HOSPITALS
12. THE HOSPITAL OF ST. NICHOLAS, CARLISLE
The vicissitudes of the hospital of St.
Nicholas, Carlisle, the best known house in
the county, display many features of great
interest in the history of eleemosynary institutions. It was of royal foundation at some
period before the reign of King John, but the
name of the founder or the date of the foundation has not been preserved. Hugh Todd,
a former canon of Carlisle, ascribed the foundation to William Rufus, (fn. 1) the most unlikely
of all the kings. As its records and muniments perished after the outbreak of the wars
of Edward I. with Scotland, when the hospital was plundered and burnt, its early history
must remain in comparative obscurity. Only
two deeds of endowment, which are of any
value, are known to exist, and these are on
record in the register of Bishop Kirkby.
The first reference to the hospital that has
as yet come to light is a letter of protection from King John sent in 1201 to the
lepers of Carlisle. (fn. 2) About the same date we
have a charter from Hugh de Morvill endowing the hospital of St. Nicholas outside the
city of Carlisle with a ploughland of his demesne in the village of Hoff near Appleby,
the land and goods of Richard the smith of
Burgh, his villein, 40s. of land in Thurstonfeld, and other lands and rents elsewhere on
the condition of finding one chaplain to
celebrate divine offices for the souls of the
faithful, and maintaining, with the consent of
the master and brethren, three infirm brothers
(tres fratres infirmos) on his presentation
and on that of his heirs for ever. (fn. 3) At a later
period perhaps, while Bernard was bishop and
Geoffrey his archdeacon, Adam son of Robert,
the true patron of a moiety of the church of
Bampton near Carlisle, gave to the hospital
and the sick people (infirmis) there serving
God a moiety of the tithe sheaves of Little
Bampton, with the proviso that two sick
persons should be maintained on the nomination of himself and his successors. If these
nominations were not made, five skeps of
meal should be distributed to the poor on the
Feast of St. Nicholas. In any other eventuality, the bishops of Carlisle were authorized
to dispose of the tithe as they thought best
for the good of the donor's soul. (fn. 4) It is evident from the tenor of these charters that
the advantages of the institution were not
exclusively confined to lepers at the opening
of the thirteenth century, for though it had
been originally founded as a leper-house, the
qualifications for admittance must have been
modified to some extent by the conditions
attached to successive endowments. That
such was the case we shall presently see.
The early history of the hospital was the
subject of an inquest before a royal commission in 1341, when all the available evidences
were brought under review and a verdict was
returned on the oath of the jurors. (fn. 5) It was
ascertained by this commission that the institution was founded by some king of England,
long before the time of memory, for the sustenance of thirteen lepers, men and women, a
master in Holy Orders who should be resident and sing mass at his will, and a chaplain
who should sing mass daily for the benefactors
of the hospital. This king, whose name the
jurors knew not, endowed the institution
with great possessions of lands for the perpetual support of the master and lepers as
well as the brethren and sisters, appointed
for them a chapter and a common seal which
should remain in the custody of the master
and of two or three or four of the lepers,
and ordained that the lepers should always be
clad in clothes of russet and live under the
rules of the hospital for ever. It was also
appointed at the foundation that the master
as well as the brethren and sisters should have
commons together within the precincts, saving
this, that the master might appoint a temporary substitute if he had to attend to the
business of the hospital elsewhere.
The original constitutions of the hospital
were observed until by lapse of time the
greater part of the lepers died, (fn. 6) when by common consent of the master, brethren and sisters, their places were filled by poor, weak
and impotent folk (pauperes, debiles et impotentes), which led to a modification of the
existing rules. We have already noticed how
the bequests of Hugh de Morvill and Adam
son of Robert contributed to this change.
Other donations followed with similar conditions. The commonalty of the city of
Carlisle granted to the hospital on every Sunday for ever a pottle (potellum) of ale from
each brewhouse of the city, and a loaf of
bread from each baker exposing bread for sale
on Saturday, in return for which the master
should receive into the hospital, on the presentation of the mayor and commonalty, all
the lepers in the city. By virtue of these
grants, the donors and their successors possessed the right to present lepers and other poor
persons for maintenance in the institution.
In 1292 a dispute arose about the patronage of the hospital. (fn. 7) The Bishop of Carlisle
claimed the right of instituting the master on
the presentation of the brethren who made
choice of a fit person for that purpose. The
Crown denied the right of the inmates to
elect a master from their own body, and
challenged the jurisdiction of the bishop over
the hospital for any purpose whatever. When
the matter was referred to the judges of assize,
the jury found that the patronage was in the
king's hand, for though Bishop Ireton made
the last appointment, the king's ancestors
always conferred it till the time of Henry III.
Besides, the brethren were never in the habit
of electing any one. The gross value of the
hospital was returned at that time at £35
13s. 4d., out of which twelve sick persons
(languidi) were maintained with a master and
a chaplain to celebrate divine offices, which
chaplain had the assistance of a clerk.
