Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the city of Durham. Additional inhabitants were also | attracted by the supposed sanctity of the place. At first the population occupied the hill of the castle and cathedral; it then gradually extended into the vale, and still more slowly occupied the opposite heights which are included in the long rambling suburbs of the modern city*. Nothing further is recorded of Durham till the year 1040, when it was attacked by Duncan of Scotland. The town at this time seems to have been fortified, for the inhabitants are said to have sustained the invader's assaults for a long time, and at length to have made a vigorous sally, whereby the enemy was totally routed. The heads of such Scotch leaders as fell, or were taken prisoners, were fixed on poles round the market-place.

In the year 1069, William the Conqueror having created Robert Cumin, Earl of Northumberland, sent him with seven hundred veteran Norman soldiers to Durham, to enforce his authority; but these warriors behaved more like freebooters than soldiers; they committed many enormities, dispersed through every quarter of the city, and took forcible possession of the houses, to the terror and despair of the inhabitants. But in order to protect themselves, the people formed secret associations, and the bishop being made acquainted therewith, and fearing an insurrection, informed Earl Cumin thereof. The earl, however, treated the bishop's caution with contempt, and in exercise of the authority vested in him, proscribed or put to death several of the landholders and peasants. This served as a signal to fly to arms, and on a cold night in February the town was incompassed by armed men. The earl's guards had dispersed about the town in contempt of danger, and had given themselves up to ease and enjoyment. At the dawn of day, the assailants broke open all the gates of the town, and, flying in parties through every street, made a dreadful slaughter of the Normans. Many were shut up in the house where the earl lodged, and, defending it bravely, the enraged populace could not force an entrance; therefore, throwing in fire-brands, they set the editice in flames. The inmates were thus forced to open the doors to escape the fury of the fire, but were slain as they came out. At length the building was reduced to ashes, and the fire was so vehement that the flames were seen to take hold of the western tower of the church. This circumstance alarmed the multitude. "The religious inhabitants of the city, and even those in arms ceasing from slaughter, fell upon their knees, with eyes filled with tears, and elevated hands, petitioning heaven that, by the assistance of their holy saint, and through his interposition, the sacred edifice might be spared from destruction. Quickly the wind shifted, and bore the flames from the church."

William, determined to revenge Cumin's death, sent a party of troops to scour the country, but they had not proceeded further than Alverton when they were surrounded by a thick fog, which entirely prevented them from pursuing their journey: this operating upon superstitious minds, was attributed to St. Cuthbert, and so much alarmed them that they returned in haste lest they should incur the saint's displeasure. But William was not to be thus intimidated; he marched forward, and desolated the country in such a manner, that "for sixty miles between York and Durham he did not leave a house standing; reducing the whole district, by fire and sword,

to a horrible desert, smoking with blood, and in ashes+."

The miseries which followed all this cruelty cannot be described. A dreadful famine occurred, during which the people were compelled to eat the most loathsome

• We need not further trace the history of Durham Cathedral; but refer the reader to an ample notice thereof in Saturday Magazine, Vol. VIII., p. 194. Our chief authorities in the present notice are the elaborate works of Surtees and Hutchinson.

+ According to some writers, William was prompted to this cruelty, not by revenge, but by necessity; for an invasion being threatened from Denmark, it was expedient that the country should be laid waste, in order

to deprive the invaders of the means of subsistance.

The lands lay

food. The mortality was frightful. uncultivated for nine years; and robbers and beasts of prey finished what the sword of the conqueror had spared. On approaching Durham, the king found the town deserted, the ecclesiastics fled, and the church left without a minister. The army was dispersed in plundering parties over the country between the Tyne and the Wear; but they found the villages deserted and the whole country waste; the inhabitants, with their flocks, having fled into the secret recesses of the forests and mountains. The soldiers did not even spare the churches and monasteries, but plundered them of their ornaments of gold, silver, and jewels, and then set fire to them and rejoiced over their ruins.

