“Dear Both Sides”
West-Wood Toll-Gate House

To the Editor of the “Rushden Echo”

Dear Sir, - In Mr. Fisher’s account of Rushden, No. XIV., he states that nothing now remains of this except “The Gap,” or widening of the road at the spot where the house stood in the county of Northamptonshire on the left - hand side as you go from Rushden to Bedford, and as near as I can tell about 20 yards on this side of the division of the counties.

As I passed by the “Toll-House” about 300 times I well remember it. During that time I walked about 4,500 miles, and need not tell you that the roads were very different from what they are now.

I have only mentioned this to keep the History correct as far as I can. – Yours etc.,

J. ENOS SMITH
22, Church-street,
Rushden,
Sept. 29th 1920

To the Editor of the “Rushden Echo”

Dear Sir, - Your local annalist’s surmise that in bygone days Rushden had its own water-mills is quite in agreement with what we find in the Doomsday account of the great Peverel manor of Higham, of which Rushden was a member. He is less happy, however, when attempting to explain the frequent use of the plural “mills” in cases where only one mill seems to be in view. This plural is usually supposed to indicate that more than one pair of stones were installed in the same building. The local Minister’s accounts of the Duchy for several centuries have constant references to “the two water-mills of Ditchford, under one roof, and the three water-mills of Higham Ferrers.”

In the Doomsday extent of the lordship four mills are set down, viz.,one each to the townships of Higham, Rushden, Knuston, and Irchester, their annual values respectively being 20s., 10s., 20s., and 16s. These values appear to be a sure indication that all four were water mills. There was a second mill in Knuston belonging to the manor of the Cioches fee in that township. As its annual value is set down at 8d, we may safely assume that it was not a water mill. No subsequent mention of it has been found.

The placing of Ditchford mills in the township of Rushden by the compiler of Bridges county history is simply one of his innumerable blunders. The mills stand at the north-eastern extremity of the ancient civil township of Knuston, which from time immemorial has been a chapelry of the parish of Irchester. It may be mentioned in passing that the demolition of its ancient church of St. Leonard, and the obliteration of its churchyard, were among the great works of ecclesiastical reformation accomplished under Tudor rule. In the accounts of the Receiver of Higham Ferrers for 1314, we find that officer paying the Rector of Irchester 5s. of accustomed tithe from Ditchford mills.

With regard to the site of the Rushden mills I can say nothing. None of the eminent authorities in local history – Bridges, Cole, Whellan’s Directory, or Kelly’s Directory – can tell us anything about them. They are mentioned in the return of Edmund, Earl of Lancaster’s inquest post mortem held at Higham on May 13th 1298. The jury say that in Rissenden there are two water-mills, and their value is not extended because they have fallen down, or been pulled down. No later mention of them has been found, although we have a range of Rushden bailiff’s accounts extending from 1313 to 1666. Some additional information, partly bridging the gap between Doomsday and 1298, came to my hand a week ago when engaged in a supplementary search of the early Duchy Records. This consists of the enrolment of five documents, viz:-

(1) A grant in fee by William de Ferrers, son of William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, to Robert de Punchardon , of all his mills of Russindene, with their suit and appurtenances, to be held by service of the fortieth part of one Knight’s fee. The date, is not mentioned, but the grantor succeeded his father in 1247, and died in 1254.

(2) Robert de Punchardon’s grant in fee tail to his son, William, of his two mills, etc., in Russindene, undated.

(3) William, Earl of Ferrers’, confirmation of the foregoing grant in fee tail, dated July 19th 1249.

(4) William de Punchardon’s grant in fee to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, of his mills in Russindene, with all their suit, and all lands, meadows, and pastures appertaining, dated November 28th 1280.

(5) The said William’s appointment of his attorney to give the said Earl seisin of the said mills.

This is probably all that we shall ever know of our lost Rushden water-mills.

It is interesting to note that at some earlier date Ditchford mills had also been granted away in fee, to be held by Knight service, and that Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, recovered them in similar fashion.

Higham mills were granted in fee-farm to the bailiffs and burgesses of that town a century later, but apparently the grant was cancelled, as the mills are found in the lord’s hands a few years afterwards.

Why, may I ask, is it assumed that the Rushden Spital was only a guest-house or place of entertainment for man and beast? Was there not a religious foundation known as the Hospital of St. James, somewhere in the neighbourhood?

Yours etc.,
BETA KAPPA
Oct. 4th 1920.

