | — | — | — - Hull | Maison Dieu | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1380 | Ravenser | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | & Selby | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1400 | Simon | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | de Grimsby | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1412 | Bedforth | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1439 | Aldwick | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1503 | Adrianson | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | Maison Dieu or | 1509 | Riplingham | — | — - Hull | Almshouse | | | | - | | | | | - Kingston-upon- | St. James | 1513 | — | — | — - Hull | | | | | - | | | | | - Laysingby nr. | St. Mary B.V | 1294 | J. | Bishop of | — - Northallerton | | | Lythegrayns | Durham | - | | | | | - Lowcross[454] | St. Leonard | — | — | Private, | L - | | | |Guisborough| - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Malton, | | | | | - _v._ Norton | | | | | - | | | | | - Myton, | | | | | - _v._ Kingston | | | | | - | | | | | - Newton, _v._ | | | | | - Hedon | | | | | - | | | | | - [p334] | | | | | - | | | | | - Northallerton | St. James (Seal) | _bef_ | Bishop Philip | Bishop of | — - (Romanby) | | 1208 | | Durham | - | | | | | - Northallerton | ‡Maison Dieu | 1476 | Moore & | — | — - | | | Strangways | | - | | | | | - Norton nr. | St. Nicholas | 1189 | R. de | — | — - Malton | | | Flamvill | | - | | | | | - Otley | — | 1311 | Abp. | Archbishop| L - | | | _Thurstan_ | | - | | | | | - Pickering | St. Nicholas | 1325 | — | Duchy of | — - | | | | Lancaster,| - | | | | Crown | - | | | | | - Pontefract | ‡St. Nicholas | _bef_ | _re-f._ | Duchy, | — - | | 1135 | R. de Lacy | Nostell | - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Pontefract by | St. Mary Magdalene| 1286 | Henry de Lacy | — | L - | | | | | - Pontefract | St. Mary B.V. | 1335 | Tabourere | — | — - | | | | | - Pontefract | ‡Holy Trinity & | 1385 | R. Knolles | Duchy, | — - | B.V.M.[455] | | | Nostell | - | (_Seal_) | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Pontefract or | St. Michael the | 1220 | — | St. John’s| L - Foulsnape | Archangel | | | Priory or | - | | | | Burton | - | | | | Lazars | - | | | | | - Rerecross, | | | | | - _v._ Stanemoor | | | | | - | | | | | - Richmond, near | St. Nicholas | 1172 | Henry II. or | Various | — - | (Seal[456]) | | Glanvill[457] | [458] | - | | | | | - Richmond, by | St. Giles | 1402 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Ripon | *‡St. John Baptist| 1114 | Abp. Thomas II| Archbishop| — - | | | | | - Ripon | *‡St. Mary M. | _bef_ | Abp. Thurstan | Archbishop| L - (Stammergate) | (Seal[459]) | 1139 | | | - | | | | | - Ripon (Bondgate)| St. Nicholas[460] | 1350 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Ripon | *‡St. Anne | 1438 | Neville | — | — - | (Maison Dieu) | | | | - | | | | | - [p335] | | | | | - | | | | | - Scarborough, by | St. Nicholas | _bef_ | — | Town | — - | | 1298 | | | - | | | | | - Scarborough | ‡St. Thomas M. | 1189 | H. de Bulemore| Town | — - | | | | | - Sheffield | St. Leonard | 1189 | W. de Lovetot | — | — - | | | | | - Sherburn-in- | St. Mary Magdalene| 1311 | — | Archbishop| — - Elmet | | | | | - | | | | | - Skipton | St. Mary Magdalene| 1306 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Sprotburgh, near| St. Edmund | 1363 | Fitzwilliam | Private | — - | | | | | - Stanemoor or | “Spital upon | 1171 | — | Private, | — - Rerecross | Stanemoor” | | | Marrick | - | | | | Nunnery | - | | | | | - Terrington[461] | — | 1288 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Tickhill | St. Leonard | 1225 | — | — | L - (without) | | | | | - | | | | | - Tickhill | Maison Dieu | 1326 | — | Humberston| — - | | | | Priory | - | | | | | - Tickhill | Maison Dieu | — | John of Gaunt | — | — - (Blyth Road) | | | | | - | | | | | - Well, nr. Bedale| ‡St. Michael the | 1342 | _re-f._ | — | — - | Archangel | | R. de Neville | | - | | | | | - _Wentbridge_ | _St. Mary_[462] | 1348 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Whitby | St. Michael[463] | 1109 | Abbot William | Abbey | L - | | | | | - Whitby | St. John Baptist | 1320 | — | — | — - | | | | | - Yarm, near | St. Nicholas | 1185 | Brus | Private, | — - | | | | Helaugh | - | | | | Park | - | | | | | - York | St. Peter (Seal) | x | Athelstan | Minster | — - | *St. Leonard[464] | cent. | | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - York | St. Peter (Seal) | _re-f_| Stephen | Crown | — - | *St. Leonard | 1135 | | | - | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - York without | St. Nicholas | 1142 | King & Abbot | Crown | L - Walmgate | | | | | - | | | | | - York | St. Giles | 1274 | — | — | — - | | | | | - York without | ‡St. Thomas M. | 1390 | — | — | — - Micklegate | (Seal) | | | | - | | | | | - [p336] | | | | | - | | | | | - York, Boothum | St. Mary B. V. | 1318 | R. de | — | — - | (Seal[465]) | |Pickering, Dean| | - | | | | | - York, Boothum | St. Mary B.V. | 1481 | J. Gysburgh, | — | — - | “the Less” | | Precentor | | - | | | | | - York, | ‡St. | 1333 | — | — | L - Dringhouses | Katherine[466] | | | | - | | | | | - York, Fossgate | ‡[Holy Jesus & | 1365 | John | Merchant | — - | B. V. M. or] | | de Roucliff |Adventurers| - |Trinity[467] (Seal)| | | | - | | | | | - York, Monkbridge| St. Loy[468] | — | — | — | — - | | | | | - York, Monkbridge| St. Leonard[469] | 1350 | — | — | _L_ - | | | | | - York, Gillygate,| ‡St. Anthony[470] | _bef_ | J. Langton | — | — - Peasholm | | 1429 | & Gild | | - | | | | | - York, Fishergate| Spital | 1399 | — | — | — - | | | | | - York, | Maison Dieu | — | Bygod | — | — - Laithorpegate | | | | | - | | | | | - York, Ousebridge| Maison Dieu | 1319 | — | — | — - | | | | | - York, Markyate | Maison Dieu | 1406 | R. Howme | — | — - | | | | | - York, Hestergate| Maison Dieu | 1390 | T. Howme | — | — - | | | | | - York, Mickelgate| Maison Dieu | — | Sir R. | — | — - | | | de York | | - | | | | | - York, | Maison Dieu | 1481 | — | — | — - Whitefriars | | | | | - | | | | | - York, Peterlane | Maison Dieu | 1390 | J. de | — | — - | | | Derthyngton | | - | | | | | - York, | Maison Dieu | 1397 | J. Acastre | — | — - Northstreet | | | | | - | | | | | - York, S. | Maison Dieu | 1397 | R. Duffield | — | — - Andrew’s Lane | | | | | - ----------------+-------------------+-------+---------------+-----------+--- - -N.B.—The County of Monmouth is not included as it formed part of Wales -until the sixteenth century. - - -[p337] - -UNIDENTIFIED - - ----------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------- - _Locality._ | _Dedication or_ | _Date._ | _County_ - | _Description._ | | - ----------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------- - | | | - Beghton[471] | St. Luke Ev. (L) | Pat. 1335 | — - | | | - Chestnuts, | (L) | Pat. 1256 | ? Kent - Wood of[472] | | | - | | | - Cheston | St. Erasmus & | — | — - | St. Mary M.[473] | | - | | | - Clayhanger | — | Pat. 1253 | ? Middlesex - | | | - Clelecombe[474] | St. John Baptist | Pat. 1332 | — - | | | - Hareford[475] | St. Mary | Close 1309 | — - | | | - Lanford[476] | (L) | Will 1307 | Exeter Diocese - | | | - Langeford | (L) | Pat. 1275 | — - | | | - Merston, |St. John Baptist[477]| _temp._ | Wilts - nr. Chelworth | | Henry III. | - | | | - Newenham |St. Mary Magdalene(L)| Pat. 1256 | Newnham Regis, - | | | Warwick, or - | | | Newnham-on-Severn, - | | | Glos. Cf. Newnham - | | | Murren, Oxon. - | | | - Newenham | St. Mary Magdalene | Pat. 1226 | Newnham Regis, - | | | Warwick, or - | | | Newnham-on-Severn, - | | | Glos. Cf. Newnham - | | | Murren, Oxon. - | | | - Newenham | St. Margaret | Pat. 1332–3–4 | Newnham Regis, - | | | Warwick, or - | | | Newnham-on-Severn, - | | | Glos. Cf. Newnham - | | | Murren, Oxon. - | | | - “Novus Locus” | — | Close 1235 | Cf. New Place by - | | | Guildford - | | | - Scevenloke, | St. Leonard | Pat. 1232 | — - de la[478] | | | - | | | - Teneleshend[479]| St. Leonard | _c._ 1270 | Yorks - ----------------+---------------------+---------------+----------------- - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[165] This is identical with the 3rd Ordo given in Martene, lib. iii. -c.x., from the Ritual of Bourges and Sens issued by the command of -Cardinal Borbonius (Henderson). - -[166] _Domum_ (Henderson); or, reading _Donum_ (with Martene, etc.) we -may translate this:—“may obtain the gift of everlasting salvation.” - -[167] Lincoln Taxation. - -[168] In parish of Luton, _q.v._ - -[169] “Order of St. William in the Desert” (Patent 1253); -Suntingfield-by-Boulogne (Charter Roll 1285, Pat. 1393); Crown; King’s -Coll. Camb. There was “a house of St. Cross belonging to them” (Pat. -1393); possibly Ludgershall, Bucks? - -[170] Private; Bishop of Lincoln; Dunstable Priory. - -[171] Pat. 1232. - -[172] Re-founded as “Christ’s.” - -[173] Called “King John’s” locally. - -[174] In Oxfordshire; cf. Crowmarsh. - -[175] United 1384. - -[176] Gervase of Canterbury. - -[177] Pat. 1252. - -[178] Under Suntingfield-by-Boulogne; cf. Farley, Beds. - -[179] Pat. 1384. - -[180] Cf. “House of lepers by bridge,” Tickfort by Newport (Pat. 1275). - -[181] Now “Queen Anne’s.” - -[182] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 8. - -[183] Probably Newport, Essex, but one called New Hospital existed _c._ -1240. - -[184] St. Giles (Pat. 1228), St. Margaret (Close 1229). Cf. Pat. 1392. -St. Gilbert & St. Margaret (Bp.’s Reg. 1368). Or the Loke. - -[185] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 