After an absence of four months, the bishop and his companions in misfortune returned to their desolated country; but they did not long enjoy repose; on the partition of lands by the Conqueror, the property of the church of Durham suffered in the general peculation. The bishop, having secured the most valuable articles of the treasury, retired to Ely, and joined the English, who were then in arms against the king. He was soon afterwards betrayed by the abbot, and delivered up to the king, who confined him in prison, where he died miserably.

On the return of William from his expedition against the Scots, he determined to erect a castle at Durham for the double purpose of suppressing the Scottish incursions and of overawing the neighbourhood; or, as he was pleased to express it, "in order to secure his earl of that province from tumults and insurrections, as also to protect the bishop of the see and his church.”

The earldom of Northumberland having become vacant by the defection of Waltheof, Bishop Walcher purchased that title of the king. This was the first instance of the ecclesiastical and temporal power of the see being vested in one person, and it excited the indignation of the people. They regarded with abhorrence a prelate who, unlike their patron, St. Cuthbert, sought to unite temporal power with his Christian duties. Thus they lost all respect for his episcopal office, and raised an insurrection, the circumstances of which are curiously illustrative of the manners of the period.

table.

The bishop seems to have been a mild, amiable man, deficient in those sterner qualities so especially necessary in unsettled times to a governor or chief. He delegated his power to unworthy ministers and favourites; he confided the care of the earldom to his kinsman Gilbert, who suffered his soldiers to oppress the common people, and to insult and plunder those of higher rank. It was not unnaturally supposed that the evil actions of Gilbert were connived at by the bishop. Among the depredations of the deputy, was the plundering of the estates of a Saxon nobleman named Liulph, eminent for his virtues, possessions, and great alliance; he was also in favour with the bishop, and frequently at his jealousy and resentment of the Norman favorites were On preferring his complaint to the bishop, the excited, and during the night they surrounded the house of Liulph and inhumanly murdered him and the greater part of his family. This wicked act excited a great tumult among the Northumbrians, by whom Liulph waited to see justice done to the chief actors in this was greatly revered and beloved, and they anxiously horrid tragedy. The bishop solemnly and repeatedly disowned all participation in it; but although he expressed his horror at the crime, and his detestation of its perpetrators, yet he did not bring them to justice, and hence the people were convinced that the crime was committed with his privity.

Not long after this, the bishop, in exercise of his civil jurisdiction, held a public assembly of his council and ministers at Gateshead, whither the suitors repaired. Being accustomed to depend on the veneration hitherto paid to his sacred office, he was attended only by a small

body-guard. But the insolent behaviour of the populace indicated their disposition for mischief, and the bishop became alarmed for his safety when it was too late to procure assistance. He caused his officers to assure the people that part of the business of that assembly was to make restitution to the relations of the murdered family. The rage of the populace becoming more fierce, he even offered to give up the murderers, in order that their fate might be determined by law. But the mob now refused to submit to the common forms of justice; they displayed a total contempt for the official authority of the bishop as earl, and his sanctity as bishop; they beset the house with clamour, and on a watch-word being pronounced from every quarter, "Short red, good red, slea ye the bishoppe*," they discovered their arms, which hitherto had been concealed under their garments. The few guards of the bishop, dreading no mischief, had dispersed themselves, and were reposing in a careless manner; these were put to the sword. The bishop privately retreated to the church, whither he summoned a few of the chief men of each party to propose terms of friendship and satisfaction. Those who conceived they could influence the the mob, went out to appease them, but without respect of persons, many were slain. The bishop then commanded Gilbert to go forth and endeavour to pacify them, but he fell an immediate victim to their fury. Some of the rioters now set fire to the church, whilst others guarded the doors and put every one to death that attempted to depart. Those that remained within, no longer able to endure the flames, rushed out and were instantly slain. The last of the assembly was the venerable prelate, overwhelmed with affliction for the death of his people. Expecting no mercy from the savage multitude he was for a moment undetermined what death to choose. The fire urged him to the sword of the enemy, the enemy drove him back to the flames. At length the fire blazed all round him; offering a short prayer to heaven, he advanced towards the clamorous multitude. With one hand he made a fruitless signal to command silence, with the other he made the sign of the cross, and folding himself in his robe, he veiled his face, and was instantly pierced to the heart with a lance. His body was afterwards inhumanly mangled. This sad event happened on the 14th of May, 1080. The leader of the riot was Eadulf, surnamed Rus, related to the family of Liulph.

