“I,——, do promise before God and St. Bartholomew and all saints, that to the best of my power I will be faithful and useful to the hospital, . . . to be obedient to my superior and have love to my brethren and sisters. I will be sober and chaste of body; and a moiety of the goods I shall die possessed of, shall belong to the house. I will pray for the peace of the church and realm of England, and for the king and queen, and for the prior and convent of St. Martin, and for the burgesses of Dover on sea and land, and especially for all our benefactors, living and dead.” After making this vow, the brother was sprinkled with holy water and led to the altar, where he received the warden’s blessing on bended knees. The form of general benediction was prescribed (with special collects if the [p132] candidate were a virgin or a widow), and a prayer was said at the consecration of the habit.[85] 2. REGULATIONS The general rule of poverty, chastity and obedience was supplemented by detailed statutes. (a) _Rules concerning Payment and Property._—There are some instances of compulsory payment by statute. If the candidate at Dover satisfied the warden’s inquiries, he might be received into the community after paying 100 shillings, or more if he could. Even then gratuities were expected; half a mark was offered to the warden and half a mark distributed among the brethren and sisters. The entrance fee sounds prohibitive, but the _Liber Albus_ records a similar custom in London under the title _Breve de C solidis levandis de tenemento Leprosorum_. This edict authorized the levying of 100_s._ from lepers’ property to be delivered to their officers for their sustenance. Sometimes hospital statutes provided against this practice. Thus the chancellor’s ordinances for St. Nicholas’, York (1303), forbade the admission of any one by custom or by an agreement for money or goods, but without fear of simony the property of an in-coming brother might be received if given spontaneously and absolutely. The statutes are of special interest because evidently framed to reform abuses recently exposed; and the details of the cross-questioning by the jury and the replies of witnesses in that visitation are recorded. We learn, for example, that most of the inmates had been received for money “each for himself 20 marks more or less”; one, indeed, [p133] with the consent of the community, paid 23 marks (£15. 6_s._ 8_d._), a considerable sum in those days. Under special circumstances the patron sometimes countenanced a bargain. Thus when a healthy candidate for admission to St. Bartholomew’s, Oxford, promised repairs to the chapel, the timber of which was decayed, he was received contrary to rules by the king’s express permission (1321). The question of the property of the warden, officials and inmates now comes before us. The staff were frequently under the three-fold vow which included poverty. The rule at St. John’s, Nottingham, was as follows:—