P.S. — The wind-mills referred to by the local annalist must have been comparatively modern structures. No rivals to the mills of Higham and Ditchford were allowed in Rushden or neighbouring townships down to at least, the middle of the 17th century as several enterprising persons found out to their cost. B.K.

Supplementary Notes

To the Editor of the “Rushden Echo”

Sir, - In response to the very informing letter of “Beta Kappa,” which evidences a thoroughness in local historic and antiquarian research that calls for the thanks of the “Echo’s” many readers, some statement in explanation seems to be called for. This is further evidenced by the interest which has been shown by many, in one way or another of the various phases touched upon by “your annalist.” Past Rushden is now a matter of record, or it is for ever lost, and it is because of this that the compilation has been made from facts obtained from many and varied sources.

The two additional historic forms of spelling – Rissenden and Rissendene – in “Beta Kappa’s” notes, add philologic interest, and the writer in his rambles came across a William de Rissenden, a priest of Knotting parish for two months in the year 1302. That is the record, as it hangs in the church porch of that truly rural village Knotting, a record of incumbents from the early 13th century to the present time.

The prime meaning of the word “mill” is, undoubtedly, a pair of stones horizontally placed, the upper one made to revolve by hand power over an under fixed stone. Examples from excavated Pompeii, overwhelmed by Vesuvian ash, soon after the time of Christ, and the prophetic words of the Master Himself, “Two women shall be grinding at the mill,” etc., very clearly show this. When horse or water power took the place of manual labour each pair of stones was, naturally, considered a mill, so that the “plural” mills, would be the term used, when more that one set of stones were driven by the same motive power, as “Beta Kappa” explained in his letter. When, however, the writer referred to a watermill used in conjunction with a windmill, the case of Higham Ferrers was in mind; here Mill Field and Mill Hill give the location, on the upland above the watermill, though the mill itself has long ago disappeared, though of much more recent structure than is the other.

The location of the two Rushden watermills that “Beta Kappa” has given such complete historic record of is, as he says, a matter for conjecture, though a trace of the location of one is in evidence in the name “Mill Hole,” a spot below the comparatively recently demolished Staunch, but above the confluence of Sydney Brook with the river. This fact was imparted to me by an interested reader of these “annals” who is intimately acquainted with this river district, and it is reasonable to assume that the name points to the location of one of the lost watermills. With the opening up of the one-time extensive horse-pulled river barge traffic, where “The Wharf” somewhat lower down river than is this probable mill site, bears mute evidence of departed river busy days, there was a wholesale destruction of many an old landmark, to better the river route.

Bridges was quoted by “your annalist” for what the statement given about Ditchford Mill might be worth to history. He compiled his history in the early part of the 18th century, but the “Book of Award,” a tithes roll for Rushden parish of 1779 (and the last) now kept in Rushden Council Chambers, makes no mention of the present Ditchford Mill being in Rushden parish at that time. “Beta Kappa” certainly seems to have all facts there in his favour, as against Bridges.

The Doomsday value of the several mills of this locality, as given by “Beta Kappa,” is most interesting, as that is a sure evidence, by which the differentative rental values between the water and the lesser mill – those driven by horse or possibly by manual labour – can be readily gauged.

“Beta Kappa’s” passing word relative to the lost pre-reformation St. Leonard’s at Knuston, makes one wonder as to where the Church was situated. Truly the English political Reformation proved to be the zenith of destructive influence, if not worse, for nearly four centuries of re-constructive effort have only faintly touched that destructive vandalism – and the “Poor Laws” and their rates are still with us.

There is, assuredly, evidence that the Ecclesiastical Hospital of St. James existed within the town proper of Higham Ferrers. Coles states that it was probably situated on the site of either Archbishop Chichele’s College or on that of his Bede House. If so it must have been demolished well over a hundred years before the Reformation.

Another possible site was called into evidence when certain ancient farm buildings were demolished some few years ago, just to the south of the Wesleyan Church. At that demolition blocked up windows were found, the jamb mouldings and general contour of which distinctly showed them to be of an Early English or early 13th century character. As the first known Warden of the Hospital was created in 1258 this building might very well have been erected as the St. James’s Hospital, which was a house of a religious fraternity. Adam de Warwick was its first Warden, and as John de Chelveston, who was made Warden in 1285, is the only other one that record makes mention of, it is very possible that this St. James’s Hospital had but a fleeting existence as a Religious House.