8. - -[186] United _c._ 1240. - -[187] Or Hermitage. - -[188] Or Fraternity. - -[189] Cf. Pat. 1256. Fair, Exaltation of Holy Cross. - -[190] Bp. Fordham Reg. 1391, 1394. - -[191] Or Knights Hospitallers. - -[192]? Now “King John’s.” - -[193] Boughton Spital. Seal(?) B.M. Cat. 2687. - -[194] Or God, St. Mary and All Saints (Pat. 1283). - -[195] Lepers also at Redruth, Mousehole near Penzance, Dynmur near -Bodmin, Truro, Glas, etc. (_Vide_ will of Bishop Bitton, 1307; -_Lancet_, 1890.) - -[196] Oliver. - -[197] _Archæologia_ xxiv. 178. - -[198] Drawing in Pigott Collection, Taunton Castle. - -[199] Carew. - -[200] See Pipe Rolls. Also Charter Roll 1290. - -[201] In Vale of St. John. - -[202] Cf. Pat. 1383. - -[203] St. Nicholas’ chapel added 1406. - -[204] Leper hospital, Pat. 1251, 1255, 1258. For St. John cf. _Rot. -Hundredorum_, vol. ii. 298, 3 Edw. I. - -[205] Or Spittel-on-Peak. - -[206] Pat. 1258. - -[207] Locko Charity exists. - -[208] Lepers also at Okehampton, Sutton, Cleve, Modbury, Chadelynton, -Dartmouth, Newton Ferrers, Topsham, Denbury, Tremeton, St. German’s, -etc. (Will 1307, cf. Cornwall.) - -[209] Or B.V.M., St. Gabriel & All Angels. - -[210] Or “Hospital behind St. Nicholas,” afterwards united with St. -John. - -[211] B.V.M., St. John B. & All Saints (Charter) - -[212] Chapel, Holy Trinity. - -[213] Or Combrew; chapel, St. Roch. - -[214] Will (Somerset Rec. Soc. xvi. 129). - -[215] Present Almshouse St. Loye. - -[216] _Archæologia_, xii. 211. - -[217] Chapel, St. John Ev. - -[218] Seal B.M., lxii. 13. Cat. 4203 ascribes to Ben. Priory. - -[219] Chantry Cert. - -[220] Seal B.M. Mediæval Room, Case D, matrix. - -[221] Durham Convent’s Almoner’s Book, p. 139. In St. Oswald’s parish -(Pat. 1292). - -[222] Will, Mickleton MSS., vol. 47. - -[223] United. - -[224] St. Cuthbert added in charter. - -[225] Seal, Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 7. - -[226] _Vita S. Godrici._ - -[227] Now “Christ’s.” - -[228] Between Wear and Tyne. - -[229] Holy Cross (Pat. 1283). Afterwards “Almighty God, Mary the Mother -of Jesus Christ, St. Helen, St. Katherine and All Saints.” - -[230] Seal of Gild. - -[231] Pap. Letter 1402. Ely Reg. 1404. “Hermitage,” Pat. 1402. - -[232] Under Mont Joux, Savoy. - -[233] Cf. St. Mary (Pat. 1349). - -[234] Private, Crown, Bykenacre Priory, Beeleigh Abbey. - -[235] Or Sydeburnebrok (Pat. 1341), near Brentwood. - -[236] Chapel, St. Margaret. - -[237] Manor of Bristol, Crown, Westbury College, etc. - -[238] Domus Dei by Frome Bridge (Pat. 1387). - -[239] In Somerset. - -[240] Or Baptist (Pat. 1306). - -[241] Chapel, St. Ursula. - -[242] “St. John of Jerusalem” (Papal Letters 1291). - -[243] Or Isabel Ferrers. - -[244] Lorrenge, near Dursley. - -[245] Pat. 1256. - -[246] Charter, 1 John. - -[247] United (Pat. 1340). - -[248] Close 1318. - -[249] Charter to lazars of Ferham (Pemb. Coll. Camb.). - -[250] Or Holy Trinity, B.V.M., St. Cross, St. Michael & All SS. (Close -1215); cf. Seal. - -[251] Pat. 1340. - -[252] Pat. 1317. - -[253] Pat. 1315. - -[254] Soc. Antiq., and _Vet. Mon._ III 12. - -[255] Seal, Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 8., _v._ also Cal. Anc. Deeds II. - -[256] “Hospital for lepers of St. Augustine” (Pat. 1352). - -[257] Pat. 1340. - -[258] Hist. MSS. 13th R. (4) 314. - -[259] Pat. 1397. - -[260] Pat. 1317 may refer to one of above hospitals. - -[261] Cf. Cal. of Inquisitions I 538; cf. also Trinitarian Friary (Pat. -1287). - -[262] In Cambridgeshire. - -[263] Afterwards Priory. - -[264] Close 1327. - -[265] Charter 1232 and _Liber Antiq. Hugonis Wells_ (1209–35); or -Priory. - -[266] In Great Stukeley (Pat. 1391). - -[267] Pat. 1328. - -[268] Gervase of Canterbury mentions hospitals of Bakechild and St. -John in Blen; cf. Blien, Pipe Rolls and _Rot. Cancell._ - -[269] Or St. Nicholas (Harris). - -[270] Chapel St. Mary V. (Pat. 1326). Double Dedication Pat. 1353. - -[271] United with St. Thomas M. - -[272] Cf. “Infirmis de Salt Wuda” (Pipe Rolls, 1168–9). - -[273] Close 1299. - -[274] Harris. - -[275] Thus _Gent. Mag._, 1842; also called Newark. - -[276] Papal Lett. 1422. - -[277] Pat. 1241. - -[278] Close 1343. - -[279] Lepers “de Albo Fossato” (Pat. 1253) or “Wyddych” (Pat. 1443) or -“next Strood” (Wills). - -[280] Canterbury Chapter Library. - -[281] _Re-f._ 1363 by J. Fraunceys (_Lit. Cant._ ii. 436). - -[282] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 8. - -[283] Or “Maldry.” - -[284] Chapel, St. Thomas, M. (V.C.H.) - -[285] Possibly identical. - -[286] Or “Newark.” - -[287] In Yorkshire; called “Edisford.” - -[288] Afterwards Priory. - -[289] Honor of Lancaster, Crown, Seton Nunnery. - -[290] Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. - -[291] Or St. Mary and Holy Saviour, or “under Longridge”; afterwards -under Templars or Hospitallers. - -[292] St. John B. in Valor Ecc. - -[293] Or Newark; now Trinity. - -[294] Pap. Lett. 1435–6. - -[295] Close 1294, 1335. Cf. Skirbeck. - -[296] Pat. 1319. - -[297] Afterwards Priory. - -[298] Hist. MSS., 14th R. (8), 258. - -[299] Double dedication Pat. 1346; chapel, St. Mary Magd. (Pat. 1339). -Called Mallardly. - -[300] Or Priory. - -[301] Or Uffington. - -[302] Collegiate Church of Holy Trinity, SS. Mary, Peter, John Ev. & -John B. - -[303] Pat. 1319. - -[304] Braynford, “S. Ludowicus,” Ely Reg. Fordham f. 180. - -[305] Cf. St. Bartholomew’s Chapel, Hackney, called Loke. - -[306] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 9. - -[307] “Hundeslawe,” Rot. Chart., 2 John, m. 32 _d._ - -[308] Cf. Seal. B.V.M. & St. Leonard. Chapel, Holy Trinity. - -[309] Stow mentions Alien Hospitals at Holborn, Aldersgate, Cripplegate. - -[310] Parish church, St. Giles; chapel, St. Michael. - -[311] Chapels, SS. Catherine, Nicholas & Andrew. - -[312] Or “of Acres.” Chapel, St. Cross (Pap. Let. 1365). - -[313] Or Blessed Jesus, B.V.M. & St. John B. - -[314] “The Papey,” or St. Augustine’s, for Priests. - -[315] Chapel, Holy Trinity. - -[316] Dugdale. - -[317] Between Mile End and Stratford. - -[318] Between Shoreditch and Stoke Newington. - -[319] Chapel, St. Paul. - -[320] Afterwards Priory. - -[321] Or Boycodeswade in E. Rudham. - -[322] Chapel, St. Bartholomew; afterwards Abbey. - -[323] Or Setche Parva. - -[324] Or St. Mary & St. Stephen; sometimes Priory. - -[325] Or Priory. - -[326] Norman’s Spital. - -[327] Holy Trinity, B.V.M., St. Anne, St. Giles and All Saints, or St. -Mary and St. Giles (Pap. Lett. 1255). - -[328] _Index Monasticus._ - -[329] Close 1335, but probably Benedictine Cell. - -[330] United. - -[331] Chapel, St. Julian. - -[332] In Suffolk. - -[333] B.M. lxvi. 10, Cat. 3974, unidentified, but cf. _Sigilla Antiq. -Norfolc._ (Ives); also Palmer I, 368. - -[334] Originally St. John Ap.; St. John B. occurs 1301. - -[335] B. M. Mediæval Room, Case D, matrix. - -[336] Cal. of Inq. V, p. 256. - -[337] Cf. “Infirmis de Hecham” (Pipe Rolls). - -[338] Probably identical with St. James’, Rushden, 1230, Reg. of Hugh -of Wells (Cant. and Yk. Soc., p. 153). - -[339] Pat. 1258, Bridges II, 473. - -[340] Peck, _Antiq. Annals_, vii. pp. 7, 12; _Survey_, p. 5. - -[341] In Lincolnshire. - -[342] In Scotland. - -[343] Segden by Berwick. - -[344] Cf. Papal Letters, 1290, Pat. 1348. - -[345] Pat. 1246. Cf. Trinitarian House on Bridge, but J. Scott mentions -three hospitals besides Friary. - -[346] Cal. Inquisitions II. - -[347] Pat. 1331. - -[348] In Redesdale. - -[349] Spiteldene. - -[350] Upon Blyth. - -[351] Pat. 1391. - -[352] _History of Northumberland_, V, 237. - -[353] Occasionally “Baptist.” - -[354] Pat. 1330, 1332. - -[355] _Records_, i, 126. - -[356] Chapels, St. Mary, St. Thomas M. - -[357] Chapel St. Mary B.V. (1311). - -[358] In Northants. - -[359] Possibly never completed. - -[360] Occasionally “Baptist.” - -[361] Near Cropredy; Gilbertine Priory. - -[362] Cf. Wallingford and Newnham. - -[363] Pat. 1330, 1346, at Rotherweye. - -[364] Pat. 1345. - -[365] See Wood. - -[366] Fraternity. - -[367] Also House of SS. Nonne and Sonndaye, _c._ 1560 (W. A. Bewes, -_Briefs_). - -[368] One almshouse built 1220 (Close Rolls). Cf. Leper women of -Woodstock (Close, 234). - -[369] Afterwards College. - -[370] Towards Oldbury. Cf. “St. Lazarus,” Close 1231. - -[371] Eyton’s _Salop_, I 16, 349. - -[372] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 7. - -[373] Existing 1554, Hist. MSS. 13th R. (4) 281. - -[374] “Del Path by Newport.” - -[375] St. Nicholas, Christ, B.V.M. and All SS. - -[376] Owen and Blakeway’s _Hist._ ii. 173. - -[377] id. ii, 470. cf. B.M. lxxi 34. - -[378] Annexed to St. John’s. - -[379] Chapel of St. Michael attached. - -[380] Cf. Lincoln Taxation. - -[381] Chant. Cert. - -[382] W. Phelps gives St. Margaret’s; cf. Warner. - -[383] Will of Bishop Hugh, 1212, Pat. 1235. - -[384] B.M. civ. 13. Cf. Soc. Antiq. _Minutes_ iv. 189. - -[385] In Curry Rivell. - -[386] Will, _supra._ - -[387] Pat. 1334. - -[388] Rot. Claus. 