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]