 
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:—
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):—
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:—
(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:—
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:—
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:—
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:—
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. REGULATIONSThe 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 100s. 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. 6s. 8d.), 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:—
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:—
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 6d. to the p135 works going on at the Minster, 6d. 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:—
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:—
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:—
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. PENALTIESThe 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:—
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:—
Industry, punctuality and regularity became necessary virtues, since the usual allowance was but 14d. 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:—
This public humiliation, violence and noise, although doubtless salutary, are a contrast to the statute at Chichester, where pity and firmness are mingled:—
THE WARDEN’S HOUSE, SHERBURN HOSPITAL OF ST. GILES, KEPIER 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. |
|