1220. - -[389] Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 9. - -[390] Chant. Cert. - -[391] Chapel, St. Thomas M. - -[392] Index Mon. - -[393] Southtown or Little Yarmouth. See B. M. Egerton, 2130. - -[394] B.M. lxxi, 103. Cat. 3216. - -[395] United. - -[396] N. Bacon’s _Annalls_. - -[397] Pat. 1231, 1331. - -[398] Afterwards Priory. - -[399] “Commonly called of the Holy Ghost” (Pat. 1436); St. Mary & All -SS. (Stow). - -[400] Seal shows St. Michael. Soc. Antiq. E. II 4 B. 8. - -[401] Originally Holy Trinity & St. Thomas; now in Lambeth. - -[402] “Le Loke”; “atte Stonlok”; without St. George’s Bar; or the -lepers of St. Thomas Wateryng. - -[403] Occurs 1345. - -[404] Lewes Museum (64). - -[405] Private, Heringham Priory, Knights Hosp. - -[406] Pat. 1251. - -[407] Called Gorogltown. - -[408] Afterwards St. Saviour (Seal). Cf. Leper-house, 1287. - -[409] Leper-house mentioned 1287. - -[410] Pat. 1253; or Holy Rood, Pat. 1426. - -[411] Or with St. Mary. - -[412] Pap. Lett., 1437. - -[413] There was Leper-house, _c._ 1180; cf. Pat. 1274. St. Edmund -occurs Pat. 1257. - -[414] Soc. Antiq. E. II, 4 B. 8. - -[415] Priories of Basingwerk, Coventry, and Studley. - -[416] Pat. 1252, 1256. - -[417] W. Salt Arch. Trans. 8, New Series. - -[418] Called Greyfriars. - -[419] Cf. Papal Petition, 1364; Pap. Lett., 1427, 1432. - -[420] Double dedication, Pat. 1337. - -[421] Cf. “Haye” (Pat. 1297). - -[422] P. R. O. Ancient Deeds, _C._ 3000. - -[423] Pat. 1235, _Wilts Mag._, v. 36. - -[424] _Wilts Mag._, xx. 316. - -[425] Pat. 1242. Fair on Feast of St. Matthew (Charter 1215); cf. -Surtees Soc. xxxi. 83, 91. - -[426] Pat. 1248. - -[427] Pat. 1338. - -[428] Served by Maturin Friars. - -[429] _Reg. Malmes._ ii. 75; cf. Pat. 1344–5 and _Wilts Mag._, xxix. -122. - -[430] Pat. 1245; cf. leper-house, near South Bridge (Leland). - -[431] _temp._ Abbot Walter, _Reg. Malmes._ ii. 80; cf. Pat. 1235. Pat. -1344; cf. note 9. - -[432] Leper-house, 1221. - -[433] Chapels, St. Nicholas, St. Mary V. - -[434] _Re-f._ J. Chaundeler (Pat. 1394). - -[435] Wills, Hoare vi. 92. - -[436] Feet of Fines, 7 Ric. 1. - -[437] By the Castle. - -[438] Pat. 1465. - -[439] Despenser, Crown, etc., Bradenstoke Priory. - -[440] “Wichio,” Pat. 1285. - -[441] Probably identical. - -[442] Chapel, St. Godwald. - -[443] Yks. Arch. Soc. Record Ser. 39, p. 108. - -[444] In Kirkby Knowle. - -[445] Cf. Breydeford (Linc. Tax., 1291). - -[446] Pap. Letters, 1342. - -[447] Pat., 1318. - -[448] Or Carman’s Spital. - -[449] Neuton by Overpaghele in Holderness (Charter, 1301). - -[450] Guisboro’ Chartulary. - -[451] In Bishop Burton. - -[452] Seal, Soc. Antiq. E. II, 4 B. 8. Now Charterhouse Charity. - -[453] Or Maison Dieu of Christ. - -[454] Or Giseburn. - -[455] Or Hardwick Spital. - -[456] Yks. Arch. Journ. XIII 45. - -[457] _Re-f._ W. Ascogh 1448. - -[458] Earls of Richmond, Crown, Private. - -[459] C. Hallett, Bell’s Cath. Series, p. 138. - -[460] Pat. 1350. - -[461] Cal. of Inq. p.m. II, 666. - -[462] Pat. 1348. - -[463] Whitby Chartulary. - -[464] Or Cremet-house Chapels. St. Katherine, St. Michael. - -[465] B.M. lx. 69. Cat. of Seals 2685, ascribed to Boughton, Chester. - -[466] Pat. 1333. - -[467] St. John & Our Lady (Drake). - -[468] Drake. - -[469] Pat. 1350. Probably for lepers, cf. _Test. Ebor._ I. 414. - -[470] Pap. Lett. 1429. Cf. Pat. 1446. - -[471] “atte briggesende.” Cf. Beighton, Derbs. - -[472] “Chastynners.” Cf. note 3. - -[473] Seal,? Bodleian; cf. Soc. Antiq. E. II, 4 B. 9. “Sig hospitalis -Scōrum Erasemi et marie magdalene de Chestoñ.” Cf. note 2. - -[474] Cf. Chilcombe, Dorset. - -[475] Cf. Hertford, Hereford. - -[476] Cf. Lamford, Cornwall; drawing of seal in Taunton Castle, Pigott -Coll. - -[477] Walcott, Eng. Minsters II 275. - -[478] Cf. St. Leonard “atte Loke” in Southwark. - -[479] Bodleian Charter, No. 160. - - - - -[p339] - -BIBLIOGRAPHY - -_Monasticon Anglicanum._ . . . Dugdale. - -_Notitia Monastica._ . . . Tanner. - -_Monasticon Diœcesis Exon._ . . . G. Oliver, 1846. - -_Index Monasticus._ . . . R. C. Taylor, 1821. - -English Minsters, etc., Vol. II. . . . M. E. C. Walcott, 1879. - -Dictionary of National Biography. - -Itinerary. . . . Leland, ed. Hearne. - -Calendars of Patent and Close Rolls, Papal Registers, Chronicles and -Memorials and others of Rolls Series. - -Rolls of Parliament, Statutes, _Valor Ecclesiasticus_. - -Calendar of Letter-books, London. . . . R. R. Sharpe. - -Calendar of Wills, London. . . . R. R. Sharpe. - -Royal Wills (Nichols). _Testamenta Vetusta_ (Nicolas). - -Hospitals and Asylums of the World [Early Systems, etc.]. . . . H. -Burdett. - -Hospitals of Middle Ages, etc. [Architecture]. . . . F. T. Dollman, -1858. - -The Builder. Oct. 1908 to July 1909 [Architecture]. . . . Sidney Heath. - -Catalogue of Seals in British Museum. I. . . . W. de Gray Birch. - -Studies in Church Dedications. . . . F. E. Arnold-Forster, 1899. - -County Histories of Durham (Surtees), Leicester (Nichols), Wilts -(Hoare), etc. - -History of Northumberland, 1893. - -Victoria County History. - -Hedon (J. R. Boyle, 1895), Higham Ferrers (J. Cole, 1838), -Kingston-upon-Hull (G. Hadley, 1788), Newark (C. Brown, 1904), Sandwich -(W. Boys, 1792), Survey of London (Stow), etc. - - -[p340] - -MONOGRAPHS ON HOSPITALS - -Canterbury. . . . _Bibliotheca Topographica Brit._, Vol. I, No. xxx. -. . . J. Duncombe and N. Battely. - -Canterbury. See also Ancient Cities. . . . —— . . . J. C. Cox. - -Chichester. . . . Domus Dei. . . . H. P. Wright, 1885. - -Croydon. . . . _Bib. Top. Brit._, II. . . . Ducarel. - -Durham. . . . Kepier, etc. . . . Surtees Society, Vol. 95. - -Gretham. . . . Collections, 1770. - -Kingsthorpe. . . . —— . . . C. A. Markham. - -London. . . . Book of the Foundation of St. Bartholomew. . . . Norman -Moore. - -London. . . . Domus Conversorum. . . . Michael Adler, 1900. - -London. . . . Domus Conversorum. Rolls House, etc. . . . W. J. Hardy, -1896. - -London. . . . Royal Hospital of St. Katharine. . . . F. S. Lea, 1878. - -London. . . . St. Mary Roncevall. . . . James Galloway, 1907. - -London. . . . Memorials of the Savoy. . . . W. J. Loftie, 1878. - -London. . . . St. Thomas M. of Acon. . . . J. Watney, 1892. - -Portsmouth. . . . Domus Dei. . . . H. P. Wright, 1873. - -Salisbury. . . . Cartulary of St. Nicholas’ Hospital (_Wilts Record -Soc._) . . . C. Wordsworth, 1902. - -Sherburn. . . . Collections, 1773. . . . G. Allan. - -Southampton. . . . God’s House. . . . J. A. Whitlock, 1894. - -Stamford. . . . Domus Dei. . . . H. P. Wright, 1890. - -Wells. . . . Archit. History of. . . . J. H. Parker and T. Serel. - -Winchester. . . . Memorials of St. Cross. . . . L. M. Humbert, 1868. - -Winchester. . . . Hospital of St. Cross. . . . W. T. Warren. - -Worcester. . . . Annals of St. Wulstan’s. . . . F. T. Marsh, 1890. - -York. . . . Account of . . . St. Leonard’s Hospital. . . . Raine, 1898. - - -[p341] - -RECORDS, REGISTERS, ETC. - -Camden Soc., 1876, XI, Historical Collections of Citizen. . . . [W. -Gregory]. - -Canterbury and York Society. - -Exeter, Episcopal Registers of. . . . Ed. F. C. Hingeston-Randolph. - -Pipe Roll Society. - -Record Soc. of Hampshire (Winchester Registers). . . . Ed. F. J. -Baigent. - -Record Soc. of Lincoln. . . . Ed. A. W. Gibbons. - -Record Soc. of Somerset. - -Record Soc. of York (Arch. Assn.), Vols. 17, 23. - -Surtees Soc. (York Manual, York Wills, _Vita S. Godrici_, Gray’s -Register, Chantry Surveys, etc.) - -Worcester Historical Society. . . . Ed. J. Willis Bund. - -City Records of Gloucester. . . . Ed. Stevenson, 1893. - -City Records of Northampton, II. . . . Ed. J. C. Cox. - -City Records of Norwich . . . Ed. Hudson and Tingey, 1906. - -City Records of Nottingham. - - -HISTORICAL MSS. COMMISSION - -4th R.—Aynho, Blyth, Brackley, Marlborough, Oxford, Romney, etc. - -5th and 8th R.—Romney. - -6th R.—Bridport, Hythe, Southampton, Winchester. - -9th R.—Canterbury, Ewelme. - -12th R.—Gloucester. - -14th R.—Bury St. Edmunds. - -1900, Beverley. 1907, Wells, Exeter. - - -COMMISSION FOR ENQUIRING CONCERNING CHARITIES - -R. vi.—Bath. R. viii.—Northallerton. - -R. xxxii., Pt. vi.—London: Bethlehem, St. Bartholomew’s, St. Thomas’. - - -[p342] - -TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETIES - -Bristol and Glos. Arch., VIII, XVII (Cirencester). . . . E. A. Fuller. - -Bristol and Glos. Arch., XX (Gloucester). . . . S. E. Bartleet. - -Clifton Antiq. Club, I (St. Katherine’s Hospital). . . . A. E. Hudd. - -Clifton Antiq. Club, III (Seals). . . . R. H. Warren. - -Cumb. and Westm., X (Leper Hospitals). . . . H. Barnes. - -Arch. Cantiana, VII (Dover), VIII (Canterbury). - -Arch. Æliana, 1892 (Newcastle). . . . W. H. Knowles. - -Somerset, XVIII, ii. (Taunton). . . . T. Hugo. - -W. Salt Arch. Soc., 8 (Stafford). . . . T. J. de Mazzinghi. - -Sussex, XXIV (St. Mary’s, Chichester). . . . C. A. Swainson. - -Sussex, LI (St. Mary’s, Chichester). . . . A. Ballard. - -Wilts, XI (Heytesbury) X, XXVI (Wilton). - -Yorks, XII (Pontefract). . . . R. Holmes - - -ON LEPROSY - -Archæological Essays, II, “On Leprosy and Leper Hospitals,” etc. . . . -J. Y. Simpson, ed. John Stuart, 1872. - -British Arch. Assn., XI, 1855. . . . T. J. Pettigrew. - -New Sydenham Soc., Prize Essay. . . . George Newman, 1895. - -History of Epidemics, Vol. I, ch. II. . . . Chas. Creighton. - -Nineteenth Century, 1884, “Leprosy: Present and Past.” . . . Agnes -Lambert. - -Leprosy and Segregation. . . . H. P. Wright, 1885. - -[Cf. Statuts d’hotels-dieu et de léproseries. . . . Léon Le Grand, 1901. - - Les Maisons-Dieu et léproseries de Paris. . . . Léon Le Grand, 1898. - - Un règlement intérieur de Léproserie (Noyon) . . . A. Lefranc, 1889. - - Danish Lazar-houses (New Syd. Soc.). . . . E. Ehlers, 1901. - - Die Aussatzhäuser des Mittelalters. . . . E. Lesser, 1896.] - - - - -[p343] - -GENERAL INDEX - -N.B.