THE TRINITY HOUSE
It seems unlikely that there was a shipmen's guild
in Hull during the early years of the town's history.
The Trinity House, at any rate, possesses no earlier
record, other than a few deeds of property acquired
later, than a document of 1369, afterwards known as
the 'First Subscription'. This sets out the intention
of Robert Marshall, alderman, and some fiftyfive other persons, both men and women, to found
a guild in honour of the Holy Trinity. (fn. 1) The annual
subscription was 2s., payable quarterly, and the
affairs of the guild were to be managed by an elected
Alderman who was to choose two constables and
four 'discrete' men. Admission was to be regulated
by the officers, and the objects were those usual to
a religious guild: the provision of candles and masses,
and attendance at funerals of members. A member
incapacitated by sickness was to receive 8d. a week,
and if the accumulated funds of the guild were
inadequate to meet this liability, provision was made
for a collection from members.
One question that immediately arises is whether
this can be regarded as in any sense a shipmen's
guild. On the face of it, the document is merely the
foundation deed of a religious guild of the normal
pattern. Apart from the dedication to the Holy
Trinity, which shared with St. Nicholas the especial
veneration of sailors, there is nothing to link the
1369 document with the Hull shipmen. It has been
suggested, however, that a group of traders or craftsmen might find it easier to unite under the cloak of
a religious guild, and it has been shown that the
founders of the religious guild at York which developed into the Merchant Venturers were, in fact,
mercers and their wives. (fn. 2) It cannot be shown that
the Hull founders were seamen. That they were
substantial burgesses is suggested by the comparatively high rates of subscription and sickness benefit;
but references in the document to members standing
surety for one another probably refer not to trading
activities, but to the payment of dues to the guild.
There is one peculiar feature of the guild: no
return was made in 1389, when particulars were
called for of all religious and other guilds in the
country. Hull made returns of three religious guilds,
those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Corpus Christi,
and St. John the Baptist. All these were founded in
the same way as the Trinity Guild, by a foundation
deed attested by the mayor, bailiffs, and other leading citizens, and sealed by the founding members.
The inclusion of this information is an unusual
feature in the returns of 1389, when most guilds
simply sent a copy of their rules. It was perhaps due
to the recent foundation of these guilds: the date of
the foundation of St. John's guild is missing, but
the others were founded in 1357 and 1358 respectively. (fn. 3) As the guild returns are notoriously incomplete, the omission of the Trinity Guild does not
imply that it had ceased to exist in 1389. Indeed, the
'Second Subscription' of 1398 refers to 'the brothers
and sisters who founded the guild and have continued it up to now'.
The deed later known as the Second Subscription
is of the same form as the earlier one, witnessed by
the mayor, bailiffs, chamberlains, and others. (fn. 4) Apart
from the reduction of the annual subscription to 1s.,
the main purport of the document seems to have been
to clarify the rules laid down in 1369. The Alderman was now to appoint two stewards, and these
three were to keep the charters, money, and jewels
of the guild, to distribute benefits to members, and
to lend to members on approved security. The
Alderman and stewards were also to choose four
members without whose assent they themselves
could not act. Refusal to accept office was punishable by fine—6s. 8d. for an Alderman, half that
amount for a steward. Disputes between members
were to be settled by the Alderman, and not referred
to the borough courts. The rules concerning candles,
masses, and funerals were modified, and in particular
a trental of masses for deceased members provided
for in 1369 was omitted. Members who died in
poverty were to be buried at the expense of the
guild, but it is noticeable that the provisions of 1369
for the support of impoverished members were
dropped. Thus two of the more expensive of the
earlier provisions disappeared. The terms of this
deed were to be read over every year, apparently at
the election of the Alderman. It is likely that they
were also read to new members, for the deed served
as a list of members, beginning with those whose
names appear in the 1369 and 1398 deeds. In all, the
names of 257 members are recorded. Some of them
must have been shipmen, but there were many
others, including priests, canons, drapers, shearmen,
and goldsmiths. The guild presumably still had no
habitation, other than Holy Trinity Church where
the elections could be held.
About the middle of the 15th century the guild,
quite suddenly as far as can be gathered, changed its
whole character. In 1456 twenty-four shipmasters,
with the assent of the Vicar of Hessle, whose parish
included the chapelry of Holy Trinity, and of the
mayor and aldermen of the town, agreed to found
a perpetual chantry in Holy Trinity Church. To pay
for this they agreed to give the money accruing to
them by way of 'lowage and stowage'; the money
was to be paid to two Aldermen to be elected yearly
on Trinity Sunday, and no shipmaster was to hire
any mariner, under penalty of £10, unless he agreed
to pay in his lowage and stowage to the guild. (fn. 5)
Lowage and stowage was a payment made to
mariners for handling cargo: stowing it in the hold,
loading it on deck. Towards the end of the 16th
century, the term is replaced by 'primage', which
was a payment on each ton of freight. (fn. 6)
Almost immediately the members decided to go
a stage further. In 1457, with the advice and consent
of all the merchants and owners of ships belonging
to the port, twenty-four masters and rectors of ships
agreed to found an almshouse for mariners brought
to poverty by 'infortune of the seas'. In addition to
renewing the agreement for the payment of lowage
and stowage, they decreed that no Hull shipowner
should hire any master who had not agreed to pay in
this money, and further that, under penalty of ten
marks, the owner should himself pay in his share of
lowage and stowage. (fn. 7) This order affected merchants,
as shipowners, and some difficulty seems to have
been found in enforcing it. Accordingly, a mandate
was obtained from Henry VI, addressed to the
mayor and sheriff and instructing them to enforce
the payment. (fn. 8) It is this document that first mentions
a chapel, stating that it was to be annexed to the
almshouse. Whether this was due to a misunderstanding of the reference in the 1456 document to
Holy Trinity, or whether the king insisted upon it,
is uncertain, but a chapel was part of the building
scheme that was almost at once put in hand.
The new agreement had two results. It ensured
that the reformed guild would have buildings of its
own, and it converted what had hitherto been a
purely religious guild into a craft guild. Since the
House accounts begin by 1460, and are practically
complete thereafter, it is possible to trace in some
detail the progress of building operations. (fn. 9) A site
was found by agreement with the Carmelite friars,
who owned the land bounded by Whitefriargate,
Beverley Street (now Trinity House Lane), Aldkirk
Lane (now Posterngate), and the town wall. Where
exactly on this site the guild determined to build is
uncertain, but it is reasonable to suppose that it
was at the south-east corner where the present
building stands. In 1461 the friars were paid 13s. 4d.
for the site, though the guild also paid an annual
rent of 1s. for more than 150 years. By 1465 building
had begun, for payments were then made for bringing timber and clearing the garth. It was presumably
a half-timbered building, but it incorporated some
brickwork too, and there are payments to both carpenters and tilers. The chief carpenter seems to have
been Robert Paget; (fn. 10) another was John Ulstor,
wright, who contracted to build a hall with chamber
above, except doors and windows. By 1470 internal
plaster work was in hand, and the accounts for
1472–4 show lead being bought for the roofs.
