| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Mediæval Hospitals of England
Author: Clay, Rotha Mary
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Mediæval Hospitals of England" ***
THE MEDIÆVAL HOSPITALS OF ENGLAND,
BY ROTHA MARY CLAY;
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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Mediæval Hospitals of England" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.