—Appendix B is not included in the following Index. For references -to Saints see also under Dedications. - -Abbots, 9, 10, 38, 50, 75, 92, 121, 126, 131, 141, 190, 204, 215–7, 247 - -Abingdon, 37, 205 - -— almshouse, 120–1, 235, 249 - -Abuses, 39, 41, 141, 146, 164, 195, ch. xv, ch. xvi, _passim_ - -Acehorne, 70 - -Adam Rypp, 83 - -Adela, Queen, 73–4 - -Admission of inmates, 39, 41, 52–3, 55, 59, ch. viii _passim_, 127 _et -sq._ - -Aelred of Rievaulx, 50, 251 - -Agnes Bottenham, 89 - -Alfune, 185 - -Alien houses, 208–9, 228, 257, 258 - -Alkmonton, 44, 147, 175, 257 - -Alms, 41, 54, 64, 75, 78, 98, 134, 135, 145, 170, ch. xiii; oblations, -197 - -Alms-box, 186, 192–3 - -Alnwick, 261, 267 - -Altars, 85, 128, 152, 162 _et sq._, 252 - -_Amis and Amiloun_, 40, 104–5 - -Andrew, St., 191, _v._ Dedications - -Anthony, St., 208–9; fire of, 49, 257; pigs of, 258, _v._ Dedications - -Architecture, ch. viii - -Armiston, 175, 203 - -Arundel— - -— Holy Trinity, 19, 80, 245 - -— [St. James], 147 - -— Earls of, 80 - -Athelstan, 2, 64, 70 - -Augustine, St., _v._ Dedications, Order, Rule - -Aynho, 5, 183, 226, 253 - - -Baldock, 183 - -Bale, Bishop, 72, 193, 268 - -Bamburgh, 210 - -Banbury, 28, 81, 250 - -Barnstaple, 179 - -Barstaple, John, 18, 84, 85 - -Bartholomew, St., 93, 95, 191, _v._ Dedications, London - -— Anglicus, 43, 61, 65 - -Basingstoke, 24, 73, 203, 244 - -Bath— - -— St. John, 158, 233 - -— St. Mary M., Holloway, 34, 124, 166, 183, 248 - -— physicians of, 64 - -— prior of, 34 - -— waters, 34, 63–5 - -Battle, 3, 50 - -Bawtry, 123, 124, 183 - -Beaufort, Cardinal, 25, 81 - -Bec, 5, 267 - -Beccles, 46, 64 - -Becket, 266, 268, _v._ Thomas, St. - -Bede-houses, 15, 18, 29 - -Bedford, 17 - -— St. John, 17 n., 175, 225 - -— St. Leonard, 187, 188, 242, 262 - -Beere, Richard, 10, 121, 124 - -Beggars, begging—6, 10, 12–14, 25, 28, 53, 69, 140, 170–1, 237, 239, 259 - -Bells, 197–9; leper’s bell, 48, 68, 69 - -Benedict, St., _v._ Dedications, Order, Rule of - -Benedict of Canterbury, 65, 266 - -Bequests, 33, 154, 164, 172, 181–2, 186, 199; to lepers, ch. iv, 72, -79, 104 - -Berkeley (Longbridge), 189, 197–8, 245 - -Bermondsey, 79 - -Berwick-on-Tweed, 54, 109 - -Beverley, 6, 16, 55 - -— Holy Trinity, 141, 163–4, 234 - -— St. Giles, 2 n. - -— St. Nicholas, 224 - -Bidlington, 53, [59] - -Bishops, 2–3, 16, 126–7, 187 _et sq._, ch. xiv - -Bisset, Margaret, 74 - -Bladud, 63 - -Blind, 4, 12, 15, 24, 25, 31, 80, 95, 98, 156, 229, 231 - -Blyth, 8, 44, 254 - -Bodmin, 46, 146, 257 - -Bolton (Northumberland), 145, 267 - -_Book of the Foundation_, 77, 92, 106–7, 253 - -Boughton-under-Blean, 42 - -Brackley, 8, 84–5, 99, 124, 181, 206, 226, 253–4 - -Bracton, 57 - -Brand, 87 - -Brentford, fraternity, 246; hospital, 8, 261–2 - -Brentwood, 62 - -Bridgwater, 5, 27, 122, 153, 159, 206, 213, 270 - -Bridport— - -— St. John, 150 - -— St. Mary M., Allington, 138, 145, 189 - -Briefs, 34, 41, 187 _et sq._ - -Brinklow, (Mors), 14, 224, 228–9, 231 - -Bristol, 22, 32, 54, 88, 99 - -— Foster’s almshouse, 124, 234, 247 - -— Holy Trinity, 18, 85, 163 - -— St. Bartholomew, 19, 65, 89, 182, 226, 256 - -— St. John, 250 - -— St. Katherine, 127, 260 - -— St. Lawrence, 72, 257 - -— St. Mark, 125, 127, 149, 166, 170, 174, 199, 206, 236, 247, 254–5 - -— St. Mary M., 147, 198–9, 201, 252 - -Briwere, William, 76 - -Brough, 11, 197, 246 - -Browne, William, 83, (90), 269 - -Bubwith, Nicholas, 17, 81 - -Burgesses, founders, 78, 81–3, 84; patrons, 16–17, 18, 163, 172–3, 184; -pensioners, 17, 42 - -Burton Lazars, 37, 63, 122, 179, 208, 251 - -Bury St. Edmunds, 6, 7, 72, 179, 205, 255 - -— St. Nicholas, 183, 257 - -— St. Petronilla, 119–20, 147, 256 - -— St. Saviour, 75, 183, 245 - -— lepers, 44, 46, 256 - - -Calne, 225 - -Cambridge, 99–100, 262 - -— St. John, 73, (127, 168) - -— Colleges, 208, 226 - -— _v._ Stourbridge - -Camden, 74, 116 - -Canterbury, 179, 192–3 - -— Priests’ hosp., 23, 123 - -— St. John, 15, 71, 106, 109, 124, 153, 155, 156, 164–5, 169, (186), -190, 192, (240), 241, 250 - -— St. Laurence, 215, 257 - -— St. Thomas, 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 124, 153, 167, 173, (240), 245, 265–6 - -— Abbey, 215, 257 - -— Archbishops of, 4, 7, 10, 81, 144, 181, 222, 228–9, 267, _v._ Edmund, -St., Thomas, St. - -— Priory, Cathedral, 31, 64, 192, 266–8 (Prior) 154 - -— _v._ Harbledown, Pilgrimage, Thanington - -Capelford-by-Norham, 109 - -Capgrave, John, 56 - -Carlisle, 37, 38, 109, 130, 146, 184, 218, 242 - -— Bishop of, 58 - -Carpenter, John, 33, 44, 82 - -Castle Carrock, 58 - -Cathedral foundations, 2, 16, 216, 233, 256, 264 - -Cemetery, burial, 133, 197, 199–200, 202, cf. 276 - -Chantry, 24, 29–30, 232, 234–5, 259 - -— Survey, 164, 225, 227, 234, 245, 270 - -Chapel, ch. viii, 133, ch. xi, 180, 197 _et sq._ - -— ornaments, 163 _et sq._, 223 - -Chatterton, 65–6 - -Chaucer, 145 - -Chester— - -— St. Giles, 184 - -— St. John, 162 - -— St. Ursula, 17 - -— Earls of, 92, 184 - -Chesterfield, 257, 261 - -Chichele, Henry, 19, 27, 81, 228–9 - -Chichester, 179 - -— St. James, 34, 159, (264) - -— St. Mary, 5, 16, 77, 112, 113, 124, ch. ix, 158, 166, 174, 240 - -— Bishops of, 34, 162–3, 264, _v._ Richard, St. - -— Dean of, 77, 128 - -Children, cured, 4, 98; maintained, 22–3, 26–8, 182 - -Chroniclers, 15, 20–1, 23, 36, 37, 40, 48, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64–5, 86, 92 -_et sq._, 106–7, 131, 264–5, _v._ _Book of Foundation_ - -Clappers, 68–9, 135, 251, 251 n., 276 - -Clattercot, 147, 179, 205 - -Clergy, 77, 205–6, 220–2, _v._ Masters, Priests - -Clist Gabriel, 24, 246 - -Clothing, 21, 33, 134–5, 137, 140, 152, 174–7, 207, 259, 270, 273, 275, -276 (habit), 128–9, 131–2, 141 - -Cockersand, 78, 205 - -Coke, Lord, 57 - -Colchester— - -— Holy Cross, 18, 190, 210, 235, 248–9 - -— St. Anne, 190 - -— St. Mary M., lepers, 71–2, 130, 183, 215, 270 - -Colet, Dean, 193 - -Colleges, 25, 81, 204, _v._ Cambridge, Oxford - -Colyton (Devon), 58 - -Commandery, 207, 250 - -Compostella, 7, 253 - -Constitution, ch. ix, ch. xiv - -Copland, Robert, 12–13, 224 - -Corrody, (98 _et sq._, 104), 213–4, 223 - -Council (Lateran), 51, 52, 148, 195, 200 (Westminster), 195 - -Coventry, 12, 80 - -— Bablake, 116, 245 - -— Ford’s, 121, 156 - -— St. John, 34 - -Crediton, 123, 211 - -Cricklade, 78 - -Cripples, lame, etc.—6, 8, 15, 25, 34, 36, 94–6, 98, 99, 101, 156, 223, -262, 268 - -Cromwell, Thomas, 223, 232, 268 - -Crowmarsh, 108 - -Croydon, 17, 34, 90, 120, 137, 140, 155, 157, 175, 204 - -Crusades, 4, 36–7, 73, 76, 79 - -Cuthbert, Billingham, 11, (172) - - -Darlington, 59, 97 - -David, Prince, 50, 251, 260 - -Davy, Ellis, (90, 120), 175 - -Deaf and dumb, 3–4, 15, 31, 95 - -Dedication of Hospitals— - -— Alexis, St., 259 - -— All Saints, 269 - -— Andrew, St., 255 - -— Anne, St., 261, 262 - -— Annunciation of B.V.M., 246 - -— Anthony, St., 245, 256–8 - -— Augustine, St., 258 - -— Bartholomew, St., 252–3 - -— Benedict, St., 258 - -— Bernard, St., 258 - -— Brinstan, St., 263 - -— Chad, St., 263 - -— Christ’s, 245, 270 - -— Christopher, St., 259 - -— Clement, St., 256 - -— Corpus Christi, 245 - -— Cuthbert, St., 263 - -— David (Dewi), St., 263 - -— Denys, St., 262 - -— Domus Dei, 47, 90, 244 - -— Edmund, K.M., St., 264 - -— Edmund, Abp., St., 264–5 - -— Eligius (Loy), St., 262 - -— Ethelbert, St., 264 - -— Gabriel, St., 246 - -— George, St., 252, 259 - -— Giles, St., 262 - -— God’s House, 89, 90, 244–5 - -— Godwald, St., 263 - -— Helen, St., 248, 261 - -— Holy Angels, 246 - -— Holy Cross, 248–9 - -— Holy Ghost, 245–6 - -— Holy Innocents, 246–7 - -— Holy Jesus, 245 - -— Holy Saviour, 245, 252 - -— Holy Sepulchre, 248–9 - -— Holy Trinity, 244–5, 269, 270 - -— James, St., 252, 253 - -— John Baptist, St., 244, 246, 249–51, 254, 266 - -— John Evangelist, St., 253–4 - -— Julian, St., 259 - -— Katherine, St., 260–1, 270 - -— Laudus, St., 262 - -— Lawrence, St., 256–7 - -— Lazarus, St., 249–52 - -— Leger, St., 262 - -— Leonard, St., 247, 252, 261–2 - -— Louis, St., 262 - -— Loy, St., _v._ Eligius, St. - -— Luke, St., 254–5 - -— Margaret, St., 245, 260 - -— Mark, St., 247, 254–5 - -— Martha, St., 252 - -— Martin, St., 262 - -— Mary, St., the Blessed Virgin, 244, 246–7, 251, 266, 269 - -— Mary Magdalene, St., 47, 246, 249–52, 261 - -— Matthew, St., 254–5 - -— Michael, St., 246, 269 - -— Nicholas, St., 257, 258 - -— Oswald, St. (Bishop), 263 - -— Paul, Ap., St., 255–6 - -— Paul the Hermit, St., 255–6 - -— Peter, St., 255–6 - -— Petronilla, St., 255–6 - -— Roch, St., 262–3 - -— Stephen, St., 255, 267 - -— Theobald, St., 262 - -— Thomas, Ap., St., 255 - -— Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, St., 245, 265–9 - -— Three Kings of Cologne, 246–7 - -— Ursula, St., 260–1 - -— Virgins, Eleven Thousand, 261 - -— Wulstan, St., 263 - -Denwall, 255 - -Derby, 179, 218, 261 - -Diseases, 36, 49, 54, 62, 63, 93, 150, 168, 258 - -— Black Death, 24, 42–3 - -— dropsy, 4, 36, 265 - -— elephantiasis, 48, 49, 50 - -— epilepsy, falling sickness, 3–4, 13, 32 - -— erysipelas, 49, 257 - -— fever, 4, (86), 253 - -— insomnia, 92–3 - -— leprosy, ch. iv, ch. v - -— paralysis, 4, 24, 31, 32, 96 - -— pestilence, 24, 42–3, 45–6, 179, 222, 257 - -Disendowment, 29, 228 _et sq._ - -Dissolution, 14, 150, 171, 209, ch. xvi - -Donnington, 19, 155, 211 - -Dover— - -— St. Bartholomew, Buckland, 4, 37, 130–2, 134, 144, 146, 147, 159, -174, 183, 252 - -— St. Mary, 4, 11, 73, 109, 116–7, 127, 155, 162, 170–1, 192, 203, 206, -213, 223, 233 - -Droitwich, 216 - -Dunstable, 199 - -Dunwich, 95 - -— Holy Trinity, 73, 190, 245 - -— St. James, 72, 122, 253 - -Durham, 6 - -— Maison Dieu, 11, 172 - -— St. Mary M., 123, 163, 203, 215 - -— Bishops, diocese of, 16, 44, 97, 123, 170, 185, 233, 253, 264–5 - -— Prior of, 215, 254 - - -Eadmer, 15, 106 - -Easton Royal, 211 - -Edinburgh, 71 - -Edmund the Archbishop, St., 