_History of the Hospital Movement._--We have now to consider the principles upon which the provision of the best form of medical care in hospitals can be secured for all classes of people. Though hospitals cannot be claimed as a direct result of Christianity, no doubt it softened the relations between men, and gradually tended to instil humanitarian views and to make them popular with the civilized peoples of the world. These principles, as civilization grew, education improved, and the tastes and requirements of the common people were developed, made men and women of many races realize that the treatment of disease in buildings set apart exclusively for the care of the sick was, in fact, a necessity in urban districts. The establishment of a hospital freed the streets of the abuses attendant upon beggars and other poor creatures, who made their ailments the chief ground of appeal for alms. As the knowledge of hygiene and of the doctrine of cleanliness and purity in regard not only to dwellings and towns, but also in relation to food of all descriptions, including water, became known and appreciated, hospitals were found to be of even greater importance, if that is possible, to the healthy in crowded communities, than to the sick. It took many centuries before sound hygiene really began to occupy the position of importance which it is now known to possess, not only in regard to the treatment and cure of disease, but to its prevention and eradication. So the history of the world shows, that, whereas a few of the larger towns in most countries contained hospitals of sorts, up to and including the middle ages, it was not until the commencement of the 18th century that inhabitants of important but relatively small towns of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants began to provide themselves with a hospital for the care of the sick. Thus, twenty-three of the principal English counties appear to have had no general hospital prior to 1710, while London itself at that date, so far as the relief of the sick was concerned, was mainly, if not entirely, dependent upon St Bartholomew's and St Thomas's Hospitals. These facts are interesting to note, because we are enabled from them to deduce from recent events that hospital buildings in the past, though the planning of most of them was faulty to begin with and became more and more faulty as extensions were added to the original buildings, did in fact suffice to satisfy the requirements of the medical profession for nearly two centuries. In other words, under the old condition of affairs the life of a building devoted to the care of the sick might be considered as at least 150 years. To-day, under the conditions which modern science impose upon the management, probably few hospital buildings are likely to be regarded as efficient for the purpose of treating the sick for more than from 30 to 50 years. Entry: HOSPITAL
The statistics given above indicate a wide range of variation in the conditions prevailing in different towns in Germany; and that holds good with regard to improvements. The administration of the laws relating to public health and housing is in the hands of the local authorities. The public health service is generally efficient and sometimes very good. Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the sanitary inspection of houses and in some towns it is now thorough and systematic, but active efforts to deal with old and insanitary quarters _en masse_ are isolated and exceptional. Hamburg is an instance; scared by the visitation of cholera in 1892 the authorities put in hand an extensive improvement scheme on the English plan at a cost of half a million sterling. But demolition is exceptional; slums are usually subjected to supervision and are not allowed to be in a state of dilapidation, and sometimes, as at Mannheim, notices are served to abate overcrowding. In Munich a policy of gradually buying up insanitary houses has been adopted. But improvement has principally been promoted by new building and the reduction of the population in old insanitary quarters, to which cheap locomotive facilities have greatly contributed. The great bulk of urban Germany is new, and the most valuable contribution made by it to the housing question is the more effective control of new building and particularly the principle of town-planning, coupled with the purchase of neighbouring ground with a view to future extension. This policy is comparatively recent and still very partially applied, but it is now rapidly extending. A general act providing for the planning of streets was passed in Prussia in 1875 and still forms the basis of building legislation; but as noted above no effective by-laws were adopted even in Berlin until after 1887, and consequently a very faulty style of building was adopted, especially in large blocks which conceal grave defects behind an imposing exterior. The Saxon towns have been conspicuously successful in regard to housing. Leipzig stands alone among German towns in having 83.4% of its population living in dwellings of 4 rooms and upwards. Yet it is a great commercial city, the fifth in the empire, with a population of upwards of half a million. It also comes low on the rent table, having an index number little more than half that of Berlin. All the Saxon towns are low, Chemnitz and Zwickau particularly so, and the position of Dresden, being a capital, is remarkable. More than two-thirds of the population live in dwellings of 4 rooms or more, and the rent index number is only 54. In Saxony a general Building Act, especially providing for town planning, was passed in 1900; and the Grand Duchy of Hesse, which alone among the German states has a government Housing Department, adopted a Housing of the Working Classes Act in 1902. Other states have followed or are following and the air is full of movement. The distinctive features of urban housing reform in Germany are (1) the systematic planning of extensions, (2) purchase of ground by municipalities, (3) letting or sale of municipal land for building under prescribed conditions. Many of the great towns, including Berlin, Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Cologne, Frankfort and Düsseldorf, are owners of land to a variable but sometimes large extent. This policy seems to have been originally adopted on economic grounds and those municipalities which bought or otherwise came into possession of town land at an early date derive a substantial revenue from it now, besides being in a position to promote housing improvement. There is comparatively little municipal building, and that as a rule only or principally for municipal servants, as at Düsseldorf, Mannheim and Nuremberg; but there seems to be a tendency to venture further in this direction and some towns have built houses for letting. The municipalities generally sell or let their land, and the building agencies which enjoy most official favour are the societies "of public utility"; they are encouraged in every way and have greatly developed, particularly in the Rhine province. Some are co-operative, others semi-philanthropic in that they aim at building good houses and limit their profits. In 1901 the Prussian Government issued an order urging municipalities to support these societies by remitting the cost of constructing streets and sewers, placing the assistance of building officials at their disposal, taking their shares, lending them money and becoming security for them. A great deal of public money has been advanced to building societies, and one very important source of supply has been developed, since the Old Age and Infirmity Insurance Act of 1889, in the National Insurance Funds which invest their surplus capital in this way. Down to 1906 the Boards of insurance had lent £8,650,000 to societies for building; the Imperial Government had lent £1,250,000, the Prussian Government £1,825,000, and the other states further large sums in addition to the municipalities. Money lent by the state is usually limited to building houses for state employees and Insurance Boards lend on condition that the houses are let to persons who come under the insurance laws. The development of building societies has been promoted by the formation of general building associations of which the earliest was established in Düsseldorf in 1897 for the Rhine provinces; under its influence one-fifth of the new housing provided in 1901 was erected by the societies. The example was followed at Frankfort, Münster and Wiesbaden. Housing by employers has also been carried out on a large scale in Germany. States and municipalities have to some extent built houses as employers, the former chiefly for railwaymen, besides lending money to societies for the purpose; but most housing of this kind has been done by private employers. Krupps, who had built 4274 dwellings housing nearly 27,000 persons down to 1901, are the most famous example; but they are only one among many. In Rhineland and Westphalia employers had in 1902 provided 22,269 houses containing 62,539 dwellings at a cost of £10,500,000; more than half the families so housed belonged to the mining industry, the rest to various manufactures. These two provinces, in which industrial development has been extremely rapid, are exceptional; but housing by employers is not confined to them. At Mannheim for instance over 1000 working-class households have been so provided. At Nuremberg the Siemens Schuckert Company have encouraged an interesting system of collective building among their employees, by which 722 dwellings have been provided. Entry: OTHER
GELASIUS II. (Giovanni Coniulo), pope from the 24th of January 1118 to the 29th of January 1119, was born at Gaeta of an illustrious family. He became a monk of Monte Cassino, was taken to Rome by Urban II., and made chancellor and cardinal-deacon of Sta Maria in Cosmedin. Shortly after his unanimous election to succeed Paschal II. he was seized by Cencius Frangipane, a partisan of the emperor Henry V., but freed by a general uprising of the Romans in his behalf. The emperor drove Gelasius from Rome in March, pronounced his election null and void, and set up Burdinus, archbishop of Braga, as antipope under the name of Gregory VIII. Gelasius fled to Gaeta, where he was ordained priest on the 9th of March and on the following day received episcopal consecration. He at once excommunicated Henry and the antipope and, under Norman protection, was able to return to Rome in July; but the disturbances of the imperialist party, especially of the Frangipani, who attacked the pope while celebrating mass in the church of St Prassede, compelled Gelasius to go once more into exile. He set out for France, consecrating the cathedral of Pisa on the way, and arrived at Marseilles in October. He was received with great enthusiasm at Avignon, Montpellier and other cities, held a synod at Vienne in January 1119, and was planning to hold a general council to settle the investiture contest when he died at Cluny. His successor was Calixtus II. Entry: GELASIUS