In any case St. James Hospital could not have been located on Spital Hill, for at that time, it was a most lonely spot, well within the parish of Rushden, and quite unsuited as the site of the vanished St. James.

It was on just such spots as Spital Hill, that travellers hostels were situated. If they only gave a rough shelter accommodation for the traveller they were known as “Cold Harbours,” to distinguish them from the more hospitable hostel. Two such names still exist on the Roman road near to Dunstable; the shelters have long since disappeared, but the name may have come down from remote Roman times.

In more than one friendly talk over this “Spital Hill,” suggestion was made that the Hospital was a leper pest house. This is possible, but scarcely probable. A noticeable omission in churches of this immediate locality is that of the south side, low chancel window, usually associated with the priest’s administration of the sacrament to leper worshippers, who had, perforce, to remain outside the church building. These low side windows are found immediately to the north-west across the river valley, one at Little Addington is a typical south-side “leper window,” the other, on the north chancel side of Great Addington Church, overlooks a tomb, and was probably placed there so that a person could see from the outside, if the tomb light were burning.

As a supplementary item of interest it may be stated that in Rushden there is a room over the North parvise or porch, known as a parvise room. This may originally have been a priest’s room, or, more probably, a place for keeping books, manuscripts, and other articles of church furniture. In more recent years, and until the time of that product of Poor Law genius, “the workhouse,” an old woman was allowed to live there free of rent. It should be stated that the only approach to this room is from the outside, by a ladder. In the adjacent church at Wymington, over the south porch, thee is a parvise chamber, which is entered from the church, on the side of the door opposite to where the defaced stoup is situated. Stone steps are used here.

Many a friendly chat has been the outcome of the occasional papers printed in the Rushden Echo, and brought to an end in its last issue. In this connection informing items have been gleaned, and the Rushden coin of 1666 date has been shown by an enthusiastic numismatic. As an example of interest it may be stated that in one short walk there was occasion to stop twice as the result of varied opinions with regard to the exact whereabouts of “Dial Farm.” The sundial itself is an ever present evidence in favour of the one described by “Your Annalist,” and Mr. Day, of “Elim Meeting” fame certainly lived there; even so, there is an impression amongst some that the old Manning farmhouse, situated in Little Street, was known as Dial Farm. Was there ever a sundial on that farmhouse?

The “gap” on the Bedfordshire side, along the high road led to the slip in statement that both house and garden were located in that county, whereas the house itself, but not the garden, was situated in Northamptonshire. In this connection one informant assured me that the house was a stone built one, whilst another was equally sure that it was constructed of red bricks – and both saw this building, when standing.

In conning over the many annalistic details of this Rushden, evidence has again and again been brought to light to show how soon facts are lost after the disappearance of the object itself.

In some cases one may be tempted to exclaim, as in this couplet-

“Ah ! can such difference-then be,
Twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee,”

as did the critics with regard to the opera war that raged between the opera composers, Handel and Bounoncine, in the thirties of the 18th century, which led to Handel’s financial failure as an opera manager in London. But then that failure led to Handel’s inspired production of those marvellous musical epics “The Messiah” and “Israel in Egypt,” as also that most dramatic of his oratorios “Judas Maccabens” an inspiration that must thrill many Rushden musicians of even this far-away twentieth century.

Linotype slips happen, here and there, as, for instance, where Henry V1 should be Henry VII, the first of the Tudor kings – the union of the roses. Again a slip converted the proverbial philosophy “Keep within Compass” the quotation on the old Compass Inn, into “Keep within the Compass.” Ask any of Rushden’s Temperance “stalwarts” or prohibitionists whether there is, or is not a difference between the two statements, and then again, ask the same question to those who know more of the inside of the public house than do these.

It will be a pleasure to make record of further annals that may accrue, as the result of any additional facts being given to “your Annalist.”

Other annalistic notes have been gleaned, here and there, such as those touching upon “The Craft,” upon folk-lore, upon ancient customs, upon education and music, and upon geology and other natural characteristics. These may be recorded at a future time, should evidence of interest warrant the venture.

Very Truly,
“YOUR ANNALIST.”

