RELATIONS WITH CHURCH AND STATE
“_As to other hospitals, which he of another foundation and patronage
than of the King, the Ordinaries shall enquire of the manner of the
foundation, estate and governance of the same . . . and make thereof
correction and reformation according to the laws of Holy Church, as
to them belongeth._”
(Parliament of Leicester.)
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 BISHOP
The 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 PRIEST
Before 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:—
“That all the seculars in the hospitall of Longbridge, exceptinge
a Cooke, and one person to kepe sick folkes, should in the spetiall
solemne dayes, come to Berkeley Church and there [p198] should
receive all the ecclesiasticall Sacraments, (except holy bread and
holy water) unles it bee by the dispensation and leave of the Vicar
of Berkeley.”[121]
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.
[Illustration: 29. GLASTONBURY]
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:—
“In the same year (1293) the lepers of Dunstaple set up a mighty bell
outside the precincts of their house on two timbers; but the prior
. . . brought that bell within our jurisdiction; which afterwards he
restored to them yet so that they should by no means use that or any
other bell for calling together our parishioners or other people.”
(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:—
“Seeing that it is very remote from Christian piety that those who
seek their own and not the things of Jesus Christ do not permit
lepers . . . to have churches or burial places of their own, nor to
be assisted by the ministry of a priest of their own, we ordain that
these lepers be permitted to have the same without any contradiction.”
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:—
“Blase . . . cam by chance to be a leeper, and made the oryell which
goythe allong the west side of the churche-yarde, throughe which
she cam aloft to heare serveys throughe a doore made in the churche
wale, and so passyd usually uppon the leades unto a glasse wyndowe,
throughe which she dayly sawe and hard dayly serveys as longe as shee
lyvyd.”[124]
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 FRIAR
Inquiry 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.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXIII._ ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL, WILTON
(_a_) SOUTH-EAST VIEW. (_b_) NORTH VIEW]
1. _The Monastic Orders_
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 Orders_
Of 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.
[Illustration: 30. SEAL OF ST. ANTHONY’S, LONDON]
(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 Friars_
By 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[118] Chron. & Mem., 72, _Reg. Malmes._ i. 232.
[119] Pat. 25 Edw. I, pt. ii. m. 11; Rolls of Parl. I, 239_b_.
[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.
[p212]