162, 164, 189, 191, 264 - -Education, 21, 26–8, 80–1, 151, 226 - -Edward the Confessor, 37 - -— I, 21, 79, 208, 213 - -— II, 60, 213, 216 - -— III, 53, 80, 208, 214, 220 - -— IV, 45, 63, 102, 216 - -— VI, 10, 46, 164, ch. xvi - -Eleanor, Queen, 79 - -Ellis, Thomas, 83 - -Elsyng, William, 24, 81 - -Ely, 179 - -— St. John, 110, 152, 220, 233 - -— Bishop of, 8, 55, 83 - -Endowments, ch. vi, ch. xii, ch. xiii - -Erasmus, 45, 193 - -Eudo, 72 - -Ewelme, 19, 27, 34, 80, 88, 90, 111, 120, 140, 151, 157, 161, 163, 175, -203, 217, 222 - -Exeter, 3, 78 - -— Bonville’s, 261, 263 - -— Grendon’s, 120, 182 - -— Wynard’s, 27, 151, 161 - -— St. Alexis, 107, 108, 259 - -— St. John, 16, 27, 54, 107, 108, 163, 199, 254 - -— St. Katherine, 123–4 - -— St. Mary M., lepers, 37, 46, 54, 102–3, 139, 146, 184 - -— Bishops, diocese of, 24, 26, 38, 54, 58, 60, 184, 189, 246, 254 - -— Mayor of, 102 - - -Fairs, 72, 182–3, Part II _passim_ - -Famine, 36, 40 - -Farley, 209 - -Festivals, 164, 169–71, 197–8, 202, Part II _passim_ - -Finchale, 96–7 - -Fitz-Herbert, Judge, 55, 60 - -Flixton, 2, 70, 255 - -Food and drink, 33, 41, 84, 128, 131, 136–7, 139, 185, 223, ch. xii, -275–6 - -Forster, Stephen, 33, 182 - -Foulsham, 103 - -Founders, ch. vi, 95, 127, 161, 178 _et sq._, 236, 237, etc., _v._ -Patronage - -France, 261–2 - -— hospitals in, 86, 114, 209, 227 - -— kings of, 45, 56, 73, 191–2, 262 - -— lepers in, 56, 72, 86, 147–8, 177, 181 - -— war with, 80, 99, 109, 208–9 - -Francis, St., 50, 52, 69, 148, 209 - -Fraternity, 18–19, 25, 186–7, 235, 246, 256, 259 - -Friars, 21, 65–6, 79, 209–11, 227 - -Fuller, Thomas, 36, 81, 229, 231–2 - -Funds, ch. xii, 225, 229, 238, 242 - -Furniture, 117, 134–5, 276 - -— beds, etc., 8, 117, 134, 135, 137, 172–3, 180, 276 - -— utensils, 135, 169, 173, 177, 182, 276 - - -Gateshead, 16, 123, 125, 263, 264–5 - -Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, 76 - -— de Vinsauf, 36 - -Gervase of Canterbury, 48 - -— of Southampton, 78, 259 - -Gilds, 18, 121, 232, 235 - -Glanvill, Gilbert, 72, 76, 87 - -— Ralph, 75–6 - -Glastonbury, 9–10, 234 - -— St. Mary M., 115, (124), 198, (234) - -— Women’s almshouse, 124, 165, (234) - -— Abbots of, 9, 10, 121, 124 - -Gloucester— - -— St. Bartholomew, 73, 109, 127, 156, 180, 223, 253 - -— St. Margaret, St. Sepulchre, 124, 134, 146, 172 - -— St. Mary M., 123, 200 - -— lepers of, 55; Dudstan, 179 - -Godric, St., 96–7 - -Gorleston, 79, 232, 255 - -Gower, John, 154 - -Grandisson, John, 26, 189, 254 - -Gravesend, 180 - -Greatham, 16, 152, 156, 165, 233, 263 - -Gregory, St., 143 - -— William, 9, 25, 33, 82 - -Grendon, Symon, 120, 182 - -Grimsby, 10, 262 - -Grindal, Edmund, 226 - -Guarin, 77 - -Gundulf, 50, 71 - -Guy de Chauliac, 61, 67 - - -Hackney, 45, 54, 148 - -Harbledown, 37, 40, 42, 63, 71, 106, 117, 130, 136, 139, 143, 144, 145, -147, 169, 176, 179, 181, (186), 192–3, (240), 257 - -Harting, 183, 250 - -Hawaii, 49 - -Hedon, 130, 249, _v._ Newton - -Hempton, 255 - -Henry I, 71, 170, 179 - -— II, 72, 74, 114, 180, 181, 191, (267), 268 - -— III, 20, 73, 74, 99, 107, 146, 162, 171, 180, 187, 195, 202, 213, 256 - -— IV, 99, 102, 228, 230 - -— V, 100, 102, 222, 228, 230 - -— VI, 45, 102, 161, 208 - -— VII, 12, 80, 88, 122, 179 - -— VIII, 10, ch. xvi, 268; Commissioners of, 171, 227, 232 - -— de Blois, Bishop, 75, 86 - -— of Lancaster, 80, 82, 85 - -— de Sandwich, 85 - -Hereford— - -— St. Anthony, 208 - -— St. Ethelbert, 16, 264 - -— St. John, 246 - -— Leper-hosp., 46, 179–80, 261 - -— Bishop of, 87 - -Heringby, 204 - -Hertford, 211 - -Hexham, 5, 41, 130 - -Heytesbury, 19, 27–8, 80, 90, 135, 140, 151, 156, 160–1, 175, 270 - -Higham Ferrers— - -— Bedehouse, 19, 27, 81, 114, 115, 135, 156, 157, 169, 173, 186, 204 - -— lepers, 179–80 - -Highgate, _v._ Holloway - -Hocclive, 181 - -Hoddesdon, 256, 258, 262 - -Holderness, 2, 70, 75, 219 - -Holloway (Middlesex), 35, 102, 245, 258, Highgate, 45, 102 - -Holloway (Somerset), _v._ Bath - -Holy Land, 7, 76, 104, _v._ Crusades, Jerusalem - -Honiton, 46, 124 - -Hooker, Richard, quoted, 244 - -Hornchurch, 209, 258 - -Hospitality, ch. i, 87–8, 152 - -Hubert de Burgh, 76, 171 - -Hugh, St., 50–1, 66, 67, 144, 180; “little St. Hugh,” 21 - -— Foliot, 87 - -— Garth, 78 - -— d’Orivalle, 37 - -— Pudsey, 75, 170 - -Hungerford, 147; Lord and Lady of, 80 (90) - -Huntingdon— - -— St. John, 260 - -— St. Margaret, 41, 147, 226, 260 - -— David, Earl of, 50, 251, 260 - -_Hye Way to the Spyttell hous_, 12, 255 - -Hythe, 16, 255 - - -Indulgences, 188 _et sq._, 248 - -Infants maintained, 9, 26 - -Ilford, 37, 117, 124, 126, 141, 144, 145, 147, 160, 179, 221, 264, 266 - -Infirmary, 111 _et sq._, 117, 149, 153, 154, 162, 167, 250 - -_Infirmi_, 48, 179 - -Inmates, 15, 22, 90, 145–6, 156, 182, 239 - -— named, ch. v, ch. vii, 134, 183, etc. - -Insane, 4, ch. iii, 57, 90, 219, 238, 253 - -Inventory of hospital, 117, 163 - -Ipswich, 72, 100, 183 - -Isbury, John, 162 - - -Japan, 52, 67 n. - -Jerusalem, 36, 248–50, _v._ Knights of St. John - -Jews, 19–23, 56, 73, 79, 99–100 - -John Baptist, St., 163, 206–7, _v._ Dedications - -John, King of England, 57, 72, 75, 78, 86, 183, 184, _v._ Bale - -— King of France, 191–2 - -— of Campeden, 151 - -— of Gaddesden, 60, 61 - -— of Gaunt, 42, 164 - -— Mirfield, 149 - -Jurisdiction, ch. xiv - - -Katharine of Aragon, 100, 260 - -Kepier, 16, 75, 152, 185, 233, 262 - -Kingsthorpe, 112, 126, 263 - -Kingston (Surrey), 39 - -Kingston-upon-Hull— - -— Corpus Christi, 245 - -— Maison Dieu, 80, 246, 269 - -— fraternity, 19 - -Knghtsbridge, 80, 103 - -Knights of St. John, 101, 206–7, 248, 249–51 - -— of St. Lazarus, 207–8 - -— Templars, 206–7, 248 - -Knolles, Robert, 80 - - -Lambourn, 162 - -Lancaster— - -— St. Leonard, 72, 144, 146, 261 - -— Dukes of, 80, 82, 150, _v._ John of Gaunt - -Lanfranc, 50, 71, 106, 143, 155, 250, 257 - -Langland, 29, 32, 251–2 - -Launceston, 242, 261 - -Lazar, 49, 251–2, _v._ Leper - -Lazarus, St., 66, 207–8, _v._ Dedications - -— the beggar, 49, 51, 65, 251–2 - -Lechlade, 152, 250 - -Ledbury, 5, 197 - -Legislation— - -— ecclesiastical, 51, 52, 56, 58–9 - -— local, 41–3, 53, 55, 132, 148, 186 - -— national, 38, 46, 52, 56–8 - -Leicester, 179, 198, 254, 264 - -— St. Mary, Trinity, 80, 116, 124, 164, 169, 190, 204, 227, 246 - -— Wigston’s hosp., 116, 186, 261 - -— Parliament of, _v._ Parliament - -Leland, John, _Itinerary_ of, 2 n., 11, 19, 22–3, 64, 74, 78, 85, 111, -115, 116, 122, 156, 224, 225, 247, 255, 259, (263), 269 - -Lenton, 187, 257 - -Leper-houses, ch. iv, 117–9, _passim_ - -Lepers, 4, ch. iv, ch. v, 130 _et sq._, 143–9, 167–70, 172, 173, 175–7, -179–80, 184, 209–10, 262, etc., 273–6 - -— charity to, 37, ch. v, ch. vi, 209–10 - -— examination of, 43, 59–63 - -— expulsion of, 52 _et sq._, ch. vii, 186 - -— illustrations of, 47, 59, 64, 68, 177, 180 - -— laws, 52 _et sq._, _v._ Legislation - -— married, 58, 102, 103, 134–5, 147–8, 275 - -— miraculous cures, 64, 97–8 - -— named, 36, 37, ch. v, 74, ch. vii, 134, 141, 148, 201 - -— services for, 67, 159–60, 199–201, 203, 273–6 - -Leprosy, _supra_— - -— contagion, 51–2, 98, 136, 275–6 - -— decline of, 28, 34, 36, 42–7, 226 - -— extent, 35–6 - -Lewes, 37, 112, 233 - -Lichfield— - -— St. John, 28, 81, 124, 162 - -— Bishop of, 28, 81, 162 - -Lincoln, 38 - -— Holy Innocents, lepers, 37, 39, 45, 51, 71, 100–2, 130, 145–7, 179, -180, 187, 203, 208, 247 - -— St. Giles, 24, 163 - -— St. Katherine, 26, 205 - -— St. Sepulchre, 26, 205 - -— Bishops of, 58, 60, 71, 187, 202, _v._ Hugh, St., Robert Grossetête - -— Cathedral, 163, 187–8 - -— Jews of, 21, 99 - -Lingerscroft, Creak, 183, 205 - -London, 6, 12–14, 31, 32, 43, 53, 148, 205 - -— Bedlam, _v._ St. Mary of Bethlehem - -— Domus Conversorum, 19–23, 73, 79, 99–100, 107, 247 - -— Elsyng Spital, 24, 82, 150, 206, 247 - -— Papey, 25, 258 - -— Queen’s hosp., 180 - -— St. Anthony, 208–9, 257–8 - -— St. Bartholomew, ch. i _passim_, 31, 76, 77, 82, 85, 86, 92 _et sq._, -98, 106–7, 114, 122, 149, 156, 180–2, 185, 205–6, 236–40, 248, 253 - -— St. Giles, Holborn, 38, 42, 45, 71, 73, 107, 145, 148, 179, 208, 262, -270 - -— St. James, _v._ Westminster - -— St. Katharine-by-the Tower, 25, 27, 72, 79, 152, 260 - -— St. Mary of Bethlehem, 32–4, 186, 210, 238–9, 247 - -— St. Mary without Bishopsgate, 5, 8, 78, 156, (205), 236–7, 247 - -— St. Mary of Roncevall, 209, 247 - -— St. Paul’s almshouse, 16, 256 - -— St. Thomas of Acon, 207, 248, 266, 268 - -— St. Thomas, _v._ Southwark - -— Savoy, 12, 80, 88, 121–2, 150, 173, 233, 240 - -— Whittington’s almshouse, 82, 175 - -— Bishops of, 37, 38, 77, 126, 141, 144, 160, 240 - -— Cathedral, St. Paul’s, 16, 94, 256; Dean of, 141 - -— Jews, _v._ Domus Conversorum - -— Lepers in or near, 42–3, 45, 47, 53, 55, 62, 138, 148, 179, 186, -_v._ St. Giles (_supra_), Hackney, Holloway, Knightsbridge, Mile End, -Westminster - -— Lord Mayor, citizens, 6, 34, 41–2, 52, 53, 138, 238 - -Long Stow, 78 - -Louis, St., 73, _v._ Dedications - -Ludlow, 18, 120 - -Lunatics, 4, ch. iii, 90, 219, 253 - -Lutterworth, 225 - -Lydd, 45, 55 - -Lyme Regis, 119, 246 - -Lynn, lepers of St. Mary M., 16, 77, 134, 136, 170 - - -Madmen, _v._ Insane - -Maiden Bradley, 74, 147, 179, 181, 182, 205, 254 - -Maison Dieu, 29, 72, 244, etc. - -Maldon, 42, 168, 179 - -Mallardry, 51, 53, 100, 192 - -Manual (Sarum), 175, 273 - -Margaret of Scotland, St., 71, 260 - -Marlborough, 171–2, 235–6 - -Master (Warden, etc.), 21, 27, 78, 110, 116, ch. ix, ch. x, 161, 164, -174, 182, 196, 198, 203, 204, 248, ch. xiv. - -Matilda of Boulogne, 72 - -— the Empress, 72, 170 - -— _v._ Maud - -Matthew Paris, 