When this tumult was reported to the king, he was greatly incensed, and sent his brother Odo, bishop of Bayeux, to punish the insurgents, and to avenge the death of the bishop. Odo executed his commission, not as a bishop, but as a Norman soldier. He shed the innocent blood of the relations of the rebellious; plundered the church of Durham of a rich pastoral staff, and reduced the province to a solitary desert; so much so that the omission of Durham in Domesday Book (which was made about this time), has been accounted for on the supposition that the county was so wasted as not to be worth the expense of a survey.

On the accession of William Rufus, Bishop William de Carilepho being among the malcontents, his temporalities were seized by the crown, and he fled into Normandy. In 1091 the bishop was restored, and soon after he granted to the prior and convent of Durham a free borough in Elvethatch, with licence to maintain there forty merchants' houses, or tradesmen's shops, free from secular service. This is the earliest mention of Elvet, but the grant implies the previous existence

of a considerable suburb.

In the time of Bishop Flambard, Durham sustained great injury by fire. That bishop also greatly oppressed the bishopric with taxes. In 1112, the bishop founded the hospital of Kepier, which he dedicated to St. Egidius or Giles, and amply endowed it. He also improved * "Short riddance, good riddance, slay," &c.

[ocr errors]

the fortifications of the city, improved the banks of the river, and built a bridge.

In the time of Stephen, David, king of Scotland, on behalf of his niece, Matilda, daughter of Henry the First, levied an army, and gained possession of several fortresses in Northumberland. Stephen visited Durham, and concluded a peace, which, however, was not lasting: the city of Durham would probably have again been exposed to the horrors of warfare, but for the defection of a portion of the army of the King of Scotland, which compelled him to retreat. By the interposition of the pope's legate peace was established; in April, 1139, the members of the convention met at Durham; Maud, queen of England, and many southern barons, on the part of the English crown, and Prince Henry with several Scottish barons on the part of David. A coinage was established in Durham about this time.

Contrary to the usual practice of these rude times, the Bishop, Galfrid Rufus, does not seem to have participated in these warlike proceedings, but to have been occupied with the peaceful duties of his office. During the prelate's last illness his chaplain, William Cumyn, bribed his household, and those that had the custody of the castle, to deliver up to him the palace and tower as soon as the bishop died. He also obtained the aid of the King of Scotland in order to get the people to submit to him, but not succeeding in his design he desolated the country, burnt the hospital and church of St. Giles, with the whole village, to ashes, and destroyed a great part of the borough of Elvet.

During the reign of Henry the Second, the custody of the castle and city was taken away from the bishop. About this time Bishop Pudsey "granted to the burgesses that they should be for ever exempt from the customs called in-toll and out-toll, and from marchets and heriots, and to have the like free customs as Newcastle." This charter was confirmed by Pope Alexander the Third. This prelate made some beautiful additions to the cathedral, and ornamented the city in various ways; he rebuilt the borough of Elvet, and constructed the bridge of that name; he built the city wall from the Gaol Gate to the Water Gate, and re-edified the castle. By his order was also compiled the Boldon Buke, now remaining in the auditor's office, and which has always been regarded as evidence in all cases to ascertain the ecclesiastical property of the diocese.

Elvet bridge was originally constructed with ten arches. It was altered by Bishop Fox about 1500. Upon or immediately adjoining it were two chapels; and at the time the view was made from which our cut is taken, it supported some dwelling-houses according to the practice of our forefathers. Part of this bridge was swept away by an overwhelming flood, which occurred in November, 1771.