The Mediaeval Hospital of St. James

To the Editor of the “Rushden Echo”

DEAR SIR – The early rolls of the burgesses’ court of Higham Ferrers afford the clearest evidence that the ancient hospital of St. James was situated in the parish of Rushden, on the northern acclivity (or possibly on the summit) of the eminence overlooking the southern end of Higham Ferrers town. That eminence has been known from time immemorial as “The Spital Hill.” A note to this effect was published by the present writer, a year or two back, in volume 33, page 333 of the Reports and Papers of the Associated Architectural Societies. For several centuries this extremity of the main street of Higham Ferrers was called “St. James End” or “The Spital End,” and the variant of “St. James Street” often appears in the court rolls.

There was a public road or lane (now represented by a field path) from the Spital End of Higham, running along the boundary between that parish and Rushden towards Newton Bromshold. The spital close came down to that lane, but we have no means of knowing how far the inclosure extended up the hill or over its crest, or the approximate position of the hospital within it. Your readers will not fail to recognise what an ideal position this was for a lazar-house, being sufficiently isolated from the adjacent town of Higham to meet the not too exacting sanitary requirements of the time, and at the same time so near that the inhabitants could not ignore the constant appeal of the hospital to their charity, while its proximity to an important highway would enable the poor outcasts to supplement their daily pittance with the alms of the passers-by.

A few years ago, when reading the early Northants Assize Rolls, the present writer found the report of a case heard at Northampton, in Michaelmas term 1285. The plaintiff was John the Chaplain, Warden of the Hospital of St. James without Hecham. This was probably the John de Chelveston who became Warden in 1265. The “without” is unmistakable, the word in Latin of the record being extra. which puts the hospital outside the boundary. It seems that a much earlier Warden, one William Bunche, whose name occurs as Vicar of Rushden before 1230, had improved the shining hour of his mastership by conveying to his relatives some small parcels of land belonging to the foundation. These the present Warden recovers. A summary of this case, which brings to our notice the only mention of the inmates that has been found, was printed in volume 34, page 100, of the Reports and Papers already referred to. The inmates are described as the male and female lepers, a clear proof that the hospital was a lazar-house in the 13th century; and that they were regular inmates, and not mere chance wayfarers, appears by the court’s recognition of their claim to be the brethren of a community, sharing with the Warden the control of the property of the house that gave them shelter.

No one can deny that Dr. Fisher has the support of all the printed authorities, for what it is worth, when he confidently locates St. James’s Hospital in the town of Higham Ferrers, but how insignificant was the sum of their knowledge of its documentary history! Apart from the present writer’s two notes in the Reports and Papers of the Architectural Societies, the latest authoritative word on the subject was penned in the year 1906, by that eminent antiquary, the late Rev. Dr. Cox, in his article on the Religious Houses of the County, appearing in the second volume Northants Victoria County History; and neither jot nor title was he able to add to what Bridges had brought to light in the eighteenth century. As your readers already know, that was simply two entries on the rolls of Bishop Gravesend of Lincoln, recording the presentation of Adam de Warwick and John de Chelveston, in 1258 and 1265 respectively, to the Wardenship of the Hospital of St. James of Higham. Undoubtedly, it was this description of the hospital that led Bridges, as well as all who were content to copy from him, to locate the hospital in the wrong parish, although in one sense the description was accurate enough, since, viewed from the manorial standpoint, Rushden was no more than a subordinate administrative unit of the great seigniory that bore the name of its most important town.

About the year 1908, the Canterbury and York Society completed the publications of an earlier Lincoln register, viz., that of Bishop Hugo de Welles, and then there was revealed a reference to the hospital which Bridges had overlooked, and which gave the parish of Rushden as its location. This was the record of Thomas de Northampton’s institution as parson (persona) of Rushden church, together with the Bishop’s award assigning their respective portions of the fruits of the church, as well to the new parson or titular rector, as to the Cluniac priory of Lenton which held the appropriate rectory by William Peverel’s gift. The parson’s share included an annual rent of 7s 8d to be received from the hospital of St. James in the same parish.

It is quite a mistake to suppose that records of our Rushden spital are scarce, and that it is impossible to learn the names of the later Wardens. Among the present writer’s files of his own transcripts and notes of records bearing upon the local history, few are bulkier than that labelled “St. James of Rushden.” It contains an almost complete list of the Wardens from 1258 to 1548, the year in which this and hundreds of the other similar foundations were dissolved, and their endowments seized and disposed of for the profit of the Crown. There are also transcripts of the patents appointing most of the later Wardens, as enrolled in the Duchy Chancery.