The chief buildings seem to have comprised the
guildhall, probably a two-storied building divided
into several rooms, and the almshouses. The latter
may have had a common hall and 'cells' for the
individual pensioners, with a covered walk running
in front of them. This lay-out is suggested by the
large number of windows and doors referred to in
the early accounts—too many for a hospital consisting of a large hall divided into cubicles. Finally
there was the chapel. This may have been on the
north side of the guildhall, where the present offices
are, for this was the site of the chapel in the mid18th century. (fn. 11) In 1474 Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
gave a 'great bell', which was hung in the following
year. During the next twenty years a considerable
sum was spent on the chapel's adornment. It contained a statue of the Virgin and two of the Trinity,
painted and gilt and housed in woodwork tabernacles; a carving of the head of St. John the Baptist;
and several pictures, including one of St. Anne. The
altar fittings were expensive and there were stalls for
the brethren. Services were musical; the wages of
singers appear from time to time, and an entry of
1521 refers to the setting up of an organ and to a
payment to John Watson for 'his part of the virginals'. In 1523 a new altar was bought in Flanders.
The chaplain was paid, as a rule, £1 10s. a quarter
and had a house on the site. Another house referred
to is that called 'le Gilyote', belonging to the schoolmaster. There are no references to the guild maintaining a school for the children of members, and it
seems possible that this was the house of the master
of the Grammar School. The existence of such buildings on the site is suggested by a reference in 1461
to the receipt of rents (de rentalia), for the House
owned no other real property until much later.
By at least 1470 the new buildings were sufficiently
complete for occupation. When the Bordeaux wine
fleet sailed in 1472, 4s. was given to the poor people
in the House and they had 500 turves for Christmas,
but other references indicate that the poor had
already taken up their quarters before this. The
guild had also begun to exercise its rights to collect
lowage and stowage, and the accounts show sums
received from 1461 onwards. Payments were usually
made by the ship's master, but sometimes by the
purser. The amounts received varied from an average
of about £12 a year from 1461 to 1465 to just over
£20 in 1465–6. (fn. 12)
In 1505 the agreement of 1457 was renewed, and
the new document bears the marks or signatures of
all brethren admitted up to 1597, some 600. All
were shipmen, in contrast to the variety of occupa-
tions shown in the 1398 subscription. (fn. 13) In 1512 the
guild obtained new and lucrative privileges. It
was agreed by the two Aldermen of the guild
and the 'masters of the hulks', in the presence of
the mayor, that the guild should assign competent
pilots to bring ships into Hull and take them out
again for a fee of 6s. 8d. inwards and £1 outwards.
The whole guild agreed, moreover, that nobody
who was not a member of the guild and properly
assigned to the duty should handle a stranger's ship
under penalty of £1. (fn. 14) This was the origin of the
so-called 'great turn'. The rate was varied from
time to time and in 1541 a new scale was adopted,
ranging from 2s. 4d. on a vessel of 20 tons to 6s. 8d.
on one of 60 to 100 tons. (fn. 15) Brethren were assigned
as pilots in rotation, and until the House began to
license river pilots in 1800 the brethren had a monopoly of the Humber pilotage.
The accounts present a detailed picture of the
annual routine of the guild in the late 15th and 16th
centuries. On Trinity Sunday the officers for the
year were elected and the members attended a service
for departed brethren in Holy Trinity Church,
adjourning afterwards to the great election feast. At
Corpus Christi torches were carried in procession
and the poor were given an extra gratuity and feast.
The sailing of the Bordeaux fleet and the arrival of
the Easterlings were celebrated by a collation of ale
and cakes or bread and cheese. At Christmas the
poor in the almshouse were given extra turves and
coals and a little extra money. On Plough Monday,
the first after Epiphany, the guild produced the play
of Noah and the Ark on a stage which was pulled
round the town on a cart. The three principal
characters were Noah, who was usually paid 1s.,
God, who was paid 10d., and Noah's wife, who got
8d. Singing was provided by two priests and by 'the
clerk' and 'the children', presumably the parish clerk
and the choir boys of Holy Trinity. The town waits
performed too, and the pageant was accompanied by
members of the guild, who seem to have been entertained to supper at the end of their labours. Members
were regularly expected to attend the funerals of
deceased brothers, and the accounts frequently show
the cost of candles, payments to the priest, and other
expenses. They may also have attended at the funeral
of an inmate of the almshouse, as they certainly did
later.
In 1512 Henry VIII granted a charter to the
London Trinity House. The Hull guild seems to
have regarded Henry VI's mandate as a charter,
though formally it was not, but when the king visited
the town in 1541 he granted a charter to the Hull
House also. This empowered twelve named men to
renew the guild, whose primary purposes were to be
the maintenance of a chaplain celebrating in Holy
Trinity Church and an almshouse and chapel for
thirteen poor brethren. The affairs of the guild were
to be managed by two Wardens, who must be
master mariners, to be elected annually on the
morrow of Trinity Day. The guild was recognized
as a legal entity, with rights to sue and be sued, a
common seal, and rights to hold real property and
to acquire lands to the value of £10 notwithstanding
the Statute of Mortmain. Its entitlement to lowage
and stowage was reaffirmed and now defined as 3d.
a ton on goods entering and leaving the port. (fn. 16) This
charter was confirmed in identical terms in 1547,
and, with the substitution of some new names in the
list of brethren, again in 1554 and 1567. (fn. 17) Despite
the changes of the Reformation, the House remained
technically bound to pray for the souls of the departed until 1581, when it petitioned for a new
charter on the grounds that it was 'bound to superstitious usages'. (fn. 18) It had, however, sold the altar
fittings and vestments and one of the pictures from
the chapel in 1547 and removed another picture into
the House. Possibly for a time after 1549 it was
deemed wiser not to stress the fact that the House
had a chaplain. Up to Trinity in that year William
Herland received £1 8s. 4d. a quarter, but he appears
for the next year or two as William Herland, clerk,
and in 1559–60 he was replaced by plain John
Thakker. In 1562 a priest reappears in the accounts
with £1 10s. a quarter, which covered his assistance
'in the choir'. Thereafter there are frequent references to him, and by 1572 his salary had risen to
£2 5s. a quarter.
The House wasted no time in exercising its right
to sue in the courts and between 1541 and 1543 it
proved its right in the Admiralty court to take
lowage and stowage from Newcastle men and other
foreigners. (fn. 19) This suit was probably against the
Newcastle Trinity House, for by this time the Houses
there and at London and Bristol were all in existence.
