A HISTORY OF LONDON be increased to that of eight brothers and thirteen sisters prescribed by the foundation charter, if the resources of the hospital allowed, and that four of the brothers should be priests in order to relieve the house of the cost of two secular chaplains ; the master was not to dispose of important business without the consent of the brothers and sisters ; the sisters were not to keep legacies except with the prior's leave ; the brothers were forbidden to go to the sisters' rooms ; men were to be appointed by the master to look after the brothers in case of illness so that women should henceforth be excluded from such work. The condition of the hospital was, how- ever, worse than ever in 1320," nor is it surpris- ing considering that John de Attueston was then master. The property of the house was neglected so that rents had fallen off, and woods were cut down by the master as he pleased without the consent of the brothers and sisters. As to discipline there seems to have been absolutely none : one of the brothers, Richard de Thame, frequented a tavern and spent the money of the convent on his pleasures ; another, John de Sydenham, used the rents which he collected to secure followers, for he aspired to the post of master ; he also went to the sisters' rooms with- out the master's leave and ate and drank there in spite of the prohibition. It is clear that the sisters had no respect for the master or for the prior, spreading slanderous reports of the one and accusing the other of not knowing his office, and they did not deny that they were disobedient to both. Unfortunately they themselves were not examples of virtue : one of them, Margery Flyntard, had broken her vow of chastity ; and the abbot declared that through their wandering about and the access of regular and secular persons to them not only scandal but crimes had resulted, and ordered that in future they were not to leave their rooms except for the cloister adjoining or to go to church. Much the same disclosures were made when the abbot visited the hospital in 1334.'* John de Sydenham, who had now realized his desire to be master,'^ was reported guilty of inconti- nence, and a similar allegation coupled the names of Brother John de Hoton and Sister Juliana. For the latter charge there may have been foundation since the abbot noted that some of the brothers visited the sisters' rooms, and ordered that the rule made in this respect should not be infringed in future. The abbot's visitations and ordinances cannot be said to have been productive of reform, nor was such a result likely as lona; as bad conduct was no bar to promotion. It would be interesting " Visitation held before Master Richard de Gloucester and John de Buterle, vicar-general of the abbot of Westminster. Doc. of D. and C. of Westm., Westm. pare. 2, box I. '^ Ibid. " A roll of accounts by him begins in 133 1. Ibid. to know at what date John de Hoton was ac- cused of the murder of a woman in the hospital, as the case might have determined the king to put an end to the abbot's authority there. Hoton was master in 1337 " and again in 1345,'* but not in 1339," for it was Henry de Purle who refused to obey the abbot's citation to appear before him, and was excommunicated in consequence.^ As the abbot had been prohibited by the king from all interference with the hospital he was himself attached for contempt. The abbot contended that the hospital was held of him by fealty and suit at his court and by service of 20s. per annum and that the right of visitation had always belonged to the abbey except in case of a vacancy, when the king's treasurer had exercised it. It was, however, proved from the records that in 1252 the king had committed the custody of the hospital to the treasurer for the time being, and it was said that ever since he, as in right of the king, had given leave to the brothers and sisters to elect the master, had confirmed the elections, and exercised the right of visitation.^' The inference was that the king must have possessed these powers in 1252 or he could not have given them to the treasurer, and according to the court the abbot himself had proved that the king was the patron by his admission that the treasurer visited the hospital when the abbey was vacant. Judgement was therefore given in favour of the king. The verdict certainly does not seem just. According to some constitutions of the time of Henry III ^^ the abbot had had jurisdiction, for it was he who then appointed the prioress from among the sisters. The priests of St. James also acknow- ledged the subjection of the hospital to the abbey by taking part in the procession at St. Peter's four times a year. If it be contended that these rules may have been earlier than 1252, yet it is an undoubted fact that the abbot had since that time repeatedly visited the hospital, and as abbot, not as treasurer.^' Further inquiry was ordered by the king in 1 342, but without any benefit to the abbey." The Black Death carried off the warden and all the brothers and sisters except William de Weston, who, in May, 1349, was made master, but in 1 35 1 was deposed for wasting the goods of the hospital.-' It is said that in 1353 the " Ca/. of Chse, 1337-9. P- ^°1' '* Ibid. 1343-6, p. 655. "Ibid. 1339-41, p. 658. " Tear Bks. of Edw. Ill, Mich, term year 3 to Hil. term year 14 (Rolls Ser.), 360. "Ibid. 360, 361 ; Guildhall MS. iii, fol. 1207. " Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 314^-15. "In 1 3 1 7 the bishop of Ely was treasurer, Cal. of Pat. I 31 7-2 I, pp. 39, 164 ; in 1320 the bishop of Exeter, ibid. pp. 417, 438 ; in 1334 the bishop of Durham, Cal. of Close, 1333-7, P- I9^- '* Cal. of Pat. 1340-3, p. 457. " Gasquet, The Great Pestilence, 97. 544
