referred becomes less when we examine the words of the 'Prerogativa,' and perceive all they signify. They run, in English, as follows:

"The King shall have the custody of the lands of natural fools, taking the profits of them without waste or destruction, and shall find their necessaries of whose fee soever the lands be holden; and after the death of such idiots he shall render it to the right heirs, so that such idiots shall not aliene nor their heirs shall be disinherited.

'Also the King shall provide, when any that beforetime hath had his wit and memory happen to fail of his wit, as there are many with lucid intervals, that their lands and tenements shall be safely kept without waste and destruction, and that they and their household shall live and be maintained competently with the profits of the same, and the residue, besides their sustentation, shall be kept to their use, to be delivered unto them when they come to right mind; so that such lands and tenements shall in no wise be aliened; and the King shall take nothing to his own use. And if the party die in such estate, then the residue shall be distributed for his soul by the advice of the Ordinary.'

The King thus took the superfluous income of idiots, but not that of those with acquired insanity.

The 'Prerogativa' is a document which, whether enacted as a statute or not, probably stated what, at the time of its composition, was regarded, at least by the Crown lawyers, as being within the competence of the Crown, either by law or ancient custom. Some of the statements which it contains are based on previous statutes, e.g. that touching the King's right to wreckage. Others, including those touching idiots and lunatics, do not appear to have any such statutory basis. There is, however, indirect evidence that the right in question existed in earlier days. The records contain clear proof of the King's charge of idiots, of which, strange to say, no notice has been taken by any writer on the subject, legal or other. The estates of these 'idiots' or 'fatuous' are stated to be in the King's hands; and he commits them to some custodian, with the stipulation that he shall provide the owner with the due necessaries of life, and shall pay to the King annually a certain specified sum. The entries are for several years, before and after the

date of the 'Prerogativa,' the earliest belonging to 1300.* All these entries in the Rolls series relate to idiots. This agrees with the distinction made in the 'Prerogativa,' by which the King could appropriate the income of the idiot but not that of the subject of acquired insanity. It is the more significant because in the Pleas of the reign of Edward I there are entries relating only to the invalidity of deeds, but they refer to those executed by persons non compos mentis as well as by the idiot and 'fatuous.'

The charge of the insane continued to be in the hands of the Crown, but was delegated to the Lord Chancellor, as the King's representative, possibly from the first. It is said that in the reign of Henry VIII the 'Court of Wards' took over his duties in this respect. Be that as it may, the charge was resumed by the Lord Chancellor when that court was abolished by statute (12 Car. II, c. 24); and in his hands, as representing the sovereign, the charge still remains.

The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries afford us little other trace of any actual care of the insane. They were then regarded as subjects to be treated rather than tended. The treatment was in part by medicinal agents, by certain so-called 'simples,' but chiefly by measures intended to be curative, and determined by the theory of 'possession' by evil spirits. The fury of the maniac seemed to need mechanical restraint; and the supposed cause of his fury, a somewhat vague idea of demoniacal possession, made it seem reasonable that, if he had to be bound, it should be to sacred pillars in churches, of which some were held in special esteem for the purpose. For less severe cases of derangement, recourse was had to sacred wells, with the same object. The occasional quietude produced by long restraint and exhaustion would be referred to the sacred influence. A like combination of motives may have determined the flogging and whippings which were inflicted on the unhappy sufferers to get rid of the evil spirits that possessed

* Abb. Rot. Originalium, 28 Ed. I, i, 112. The treatise called 'Fleta,' probably composed about 1290, tells us (I, xi, § 10) that, the tutores' of older days having abused their charge, it was enacted that the King should have the charge of idiotæ et stulti.'

them. Physical suffering has often been, in the past, a means of self-improvement; and, when evil tendencies were personified, it is not surprising if the same system was adopted as a means of treatment. We may conceive that, occasionally, an apparent confirmation of its utility confirmed the belief. The influence of pain and exhaustion combined may arrest an attack of maniacal furor, or hasten the end of one that has nearly run its course. As always happens, the few apparent successes eclipse the common failures; and the exception is held to prove the rule. This may well have established a belief in the efficacy of such measures, on what seemed then to be reasonable ground. The fear inspired by furious, and even by quiet, mental derangement has a very solid foundation; and the obvious safety involved in chain and shackle must have been a powerful motive in the adoption of such restraint, and may have strengthened the faith in it. So much should be recognised in explanation of the tortures inflicted, which descended to an age when less excuse can be found. For any real care of the insane, such as we now consider to be their paramount need, we may search during this period in vain.

