 
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 BISHOPThe 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 PRIESTBefore 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:—
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. 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:—
(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:—
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:—
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 FRIARInquiry 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. (a) SOUTH-EAST VIEW. (b) NORTH VIEW 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 OrdersOf 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. (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 FriarsBy 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. 118 Chron. & Mem., 72, Reg. Malmes. i. 232. 119 Pat. 25 Edw. I, pt. ii. m. 11; Rolls of Parl. I, 239b. 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. |
|