Beside these Chancery records, some in old French and others in mediaeval Latin, there are hundreds of extracts from the local manorial accounts (commonly called the Bailiffs’ accounts, although they were really drawn up by the Auditors’ clerks) of which there is a series extending with some gaps, from 1313 to 1665. The hospital of St. James is mentioned in every roll of the series,-- from 1313 to 1548, in connection with an annual remission of the rent of 40s.,due to the manor for a certain free tenement which seems to have been the chief endowment of the foundation; and in the later rolls by the bailiffs’ notes of the receipt of the rent of the same tenement from the persons to whom it had been demised by the Crown. From about 1460 onward invariably the hospital is said to be situated in the parish of Rushden. The free tenement, judging by the ancient quit-rent payable from it, may have extended to about 60 acres of arable, lying divided in the three open fields of Higham, with the usual appurtenant rights of commonage. Such a holding was equal to the support of a middle-class family and, with the remitted quit-rent of 40s., many have furnished a sufficient income for the maintenance of the house. The allowance of rent is said to be made to the lord’s chaplain, celebrating in the hospital of St. James for the lord and for the souls of his ancestors, as well as for other works of charity. The free tenement and the few acres of land recovered in the Assize case, with the close and the buildings standing therein, are the only property of the foundation mentioned in the records, and the remitted rent was the only contribution made to its support by the noble and royal lords of Higham.

In the patents of the Wardens appointed in 1400 and 1419, the hospital is said to be “near our town of Higham Ferrers.” In 1443 and 1451, it becomes “our hospital within the parish of Rushden.” The next appointment (1463) gives us “the hospital of St. James of Higham Ferrers, otherwise called the hospital of St. James in the parish of Rushden.” The year 1486 brings a startling change which may mark the time when the house began to fall into ruin and ceased to have inmates, - “our chapel of St. James within our lordship of Higham Ferrers.” In 1507, 1518, 1520 and 1547 this becomes “our free chapel of St. James of Higham Ferrers.”

The early Elizabethan bailiffs’ rolls speak of the rent of the land and close called le Spitell lately in the tenure of John Sely, and belonging to the free chapel of St. James of Higham Ferrers. Many of the later rolls shorten it to the Spital alone, while some refer to the house as the Hermitage of St. James. It is remarkable that only one testamentary bequest to this foundation has been found, viz., one made by Henry Pomfret, of Rushden, to the hermit of St. Jamys Chapel in 1537. The use of the word “hermit” seems to point to a solitary priest, living alone in the deserted hospital, now probably falling into ruin; although reasons will presently appear for suspecting the hermit of having a companion in his quiet retreat, a state of things that would account for the absence of the bequests for masses so generally lavished upon reputed hermits, who were supposed to be persons of peculiar sanctity.

The warden at this time was Gabriel Throkmerton, appointed in 1520. He was succeeded early in 1547, a few weeks after the departure of Henry VIII, “to his own place,” by John Sely, who, upon the suppression of the hospital a year or two later, was awarded a pension of 40s, which he continued to draw until the year 1587.

Sely owed his appointment to Throkmerton’s indiscretion in having married a wife – a certain woman, says the record – quite two years before the legislature gave a very reluctant and reserved sanction to clerical marriages. The officials who framed Sely’s patent refer to his predecessor’s offence in the following terms, - “in matrimonio et conjugio cum quadam muliere nunc uxore sua se conjunxit et copulavil et cam duxit in uxorem suam” – which seem to suggest that the marriage was not Throkmerton’s greatest sin.

On March 8th, 1588, the property of the hospital finally passed from the Crown by Queen Elizabeth’s grant in fee to Edmund Downyng and Miles Dodding. The grant comprised confiscated church lands and tenements in many counties, two choice tit-bits being the rectories of All Saints’ and St. Paul’s in Bedford. The following is the description of the hospital property, rendered into English from the Latin of the Chancery enrolment:-

“All our close of land or pasture called the Spittle, otherwise the Spittle close, with its appurtenances, lying and being in Rushden in our county of Northampton, and late parcel of the lands and possessions of the late free Chapel in or near Higham Ferrers in our said county, with the ditches and boundaries of the same close, together with all our land, meadow, feeding and pasture formerly Sely’s, with their appurtenances, lying and being in Higham Ferrers and Rushden aforesaid, and also in Irthlingboroughe in the said county, formerly belonging to the said late free Chapel in or near Higham Ferrers.” A fee-farm rent of 40s, a year was reserved.

