FRASER, SIR WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, Bart. (1826-1898), English politician, author and collector, was born on the 10th of February 1826, the son of Sir James John Fraser, 3rd baronet, a colonel of the 7th Hussars, who had served on Wellington's staff at Waterloo. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, entered the 1st Life Guards in 1847, but retired with a captain's rank in 1852. He then set about entering parliament, and the ups and downs of his political career were rather remarkable. He was returned for Barnstaple in 1852, but the election was declared void on account of bribery, and the constituency was disfranchised for two years. At the election of 1857 Sir William, who had meantime been defeated at Harwich, was again returned at Barnstaple. He was, however, defeated in 1859, but was elected in 1863 at Ludlow. This seat he held for only two years, when he was again defeated and did not re-enter parliament until 1874, when be was returned for Kidderminster, a constituency he represented for six years, when he retired. He was a familiar figure at the Carlton Club, always ready with a copious collection of anecdotes of Wellington, Disraeli and Napoleon III. He died on the 17th of August 1898. He was an assiduous collector of relics; and his library was sold for some £20,000. His own books comprise _Words on Wellington_ (1889), _Disraeli and his Day_ (1891), _Hic et Ubique_ (1893), _Napoleon III._ (1896) and the _Waterloo Ball_ (1897). Entry: FRASER
The history of Brabant is connected with that of the duchy of Lower Lorraine (q.v.), which became in the course of the 11th century split up into a number of small feudal states. The counts of Hainaut, Namur, Luxemburg and Limburg asserted their independence, and the territory of Liége passed to the bishops of that city. The remnant of the duchy, united since 1100 with the margraviate of Antwerp, was conferred in 1106 by the emperor Henry V., with the title of duke of Lower Lorraine, upon Godfrey (Godefroid) I., "the Bearded," count of Louvain and Brussels. His title was disputed by Count Henry of Limburg, and for three generations the representatives of the rival houses contested the possession of the ducal dignity in Lower Lorraine. The issue was decided in favour of the house of Louvain by Duke Godfrey III. in 1159. His son, Henry I., "the Warrior" (1183-1235), abandoned the title of duke of Lower Lorraine and assumed in 1190 that of duke of Brabant. His successors were Henry II., "the Magnanimous" (1235-1248), Henry III., "le Debonnair" (1248-1261), and John I., "the Victorious" (1261-1294). These were all able rulers. Their usual place of residence was Louvain. John I., in 1283 bought the duchy of Limburg from Adolf of Berg, and secured his acquisition by defeating and slaying his competitor, Henry of Luxemburg, at the battle of Woeringen (June 5, 1288). His own son, John II., "the Pacific" (1294-1312), bestowed liberties upon his subjects by the charter of Cortenberg. This charter laid the foundation of Brabantine freedom. By it the imposition of grants (_beden_) and taxes was strictly limited and regulated, and its execution was entrusted to a council appointed by the duke for life (four nobles, ten burghers) whose duty it was to consider all complaints and to see that the conditions laid down by the charter concerning the administration of justice and finance were not infringed. He was succeeded by his son, John III., "the Triumphant" (1312-1355), who succeeded in maintaining his position in spite of formidable risings in Louvain and Brussels, and a league formed against him by his princely neighbours, but he had a hard struggle to face, and many ups and downs of fortune. He it was to whom Brabant owed the great charter of its liberties, called _La joyeuse entrée_, because it was granted on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter Johanna (Jeanne) with Wenzel (Wenceslaus) of Luxemburg, and was proclaimed on their state entry into Brussels (1356). Entry: BRABANT
_The Evolution of the Modern Hospital._--The evolution of the modern hospital affords one of the most marvellous evidences of the advance of scientific and humanitarian principles which the world has ever seen. At the outset hospitals were probably founded by the healthy more for their own comfort than out of any regard for the sick. Nowadays the healthy, whilst they realize that the more efficient they can make the hospital, the more certain, in the human sense, is their own chance of prolonged life and health, are, as the progress of the League of Mercy has shown in recent years, genuinely anxious for the most part to do something as individuals in the days of health in the cause of the sick. Formerly the hospital was merely a building or buildings, very often unsuitable for the purposes to which it was put, where sick and injured people were retained and more frequently than