Hull's share of the coast appears to have been from
the Tees to Winterton Ness, in Norfolk. In 1546 the
House drew up a wage scale for the seamen of the
port, setting out the wages payable for various
voyages including those within the British Isles, and
those to Scandinavia, the Baltic, the Low Countries,
France, and Spain. The Mediterranean was not
included, the Iceland voyage seems to have ended,
and the Spitzbergen whaling voyage had not yet
begun. The document concludes with several definitions of the rights of masters and mariners: a
mariner was to serve six days on a coaling voyage and
twelve on any other after the ship docked; a mariner
who had engaged himself with a master and then
received a more attractive offer was to hold to his
original bargain; no master was to try to induce a
man, already hired, to serve with him; all masters
were to pay lowage and stowage within a fortnight
of landing, under penalty of £10; and all disputes
about wages and freight were to be referred to the
House for settlement. (fn. 20)
Thus by 1550 the main lines of the development
of the House were fixed. It was a close corporation
of master mariners who claimed and exercised the
right to adjudicate on all questions concerning
mariners' wages, to enforce the payment of primage
by masters, and to compel Hull merchants, whenever
possible, to ship goods only in Hull vessels. The
merchant who 'shipped foreign' was bound to lay
down the full fine of £6 13s. 4d. and allow the House
to take such proportion as it deemed reasonable. (fn. 21)
The House was not a seamen's guild. The qualification for admission was the ability to navigate a ship
to certain ports, and this was tested by examination.
The training of both seaman and master mariner
was, of course, by apprenticeship. A master mariner,
successful in examination, paid an admission fee,
usually of 6s. 8d., and was duly elected a Younger
Brother. (fn. 22)
It is difficult to estimate the number of brethren
existing at any one time before the 'admission book'
began to be compiled in 1600. An order of 1579,
signed by all present, bears 33 signatures or marks,
but as it was made in August the number of absentees
at sea was probably at about its highest. (fn. 23) The admission book was begun to ensure that only brethren
received relief: it was said to contain the names of all
brethren then in the guild, and it was to serve as a
register of newly-admitted brethren. It lists 90 initial
members, and during the decade 1600–10, 64 new
brethren were admitted. (fn. 24)
The rights of the guild were confirmed and
extended by the charter of 1581. Twelve named
shipmasters were to be Elder Brethren and all other
masters and pilots Younger Brethren. In addition
to the two Wardens, who had to be burgesses, six
Younger Brethren were to be chosen as Assistants.
A quorum of one Warden, four Elders, and two
Assistants was empowered to make ordinances, and
they were also entitled to collect, throughout the
customs jurisdiction of the port, primage at the rate
of 3d. a ton on all goods imported or exported. Other
existing rights were confirmed; one new one was the
power to prevent the hiring in Hull of aliens to serve
at sea. (fn. 25)
This charter resulted in a sudden increase in the
records of the House. Hitherto, apart from the
formal subscriptions and charters, the only records
kept seem to have been the account books, though
the end pages of these were used for the entry of
more important memoranda. But after 1581 order
and court books appear, and in 1600 the admission
book.
The two Wardens were chosen by the whole guild
from four names put forward by the Elder Brethren.
At the same time two stewards were chosen from
among the Younger Brethren. (fn. 26) The functions of
the stewards are obscure: they are probably to be
equated with the chamberlains of some other guilds,
and service as steward seems to have been an essential
preliminary to election as Assistant. On election the
Wardens had to enter bond of £100 each to fulfil the
duties of the office and present accounts in proper
form. They also began their year of office, at any rate
from 1663, (fn. 27) by 'calling the plate'. The bond was no
mere formality; in 1615, after the failure of the
Wardens to pay certain rents, their bonds and those
of their sureties were held until the matter was
settled. (fn. 28) The Wardens were probably originally
equal in status but, as it was assumed that they
would be active seafarers, each acted in turn for
three months. (fn. 29) The change was marked with considerable ceremony, the brethren and pensioners
attending a service in the chapel. A Warden had,
of course, to take an oath, on election, to fulfil his
duties and after the Test Act the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy too. All other members and officers
also took oaths on election. (fn. 30) In 1581 it was decided
that the Board, as the governing body was called,
should meet fortnightly on Thursdays, but it could
always be summoned by the Warden, and it did in
fact meet very much more frequently. In 1591 it was
agreed that a quorum of one Warden, six Elders,
and two Assistants was necessary for the admission
of pensioners to the hospital. (fn. 31)
The House also had certain paid officers. The
most important was the registrar, later known as the
secretary. The writing up of accounts and orders was
probably originally done by the chaplain, but from
about the mid-16th century references to a registrar
begin to appear; in 1572, for example, the registrar
received £1 5s. a quarter, compared with the chaplain's £2 5s. (fn. 32) The duties of the registrar were set
out in 1591. He had to keep the accounts and records
of the House, and to attend to such legal business as
keeping bonds and obligations, and suing defaulters
on bonds; he paid legal costs out of his own pocket,
but received them when the case was settled. He
was also bound to ride to York on the business of the
House, at his own costs, and to pay fees for counsel's
opinion on the House's charters. For all this he was
to have £6 a year, but he had additional fees for such
duties as keeping the rota of 'great turns' and, from
1624, keeping the book in which wage agreements
between masters and mariners were entered, at a fee
of 1d. an entry. By this time, too, his salary had been
raised to £8. (fn. 33) It became the custom for the secretary
to be sworn a brother on taking office. It was a post
which could readily be held by an attorney, and
during the reign of Charles II it was filled by George
Truman, who was also town clerk and was faced
with a difficult situation when the town corporation
decided to support the Merchants' Society in a lawsuit against the House. (fn. 34)
The duties of the chaplain were set out in 1641:
he was to take service for the pensioners on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and to preach four
sermons a year in the chapel—at the election of
Wardens and at each quarter day when the Wardens
changed. His salary by then was £8 a year. (fn. 35) Other
officials were the collectors of primage at such members of the port of Hull as Bridlington and Grimsby,
who were paid a commission of 10 per cent. One of
the Crown customs officers also received a small
honorarium for allowing the House's collector to see
the customs books as a check on the payment of
primage.
The working of the guild during the 17th and 18th
centuries is conveniently considered under its different functions: its control of shipping and navigation, its work as a charitable corporation, and its
relations with the town and the government. The
various powers of the House to regulate shipping
were carefully executed, though regulations might
be varied from time to time. It was seldom, for
example, that the full fine for shipping foreign was
imposed, though if a merchant reviled the Board it
might well demand the full amount. (fn. 36) Small fines of
a few shillings were often put then and there into the
poors' box, and this also benefited from brethren
who attended late, failed, if aldermen, to attend in
their robes, reviled the warden, spoke unseemly
words, or committed other breaches of decorum.
Since the House claimed jurisdiction over the
members of the port, it admitted seamen from Bridlington and Grimsby as Younger Brethren. They
had no chance, however, of rising any higher, owing
to the rule that Wardens must be burgesses of Hull;
this debarred them from election as Elder Brethren
inasmuch as they were incompetent to act as Warden.
