The Lord Leycester: The Life, Times and Scandals of the Hospital and Its Residents

The Lord Leycester Hospital at its core was founded as a moral institution. It was established in 1571 by an Act of Parliament with the support of its first patron (and namesake), Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Dudley was an influential member of the court of Queen Elizabeth I (who also played a role in the early days of the hospital, personally recommending some of the first Brethren). These influential political and aristocratic connections demonstrate that this was a well-respected institution from the outset, with wide-ranging support from the upper echelons of society.

The hospital was founded to provide accommodation and financial support for members of the ‘deserving poor’, specifically men who were formerly soldiers or part of the Earl of Leicester’s household. These members became known as Brethren (or brothers) and were given a financial stipend for themselves and their families in return for following the hospital’s regulations and performing work for the institution. By providing this support, the hospital formed part of a new era of charitable institutions that were desperately needed to fill the gaps in welfare provision left by religious institutions and guilds in the wake of the Reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries.

Although in this way the Lord Leycester signalled a new era of welfare institutions, in other respects it was very much a continuation of older traditions. Much like its predecessors, it maintained strong religious ties. Hospital masters for almost 400 years of its existence were exclusively clergymen, as they were considered to have the skills necessary to morally run such an organisation. Alongside this, the moral and religious aspects of the hospital remained important more generally. Church visits and regular prayer formed key parts of the expected duties of the hospital’s Brethren, and individual brothers’ continued membership depended on their adherence to the hospital’s moral codes.

However, despite these strong moral foundations, the hospital’s history is punctuated with instances of scandal and power struggles. In fact, the very beginning of the hospital is marked by scandal surrounding the acquisition of the buildings themselves. The buildings had been under the ownership of the town burgesses of Warwick at the time but were gifted to Robert Dudley in 1571. This was an attempt by the town burgesses to regain Dudley’s favour and to apologise after they publicly snubbed him by failing to greet him upon his arrival in Warwick, causing a local scandal. This first political conflict would be far from the hospital’s last, as its position as a nationally renowned welfare institution and the nature of the situations of its destitute residents made it an unfortunately frequent stage for political machinations and moral scandals over its four centuries of existence.

The Master and Politics

The position of master at the Lord Leycester Hospital was well-respected and – originally – well remunerated. Masters received wages and upkeep payments as well as being entitled to a quarter of the annual earnings from the hospital’s land. In the early years of the hospital, the role was made even more desirable as one that radical Protestant figures could hold. This can be seen as both the second and fourth masters – Thomas Cartwright, an infamous Presbyterian preacher, and one of Cartwright’s followers respectively – had previously been imprisoned by the Privy Council for ‘seditious activities’. This idea of some level of stability and protection for Protestant radicals in the role made it even more sought-after.

Alongside the stability the role offered, the position also entailed considerable power, as the master had a say in who was appointed as a member of the Brethren and in important decisions about the Brethren’s lives, such as if a brother should be expelled or whom they could marry.

At certain times, the responsibilities and privileges that came with the role of master caused power struggles between the master and others, such as the Brethren, patron, and ‘visitors’ (public figures with the power to inspect the hospital). For instance, the ninth master, Samuel Jemmat, created a conflict with the Brethren when his small master’s income (limited to £50 under the original rules rather than rising with inflation in subsequent centuries) led him to steal from the Brethren’s portion of the hospital’s income. This caused the Brethren in turn to disobey him and appeal to the visitors for help, eventually forcing Jemmat to repay the money.

It was not just the Brethren that the master sometimes came into conflict with. The power of the role in deciding who could become Brethren led to power struggles between the master and patrons. For example, in the late 19th century under master George Morley, arguments over who should decide which applications to accept as Brethren resulted in lesser-qualified candidates being appointed more quickly than other, more highly qualified and destitute applicants.

The masters were far from alone in causing conflict during the Lord Leycester’s history though, and despite these instances, they were generally responsible for maintaining order, especially concerning the conduct of the Brethren.

The Brethren and Their Behaviour

The Brethren of the Lord Leycester, in return for their stipend and upkeep, were expected to perform certain duties at the hospital, such as attending church visits, and to abide by rules governing their moral behaviour. In the early years of the hospital, there seem to have been few problems in this regard, given the lack of records indicating misdemeanours. The first expulsion of a brother did not occur until Timothy White was master (1650–1661), but within his tenure White expelled three brothers.

One of the brothers White expelled was removed on grounds of long-term absence, but expulsions were more frequently linked to immoral behaviour. Expulsions were particularly commonly associated with misdemeanours related to drunkenness. In one case, this justification was extended to ban a wife of a brother from living at the hospital due to her immoral and drunken behaviour. These expulsions were partly to preserve the hospital’s reputation but also to maintain the comfort of the other Brethren – and in some periods, their families – living at the hospital.

The fact that drunkenness was among the most common reasons for expulsion is telling. It reflects anxieties about alcoholism among the poor, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, but may also suggest this was a long-term problem for some residents more widely. This, in turn, may indicate historical origins for the modern reality that veterans are far more likely to suffer from alcohol and substance misuse due to higher rates of poor mental health. This underscores the importance of studying the history of places like the Lord Leycester to better understand modern times.

Conclusion

Focusing on the conflicts in the Lord Leycester’s history does somewhat detract from the largely positive impact it has had. It has improved the lives of many veterans and has been a positive force in its local community: providing church services, participating in pageants, and helping preserve local history. Despite this, the conflicts and scandals of the Lord Leycester remain important evidence of wider societal changes and continuities – both in the case of welfare for veterans and in political and religious developments – that have played out throughout the institution’s history.

Bibliography:

Angus Crawford, ‘Theologian and locality: Cartwright, Puritanism and the local Lord Leycester Hospital in Tudor Warwick’, Midland History, 50, (2025), 3-24

The Lord Leycester Hospital database, https://www.lordleycesterdatabase.co.uk/

‘The importance of Addressing addiction amongst veterans’ , UK addiction treatment centres, https://www.ukat.co.uk/blog/society/the-importance-of-addressing-addiction-among-veterans/#:~:text=their%20mental%20health.-,Substance%20misuse%20rates%20amongst%20veterans,with%20a%20rate%20of%205%25

‘Veterans are twice as likely to run out of food than people who have never served in the armed forces’, The Trussell trust, https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/news/veterans-are-twice-as-likely-to-run-out-of-food-than-people-who-have-never