not died. In other words the hygienic condition, the methods of treatment and the hospital atmosphere were all so relatively unsatisfactory as to yield a mortality in serious cases of 40%. Nowadays, despite, or possibly because of, the fact that operative interference is the rule rather than the exception in the treatment of hospital patients, and in consequence of the introduction of antiseptic and aseptic methods, the mortality in hospitals is, in all the circumstances, relatively less, and probably materially less, than it is even amongst patients who are attended in their own homes. Originally hospitals were unsystematic, crowded, ill-organized necessities which wise people refused to enter, if they had any voice in the matter. At the present time in all large cities, and in crowded communities in civilized countries, great hospitals have been erected upon extensive sites which are so planned as to constitute in fact a village with many hundreds of inhabitants. This type of modern hospital has common characteristics. A multitude of separate buildings are dotted over the site, which may cover 20 acres or upwards. In one such institution, within an area of 20 acres, there are 6 m. of drains, 29 m. of water and steam pipes, 3 m. of roof gutters, 42 m. of electric wires, and 42 separate buildings, which to all intents and purposes constitute a series of distinct, isolated hospitals, in no case containing more than forty-six patients. On the continent of Europe buildings of this class are usually of one storey; in the United States, owing to the difficulty of obtaining suitable sites and for reasons of economy, some competent authorities strenuously advocate high buildings with many storeys for town hospitals. In England the majority have two to three storeys each, the ward unit containing a ward for twenty beds and two isolation wards for one and two beds respectively. The two storeys in modern fever hospitals, however, are absolutely distinct--that is, there is no internal staircase going from one ward to the others, for each is entered separately from the outside. This system carries to its extreme limits the principle of separating the patients as much as possible into small groups; the acute cases are usually treated in the upper ward, and as they become convalescent are removed downstairs. In this way the necessity for an entirely separate convalescent block is done away with and the patients are kept under the same charge nurse, an arrangement which promotes necessary discipline. The unit of these hospitals is the pavilion, not the ward, and consists of an acute ward, a convalescent ward, separation wards, nurses' duty rooms, store-rooms for linen, an open-air balcony upstairs into which beds can be wheeled in suitable weather, and a large airing-ground for convalescent patients directly accessible from the downstairs ward. Each of the pavilions is raised above the ground level, so that air can circulate freely underneath. The wall, floor and air spaces in the scarlet fever wards of one of these hospitals are respectively 12 ft., 156 ft. and 2028 ft. per bed; and in the enteric and diphtheria wards they have been increased to 15 ft., 195 ft. and 2535 ft. respectively. The provision of so large a floor and linear space, especially in the diphtheria wards, is an experiment the effect of which will be watched with considerable interest. A building of this type is a splendid example of the separate pavilion hospital, and is doing great service in the treatment of fevers wherever it has been introduced. Some idea of a hospital village, some of the wards of which we have been describing, may be gathered from the circumstances that it costs from £300,000 to £400,000, that it usually contains from 500 to 700 beds, and that the staff numbers from 350 to 500 persons. The medical superintendent lives in a separate house of his own. The nurses are provided with a home, consisting of several blocks of buildings under the control of the matron; the charge nurses usually occupy the main block; where the dining and general sitting-rooms are placed; the day assistant-nurses another block; and lastly, by a most excellent arrangement, the night nurses, 80 to 120 in number, have one whole block entirely given up to their use. The female servants have a second home under the control of the housekeeper, and the male servants occupy a third home under the supervision of the steward. The two main ideas aimed at are to disconnect the houses occupied by the staff from the infected area, and to place the members of each division of the staff together, but in separate buildings, under their respective heads. These objects are highly to be commended, as they have important bearings upon the well-being and discipline of the whole establishment and constitute a lesson for all who have to do with buildings where a great number of people are constantly employed. Entry: HOSPITAL