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]