The leprosy is cured by a miracle at the tomb of S. Godric at Finchale, when the appearance of the face is thus described:— “tota sana comparuit, omnisque lepræ prioris fœda scabies jam recesserat, labiaque illius sana ac tenua, facies vero tota incontacta ac clara, velut parvuli cujusdam triennis apparebat. Quæ una cum matre sospes domum rediit, quæ illo prius tota lepræ pustulis et sanie contracta pervenit.” Among other witnesses to the miraculous cure, Ralph Haget, sheriff of Durham, “dicebat quod facies ejus cutis licet sana, tenera sit et clara, tamen ubi cicatrices ulcerum quondam fuerant illa superficies videtur aliquantulum comparere subrufa; labiorum vero extrema quæ frustris carneis pinis fuerant valliculata, tota sunt plena atque rotunda, sed aliquanto altius prominentia.” This was confirmed also by Norman the priest of Hailtune, who got the girl into the lepers’ hospital at Badele, near Darlington, and who subsequently showed her to his parishioners in his church.—(_Libellus de Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici_, pp. 457, 458.) The same writer, in the same work, gives other descriptions of leprosy. A young shepherd of the north of England “lepra percussus cunctis horrori fuit.” He is miraculously cured—“tumorque omnis cum deformi rubore fugatus abscesserat, novaque coloris insoliti superficies in facie et toto corpore ipsius relucebat; et nulla omnino pustula vel cicatricis macula in ipso residendo comparuit.”—(_Lib. de Vit. et Mirac. S. Godrici_, p. 431.) A woman—“diutino tempore toto corpore lepræ fuerat contagio maculisque cum pustulis horrende perfusa ... cunctis horrida et detestenda, nulli pene ad videndum tolerabilis fuerat.”—(_Lib. de Vit. et Mirac. S. Godrici_, p. 431.) RANK OF THE PERSONS ATTACKED BY LEPROSY. In 1203, a piece of land in Sudton in Kent was in dispute in the King’s court between two kinswomen—Mabel, the daughter of William Fitz Fulke, and Avicia, the widow of Warine Fitz Fulke. Among other pleas, it was urged by Avicia, that Mabel had a brother, and that his right to the land must exclude her claim. Mabel answered that her brother was a leper—“E contra dicit Mabilla quod leprosus est.” The judgment is not recorded; but the notice shows two things—(1) The doctrine of the civil death which followed leprosy; (2) The comparatively good condition of the person who in this instance was smitten with leprosy. The case is recorded in the _Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonesteriensi asservatorum Abbreviatio_, p. 39. Lond. 1811. Record Commission.