But private effort has ever anticipated public duty. Through the Middle Ages active beneficence, all the wide range of good-doing which we now associate with the word 'charity,' was confined to one channel. Abundant as it was, it was the work of the various bodies of men who are included under the term 'religious orders.' The gulf seems deep between those who adopted the life of recluses with the object of saving their souls, and those who gave themselves up to the assistance in the present life of persons needing help 'in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity.' How much good the religious wrought in their daily life we can neither discern nor compute, but vast it must have been. It is not therefore surprising to find that it was a 'religious house' which made the first attempt to promote systematic care for those deranged in mind. Such sufferers were probably cared for, among others, in many establishments of the kind; but for long years one alone made this its main object-that which added to the English language the word 'Bedlam.'

The Priory of St Mary of Bethlehem, or of the Star

of Bethlehem,' was founded in 1247 by Simon Fitzmary for quite a different object, in order that the Bishop of Bethlehem in Palestine should have a home of his own to which to come when he visited England. It was made subject to the Bishop of Bethlehem; but not one bishop availed himself of the founder's hospitable designs. The Priory was alien, and, as such, it was seized by the Crown in 1375. How it came to pass that the Priory became the first home for the insane is uncertain; but in 1403, some years after its seizure by the Crown, this use was definitely established. An inventory of that date records that there were in it six pairs of chains, four manacles of iron, and two pairs of stocks-the means of treating, according to the current method, perhaps a dozen inmates. A story is related by Stow-who wrote, it is true, nearly two centuries later-that a religious house near the present St Martin's Lane was a still earlier receptacle for the insane. It was near the royal mews in which-on the present site of the National Gallery-the King's falcons were kept. The vague words of Stow's statement (which is often cited as a definite assertion) are worth quoting. Speaking of a lane leading up to the Church of St Martin's-in-the-Fields, he says:"Then had ye one house, wherein were sometime distraught and lunatic people. Of what antiquity founded, or by whom, I have not read, neither of the suppression; but it was said that sometime a King of England, not liking such a kind of people to remain so near his palace, caused them to be removed further off to Bethlem, without Bishop's Gate of London, and then to that Hospital. The said house by Charing Cross doth still remain.'

In whatever way the Priory first received its insane inmates, henceforth it seems to have been devoted to their care. A hundred years later we find Bethlehem had become Bethlem and even Bedlam, in popular language. A 'Bedlamite' was synonymous with an insane person; and 'Bedlam' beggars were discharged patients who sought alms near the Priory gate. This evidence of the notice that the work attracted is remarkable, considering that, even towards the end of the sixteenth century, there was provision for only twenty-four inmates. The state of these is said to have been loath

some. According to Stow, payment was exacted from at least some of them, although Sir Thomas Gresham, in 1575, left a bequest towards their support. During the seventeenth century the demand upon it increased; and, about 1650, fifty patients were received. Its income was augmented, not only by the payment for the inmates, but by their utilisation as a public show, a charge being made for the sight of the manacled and chained inmates on their straw. Pepys and Evelyn record visits. More noteworthy is the fact that, in the middle of the seventeenth century, a doctor was appointed governor-the first trace of the recognition of insanity as a disease.

The increasing demand on the accommodation of the hospital led to its removal to a new site in 1675, where Finsbury Circus now stands; and provision was made for 150 inmates. These were probably well paid for; and the evidence it afforded of the demand for such provision may have been the reason for the establishment of many private asylums towards the end of this century, with multifold abuses. It was not until 1713 that the example of Bethlem was followed by the foundation, by a generous lady, of Bethel Hospital, Norwich, for the lunatics of the city and county.

Private homes, which we may ascribe largely to the influence of Bethlem, had become numerous by the beginning of the eighteenth century. In some instances quack remedies were advertised by those who kept the establishments-nostrums to be taken by the mouth or rubbed on the head. The ease with which persons could be seized and conveyed to such places with a mere semblance of legal formality aroused widespread indignation, which Defoe expressed in his Journal,' but to little purpose. No attempt to afford more legal control can be discerned throughout the century. Private effort was not wanting. In 1751 St Luke's Hospital was established by voluntary subscription in the middle of the City; there it remains, though not on the original site. It is strange indeed that the asylum should be retained in a position, now destitute of any advantage, with almost every conceivable drawback, when the sale of the site would enable double or treble the amount of good to be effected outside London. The present building in Old Street was erected in 1780; and its gloomy aspect, familiar to many,