In the 18th century the House, at the request of the
merchants of Bridlington, licensed a few Bridlington
fishermen to act as harbour pilots, and it contributed
to the relief of the seafaring poor of that town. As
early as the 16th century the House was regarded by
outside bodies as the sole authority for the navigation
in the port. It was in contact, and sometimes conflict,
with the Trinity Houses of London and Newcastle,
and with the Lord Admiral. As early as 1547 the
accounts mention the entertainment of the captain
of the king's galley, and a little later that of the
captain of the Lord Protector's barque. The House
adamantly enforced its rights of jurisdiction, in
matters of seamen's wages and disputes between
owners and masters, against the Admiralty courts
and the Council in the North. (fn. 37) It also arbitrated in
matters of collision, jettison, and similar controversies.
The expertise of the brethren was in demand,
too. Pilots were assigned to the king's ships; and
the House appears to have been consulted about the
equipment of ships supplied by Hull to meet the
Armada and later for Charles's 'ship money fleet'.
When Frobisher proposed to explore the NorthEast Passage he seems to have consulted the House
and was lavishly entertained in 1593; (fn. 38) Hull ships
were making the Spitzbergen voyage in fair numbers
by that time. Hull's knowledge of the Baltic was
used when the House provided pilots for the attack
on Copenhagen in 1800. Until a scheme for training
naval officers was introduced by James II, Trinity
House brethren are occasionally found serving in a
rank approximate to that of commodore, especially
during the Interregnum. Such was Henry Appleton,
who was in charge of a small squadron in the Mediterranean during the Dutch War in 1653. (fn. 39) During the
Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, however, the
House refused to admit naval officers as Younger
Brethren, though it frequently elected high-ranking
officers as honorary brethren; once, quite exceptionally, it admitted some of lower rank as honorary
Younger Brethren.
Its navigational duties implied the provision of
aids to navigation. As early as 1567 a beacon (or daymark) was set up, probably near Paull, followed in
1584 by the setting up of a buoy. The buoy frequently broke its moorings, and scarcely a year
passed without the expense of 'seeking the can' and
resetting it. (fn. 40) By agreement with the mayor and corporation in 1585, however, it was agreed that the
House might collect buoyage dues from every laden
ship which passed the buoy, varying from 1s. on
voyages to Spain or the Baltic to 6d. on Dutch or
coastal voyages. At first accounts had to be made
with the mayor and aldermen, but it was later noted
that the account was 'not now to be made to Mr.
Mayor for the House has a warrant from the Lord
Admiral'; this was possibly in 1590 when buoyage
payments were separated from primage in the
Wardens' accounts. (fn. 41) In the September quarter of
that year the Warden accounted for 25 vessels, and
in the following quarter 43. It is possible there
may have been two buoys; there is a reference in
1596–7 to 'taking the can up and down from the
Den-end', which indicates that one buoy was near
Spurn Head, though other references point to a site
near Killingholme.
By and large the House made a profit on the buoys,
but lights were a different matter for they needed
fuel and constant attendance. As early as 1427 a
beacon light near Spurn Head had been maintained
by a hermit, (fn. 42) but this had long since disappeared.
The House itself proposed a lighthouse there in
1590, but apparently without effect. There were,
however, many speculators seeking patents to erect
a light and charge tolls on passing ships. Demands
for lights were always supported by the Newcastle
coal trade, and Newcastle Trinity House usually
backed any attempt to establish lights on the east
coast, whereas the Hull and London Trinity Houses
were hostile, or at best lukewarm. The first petition,
opposed by Hull, was in 1618 for a light at Spurn. (fn. 43)
In 1637 the House was asked to support a petition
from Scarborough for a light on Flamborough Head;
not only did it refuse, but it rebuked the Scarborough
men for their frowardness. The same year a petition
reached the Privy Council about lights at Flamborough and Spurn; the Council referred it to the
Navy Commissioners, who asked the advice of the
London and Hull Trinity Houses. A full meeting
of both Elder and Younger Brethren testified to the
'unusefulness' of the project. In 1657, claiming to
have the backing of numerous merchants and shipmasters, another petitioner asked for a light at
Spurn, but the advice of the House was again
adverse. (fn. 44) Philip Frowde made a similar application
in 1660 and was given leave to promote a Bill in
Parliament. The London Trinity House had dropped
its opposition but in 1662 the Hull House itself
introduced a Bill to enable it to erect a light. Hull's
main argument was that any profit would go to the
poor of the House. A long and confused struggle
ensued as other would-be promoters appeared. One
of these was Justinian Angell, who actually set up
lights with voluntary support. Both the London and
Hull Houses continued their opposition, partly now
on the ground that the lights were badly sited; in
1675, a month after the lights were kindled, they
obtained an Order in Council to have them extinguished, but this was checked by numerous petitions,
including one from Hull Corporation. Later the same
year Angell got a patent giving him the right to
charge ¼d. a ton on all passing ships, raised to ½d. a
ton in 1678. Angell offered to pay an annual rentcharge of £40 each to the Hull and Newcastle Houses,
and the Hull House finally withdrew its opposition. (fn. 45)
Hull Trinity House continued to take an interest
in the lighthouses, making requests and reports to
the patentees, and giving them assistance. The
failure of the patentees to carry out improvements
eventually led to the Acts of 1766 and 1772, which
provided that new lighthouses should be built under
the direction of the London House; the Hull House
was given the responsibility of seeing that they were
properly lighted and maintained. These powers Hull
enjoyed until 1836, when they were removed by the
Act which vested all English lighthouses in the
London House. The £40 annuity was now the only
direct interest that the Hull House retained in the
lights. (fn. 46)
When a lifeboat was provided at Spurn in 1810
the House took a prominent part in selecting and
paying for it, later built cottages for the crew, and
contributed to various subscriptions for the purpose.
The House was responsible for the lifeboat until
1908, when the Humber Conservancy Board took
over. (fn. 47) When, again, the Commissioners for the
Humber Pilot Act wanted another buoy at the mouth
of the Humber in 1801 the House promptly sent
brethren to make a survey. (fn. 48) By the end of the 18th
century there was a considerable number of buoys
along the Humber, and buoyage rates had risen far
beyond those originally imposed. It was probably
the need to supervise the buoys that led the House
to acquire a yacht in 1783. (fn. 49) A yacht remained in
commission throughout the 19th century, though
latterly the annual visit of the buoys became a social
function. The buoys were often removed in times of
crisis at the command of the Admiralty. The first
occasion seems to have been during the Dutch War
in 1665, and the buoys were taken up again in 1745.
During the period 1793 to 1814, however, they do
not appear to have been lifted, and in fact new ones
were set, (fn. 50) reflecting, perhaps, the improved precautions then in force for the defence of the Humber.
In 1799 the House supported a move to make the
Humber pilot water, and in February 1800 voted
100 guineas towards the expenses of the Act. (fn. 51) By
April the Board was asked to select pilot boats and
pilots: 6 boats were chosen and 30 pilots licensed,
and in the following year the number of pilots was
increased to 36. (fn. 52) Some of the pilots were Younger
Brethren, but others were not, and though the
House played an important part, the working of
the Act was vested in commissioners, a precedent
destined to prove fatal to the House later on. Concessions soon had to be made, moreover, to the rank
and file of the House, some of them in Grimsby,
Goole, and Selby, which shared in the expanding
trade of the early 19th century. It is true that
mariners from these places had been admitted to the
guild, but they still suffered from the provision that
Wardens must be burgesses of Hull. In 1831, therefore, when the House secured the usual confirmation
of its charter, the clause compelling Wardens to be
burgesses was dropped. In 1836, by a second charter
from William IV, the election of Wardens was vested
in the whole guild instead of being reserved to the
Elder Brethren. (fn. 53)
In one other way the House acted as a navigation
authority. Under the charters of 1581 and 1661 (fn. 54)
it had the right to supervise arrangements in the
haven, and a House officer acted as harbour master.
The haven was a most congested anchorage. Merchants with houses backing upon the river had their
own quays, and the only public quays were the
common staiths. After 1541 the east side of the
haven was occupied by fortifications and could not
be used for berthing. This peculiar situation was
recognized by the exemption of Hull from the regulation that goods might be landed only at a legal and
open quay, which was laid down in the Customs Act
of 1559. (fn. 55) It also resulted in one of the most stringent
rules made by the House, that against ships mooring
more than two abreast for more than a tide. (fn. 56) The
symbol of office of the House officer was his axe with
which he could cut the cables of offending ships. In
order to overcome the difficulties of taking a ship
into the narrow mouth of the haven, the House built
the 'dolphin', a kind of capstan which stood in the
river mouth and was used to hale ships in and veer
them out. This came into use at the end of the 16th
century and by the charter of 1661 the House was
entitled to make charges for its maintenance; charges
had in fact already been made in 1656, and long
before then the House had fined shipmasters for
damaging the dolphin, or using it as a mooring. (fn. 57)
Important though the control of navigation was,
the charitable activities of the House preceded it and
have outlasted it. The House maintained not only
the inmates of its hospital, but also a number of outpensioners. The full number of inmates laid down
at the refoundation of the guild in 1456–7 was thirteen. In 1484 there were certainly 10 or 11 inmates
and in the following year at least twelve. Their
weekly stipend was probably about 6d., but they also
received coal, turf, and wood, and occasional feasts
too. They seem to have attended the funerals of
brethren, for which they received a few pence, and
they probably received the fines paid into the poors'
box which stood on the table at meetings of the
Board. An outbreak of plague generally meant an
increase in payments to the poor. In 1583, for
example, it was decided to reduce relief to the preplague amount. This order may have referred to outpensioners, but the plague was certainly in the House
in 1576 when an extra £1 19s. 3d. was voted to the
inmates. (fn. 58) The inmates were usually widows, presumably of Younger Brethren after 1581, though
there are indications that brethren were themselves
occasionally given places.
The out-pensioners fell into two categories—those
on what may be called the permanent list, and those
granted temporary relief. The regular payments
varied; 6s. 8d. a year was fairly common, but a list
in 1587 shows eight pensioners drawing amounts
varying from 2s. to 10s. Children appear also: the
same list mentions two, each receiving 1s. 8d. a
quarter. The out-pensioners were probably the
widows of seamen, or sometimes evidently of brethren, who were waiting their turn to enter the hospital.
Occasionally they were admitted to other almshouses
and continued to draw pay from the House, like a
widow who went into Gregg's Hospital in 1594.
Those on temporary relief were a much more mixed
lot. As a rule they seem to have been destitute
mariners who were given a grant to tide them over
until they could get a berth. The House made no
distinction between Hull seamen and others in this
matter; there are, for example, references to 'Dutchmen', Scots, and Frenchmen. Sometimes a sick seaman was nursed in the hospital, like a 'Dutchman'
'brought into the house until he was whole' in 1552,
and a Frenchman who died in the house in 1555.
Sometimes the House gave a grant to someone not
connected with the sea: a 'poor scholar', for example,
in 1576. Sometimes a whole ship's company was
relieved, like the Yarmouth men 'that had their ship
taken from them with wild Irish' who were given
5s. 4d. in 1545, or 'the Dutchmen that was prisoners'
who had 5s. in 1546. The House also had a few Icelanders on its hands for some time. In 1592–3 a payment of 3s. was made to a 'shipbroken man which
was in the Revenge'; he was followed a little later by
two others from the same ship who got only 2s. each,
and subsequently by a fourth who got only 1s. 4d.
from a perhaps increasingly suspicious House. (fn. 59)
Seafaring men presented a special problem for
those responsible for poor relief in any port. In Hull
there seems, in fact, to have been a tacit agreement
that Trinity House looked after seamen and their
dependants. The House may also occasionally have
helped the corporation; there are, for example, payments of £1 4s. in 1584 and £2 in 1587 to the poor
of the town. (fn. 60) When, moreover, during the plague
of 1637–8, the corporation asked the Privy Council
to grant letters soliciting relief from the whole of
Yorkshire, the House came to its assistance with a
grant of £20 for Christmas 1637, and in the following
March by promising to pay £4 10s. a week; it pointed
out, however, that it was itself responsible for the
relief of poor seamen. (fn. 61) Throughout its history the
House kept firmly to this principle. In the 18th century it was generous in subscribing to special charities
for the poor; during the Napoleonic Wars, for
example, when almost every winter saw the opening
of a subscription for coals and the provision of soup
kitchens, it always gave a handsome donation. (fn. 62) Yet
it made it quite clear that this was ex gratia, steadfastly refused to pay poor-rates on its buildings, and
threatened a lawsuit when an attempt was made to
assess its income from primage in 1798. (fn. 63)
From the early 17th century the relationship of
the guild to the inmates of the hospital becomes
clearer. It seems that places in the hospital were
being given by favour, hence the order of 1591 that
no inmates should be taken into the House without
the consent of one Warden, six Elder Brethren, and
two Assistants. In 1613 it was ordered that the limit
of thirteen inmates should not be exceeded, that all
should be brethren or their widows, and that any
Warden or brother endeavouring to place more
should forfeit £2. No regular pay was to be given to
poor people outside the House, except those already
on the weekly list. (fn. 64) This legislation was certainly
not effective so far as out-pensioners were concerned,
and it may have been merely an attempt to keep the
number down to the existing level.
Early in the 17th century there are references to
the 'New Hospital', though there appears to be no
record of its building or foundation. It is first heard
of in 1633 when a widow was admitted to a room
there. (fn. 65) Possibly it was the hospital founded by
Thomas Ferries, a great benefactor of the House,
which was described in his will as being near Trinity
House, (fn. 66) perhaps in Trinity House Lane. Its
management was perhaps entrusted to the House
after Ferries's death in 1631, though his will does not
mention the fact. According to Ferries's will there
were 10 pensioners in his hospital and 14 in Trinity
House in 1630, but by 1634 there were possibly
about 40 inmates all told. (fn. 67) Their stipends were
occasionally varied according to the dearness of provisions and the finances of the House; (fn. 68) but one
principle was always adhered to, that the rate for the
New Hospital was to be lower than that for the
House. It became usual for widows to be admitted
first to the New, and then as vacancies occurred to
be promoted to the House. In the 18th century a
nurse was appointed for the hospitals, and there
was also a surgeon. It was the duty of the chaplain
to catechize the inmates three times a week and to
read prayers on Sunday. The general oversight of the
pensioners was the duty of a House officer, who in
1635 was instructed to make weekly reports to the
Board on the conduct of the inmates. In 1664,
when discipline seems to have been very relaxed, it
was necessary to decree that the doors should be
locked at 9 p.m. in summer and 7 p.m. in winter and
late-comers reported. (fn. 69)
The experience of the House in the management
of an almshouse was widely recognized and from the
beginning of the 18th century its commitments
increased. In 1682 William Robinson had founded
an almshouse near the town walls, in what is now
Prince's Dock Street, and its management was made
over to the House in 1697. (fn. 70) The next step was more
important. In 1742 the Merchant Seaman's Act (fn. 71)
authorized a levy of 6d. a month on all seamen's
wages to establish a fund for the support of widows
and dependants. In ports where suitable bodies
existed, the working of the Act was entrusted to
them, and Trinity House became responsible for
Hull. Collectors were appointed at Hull and its
members, and paid by a commission of 2s. in the £
collected, but the task of keeping the muster rolls
devolved on the Warden's clerk. The funds collected
under the Act were kept separate from the House
funds and applied to the relief of the ordinary seaman, who was unlikely ever to be admitted to the
guild and so qualify for admission to the almshouses.
By 1781 the House was able to build the Merchant
Seamen's Hospital behind Whitefriargate to house
those who came on this fund, and in 1786 the socalled Marine Hospital was built in Trinity House
Lane, adjoining the new school. (fn. 72)
By the mid-18th century the older hospitals were
in some disrepair, and in 1752 it was agreed to lay
aside all quarterly feasts to rebuild them. The new
building had accommodation for 32 pensioners.
Originally each seems to have had one room, but
later two rooms were allowed. In 1768 it was decided
to rebuild Robinson's Hospital also. (fn. 73) By this time
the House had added yet another to its duties, the
provision of education in navigation. As far back as
1729 it had been agreed to pay a private schoolmaster £12 a year to teach navigation, arithmetic,
and writing to 12 children to be nominated by the
Board. Nothing seems to have come of this, but in
1785 it was decided to establish a marine school and
this was opened in 1787. There were 36 boys, who
stayed for three years and then were apprenticed to
a shipmaster for a period of five to seven years. The
first master had a salary of £50. The boys were
clothed by the House in blue cloth dress coat with
tails, and waistcoat, both with brass buttons, and
trousers of white duck. The Board was insistent that
boys must stay the full three years, except in special
cases. The original school building was in Trinity
House Lane. (fn. 74)
In the late 18th century there seems to have been
an evening school for seamen attended by the crews
of ships which were laid up for the winter. Though
this was not the concern of the Board, it was agreed
in 1800 that the master might catechize the pupils of
the sailors' school together with the marine scholars.
There was, however, some trouble over the master's
right to take in private pupils, and in 1801 he
was forbidden to keep boarders and lodgers in the
school-house. An increase of salary to £65 in 1800
may have been in lieu of profits from boarders.
Nevertheless in 1803 the master was given leave to
teach a few boys to write in the school-house. (fn. 75)
The period after Waterloo witnessed considerable
building activity, presumably caused by increased
demands for accommodation in the hospital. Ferries's
Hospital was rebuilt in 1822. In 1828 a new block
of almshouses was built to the west of the original
ones, fronting on Posterngate, and in 1834 the fine
almshouses in Carr Lane. In 1839 a fire in the House
resulted in considerable new building. The chapel
seems to have suffered most, and it was decided to
move it from its original site in Trinity House Lane
to a more central site. This provided the opportunity
to rebuild part of the east front with a set of new
offices. At the same time the west court was built,
extending to the newly-opened Prince's Dock and
having a gateway on the dockside which incorporated
the Victoria Almshouse. (fn. 76) This gave the House a
range of offices to let in Posterngate, whilst on the
north side of the new court was erected a new school
building; the school had by now doubled in size and
was divided into lower and upper departments. (fn. 77)
The last expansion of the hospitals occurred in 1851,
when Kingston College, in Beverley Road, was
taken over and used as an almshouse. In the 1930s
it was decided to close the scattered almshouses and
to build a new block to house the then much reduced
number of pensioners. In 1940 the first of the present
almshouses in Anlaby Road were opened. (fn. 78)
Inevitably a powerful and, as it later became, a
wealthy corporation like the Trinity House played
an important part in the history of the town. It controlled the shipping of the port, managed the haven,
and treated the town authorities on a footing of
equality. The explanation of this may lie in Hull's
position, in the Middle Ages and later, as a town of
mariners rather than merchants; it acted as the outport for stronger and older-established mercantile
communities in York and Beverley, and shipping
may have been regarded as more important than
trade. It is perhaps significant to contrast the situation in Hull with that in Bristol, where the Merchant
Adventurers took control of the Trinity House;
exactly the opposite happened in Hull.
Although by the charter of 1541 the House was
entitled to acquire land to the value of £10, it does
not seem to have taken advantage of this provision
for some time, and its main source of income continued to be primage. Thus the prosperity of the
House was geared to the trade of the port, and
fluctuations in national trade are reflected in the
Wardens' accounts. In its early days the House was
not wealthy, and occasionally had to borrow from
brethren, but generally the accounts showed a small
profit and by the mid-16th century the House had
accumulated capital of about £150. It had ample
opportunity to increase this by lending it to brethren.
The House also began by the late 16th century to
acquire plate, usually by gifts from brethren. In 1641
the cash in the House amounted to £463 and there
were thirty bonds for loans and a considerable
amount of plate. In 1643 it bought broken plate
from Ferdinand, Lord Fairfax, to the value of £400
and sold it at a small profit in London. (fn. 79)
By this time the House had become interested in
land, too. It had originally been a tenant of the
Carmelites; after the Dissolution their property
passed eventually to Thomas Ferries and in 1621
he made over the site to the House, (fn. 80) which thus
became one of the largest landowners in the town.
This gift included land outside Beverley Gate, in
what was later Carr Lane. The House began at once
to let out land on building leases, starting with the
corner of Trinity House Lane and Whitefriargate,
and by 1647 it had 23 houses on the estate. (fn. 81)
The House was now a wealthy as well as an influential body. Its greatest achievement in the 17th
century was its victory over the Merchants' Society.
This had been chartered by Elizabeth I and was
modelled on the Merchant Adventurers in other
towns; it was intended to be a close corporation of
all those merchants who exported or imported goods.
The House saw this as a threat to its rights to
primage and in 1613 ordered that no member of the
Society should be admitted a brother, though three
Elder Brethren, two Assistants, and two Younger
Brethren, already members of the Society, were
allowed to retain their positions. (fn. 82) It was prepared
to elect merchants as honorary brethren, like Sir
John Lister in 1640, but an honorary brother had,
of course, no say in the management of the House.
By 1660 the House was suffering from the attempts
of the Society to prevent masters and mariners from
importing even small quantities of goods, and it
alleged that the Society was admitting tradesmen
who had no export business. In 1664 the House took
the matter to court and won its case; (fn. 83) the Society
subsequently declined and little more is heard of it.
In all matters concerning navigation the House
dealt directly with the Admiralty, which frequently
sought its help and advice. It might be asked to
provide a pilot for a man-of-war, or to make arrangements for the launch of a warship built at Hessle,
an operation which called for the assistance of 26
Younger Brethren and 10 masters when a 50-gun
ship was launched in 1747. (fn. 84) Impressment at times
led to friction with the Admiralty, and in 1747 the
House joined Hull Corporation in opposing the
Impressment Bill. It was willing, however, to assist
recruitment during the Napoleonic Wars by offering
extra bounties to induce men to enlist. Younger
Brethren were exempt from impressment, though
liable to what amounted to compulsory service as
pilots if detailed by the House. This did not prevent
Younger Brethren in their private capacity as masters
from resisting the press gangs, but on the whole the
regulating officers kept on good terms with the House
and one at least was elected an honorary brother.
The advice and help of the House was also sought
in matters concerning the defence of the Humber.
In 1745 the Wardens and two Elder Brethren were
given commissions to raise a company of artillery for
its defence if the Jacobites or French tried to make a
landing; and during the French wars, especially the
invasion scare of 1804, the House raised and manned
a company of volunteer artillery. It also armed the
House yacht and gave advice about the siting of
signal stations. (fn. 85)
At parliamentary elections the interest of the
House was solicited by rival candidates; the brethren
sometimes assembled for a communal breakfast
before going to the hustings, and afterwards the new
members were invited to dinner in the House. In
return the M.P.s were expected to secure minor
customs appointments for nominees of the House,
to present plate and portraits, and to support the
House's interest in all matters concerning navigation.
As the income of the House increased, it was able
to support various local and national charities. In
1767, for instance, it voted 20 guineas to the S.P.G.
for a charity school in Lebanon, Connecticut; (fn. 86) it
gave money to the Humane Society and the Hull
Dispensary; and, as has been seen, it was generous
in supporting local activities for helping the poor.
When a national fund was raised for the war in 1798
it not only voted £500, but opened a subscription
list among the brethren. (fn. 87) By this time its funds were
divided into a general fund and an Elder Brethren
and Assistants fund; the latter was in part maintained by the 'treaty money', for in 1748 it was
decided that every newly-elected Elder or Assistant
must either stand treat or pay £10. (fn. 88) The House was
punctilious in presenting loyal addresses to mark
victories and similar occasions, and sometimes a
celebration feast was given to the pensioners.
A major problem in Hull in the mid-18th century
was that of dock facilities. The increase in trade had
made the haven inadequate, and on the whole the
House favoured the idea of dock extension, always
provided that its privileges were unaffected. The
House was therefore one of the chief supporters of
the Dock Act of 1774. It retained its right to appoint
the harbour master, who also looked after the new
dock, and it was entitled along with the town corporation to take up ten shares, the normal holding
being limited to two. The resultant increase in trade
was so great, however, that within fifteen years
demands were made for a further extension. Because
of fierce differences of opinion as to how this should
be done, it was not until 1802 that an Act was passed
to authorize the building of the present Humber
Dock. The House ultimately supported this scheme,
though it would probably have preferred the alternative of converting the haven into an enclosed dock. (fn. 89)
The House continued to develop its property in
the town, taking full advantage of increasing values.
It subscribed in 1797 to the tontine for building
Parliament Street, though it opposed the idea of a
triumphal arch at the entry. Its most ambitious
scheme, perhaps, was the building of the Neptune
Inn in Whitefriargate in 1794–7. As an inn the
'Neptune' was not a great success. It frequently
changed hands, and it seems that the rent of £300
which the House asked was uneconomic. Finally, in
1815, the House was relieved to let it to H.M.
Customs. (fn. 90)
There is little doubt, however, that the end of the
Napoleonic era saw the House at the height of its
prosperity. All its sources of income were yielding
higher rates than ever before, and its commitments
had not increased in anything like the same proportion. But the atmosphere of the post-Napoleonic
period was unfavourable to old and possibly corrupt
corporations. When the commissioners came to take
evidence about municipal corporations, a determined
effort was made to drag the House's affairs into the
public eye and the commissioners, somewhat irregularly, did hear some evidence. The House could not,
moreover, escape inspection by the Charity Commissioners. It may well be that the spurt of new
building of almshouses in the 1830s and the reforms
in the charters of William IV were an attempt to
meet the increasing weight of criticism. Such criticism, however, continued; James Acland occasionally
turned from his diatribes against the town corporation to deliver a broadside at Trinity House, and his
paper, the Hull Portfolio, was open to any writer
with a grievance against the House. It was not only
local opposition that the House had to face. Why,
when Parliament was repealing the Navigation Acts,
should Hull be allowed to have what amounted to
a private one of its own? Why should new and
go-ahead ports like Goole be bound by the ancient
conventions of Hull? Trinity House might be capable
of deciding whether a man was competent to take
charge of a Hull ship, but the government required
all master mariners to have the master's certificate
of the Board of Trade. The House might be competent to license Humber pilots, but it could not,
perhaps, justly claim to do much more than this.
Throughout the mid-Victorian period, therefore, the
House was fighting a losing battle to retain its privileges. In a real sense it admitted defeat when the
Humber Conservancy Act was passed in 1852 (fn. 91) and
it lost control over the shipping of the Humber. The
Elder Brethren and Assistants of the House were
still a body of practical seamen, however, and they
retained a number of seats on the new governing
body. It was the same with pilotage: if a new Humber
Pilotage Board was to be formed, it would need the
practical advice of men with knowledge of the river.
But the House's old rights of lowage and stowage,
its claim to the exclusive right of pilotage, and its
right to prevent Hull merchants from 'shipping
foreign' were out of line with the ideas of the 19th
century and had to go. (fn. 92) So, too, had its duty to
collect seamens' sixpences, but the lessons of this
were not forgotten. The Trinity Provident Society
continued under the House's direction to afford the
seaman the means of making, by voluntary contributions, some provision for his dependants and his
old age.
Even in the age of laissez-faire, however, there
was scope for education and charity. The marine
school continued to provide an efficient education
of a type for which the state made no provision until
late in the century, and an increasing number of boys
profited from it. The school is still in existence. And
so long as the House faithfully administered its funds
there was every reason to allow its charitable work
to continue, as it still continues today. The wheel
had turned full circle. After four centuries of pride
and power the House was back where it started,
helping those impoverished by 'infortune of the
seas'.
The buildings of Trinity House lie within the
block bounded by Whitefriargate on the north,
Prince's Dock Street on the west, Trinity House
Lane on the east, and Posterngate on the south.
The rebuilding of much of the House took place in
1753–8. (fn. 93) Its nucleus, comprising the chapel, court
room, and council chamber, had been refronted with
stock brick in 1752 and there is no evidence of subsequent demolition and rebuilding, though there was
much alteration and redecoration at various dates.
The remaining three sides of the principal court were
totally renewed, an exchange of ground with the town
corporation allowing for the widening of Posterngate
and the straightening of the front to Trinity House
Lane. The foundation stone was laid in June 1753,
and building proceeded rapidly. The surviving
records do not show who designed the new building,
but they do reveal the names of the craftsmen involved. (fn. 94) The principal front of nine bays faces
Trinity House Lane and was originally of brick with
stone dressings, the existing stucco not being added
until 1828. The pedimented centre bays are dominated by Jeremiah Hargrave's boldly-sculptured
tympanum, beneath which is the ample entrance
doorway with its Doric columns and segmental pediment. (fn. 95) The windows on each floor have stone architraves, those on the ground floor having cornices in
addition; these motifs were added to the Posterngate
front only in 1828. The main front was extended
twice: in 1772 by the chapel designed by Sir William
Chambers, and a decade later by the marine school,
the architect being Charles Mountain, the elder.
Both were demolished to make way for the existing
offices of 1844.
The Board wanted a 'neat' chapel and the deputation to Chambers had orders not to give a fee of more
than 10 guineas, but the architect's 'very polite behaviour' seems to have earned him a present instead.
The interior was fitted out in mahogany, with purple
velvet cushions and a green silk curtain for the east
window; for the window glass a design, costing 5
guineas, had been solicited from William Peckitt, of
York. The craftsmen included Hargrave, Buck, and
Nightingale, stone-masons, and Richard Hebblewhite and Charles Mountain, plasterers.
Before the chapel was quite finished the Board
began to consider remodelling the suite of rooms
within the House. In 1773 Joseph Page was paid
6 guineas for his plans and estimates. The scheme
included 'elevating' the walls, with the result that the
upper corners of the courtyard facade are sham, and
redecorating the interior in the 'Adam' manner.
Page, who had been quick to learn from Lord Burlington when designing Maisters House 30 years
before, now, only two years before his death, responded equally well to the new fashion. Two
Venetian windows, Doric without and Ionic within,
face the courtyard; toward the garden there is a deep
apse. The Ionic capitals have drapery swags in the
French manner, and the extra mouldings of the bases
are also unusual. The marble chimney-piece has
Ionic columns, too, with the frieze and blockings
displaying coloured inlay work in the manner of
Bossi. The door-heads have a rich frieze motif
derived from an antique example found at Nimes,
but the coved ceiling is the chief feature of the court
room. Here the delicate plasterwork consists of a
central rosette framed by wide links of a vine pattern
making a three-lobed design in the manner of Adam
or Wyatt. The plaster wall panels, however, are
edged by gadrooning, by then an old-fashioned
motif. The painted decoration is of the 19th century.
The council chamber is also decorated in the
Adam style, but whether it is a faithful reproduction
of that existing before the fire which occurred in
1924 is uncertain. (fn. 96) The black and gold marble
chimney-piece which survived the fire is early Victorian, as are the remainder of the rooms on the first
floor, that is, the staircase and lobby, the museum,
and the reading room. This suite, dating from the
1830s and early 1840s, is an interesting amalgam of
belated Georgian, 'Jacobethan', and Victorian motifs,
and was presumably carried out to the designs of the
successive surveyors appointed by the Board at this
period.
The existing chapel, built between 1839 and 1843
to the designs of H. F. Lockwood, closes the view
from the council chamber. The first proposals were
for a simpler building but Lockwood was asked to
enrich both the east elevation, which was visible
from the House, and the interior. The former has
stone pilasters of the Greek Corinthian order, set
against a stuccoed wall which effectively conceals
the eastern apse. The west front closes the vista
through the arch of the former Victoria Almshouse;
its principal feature is horizontal stucco rustication.
Above the projecting porch can be seen one of the
huge lunette windows that light the nave. The north
and south fronts, hemmed in by other buildings, are
plain. The interior owes much to Wren in its basic
plan, but the details are characteristic of the Greek
Revival. The marble for the nave and chancel pillars
was quarried at Ashford (Derbys.). A dolphin replaces the usual flower at the centre of the Corinthian
capitals. Simple coffering was used within the apse
and for the barrel vault over the western gallery,
while the nave ceiling is Lockwood's interpretation
of a theme which had been employed, with many
variations, by Sir John Soane. Traditionally, the
altar is a survival from the chapel of 1772. The
stained glass of the east window was made in London
by a Mr. Stangroom, while that of the lunettes was
by Ralph Howe, of Hull.
If each succeeding chapel was to prove too small,
the 1753 almshouse proved likewise. Among the
buildings subsequently erected, Robinson's Hospital
was rebuilt in 1768–9 by John Storicker, though
whether to his own designs or to those of James
Beckett or William Varley is uncertain. The Merchant Seamen's Hospital of 1781 was by Hammond
and Riddell. Ferries's Hospital (1822) was designed
by John Earle, who also executed the sculpture of
the pediment, in a style reminiscent of the mid18th-century work on the east front of Trinity House
itself. Trinity Almshouse (1828) was designed by
Charles Mountain, the younger, who was also responsible for the Master Mariners' Hospital in Carr
Lane (1834). (fn. 97)
The right to have a common seal was granted to
the House in the charter of 1541. (fn. 98) The making of
a silver seal is recorded in 1581, and a new seal was
made in 1606. The latter is round, 2¼ inches. It
depicts a man dressed in a cloak, holding a staff. (fn. 99)
Legend, humanistic:
sigillum domus trinitatis ville regie super
hull.
The seal was recut in 1803 but was replaced by a
new one in 1841. The old silver matrix, which was
'broken' in 1841, survives.
The seal of 1841, which is still in use, is round,
23/8 inches. It depicts a sailing ship, with a pilot in
the bows and a steersman. Legend, lombardic:
sigillum commune domus trinitatis ville regie
super hull.
The seal was recut in 1936.
There is also a lesser seal, presumably the seal
recorded as being made in 1622. It is round, 13/8 inch.
It depicts a man in the costume of the period, holding a staff. Legend, lombardic:
sigillum gardianorum trinitatis domus.
The matrix survives.