WHEN We would convince men of any error by the strength of truth, let us withal pour the sweet balm of love upon their heads. Truth and love are two of the most powerful things in the world; and when they both go together, they cannot easily be withstood. The golden beams of truth, and the silver cords of love twisted together, will draw men on with a sweet violence, whether they will or no.CUDWORTH.

THE same benevolence, which, in the days of health and prosperity, would have exerted itself in going about doing good to all within its reach, will, in the time of sickness and affliction, be expressed by a constant endeavour to suppress, as much as possible, every word or look that may give pain, by receiving with thankfulness every attempt to give ease and comfort, even though, by being ill-judged or little attentions, which will make a much deeper impression ill-timed, it be in reality distressing; and by a thousand on a feeling heart for being paid at such a time, and which, at least, will servo to show that no sufferings of our own can make us indifferent to the happiness of others.BOWDLER.

745-2

EARLY ENGLISH BANNERS.
I.

In the Retrospective Review for 1827, is a curious and interesting collection, from undoubted authorities, of the history of the various banners which were borne in the field, under our early monarchs, from the time of introduction of heraldry, to the death of Henry the Eighth. The subject is an attractive one to the lover of history, and as it does not appear to have been elsewhere entered into, the notice in question may be here abridged for the benefit of our readers.

That a standard, or ensign, was borne in the armies of all nations from a distant era, is a fact well established both by sacred and profane history, and, certainly, the marching of an army under its appropriate banners, is an inspiriting and heart-stirring sight. Sir Walter Scott, in speaking of the English army, says

With all their banners bravely spread, And all their armour flashing high; Saint George might waken from the dead To see fair England's standards fly. Dr. Meyrick's work on Ancient Armour furnishes the greater part of the information on the subject of banners, up to the latter part of the reign of Edward the Third, when the materials for the inquiry become less scanty. Banners are coeval with armorial bearings, and the latter appear to have been adopted in this country about the twelfth century. William the Conqueror is represented on his great seal with a lance in his right hand, to which a small pennon is attached, and which was then called a gonfanon. It is represented at fig. 1. This gonfanon, according to the learned writer just named, was different from a banner, in that, instead of being square and fastened to a tronsure bar, it was fixed in a frame, made to turn like a modern ship's vane, with two or three streamers or tails. The object of the gonfanon was principally to render great people more conspicuous to their followers, and to terrify the horses. of their adversaries; hence the gonfanon became a mark of dignity. From the Bayeux Tapestry, it would appear that a kind of standard was borne near the person of the commander-in-chief, and which is described by the writers of the period as a gonfanon. Thus Wace says, the barons had gonfanons; the knights had pennons. The pennon was a sort of streamer; but that of the Conqueror, as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, is charged with a cross (see fig. 2). The other pennons,

1

2

[blocks in formation]

present two other pennons, used about the same period. After that time, the kings of England, and other great personages, are always represented with a sword instead of a lance, in their right hands, and therefore no further information is to be gleaned from their seals, on the subject of pennons. Upon the adoption of armorial ensigns, the pennon or gonfanon was charged with the arms of the bearer. No arms appear on the seals of our monarchs until the reign of Richard the First, and it was only on his second seal that the present ensigns of England were introduced. The great barons were not long before they imitated the seals of their sovereign. Laier de Quincy, earl of Winchester, who died in 1219, and Richard de Montfichet, the last person of which name flourished in the reign of John, and in the commencement of that of his successor, are represented on horseback, holding in their right hands a shield with their arms, and in their left a lance with a pennon similarly charged. The pennon of the earl is represented at fig. 10; that of Montfichet at fig. 11. A still earlier

[blocks in formation]

and died in 1166, is represented on horseback, holding in his right hand a shield, and in his left a lance, with the pennon shown at figure 12. Armorial bearings were thus used in England in the reign of Henry the Second, and the pennon being charged with them it is obvious that they were borne as banners in the field. That the pennon of the sovereign was similarly marked can scarcely be doubted; but there is no account of anything like a national standard, nor does it appear that the square banner was then used. It was probably introduced in the reign of Henry the Third, for Otho, count of Gueldres, is depicted on his seal, in 1247, holding a square banner charged with his arms, a lion rampant. A very singular little pennon was borne by Philip, marquis of Namur, in 1244, as will be seen by referring to fig. 13.