20–21, 23, 86, 107, 131, 264–5 - -Maud, Queen, 50, 71, 86, 107, 179 - -Maundy Thursday, 73, 170 - -Medical writers— - -— Bartholomew, 43, 61, 65 - -— Gordon, 61 - -— Guy de Chauliac, 61, 67 - -— John of Gaddesden, 60, 61 - -— John Mirfield, 149 - -Medicine, 64, 65, 149–50, 238 - -“Meselle,” 48, 57, 69, 105, _v._ Leper - -Mile End, 46–7 - -Miracles of healing, 3, 64–5, 92 _et sq._, 97, 98, 102, 267–8 - -Monasteries, 3, 11, 41, 50, 57, 74, 75, 78, 97, 122, 131, 204 _et sq._, -215–6, 227–8, 232, 233, 234, 256, 266, _v._ Abbot, Alien Houses, Prior - - -Newark, 50, 63, 179 - -Newbury— - -— St. Bartholomew, 72, 183 - -— St. Mary M., 147 - -Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 19 - -— St. Katherine, (83), 110–1 - -— St. Mary B. V., 164, 206 - -— St. Mary M., lepers, 44, 46 - -— Mayor of, 44, 83 - -Newport (Essex), 179, 183, 247 - -— (Isle of Wight), 258 - -— Pagnell, 181, 254 - -Newstead, 206 - -Newton Bushell, 46 - -— Garth (Holderness), 75, 183, 219, 221, _v._ Hedon - -Nicholas of Farnham, 16, 123, 264–5 - -Norman period, 3, 37, 109, 123, 199 - -Northallerton— - -— almshouse, 11 - -— St. James, 16, 110, 153, 167, 233, 253 - -Northampton, 179, 181 - -— St. John, 16, 77, 116, 124, 203, 251, 254 - -— St. Leonard, 203, 261 - -Norwich, 78, 180, 255, 256, 258 - -— St. Giles, 24, 27, 77, 85, 114, 120, 127, 156, 164, 170, 181, 182, -233, 240, 261, 262 - -— St. Paul, 203, 256 - -— St. Saviour, (78), 245 - -— Bishops of, 77, 85, 104, 267 - -— lepers, 55, 103, 104 - -Nottingham— - -— Plumptre’s almshouse, 188, 203, 246 - -— St. John, 16, 126, 128, 133, 137, 143, 153, 198 - -— St. Leonard, 261 - -— St. Sepulchre, 249 - -Nurses, 153–4, _v._ Sisters, Women - - -Oakham, 124, 129, 261 - -Offices, _v._ Services - -Order of— - -— Holy Sepulchre, 205 - -— Holy Trinity, Maturin, 210–11 - -— Mendicant, 209–11 - -— St. Anthony, 208–9, 257–8 - -— St. Augustine, 152, 205–6, 258 - -— St. Benedict, 174, 206 - -— St. Gilbert, 26, 205 - -— St. John of Jerusalem, 206–7, 249–50 - -— St. Lazarus, 207–8, 251 - -— St. Mary of Bethlehem, 210 - -— St. William, 209 - -— The Temple, 206–7, 248 - -Orphans, 26, 90, 100, 239 - -Ospringe, 73, 99, 192, 196, 213, 219 - -Oswald, St., 70, _v._ Dedications - -Oxford, 61, 108, 155, 179, 222, 256 - -— Domus Conversorum, 22, 73, 99 - -— St. Bartholomew, 38, 39, 71, 118, 123, 133, 143, 145, 146, 191, 242, -252–3 - -— St. John, 1, 5, 73, (86), 107, 111, 127, 152, 155, 168, 171, 202, -213–4, 219 - -— Colleges, 24, 81, 111, 127, 149–50, 191, 226 - - -Pardoner, 153, 189 - -Parliament, 29, 38, 196, 214, 216, 221, 225, _v._ Statutes of -Leicester, 8, 15, 31, 34, 70, 178, 194, 212, 228, 244 - -Patronage, 212–7, _v._ Founders— - -— Cathedral, 15–6, 216, 256, 264 - -— Crown, 71, 130, (146), 202, 216, 217, 232–3, 261 - -— Episcopal, 15–6, 179, 183, 216, 233 - -— Town, 15–17, 73, 130, 163, 172–3, 235–40 - -Penalties, 54, 55, 138 _et sq._, 161, 163 - -Pestilence, _v._ Diseases - -Peter, Bishop of Winchester, 76, 86 - -— Chaplain, 77 - -— Mayor of Winchester, 62 - -Peterborough, 50, 63, 205, 266 - -— lepers, 50, 180 - -Philip, Bishop of Durham, 16, 253 - -Philippa, Queen, 217 - -Physicians (leech, surgeon), 4, 59–67, 149–50, 218, 230, 237, 265, _v._ -Medical writers - -Pilgrim, ch. i, 65, 71, 78, 167, 190–2, 205, 207, 249, 265 - -— poem called, 5 - -— sign, 265 - -Pilgrimage, ch. i, 31, 190 _et sq._, 197, 203, 249 - -— Bury St. Edmunds, 6, 7 - -— Canterbury, 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 64–5, 96, 98, 191–3, 265, 268 - -— Compostella, 7, 253 - -— Finchale, 96–7 - -— Glastonbury, 9–10 - -— Holy Land, 4, 7, 36, 104, 250 - -— Rome, 1, 3, 7, 8 - -— Walsingham, 5, 7 - -Pipe Rolls, 48, 178–80 - -Plumptre, John, 188, (203) - -Plymouth, 146 - -Pole, Alice, 80, 85, (90), 161 - -— Michael, 80, 246, 269 - -— William, 80, 161 - -Pontefract— - -— Knolles’ hospital, 27, 80 - -— St. Nicholas, 2n., 150, 170, 175, 217, 221, 234 - -Pope, 7, 58, 59, 87, 146, 188, ch. xiv, 221, 260 - -Portsmouth— - -— God’s House, 104, 113–4, 123, 125, 199, 221, 233, 269 - -— [St. Mary M.], 109 - -Potyn, Symond, 137, 160 - -Poverty, 14, 29, 40, 239, _v._ Beggars, begging - -Prayers for benefactors, 29, 70, 82, 86, 88, 131, 160, 161–2 - -Preston, 150 - -Priests (chaplains, etc.)— - -— hospital staff, 19, 115, ch. x, 174–5, 211, 224, _v._ Clergy, Master - -— parochial clergy, 17, 58–60, 67, 78, 103, 130, 137, 187–8, 197–8, -204, 211, 273–6 - -— leprous, 58–9, 91, 103, 256 - -— sick and poor, 23–5, 32, 156, 213–4, 219–20 - -Prior, 76, 130, 154, 199, 204, 205, 215–6, 221, 254 - -Proctor, 46–7, 96, 145, 152–3, 186, 187, 189 - -Puckeshall, 99 - - -Racheness, 183 - -Rahere, 76, 77, 85, 86, 95, 106, 185, (248), 253 - -Ranulf Flambard, 16, 75 - -Reading— - -— St. John, 25, 128, (205), 226 - -— [St. Mary M.], lepers, 136, 139, 146, 176 - -— Elias, monk of, 64–5 - -Reformation of hospitals, 34, 194–5, 212, 221, 222, 226, 229, 236–9, -_v._ Visitation - -Reginald of Durham, 52, 60, 96–7 - -Relics, 190–3, 255, 256, 260, 263, 264 - -— of Holy Cross, 95, 190, 210, 248–9 - -— of St. Bartholomew, 93, 191, 253 - -Richard, St., 162, 264 - -— I, 36, 72, 76, 207 - -— II, 42, 79, 99, 104, 210, 214, 267 - -— Orenge, 102–3 - -Richmond, 179 - -Ripon— - -— St. Anne, 115, 165, 261 - -— St. John B., 124 - -— St. Mary M., 5, 41, 124, 165 - -Robert Grossetête, 99, 126 - -— de Meulan, 83 - -— de Stichill, 16 - -Roche, 104 - -Rochester, 153 n. - -— St. Bartholomew, 32, 37, 39, 71, 123, 124, 144, (179), 196, (199), -252–3, 271 - -— St. Katherine, 17, 39, 137, 160 - -— St. Nicholas, 39, 102 - -— Bishops of, 71, 76, 87, 255 - -— infirm, lepers, 39, 71, 102, 179, 192 - -Roger of Hoveden, 37 - -— Earl of Winchester, 84 - -Rome, 1, 3, 7, 8, 86, 188, 221, 245, 253, 256, 257, _v._ Council, Pope - -Romney, 45; leper-hospital, 148, 188, 226, 267 - -Romsey, 187 - -Royston— - -— SS. John and James, 253 - -— St. Nicholas, 39, 183, 257 - -Rule of religion, 126, 131, 220, _v._ Orders - -— of St. Augustine, 152, 174, 205–6, 258 - -— of St. Benedict, 174, 206 - -Rye, 17, 209 - - -Sacraments, 143–4, 198, 201, 203, 274–5 - -St. Albans, 6 - -— St. Julian, lepers, 40, 68, 117, 131, 134, 136, 168, 175, 176, 179, -215, 259 - -— St. Mary, 215 - -— Abbot of, 40, 126, 131, 214–5 - -St. Neot (Cornwall), 58–9 - -Salisbury— - -— Holy Trinity, 8, 26, 33, 89, 165–6, 245 - -— St. Nicholas, 5, 16, 113, 114, 124, 129 - -— Bishop of, 16, 86, 114, 126, 262 - -— lepers, 181 - -Saltwood, 179 - -Sampson, Abbot, 75 - -Sandon (Surrey), 206, 245 - -Sandwich, 17 - -— St. Bartholomew, 19, 85, 123, 124, 129, 160, 163, 168, 169, 171 - -— St. John, 11–12, 155, (157), 163, 168, 172–3, 185 - -— St. Thomas, 83 - -— lepers, 44 - -Sarum, Use of, 3, 273 - -Saxon period, 2–3, 37, 63–4, 70–1 - -Scarborough, 16, 37, 91 - -Schools, 22–3, 26–8, 151, 226 - -Scotland— - -— lepers in, 56 - -— war with, 41, 99, 101, 109, 218 - -Seaford, 253 - -Seals, 18, 47, 93, 103, 107, 108, 147, 152, 178, 180, 205, 208, Part II -_passim_ - -Seamen, 9, 19, 88–9 - -Sedgefield, 96 - -Services, 67, 140, 143–4, 151, ch. xi - -— of admission, 128–9, 131–2 - -— at seclusion, 104, 134, 136, 273–6 - -— at expulsion, 141 - -_Seven Works of Mercy_, 88, 90, 237 - -Sherborne (Dorset)— - -— St. John, 115, 166, 224, 250, 254 - -— St. Thomas, 255 - -Sherburn (Durham), 44, 48, 75, 109, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 136, 139, -145, 147, ch. xi, ch. xii, 202, 233, 242–3, 252 - -Shoreham, 253 - -Shrewsbury— - -— St. Chad, 201, (204), 263 - -— St. George, 259 - -— St. Giles, lepers, 179, 184, 187, 270 - -Shrines, _v._ Pilgrimage, Relics - -Simon Fitz-Mary, 247 - -Sisters, 99, 101, 136, 142, 146, 147, 152–6, 168–9, 233, _v._ Women - -Skirbeck, 207 - -Smyth, Bishop, 28, 81, 162 - -Soldiers, 8, 9, 13, 99 - -Southampton— - -— God’s House, St. Julian, 11, 78, 125, 168, 178, 206, 221, 259 - -— St. Mary M., lepers, 16, 180, 184 - -Southwark, St. Thomas, 22, 82, 154, 156, 206, 236–40, 266, 268 - -Sparham (Norfolk), 60 - -Spital-on-the-Street, 264 - -Spondon, 200, 208 - -Springs, Healing, 31, 63–4 - -Stafford— - -— St. John, 108 - -— [St. Sepulchre, Retford], 40–1 - -Staindrop, 25 - -Stamford— - -— Bede-house, 29, 83, 90, 111, 115, 124, 165–6, 186, 269 - -— SS. John and Thomas, 5, (87), 217, 266 - -— St. Sepulchre, 249 - -Statutes, 8, 194–6, 212, 214, 225, 227, 234, _v._ Legislation, -Parliament, Vagrancy - -— of hospitals, 7, 34, 38, 77, 132 _et sq._, 143, 147, 151, 154, 157, -217, 218, etc. - -Stephen, St., 191, _v._ Dedications - -— King, 57, 72, 75, 206, 261 - -— , Archdeacon, 211 - -Stoke-upon-Trent, 225, 262 - -Stourbridge, 123, 179, 182, 248 - -Stow, John, 69, 233, 239, 247 - -Stratford-on-Avon, 24, 235, 249 - -— Stony, 181 - -Strood, 4, 72, 76, 206 - -Stubbes, Philip, 30 - -Stydd by Ribchester, 207 - -Sudbury, 42, 130, 242 - -_Supplication of Poore Commons_, 14, 231 - -Swinestre, 183 - - -Tamworth, 123 - -Tandridge, 205 - -Taunton, 235 - -— St. Margaret, Spital, (?98), 121, 245–6 - -— monk of, 97; prior of, 52, 98 - -Tavistock, 259, 262 - -_Testament of Cresseid_, 66, 105, 135, 177 - -Thame, 19, 259 - -Thanington, St. James (Canterbury), 146, 147, 154, 192, 198 - -Thetford— - -— St. John, 183, 250 - -— St. Mary, 5, 259 - -Thomas the Martyr, St., 4, 189, 244, 249, _v._ Dedications - -— Jubilee of, 7, 10 - -— miracles of, 65, 96, 98, 267–8 - -— relics of, 64, 192–3, 265 - -— shrine of, 4, 31, 266–8, _v._ Pilgrimage - -— sign of pilgrimage, 265 - -Thornton, Roger, 83, 111 - -Thrapston, 168 - -Thurlow, 209 - -Tiverton, 124 - -Tong (Salop), 204 - -Torrington (Taddiport), 124 - -Towcester, 181 - -Tweedmouth, 270 - - -Vagrancy, 6–7, 10, 13, 14, 28, 171, 227, 239 - -Visitation of hospitals (inquisitions), 33, 41, 132, 138, 150, 173, -174, 195, 202, 218 - -Voltaire, quoted, 36 - - -Wallingford, 16, 57 - -Walsingham, 5, 7, 103 - -Walsoken, 245 - -Walter de Lucy, 50 - -— de Suffield, 77, 85 (164, 182) - -— Archdeacon, 77 - -— Vicar, 78 - -Warden, _v._ Master - -Warwick, St. John, 246; - -— St. Michael, 225 - -Wayfarers, ch. i, 70, 110, 167, 171, 206, 207, 211, _v._ Pilgrim, -Vagrancy - -Well, lepers’, 63, 104, 119, 276, _v._ Springs, Healing - -Wells, 158 - -— St. Saviour, Bubwith’s, 17, 81, 114, 115, 124, 151 - -— Bishops of, 76, 81 - -Westminster, 6, 53, 79, 122 - -— St. James, 43, 73, 147, 150, 182, 188–9, 233 - -— Council of, 52, 72 - -— Statute of, 7 - -West Somerton, 76, 215 - -Whitby, 75, 92, 246, 264 - -Whittington, Richard, 82–3, 175 - -Whittlesea, 83 - -William, Dean, 77 - -— Earl of Albemarle, 75 - -— Earl of Salisbury, 181 - -— of Canterbury, 64–5 - -— de Monte, 51–2 - -— of Wykeham, 81, 151 - -Wills, of benefactors, _v._ Bequests, of inmates, 133, 134 - -Wilton, 17 - -— St. Giles, 73, 99, 125 (181), 262 - -— St. John, 124, 181, 205 - -Wimborne, 124, 166 - -Winchcomb, 225 - -Winchelsea, 17 - -Winchester, 3, 263 - -— St. Cross, 75, 81, 86, 110, 121, 122, 125, 151, 166, 169, 170, 171, -175, 207, 216, 221, 240, 248 - -— St. John, 81, 110, 124, 178, 187, 235, 241 - -— St. Mary M., lepers, 118, 119, 134, 146, 168, 179, 241, 251 n. - -— Bishop of, 187, 206, 216, 221, _v._ Beaufort; Henry; Peter; William -of Wykeham - -— Earl of, 84 - -— Mayor of, 62, 81 - -Windeham, 24, 264 - -Windsor, 180, 258 - -— lepers of, 179, 226 - -Wolsey, Cardinal, 229, 232 - -Women— - -— inmates, 8–9, 12, 13, 25, 26, 33, 74, 82–3, 90, ch. vii, 132, 139, -146, 147, 176 - -— on staff, 139, 145, 147, 152 _et sq._, 168–9, 173, 174 - -Woodstock, 73, 147 - -Worcester— - -— St. Oswald, 2, 48, 70, 122, 199, 263 - -— St. Wulstan, 2, 24, 70–1, 98, 110, 172 - -— Bishop of, 127, 202, _supra_ - -Wulstan, St., 2, 24, 70–1, 86, 98, _v._ Dedications - -Wycomb, High [St. John], 123, 183 [St. Margaret], 183 - -Wynard, William, 161 - - -Yarmouth, 186, 190 - -Yeovil, 259 - -York, 2, 3, 12, 72, 80 - -— Holy Trinity, 245 - -— Monkbridge, 134 - -— St. Leonard or St. Peter, 2, 26, 70, 72, 96, 110, 152, 154–6, 162, -170, 172, 174, 178, 180–1, 184–5, 199, 204, 214, 216, 222–3, 232, 242, -256, 261 - -— St. Loy, 262 - -— St. Mary, Bootham, 24 - -— St. Nicholas, lepers, 28, 39, 117, 132, 138, 145–6, (170), 174, 203, -218, 232 - -— St. Peter, _v. supra_ - -— St. Thomas, 235 - -— Archbishop of, 41, 126, 130, 153, 183, 197 - -— Dean of, 24, 26, 216 - -— Minster, 2, 26, 21 - - - - -PRINTED BY - -WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD. - -PLYMOUTH - - - - -THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS - -_Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net each._ - -“The ‘Antiquary’s Books’ makes an excellent commencement in the first -volume. It is in outward respects a shapely demy octavo in scarlet -cloth, well printed, illustrated with thirty or forty plates.”—_Pall -Mall Gazette._ - -“The publishers have been fortunate in securing the services of the -Rev. Dr. Cox, one of the most learned and painstaking of antiquaries, -as general editor of the series. Antiquarian books too often are as dry -as matchwood, but there is no reason why they should be so, and the -present volume abundantly testifies to this.”—_Birmingham Post._ - -Messrs. Methuen are publishing a series of volumes dealing with various -branches of English Antiquities. - -It is confidently hoped that these books will prove to be comprehensive -and popular, as well as accurate and scholarly; so that they may be -of service to the general reader, and at the same time helpful and -trustworthy books of reference to the antiquary or student. The writers -will make every endeavour to avail themselves of the most recent -research. - -The series is edited by the well-known antiquary, J. Charles -Cox, LL.D., F.S.A., Member of the Royal Archæological Institute, -Corresponding Member of the British Archæological Association, and -Council Member of the Canterbury and York Record Society, and of the -British Numismatic Society. Each book is entrusted to an expert in the -selected subject, and the publishers are fortunate in having secured -the services of distinguished writers. - -A special feature is made of the illustrations, which will vary, -according to the requirements of the subjects, from 50 to 150. Some are -in colour. The type is large and clear, the length of each volume is -about 320 pages. - - -ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE Third Edition - -By ABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B., D.D., PH.D., D.LITT. With 42 Illustrations, 5 -Maps, and 3 Plans. - -“This delightful book, so full of quaint learning, is like a painted -window, through which, if one looks, one may see the old world of the -Middle Ages as that world must have shown itself to a monk.”—_Daily -News._ - -“Curiously interesting and highly instructive.”—_Punch._ - -“An extremely interesting summary of the laws which governed the -religious and domestic life in the great monasteries.”—_Yorkshire Post._ - - -REMAINS OF THE PREHISTORIC AGE IN ENGLAND - -By BERTRAM C. A. WINDLE, SC.D., F.R.S., F.S.A. - -With 94 Illustrations by Edith Mary Windle - -“It gives a tabulated list of such remains; divided into counties, -and subdivided into earthworks, barrows, camps, dykes, megalithic -monuments, and so on, with detailed explanations; to these are added -a list of museums in which specimens of prehistoric remains are -preserved. Confining himself almost entirely to accepted facts in the -science of archæology, the Professor devotes no more space to what he -describes as theory spinning about the dates of various epochs than is -necessary to present the subject with completeness, especially on its -geological side. Mrs. Windle’s excellent illustrations throughout the -volume add greatly to its value.”—_Yorkshire Post._ - - -THE OLD SERVICE-BOOKS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. - -By CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, M.A., AND HENRY LITTLEHALES - -With 38 Plates, 4 of which are in Colour - -“It is infinitely more than a fascinating book on the treasures of past -ages. It is the history of the making of a great and living book. The -illustrations are most beautifully reproduced.”—_St. James’s Gazette._ - -“Scholars will find that its pages are thoroughly trustworthy. The -introduction yields a great deal of unusual knowledge pertaining to the -subject. The illustrations are exceptionally numerous and creditable -in execution for a book of moderate price, and are reproductions in -facsimile from English originals. All save two are, we believe, given -here for the first time.”—_Athenæum._ - - -CELTIC ART IN PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN TIMES - -By J. ROMILLY ALLEN, F.S.A. - -With 44 Plates and 81 Illustrations in the text - -“Unquestionably the greatest living authority on the Celtic Archæology -of Great Britain and Ireland, he writes as only a master of his subject -can. An admirable piece of work.”—_St. James’s Gazette._ - -“The letterpress and pictures are remarkably good throughout: both -author and publishers are to be congratulated on the issue of so -attractive and useful a book.”—_Athenæum._ - - -SHRINES OF BRITISH SAINTS - -By J. CHARLES WALL - -With 28 Plates and 50 Illustrations in the text - -“The present volume may be said to be of a slightly more popular -character than that on ‘Old Service Books,’ but the same wide -research and careful compilation of facts have been employed, and -the result will be, to the general reader, equally informatory and -interesting.”—_Academy._ - -“The shrines have for the most part passed away. What they were like -may be learned from this volume.”—_Manchester Guardian._ - -“This is a good subject and one that is well handled by Mr. -Wall.”—_Athenæum._ - - -ARCHÆOLOGY AND FALSE ANTIQUITIES - -By ROBERT MUNRO, M.A., M.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.S.A. Scot. - -With 18 Plates, a Plan, and 63 Illustrations in the text - -“The author passes in review the more conspicuous instances of sham -antiquities that have come to light since the beginning of the second -half of the last century in Europe and in America.”—_Westminster -Gazette._ - -“He provides us with an account of all the most famous attempts made -by sinful men to impede the progress of archæology by producing forged -antiquities; and he points out a number of examples of the way in which -Nature herself has done the felony, placing beneath the hand of the -enthusiastic hunter of remains objects which look as if they belonged -to the Stone Age, but which really belonged to the gentleman next door -before he threw them away and made them res nullius.”—_Outlook._ - - -THE MANOR AND MANORIAL RECORDS - -By NATHANIEL J. HONE. - -With 54 Illustrations - -“This book fills a hitherto empty niche in the library of popular -literature. Hitherto those who desired to obtain some grasp of the -origin of manors or of their administration had to consult the somewhat -conflicting and often highly technical works. Mr. Hone has wisely -decided not to take anything for granted, but to give lucid expositions -of everything that concerns manors and manorial records.”—_Guardian._ - -“We could linger for a long while over the details given in this -delightful volume, and in trying to picture a state of things that has -passed away. It should be added that the illustrations are well-chosen -and instructive.”—_Country Life._ - -“Mr. Hone presents a most interesting subject in a manner alike -satisfying to the student and the general reader.”—_Field._ - - -ENGLISH SEALS - -By J. HARVEY BLOOM, M.A., Rector of Whitchurch - -With 93 Illustrations - -“The book forms a valuable addition to the scholarly series in which it -appears. It is admirably illustrated.”—_Scotsman._ - -“A careful and methodical survey of this interesting subject, the -necessary illustrations being numerous and well done.”—_Outlook._ - -“Presents many aspects of interest, appealing to artists and heraldic -students, to lovers of history and of antiquities.”—_Westminster -Gazette._ - -“Nothing has yet been attempted on so complete a scale, and the -treatise will take rank as a standard work on the subject.”—_Glasgow -Herald._ - - -THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND - -By J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A. - -With 25 Plates and 23 Illustrations in the text - -“A vast amount of general information is contained in this most -interesting book.”—_Daily Chronicle._ - -“The subject is treated with remarkable knowledge and minuteness, and a -great addition to the book are the remarkable illustrations.”—_Evening -Standard._ - -“The volume is a storehouse of learning. The harvest of original -research. Nothing like it has been published before.”—_Liverpool Post._ - - -THE BELLS OF ENGLAND Second Edition - -By CANON J. J. RAVEN, D.D., F.S.A., of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. - -With 60 Illustrations - -“The history of English bells, of their founding and hanging, of their -inscriptions and dedications, of their peals and chimes and carillons, -of bell legends, of bell poetry and bell law, is told with a vast -amount of detailed information, curious and quaint.”—_Tribune._ - -“The illustrations, as usual in this series, are of great -interest.”—_Country Life._ - - -THE DOMESDAY INQUEST - -By ADOLPHUS BALLARD, B.A., LL.B., Town Clerk of Woodstock. - -With 27 Illustrations - -“In point of scholarship and lucidity of style this volume should take -a high place in the literature of the Domesday Survey.”—_Daily Mail._ - -“Replete with information compiled in the most clear and attractive -fashion.”—_Liverpool Post._ - -“The author holds the balance freely between rival -theories.”—_Birmingham Post._ - -“Most valuable and interesting.”—_Liverpool Mercury._ - -“A brilliant and lucid exposition of the facts.”—_Standard._ - -“A vigorous and independent commentary.”—_Tribune._ - - -PARISH LIFE IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND Second Edition - -By ABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B., D.D., PH.D., D.LITT. - -With 39 Illustrations - -“A rich mine of well-presented information.”—_World._ - -“A captivating subject very ably handled.”—_Illustrated London News._ - -“A worthy sequel to the Abbot’s scholarly work on monastic -life.”—_Liverpool Post._ - -“Essentially scholarly in spirit and treatment.”—_Tribune._ - - -THE BRASSES OF ENGLAND Second Edition - -By HERBERT W. MACKLIN, M.A., St. John’s Coll. Cambridge. President of -the Monumental Brass Society - -With 85 Illustrations - -“There is no volume which covers the ground so fully as this -study.”—_Birmingham Post._ - -“Mr. Macklin writes with enviable lucidity.”—_Standard._ - -“Reveals the value of English brasses as historical -documents.”—_Westminster Gazette._ - -“The illustrations are plentiful and excellent.”—_Spectator._ - - -ENGLISH CHURCH FURNITURE Second Edition - -By J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A., & A. HARVEY, M.B. - -With 121 Illustrations - -“A mine of carefully ordered information, for the accuracy of which Dr. -Cox’s name on the title page is a sufficient guarantee.”—_Athenæum._ - -“This new volume fully maintains the high repute of its predecessors. -Dr. Cox is one of our ablest ecclesiologists, and he and Mr. Harvey -have collected a mass of valuable information of the greatest -importance to antiquaries and architects. . . . There is a fine index -of seventy-five columns, truly a pious work.”—_The Architectural -Review._ - -“This volume is one of the ‘Antiquary’s Books’ series, and is more than -worthy of its distinguished association. There has been an unsparing -expenditure of time and labour upon it.”—_Spectator._ - - -FOLK-LORE AS AN HISTORICAL SCIENCE - -By GEORGE LAURENCE GOMME. Clerk to the London County Council - -With 28 Illustrations - -“No one will read Mr. Gomme’s thoughtful treatise without being the -better able to understand the significance of popular tales and -customs.”—_Scotsman._ - -“A learned and most interesting volume. We can imagine no more -fascinating subject for study.”—_Daily Mail._ - -“An excellent piece of work.”—_Dundee Advertiser._ - -“All will find much that stimulates thought and adds to the inherent -attractiveness of tradition.”—_Athenæum._ - - -ENGLISH COSTUME - -By GEORGE CLINCH, F.G.S. - -With many Illustrations - -In this important work an attempt is made to trace the origin and -development of all the chief phases of English Costume from prehistoric -times down to the end of the eighteenth century. Illuminated MSS., -sepulchral effigies, monumental brasses, ancient statuary, mediæval -wills, inventories, and the contents of the chief museums, are the -authorities upon which the author has relied in his attempts to get -at the actual facts about this interesting subject. The result is a -volume containing a large amount of original and valuable information. -The book is primarily intended for the use of the antiquary and the -artist, but the accurate and precise information which it gives, -and the abundant illustrations and diagrams with which the text is -interspersed, can hardly fail to make “English Costume” a valuable -hand-book for the promoters of historical pageants and theatrical -representations. - - -These Volumes will follow - -THE GILDS AND COMPANIES OF LONDON. By GEORGE UNWIN - -HERALDRY. By THOMAS SHEPARD - -THE ROMAN OCCUPATION. By JOHN WARD, F.S.A. - -CASTLES AND WALLED TOWNS OF ENGLAND. By ALFRED HARVEY, M.B. - -SCHOOLS IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND. By A. F. LEACH - -THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND. By MISS ROTHA M. CLAY - -OLD ENGLISH INSTRUMENTS OF MUSIC. By F. W. GALPIN, M.A., F.L.S - - - - -METHUEN & CO., 36 ESSEX STREET, LONDON, W.C - - - - -TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES - -Original printed spelling and grammar are retained, with a few -exceptions noted below. Illustrations have been moved from their -original locations to nearby places between paragraphs. Footnotes have -been renumbered 1–479, and changed to endnotes. Original italics _look -like this_. Original small caps are all capitals. Text originally -printed in boldface are all capitals in this simple text format edition. - -The original LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS and LIST OF PLATES were formatted -in loose tabular form. These have been converted to list form, with -ellipses suggesting the original columns. The word “ditto” was replaced -by repeated text. - -Ditto marks were used extensively in the original Appendix B, and in -the Bibliography. The original intended scope of these marks is often -questionable, and would be even more so if they were to be retained -in an ebook. Therefore, ditto marks are replaced with repeated text. -Likewise, large curly brackets “{” meant to show grouping of text on -multiple lines have been eliminated. In a few places, e.g. page 298, -the glyphs “┌” and “└” were employed to indicate multiple-line grouping -in lieu of large brackets. - -A few of the tables of Appendix B were printed without column headings -because the headings could be inferred from another table printed -on the same page. Herein, each table has been provided with column -headings. Tables that were continued from one page to another are -herein combined. The Bibliography was printed in tabular form, but is -herein converted to list format, with ellipses indicating the original -columns. - -The original printed index employed white space at the beginning of -a line to indicate distinct subtopics under a topic heading; for -instance subtopics St. Chad, St. George, and St. Giles, under heading -Shrewsbury. In this edition, em dashes have been substituted for -the initial spaces. The original index already employed em dashes -to indicate repetition of a first word in several distinct topics. -For instance, topics “Hugh, St., — Foliot, — Garth, — D’Orivalle, and -— Pudsey”. These em dashes have been retained. - -Page 154. Removed unmatched double quotation mark from the end of the -first paragraph. - -Page 168. Added right double quotation mark to the phrase ‘who for a -time “ate nothing that had suffered death’. - -Page 236. There is a glyph that has no unicode point. Herein, “[~c]” -designates a latin small letter c with tilde above. - - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Mediæval Hospitals of England, by -Rotha Mary Clay - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND *** - -***** This file should be named 50501-0.txt or 50501-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/5/0/50501/ - -Produced by Chris Curnow, RichardW, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |