Cambridge (I suppose) as founders, had the presentation to the hospital of lepers' at Steresbridge near Barnwell, where there was, and is yet, a small chapel (then endowed) dedicated to St Mary Magdalene': this, they complain, had been likewise alienated from them by Hugh Norwold 5 and his successors, who had collated chaplains at their pleasure. But what is most remarkable, they find upon inquisition that there was a certain fair belonging to the said hospital at the feast of the exaltation of the holy cross within the precincts of the hospital, which was held 10 by grant from king John for the use and maintenance of the lepers; which falling in September, within the present compass allotted for that purpose, did doubtless give birth and original to Sturbridge fair. This is certain, that in Henry the Fourth's time the chaplain, John 15 Arondell, of the free chapel of Steresbrigge claimed a right of stallage within the precincts of that chapel from all persons merchandizing in that fair, and upon a hearing in the Exchequer the same privilege was adjudged to him upon this plea, that the same right had been enjoyed there 20 by his predecessors. This perhaps is too large a digression, but will not, I hope, be unacceptable to scholars, being only a ramble from Cambridge to Sturbridge fair. 30 To return to the house; I should not have ventured to have opposed so received an opinion upon less evidence 25 than I have produced, though I have much further evidence to confirm me in my opinion. I never could meet with any ancient history that says any thing of such a foundation by Nigellus bishop of Ely, nor have our modern antiquaries vouched any such authorities, which to me shews they either wanted them, or were very much wanting to themselves. The Historia Eliensis, which is more large upon this bishop than any of the rest, though it says much of his losses and expenses, yet of his charities it is perfectly silent. Among all the grants, confirmations, 35 rules or institutions that were given to the old house by his successors the bishops of Ely, there is not any (that ever I could meet with, and I believe I have seen them all) wherein mention is made of Nigellus bishop of Ely, Regrum Fordham. fol. 229. 1 Inquisit. ibid. 2 3 Regrum Elien. and yet it is usual with bishops in such instances to recite the grants and privileges of their predecessors. The same may be said of the bulls of confirmation of Gregory' and Innocent the Fourth; wherein though Innocent descends 5 to very minute particulars, yet nothing is said of this founder. Amongst all the grants and charters of the old house, which are pretty numerous, some of very ancient date, and some so ancient as to want a date, I never could hit upon any by Nigellus, after the strictest inquiry, 10 though the monuments of the old house are yet tolerably complete. And because ancient charters are little things, the more ancient, still the less, and consequently might easily be lost, there is an ancient cartulary, older than King's college (for therein is mention of our tenement in 15 St John Baptist's parish, then St Cross' hostel, since part of the site of that college, by exchange with Henry the Sixth for the fish ponds near St John's). In that cartulary, which contains copies of the grants and charters of our benefactors, there is the same silence as amongst 20 the charters. To say no more upon this head, there is a catalogues of such founders and benefactors, as were to be prayed for by the religious brethren; Eustachius bishop of Ely stands in the front of that catalogue, as he well deserves, (the family of the Mortimers stand next, who 25 gave endowments in the reign of Henry the Third) and no more mention of our supposed founder, than if he had never been; which had been an unpardonable omission, had he been really a founder, and had conferred such endowments, as he is supposed to have done. 30 For they that have made him so great a founder, have likewise discovered large endowments; archbishop Parker1, and after him Richard Parker", two very learned antiquaries, suppose him to have endowed it with revenues to the value of £140 per annum. For this the archbishop 35 seems to refer to the bull of Julius the Second, the bull, I suppose, of dissolution, which is none of the best authorities for the original foundation. I have an extract of 1 Ex instrumento Simonis Epi. Elien. dat. an. 1344. 2 Inter archiva coll. 3 Inter archiva. 4 Antiq. Brit. in append. 5 Σκελ. Cantabr. that bull, wherein are the words that seem to be referred1 to in my copy no more is said, but that the revenues of the house, within ten years, had been reduced to £30 from £76 of annual revenue, which pope Julius supposes it to have been endowed with ten years before, but says nothing 5 of its original endowment; nor can I easily guess out the mistake, unless seventy be mistaken for sevenscore. There were indeed two bulls of dissolution obtained from that pope, for the first having mistakes (and this might be one of them) they were forced to send to Rome 10 the second time for new bulls in better form. The originals of these bulls are lost; for bulls of privilege were sent up to Cromwell at his visitation under Henry the Eighth, and were not thought fit to be restored, the pope's power being then vested in the king, who by virtue of his supre- 15 macy could then give as large privileges, as popes had done before. Which of these bulls, or what copy, the archbishop had seen, I do not know, but I will suppose it to be the true one, and truly represented, being unwilling to question any thing that is said by so excellent 20 a person; and allowing it to be so, it is yet of no great weight with me: for the pope could say nothing but by information from hence, and it is plain from other particulars that his holiness had been ill informed. The pope in that bull sets forth, that the house had for some 25 years and did then want a prior, whereas William Tomlyn had been prior several years, and did not resign his claim till some years after; he says, there were only two brothers then remaining in the house, whereas there were three brothers after the dissolution that received pension from 30 the college, Sir Christopher Wright, Sir John Kensham, and Sir William Chandler. And whereas he says, the revenues of the house were then reduced to £30 per annum, it is very certain, the annual revenues of the house were £80. 1s. 10d.3 ob. after some charges and encumbrances 35 were cleared by the executors out of the foundress' estate. 1 Ut ex 140 annui census libris, quibus ab Epo. quondam Elien. donati essent, uno decennio triginta tantum reliqua fuerint, tum domus ipsa-ne 100 libris refici possit. 2 Ex archivis. But though the state of its affairs was bad enough, yet I doubt not but it was made somewhat worse than it really was; for the house being to be condemned, they were to load the indictment: this likewise might be some reason 5 for setting the original endowment so high, to make the brethren more criminal and the waste the greater. The truth of it is, its original endowments were very inconsiderable, as appears both by its small beginnings, as likewise by its continual growth, by the additional grants 10 at different times of different benefactors, who were so numerous that the cartulary of the old house does make a volume. But these grants were little things, houses in the town of Cambridge, or little tenements in the county. For in 15 Innocent' the Fourth's time, who recites its endowments when they were pretty considerably augmented, it had then spread no further than the county of Cambridge, whereas at the dissolution they had some lands both in Hertfordshire, Suffolk and Essex. And therefore Dr 20 Caius in this matter seems to be in the right, who supposes it to have been a poor house (and to have wanted augmentation in its beginnings), as it really was and is said to have been by the bishops of Ely (who knew it best) and particularly by Simon Montacute, who sets out 25 its wants with some tenderness and compassion. I know, it had been more for the honour of the foundation to have given it a greater patron and larger endowments; but I must prefer truth to the glory of the house, and Henry Frost ought never to be forgot, who gave birth 30 first to so noted a seat of religion, and afterwards to one of the most renowned seats of learning now in Europe. From Nigellus our supposed founder I meet with nothing concerning the hospital till Eustachius fifth bishop of Ely; he indeed was a considerable benefactor, 35 whose bounty to the house did justly entitle him to the first place in that catalogue. He appropriated the rectory1 of Horningsey to the hospital, reserving an endowment 1 Ex Bulla Innocentii dat. Lugdun. 8°. Id. Octobr. an. 1250. * Regr. Elien. 3 Archiva coll. 4 Ex charta originali inter ar chiva. of £5 per annum for a constant vicar, which he left to the patronage of his successors the bishops of Ely. He likewise appropriated St Peter's church in Cambridge' (now Little St Mary's) to the religious brethren at St John's: and that they might not want firing, he gave 5 them two ships or boats, to carry wood or turf from Ely marshes to keep them warm. He likewise granted to the hospital and the brethren there liberam cantariam et sepulturam, ubi voluerint et elegerint, or free sepulture, where they would or should choose, which privilege was 10 afterwards confirmed by Innocent the Fourth, and was indeed purchased by them by agreement, upon a valuable consideration, of Leticia prioress and the nuns of St Mary and St Radegund patronesses of All Saints' church, being the parish wherein the house was situated, which 15 as it was confirmed by Eustachius bishop of Ely, so he was likewise witness to the same agreement, as appears very fully from the original instruments amongst the monuments of the old house; where he does not only grant as bishop, but signs as witness. 3 20 It was probably upon this ground and these encouragements, that his successors, the bishops of Ely, set up for founders and patrons: for this worthy prelate having granted privileges as well as endowments (though he himself, who best deserved it, assumes no such title in his 25 grants), yet it was a plausible ground to his successors to claim some share in this foundation, and possibly no unacceptable occasion to the brethren to shake off (what might seem to them) a servile dependance, and put themselves under a greater and safer protection. It seems Hugh 30 Norwold struck in with their inclinations against the clamours of the townsmen, and having been once himself a monk (and consequently more acceptable to the religious) and afterwards a very wealthy and potent prelate, they could not have chose a safer patronage: though I do not 35 find he did them any signal service, unless by confirming the grants of his predecessor, and by agreeing the differ 1 See an Inspeximus of Hugh and John bishops of Ely. 2 Charta orig. Inter archiva. 3 Inter archiva collegii. |