Dr. Fisher’s recent remarks about “leper-windows” will be best answered by the following extract from a work by a writer well known in this district, than whom none is better qualified to speak the last word on such a subject. Speaking of popular notions relating to “low side” windows, he writes:- “Most popular has been the idea that they were used by lepers, who could not take part in the common services of the church, but could assist at mass and even be communicated through these windows. This fancy disregards the sanitary precautions of the middle ages, which were excellent and plentiful. We may well believe that the people of Burton Lazara would have been horrified if they had seen, one Sunday morning, at mass, their two low side windows darkened by sufferers from the dreadful disease, for whom a hospital with its chapel was carefully provided in their own village.” (The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church, by A. Hamilton Thompson, F.S.A., published in 1911 in the series of Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature).

In conclusion, the present writer must say how greatly he enjoyed the perusal of Dr. Fisher’s admirable “sketches” in which he has so ably elucidated the less remote period of Rushden’s history. Every reader of the Rushden Echo must have been quick to recognise his special gifts – not the least being his bright and racy style – fitting him for the task now brought to a brilliant finish. There will be a few, no doubt, sufficiently interested in his work (although having no time to write history themselves) to see that it speedily assumes a permanent form.

The more remote periods of Rushden’s story – mediaeval, Tudor, Stuart – from Domesday to the advent of William of Orange – now await the man, and the hour, and the money for their elucidation; but what a prodigious task!

Yours, etc.,
BETA KAPPA

Rushden – Past and Present

To the Editor of the “Rushden Echo”

Dear Sir, - Common courtesy calls for at least a word of acknowledgment and of thanks for “Beta Kappa’s” able letter of the 19th ult. It is an exhaustive exposition of “the St. James’ Hospital,” from contemporary historic records. “Beta Kappa” has thoughtfully given me credit for being true to printed record, as I knew it, but I was entirely unaware of the translation and printing of the Higham Court Rolls, etc., until he kindly sent me copies. A considerable portion of these publications, it is to be noted, are due to the scholarship of “Beta Kappa,” and so, if ever possibility allows of an amended and extended publication of my occasional papers in book form, it will be a pleasure to use the results of “Beta Kappa’s” researches into historic record, with due acknowledgment as to where the information was compiled from.

My record of Rushden is intended for the general reader, to keep alive the knowledge of many details, which, otherwise, will soon be lost, and to create an interest in local antiquarian things of worth. It has borne fruit beyond expectation, and in special so as regards “Beta Kappa’s” two welcome letters. The historical research work from contemporary records would, beyond doubt, bring forth golden results, for mediaeval England, as it concerned the people at large, is far too little known. It will be pleasant news to learn that conditions permit “Beta Kappa” to undertake the history of mediaeval Rushden, and the centuries beyond, from documentary evidence. That completed history would be a worthy unit. The aggregate of such histories would be a true record of England throughout the Middle Ages and beyond.

It is not my desire to enter upon what might prove to be controversial matter, yet the use of the “low side” or, as often called, “leper window,” is still a mystery. Thompson, in his Parish Church Architectural History, in no wise clears the matter up. He makes a general statement with regard to the sanitation of the Middle Ages, but does not support it with proof. Good sanitation scarcely suggests that the Warden of a leper hospital would be allowed to take on such other duties as would bring him into contact with the community at large, as is seemingly implied, here and there, in the St. James’ Hospital records.

Records to hand now clearly prove this building to be a leper hospital, with its own chapel and chaplain, situate within the parish of Rushden, but evidently for the use of the district at large. This being so, is it not at least just possible that some “low side” windows were used along the lines of popular acceptance, that of the administration of the Sacrament to leperous unfortunates?

The facts concerning St. James’ seem favourable to this idea. Low side windows are most usually found in the churches of small and generally isolated parishes, such parishes as would be out of touch with such an institution as the St. James’ Leper Hospital. Here occasional patients could be served at the window by the aid of a long handled utensil, in fact, many of these “low side” windows are so recessed as to make it impossible for the priest from the inside to come in personal contact with an individual on the outside of the church. The leper idea, so popularly upheld, seems to be at least as probable, as is the “sanctus bell” possibility put forth by Thompson, for which he admits he has no proof whatsoever.

The outstanding value of “Beta Kappa’s” researches into past documentary record, and of that of other kindred spirits throughout this realm, is that many statements, now based upon mere hypothesis or tradition, will then be either proved or disproved. This is indeed a worthy application of the highest in scholarship.

Very truly,
CHARLES R. FISHER