The verdict of the jury, by which the
Crown recovered the patronage, had a momentous effect on the internal observances of
the hospital. The master nominated by the
bishop resigned or was dispossessed. Hugh
de Cressingham, a justice in eyre and 'an insatiable pluralist,' according to Prynne, before
whom the case was decided, was appointed in
his place. The new master drew up a code
of rules, formed no doubt on the old model,
for the government of the house. (fn. 8) These
constitutions are of considerable interest and
may be summarized as follows: All the
brethren and sisters on their first entry should
take an oath of obedience and fealty to the
master and to live chastely and honestly
within the cloister and without when sent on
business of the hospital; that they should rise
in the morning at the ringing of the bell and
come in person to the church or chapel to
pray for the faithful departed, all the benefactors of the hospital, and specially for the
royal family; that they should have a cloister,
the gates of which should be closed with iron
bars both day and night, and specially by
night; that a general porter should be
specially appointed and sworn to guard the
gates according to rule, whose business also
it would be to keep the well (fontem) and the
court within and without the cloister clean
from all defilement; that the brethren should
sleep in one house and likewise the sisters in
another by themselves; that none of the
brethren or sisters should go out of the cloister
wandering about the country or city without
special leave of the master; that the brethren
should work as long as they could for the
common benefit of the hospital; that no
brother or sister should go out of the cloister
under penalty by night by the walls or the
gate, or by day from the ringing of the bell
in the hall until the ringing of the bell in the
church; that the brethren and sisters should
be obedient to the precepts of the master or
his deputy in all things lawful and honest,
and any brother or sister found refractory or
disobedient, for the first offence should lose
his or her livery and be admonished, for the
second should lose the two next liveries and
be admonished to amend, otherwise on the
third offence he or she should be expelled
from the cloister and be entirely deprived of
his or her corrody without hope of return;
that the master should not permit any married
man or woman staying within the cloister to
pass the night with wife or husband, brother
or sister, within the cloister, to commit fornication or other offence on pain of expulsion;
that a brother or sister making a quarrel or
charge unjustly, whereby public or private
scandal should arise, should suffer similar penalties; and that none should usurp any office
or power within the hospital without the
assent of the master and the more discreet
part of the chapter.
When the war broke out in 1296 between
the two kingdoms, the hospital from its position without the walls of Carlisle was open to
attack and soon became impoverished and
almost ruined. It was found next to impossible to observe the rules laid down a few
years before. Whereupon Richard Oriell,
the custos during the absence of Hugh de
Cressingham the master, managed as best he
could in the altered state of political affairs.
It was arranged by him that each of the
brethren and sisters should receive yearly from
the hospital by the hands of the master for
sustenance two skeps of barley, two skeps of
oats, two skeps of flour, three strikes of wheat,
if there was wheat enough from the wainage of
the hospital, two cart and two wagon loads of
wood, a portion of the bread and ale received
from the commonalty of Carlisle, and 4s. out
of the rents of the hospital for clothing and
other necessaries till the house was relieved. (fn. 9)
The procedure introduced by Oriell and
followed by some of his successors was a great
benefit to the house, whereby it was much
enriched, and many poor persons other than
foundationers were participators in its alms.
When Edward II. bestowed the custody on
Thomas de Wederhale, the good governance
of the hospital began to decline. The new
master was not a chaplain and did not observe
the rules of the foundation or the constitutions made by his predecessors. He wasted
the goods in many ways and kept the common
seal in his own possession, and charged the
hospital with corrodies to divers people without the assent of the brethren and sisters.
The chapter of the hospital soon ceased to
exist under his methods. When an inmate
of the hospital died, no other was admitted to
residence according to the rules of the foundation, those being non-resident who were admitted on the presentation of benefactors like
the heirs of Hugh de Morvill and the commonalty of Carlisle. During the mastership
of Wederhale the number of lepers and other
poor persons was curtailed, and divine worship
and works of piety were wholly withdrawn,
except that he retained a chaplain to sing
mass daily and eight poor persons who dwelt
elsewhere and lived on the goods of the
hospital. The affairs of the house went from
bad to worse. Each succeeding master was
no better than the last. The hospital became
the perquisite of the master and was farmed
for his own profit. (fn. 10) Nor did that official cease
to forward his own interests. In 1336 the
royal tax gatherers were forbidden to assess the
goods of the hospital, as it had been founded
by the king's progenitors, and was so slenderly
endowed that there was scarcely a sufficiency
for the maintenance of the master and brethren
and other poor persons who resorted there. (fn. 11)
The condition of the hospital became a
public scandal, and reports on its dilapidation
and mismanagement were laid before the
Bishop of Carlisle and the Crown. The
king prohibited the bishop from visitation, no
doubt on the representation of Thomas de
Goldyngton, the master, as irregular and inconvenient in institutions of royal foundation or patronage. (fn. 12) Commissions of inquiry
into the misrule of the hospital became the
order of the day. In 1335 an inquisition
ad quod damnum found that the rules had not
been observed as they ought to have been
for thirty-six years and more, because the
said place was burned and totally destroyed,
first by the Earl of Buchan's war and afterwards several times by the Scots, so that the
constitution had not been and as yet could
not be observed. (fn. 13) Matters dragged on till
the summer of 1340, when a visitation of
the hospital was made by a commission consisting of the bishop and prior of Carlisle,
Robert Parvyng, and Robert de Eglesfeld,
parson of Burgh under Stainmore. The
whole history and management of the institution was probed to the bottom and a sweeping
report on its condition, as already detailed,
was made. The master was ordered to appear
before the king in his chancery at Westminster, the common seal was taken from
him, and the corrody holders were delivered
to the custody of the prior of Carlisle. (fn. 14)
The internal condition of the hospital was
again an anxiety to the authorities in 1380.
It was the duty of Simon, Archbishop of Canterbury, to visit it, but as he was unable
through urgent business to do so personally,
he commissioned the prior of Wetheral, Hugh
de Westbrook, and Adam, parson of Bolton,
to undertake the inquiry. The terms of
reference extended to divers defects in respect
of its houses, books, vestments and other
ornaments, the diminution of its chaplains,
the alienation and waste of its lands, and
quarrels among its ministers. (fn. 15) As a new
master was appointed a few months afterwards, it may be taken that a reformation had
been effected by the visitation. The hospital
lingered on as an independent institution till
1477, when Edward IV. transferred it with
all its lands, tenements, rights, liberties, franchises, commodities, and emoluments to the
priory of Carlisle, the grant to take effect on
the death or cession of the master. For this
concession the priory was obliged to find a canon
who was a priest, to be called the king's chaplain,
to celebrate masses and other divine services
in the monastery for the good estate of the
king and his consort Elizabeth, Queen of
England, and their children, and for their
souls after death. (fn. 16) It should be remembered
that the change in the constitution of the
hospital did not impair the right of those who
had a legal interest in its endowments. The
Dacres continued to exercise the privilege of
presentation of poor men to corrodies as the
lords of Burgh had done since the days of
Hugh de Morvill. On the death of Humphrey Lord Dacre in 1484, the nomination
to a corrody in the hospital of St. Nicholas,
Carlisle, at that time worth 13s. 4d. a year,
was reckoned among the Dacre possessions in
right of the barony of Burgh-by-Sands. (fn. 17)
One feature of the endowments of the
hospital deserves a special mention inasmuch
as it appears to have been a common appurtenance of leper houses, that is, a thrave of
corn was due from time immemorial from
every ploughland in the county of Cumberland. In 1358 a jury reported a long list of
defaulters in various parishes who had detained their contributions for the past eight
years. These dues ought to have been delivered in the autumn of each year to the
bailiff of the hospital. (fn. 18) Bishop Appleby was
obliged to denounce the practice in 1371. The
sheaves were called 'thraves of St. Nicholas,'
and were due, in the bishop's opinion, by
grant of the kings of England. (fn. 19)
In 1541 the possessions of the hospital
were included in the endowment charter of
the dean and chapter of Carlisle, (fn. 20) whose
estates were charged under the letters patent
to maintain a chaplain to celebrate divine
offices in the hospital in presence of three
'bedells' and the lepers therein, with a pension
for the said poor 'bedells.' There is now no
trace of the buildings of the hospital in existence; nothing is left of the institution but
the name of the district of St. Nicholas in
Botchergate to the south of the city. From
the parliamentary survey of 1650 we learn
that the hospital was altogether destroyed
during the siege of Carlisle in 1645, and that
the churchyard belonging to it abutted on the
highway on the south and east. Evidences
of burial have been found in that district during the last century. The whole site is now
covered with streets and modern dwellings.
Masters of the Hospital of St. Nicholas,
Carlisle
William, chaplain, circa 1200 (fn. 21)
Robert son of Ralf, temp. John (fn. 22)
William, rector, circa 1240 (fn. 23)
John, rector, circa 1245 (fn. 24)
Symon, master, 1270 (fn. 25)
Hugh de Cressingham, 1293-7 (fn. 26)
Richard de Oriell, custos, 1300 (fn. 27)
Henry de Craystok, master, appointed in
1303 (fn. 28)
John de Crosseby, 1309-27 (fn. 29)
Thomas de Wederhale, temp. Edw. II.
confirmed in 1327 (fn. 30)
Ralf Chevaler, 1328 (fn. 31)
William de Northwell, 1332 (fn. 32)
Thomas de Goldyngton, 1334 (fn. 33)
John de Appleby, 1369 (fn. 34)
William de Cotyngham, 1380, (fn. 35) resigned
in 1388
Nicholas de Lodal, warden, 1388, (fn. 36) resigned in 1389
John de Grysedale, warden, 1389 (fn. 37)
William Hayton, clerk, resigned in
1423
John Canonby, 1423 (fn. 38)
John de Thorpe, last independent master, circa 1477 (fn. 39)