13

14

It is affirmed that Henry the Third, in the twentyeighth year of his reign, commanded Edward Fitz Odo to make a dragon in manner of a standard or ensign, of red samite, and embroidered with gold, his eyes of sapphire, and his tongue to appear continually moving, and to place it in Westminster Abbey; and Sandford also states, that a dragon was borne before Henry the Third, at the battle of Lewes. This figure was doubtless made with a view to terrify the horses of the opposing army, and thus to cause confusion in the ranks. This was, however, distinct from the usual pennon or standard, and must have been employed in addition to it, for Matthew of Westminster, speaking of the early battles of this country, says, "The king's place was between the dragon and the standard." On the Bayeux Tapestry, also, a dragon on a pole repeatedly occurs near the person of Harold, and in the instance which is copied at fig. 14, the words "Hic Harold" are placed over it. Barnes, in his History of Edward the Third, says, that among the ensigns borne at Cressy was a burning dragon, to show that the French were to receive little mercy. This dragon was of red silk, adorned and beaten with very broad and fair lilies of gold, and bordered about with gold and vermilion. A golden dragon, on a red pennon, was also frequently used as one of the ensigns of the French armies, and in reign of our Henry the Sixth, one of his coins had on it a banner charged with a demi-dragon.

In the reign of Edward the First, heraldry was reduced to a science, and from this period the notices of banners borne in armies become more complete and minute. In an heraldic poem describing the siege of Carlaverock Castle, in June, 1300, the arms of every banneret of the English army are accurately blazoned.

The poem

is written in Norman-French, and states at the commencement, that at this siege there were many rich caparisons embroidered on silks and satins, many a beautiful pennon fixed to a lance; and many a banner displayed. Both banners and pennons were charged with the arms of their owners. William de Leybourne, it is said, had there a banner and a large pennon of blue, with six white lions rampant. This poem also throws some light on the inquiry as to who possessed the right of bearing a banner in the field. When the English army was composed of the tenants in capite of the crown, with their followers, it appears that such tenants were entitled to lead them under a banner of their arms; but the precise number of men so furnished, which conferred this privilege, has not been ascertained. Judging, however, from the Siege of Carlaverock, it would seem that, early in the fourteenth century, there

|

was a banner to every twenty-five or thirty men at arms; for we are told, "Then were the banners arranged, when one might observe many a warrior there, exercising his horse: and there appeared three thousand brave men at arms." The number of banners mentioned in the poem does not exceed one hundred and five.

When the tenant in capite was unable, from sickness or some other cause, to attend in person, he nevertheless sent the quota of men at arms and archers, for which, by the tenure of his lands, he was engaged; and his banner was committed to the charge of a deputy of Thus, at Carlaverock, the equal rank with his own. Bishop of Durham, being prevented from attending by some public duty, which detained him in England, sent one hundred and sixty of his men at arms with his banner. This was entrusted to his most intimate friend, John de Hastings. A similar instance occurs in the case of Lord Deincourt, who, as he could not attend himself, sent his two brave sons in his stead; and "with them his banner of a blue colour billette of gold, with a dancette over all."

These banners were carried wherever the leaders to whom they belonged were engaged, so that they were often roughly dealt with. The banner of one of the brave men eulogised in this poem, is spoken of as having received many stains, and many a rent difficult to mend. We must reserve our notice of National Banners for a future number.

IMAGINATION may be allowed the ascendancy in early youth; the case should be reversed in mature life; and if it is not, a man may consider his mind either as not the most happily constructed, or as unwisely disciplined. The latter indeed is probably true in every such instance.FOSTER.

How doth wisdom differ from that which is called nature?

verily in this manner, that wisdom is the first thing, but nature the last and lowest; for nature is but an image or imitation of wisdom, the last thing of the soul, which hath the lowest impress of reason shining upon it; as when a thick piece of wax is thoroughly impressed upon by a seal, that impress, which is clean and distinct in the superior superficies of it, will in the lower side be weak and obscure; and such is the stamp and signature of nature, compared with that of wisdom and understanding; nature being a thing which doth only do, but not know.-PLOTINUS. Ir any man will oppose or contradict the most evident truths, it will not be easy to find arguments wherewith to convince him. And yet this, notwithstanding, ought neither to be imputed to any inability in the teacher, nor to any strength of wit in the denier, but only to a certain dead insensibility in him.-EPICTETUS.

THERE is a philosophy far more satisfactory to the inquiring mind than that which would explain everything by lines and number, and by the mechanical principles, or the laws of matter and motion. These may, indeed, be used in the way of conjecture and hypothesis, to account for the general order of the universe; but the knowledge of motion is not the knowledge of the creation. Any system of physics, in which the various means prepared to preserve the world, are regarded as the original causes of the several parts of Nature is a deviation from truth; since it refers the origin and formation of everything to such causes as can produce nothing, and dries up our hearts by substituting an imaginary mechanism for the intention and will of the Almighty.-BASELEY.

OUR knowledge is very short and shallow, for the disproportion of the heavens is so great, that some think the earth to be but a point in respect of the rest; and others, that the great orb itself is but a point in comparison of the firmament. Nay, we are ignorant of so many things relating to the bodies above and below us, that our knowledge seems confined to a very small part of that physical point; and therefore, though our knowledge may highly gratify our minds, it ought not to make us proud, nor ought we to value that, so as to make us despise the knowledge of spiritual things.-BOYLE.

ON HOSPITALS.
III.

IN reviewing the present state of Hospitals, (confining the term to institutions for the reception of the poor when sick or wounded,) we may remark that charity, to be useful, must be administered with discrimination, and that even hospitals, useful as they are to the necessitous poor, will not prove an unmixed good if improperly administered. Montesquieu observes, that Henry the Eighth, in dissolving the monasteries, was unconsciously laying the foundation of the future prosperity of his country, by destroying that system of indiscriminate relief which prevailed in them, and by throwing the lower orders upon their own energies and resources, which had until then lain dormant. He contrasts this

with the state of things in Italy, where, with unrestricted relief, idleness and beggary abounded. In Great Britain, charitable institutions of every kind abound; there has been no deficiency of money devoted to them; but,

it is to be feared that the enormous sums subscribed have not always been judiciously expended, and that sufficient care has not been employed to distinguish between the truly needy and the pretender.

Some of the French hospitals are of high antiquity. The origin of the Hotel-Dieu, of Paris, is referred to the ninth century. They have always been fostered with immunities and privileges by the various kings, and had, prior to the Revolution, acquired in many instances considerable property; but at that period they were most grossly neglected and mismanaged by individuals and societies who had the care of them. During the Revolution, they were deprived of their estates, and funds provided from other sources; since that event they have all been placed under the direct controul of government, and are now rendered, by the energetic and judicious the kind in Europe. There are thirteen general hospimeasures it has adopted, equal to any establishments of tals in Paris, containing about 5000 beds; besides which reception of the aged, orphans, foundlings, and persons there are also eight hospices, or institutions for the afflicted with incurable diseases, and which can accommodate about 11,000 individuals. Of these last, the Salpetriere, for 5400 aged women, and Bicêtre, for 3127 aged men, resemble small towns swarming with inhabitants. As we have said, the state of most of these charitable institutions prior to the Revolution was disgraceful; in the Hotel-Dieu three or four persons were often put in together, while filth and confusion reigned on every side. one bed, and the most opposite diseases were mingled Now, they are not over-crowded, and are kept very clean and neat. much larger than the British; and thus, while our The hospitals on the Continent are frequently largest, St. Bartholomew's, will hold but 550 patients, the Hotel-Dieu of Paris will contain 2000.

The existing hospitals of the metropolis are mostly of modern date, three only having an origin prior to the Reformation, namely, St. Bartholomew's, founded by Rahere, minstrel of Henry the First, in 1122; St. Bethlem, converted from a priory to a hospital in 1330; and St. Thomas', founded for young children in 1538, by the prior of Bermondsey. These were modified at the Reformation, and, by charters of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, were made over to the corporation of London, who soon put them in a fit state for the reception of some of the suffering poor. The other hospitals, and all the dispensaries, have been established during the eighteenth and present centuries. There are now in London ten general hospitals, and several for special complaints, as small-pox, fever, disease of the eyes, containing altogether above 3000 beds, and giving advice to very many thousand out-patients: besides these there are two lunatic asylums, capable together of holding about 500 patients (independently of the splendid esta-pitals still possess, not being sufficient for their support, blishment at Hanwell); four lying-in hospitals, about twenty dispensaries, and an infirmary attached to each district workhouse. Every town in Britain of any size has its hospitals and dispensaries, and almost every county its Lunatic Asylum.

In Dublin, where so much poverty and misery abound, the in-door accommodation is extensive, there being eight or nine general hospitals, besides large charities for fever-patients and lying-in women. Edinburgh is also well supplied.

With the exception of three, which possess large landed property, (namely, St. Bartholomew's, Guy's, and St. Thomas',) all these institutions are supported by voluntary subscriptions.

The condition of the British hospitals, as regards the comfort and well-doing of the patients, is admirable: which is testified by the fact that the proportionate mortality is lower than in any of the hospitals of Europe. In no respect has a more gratifying improvement taken place than in the treatment of lunatics; for, while some centuries back, (1403,) “locks and keys, manacles of iron, chains of iron, stocks, &c.," were enumerated as common articles of furniture of Bethlem, and the lash was with these the only means of obtaining obedience, at the present day physicians observe improvements coincident with diminution of restraint, and hope before long (see DR. CONOLLY's Report on Hanwell*) to be able to dispense with it altogether. Government does not interfere with the management of the hospitals, this being entirely placed in the hands of officers chosen by

the subscribers.

* See Saturday Magazine, Vol. XXIII., p. 187.

extended beyond a certain limit, and the crowding togeWe do not think that hospitals can be beneficially ther so many persons under one roof may help to account for the high rate of mortality occurring at the Parisian hospitals, notwithstanding the care with which the comforts of the patients are attended to, and the ability of the medical officers; this may also arise in part from the bad localities of some of the buildings, and the indiscriminate reception of diseases known to be fatal, such as consumption, &c.

The property in houses, &c., which some of these hosthey derive the necessary funds from various sources,

as the fines and confiscations levied in the courts of

justice, the Monts de Pieté, a portion of the octroi, or tax upon the articles brought into Paris for the conreceipts of the theatres and places of amusement. sumption of the capital, and ten per cent. upon the

In some respects, this mode of supporting hospitals is preferable to voluntary contributions, which are usually derived from a humane but limited portion of the community, and the dependence upon which renders. the hospital-management sometimes uncertain. There is a department of the French executive expressly devoted to the management of the hospitals; and in the regulations it enforces, yet, by the preliminary although it may sometimes be found needlessly minute information it obtains concerning the necessities of the applicants, it prevents much imposition, and by the uniformity of its plans effects more good with a certain independent and often rival institutions. The effect of means, than could be brought about by a number of the amended system of hospital management has been to diminish the number of admissions, although the poor population of Paris, prior to the Revolution, was only are better provided for than formerly; thus, while the 660,000, there were 35,000 poor and sick persons received into the walls of its institutions; in 1829, when the population was between 800,000 and 900,000, accommodation only existed for 15,000 individuals. The other towns in France are well supplied with hospitals, especially Strasburgh and Lyons; the Hotel-Dieu of the latter city is considered one of the noblest hospitals in Europe.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »