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]