“Three sons who are not to have patrimony—The son of a priest, the son of a leper, and the son of a man who had paid his patrimony as blood land. The son of a leper is not to have it, because God has separated him from worldly kin—that is, such son as a leper may have after being adjudged to a lazar-house; and a son a priest shall have after taking priestly orders; and the third has no patrimony, as his father, prior to him, had determined it by law.”—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 556. See also p. 603.) “Three persons to whom saraad [fine for insult] is not due—A leper, a natural fool, and an alltud [an alien serf] who is not married to an innate Cymraes: And, nevertheless, there is worth in law attached to each of them, and whoever shall ill-use them and injure them in person and property is subject to a dirwy [fine or punishment].—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 656.) “Three persons who are not to be invested with the judicial function—An inefficient person, as one that is deaf, or blind, or maimed, or leprous, or insane, or mute,” etc. etc.—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 671.) “A leper cannot be a pleader.”—(_Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales_, p. 764.) The Welsh term for leper is _Clafwr_, obviously an adaptation of the Latin word. It should be kept in view that the license which the Welsh laws give to the wife to leave a leprous husband is in direct contradiction to the canon law as declared by Pope Alexander III. to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1180:—“Mandamus quatenus si qui sunt in provincia tua viri vel mulieres qui lepræ morbum incurrunt, ut uxores viros et viri uxores sequantur, et eis conjugali affectione ministrent, sollicitis exhortationibus inducere non postponas. Si vero ad hoc induci non poterunt, eis arctius injungas ut uterque altero vivente continentiam servet. Quodsi mandatum tuum servare contempserint, vinculo excommunicationis adstringas.”—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 656. Edit. 1747.) The same Pope, in the same year, decreed that lepers might marry:—“Leprosi autem si continere nolunt, et aliquam quæ sibi nubere velit invenerint, liberum est eis ad matrimonium convolare.” He settled another and more delicate point:—“Quodsi virum sive uxorem divino judicio leprosum fieri contigerit, et infirmus a sano carnale debitum exigat, generali præcepto Apostoli, quod exigitur est solvendum: cui præcepto nulla in hoc casu exceptio invenitur.”—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 656. Edit. 1747.) Pope Urban III. found, in 1186, that subsequent leprosy was a sufficient reason why betrothed persons should not be compelled to marry.—(_Corpus Juris Canonici_, vol. ii. col. 657. Edit. 1747. See also col. 344.) NOMENCLATURE OF THE DISEASE.—The terms “Leprosi” and “Elephantuosi.”