Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 28 October 2014, At: 14:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
History of Education: Journal ofthe History of Education SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thed20
Frustrated ideals: the case ofElizabethan grammar schoolfoundationsJay P. Anglin aa Department of History , University of SouthernMississippi , Southern Station, Box 5047, Hattiesburg,Mississippi 39401, USAPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Jay P. Anglin (1982) Frustrated ideals: the case of Elizabethan grammarschool foundations, History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 11:4,267-279, DOI: 10.1080/0046760820110403
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760820110403
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
HISTORY OF EDUCATION, 1982, VOL. 11 , NO. 4 , 2 6 7 - 2 7 9
Frustrated ideals: the case of Elizabethan grammar school foundations
JAY P. ANGLIN
Department of History, University of Southern Mississippi, Southern Station,Box 5047, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401, USA
In several aspects the history of Elizabethan grammar schools is a study of unfulfilledpromise, since few schools managed to reach the ideals and goals their foundersenvisaged and few of those which did could maintain them. Even a casual survey ofschool histories reveals that school reputations fluctuated radically, with mostexperiencing disastrous nadirs; reputations and school populations of even the mostprestigious schools often sank to dramatic lows, while some schools disappearedaltogether in the absence of local support, favourable locations, sufficient endowments,and adequate internal management.1 Extant school records clearly indicate that fiscalshortages and an indifferent administration by school governing bodies, too oftencomposed of unscrupulous members who exploited the trusts they administered forpersonal ends, were key factors in preventing schools from achieving excellence and inrealizing their full potential of educating the statutory maximum number of boys. Thisbrief introduction to school administration and finances, a field still relativelyunexplored in Tudor educational history, is designed to call attention to inherentdefects in school foundations and in governing bodies, as well as problem areas inschool management. As such it offers a needed corrective to recent studies whichunrealistically equate the full realization of a founder's intention with the mere effectingof trusts.2 In this paper we will concentrate our attention on the 38 grammar schools inthe Elizabethan diocese of London, a geographical region encompassing the capital,Middlesex, Essex, and parts of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire and an area inpossession of an educational system which rivalled the best in the western world.3
1 See P. J. Wallis, 'Histories of Old Schools: A Preliminary List for England and Wales', BJES, XIV (1965),48-49,224-65 for a convenient, though dated, bibliography of school histories in London diocese. Forexamples of schools experiencing disastrous nadirs see my 'Private-Venture Grammar Schools: anElizabethan Alternative to the Endowed School System', Explorations in Renaissance Culture, V (1979),7-8.
2 Wilbur K. Jordan's The Charities of London, 1480-1660 (New York, 1960) provides an enthusiasticaccount of the generosity of donors, but unfortunately fails to deal adequately with problems inherent inthe realization and operation of trusts; consequently, his conclusions on the expansion of educationalfacilities are faulty, since few schools reached their full potential and the existence of many provedextremely marginal (see page 219). Lawrence Stone properly faults Jordan's figures on the scale ofexpansion, but he also assumes that the foundation of a school automatically was tantamount to the fullrealization of its potential. See 'The Educational Revolution in England, 1560-1640', Past and Present,XXVIII (February, 1964), 44-46, and M. Feingold, 'Jordan revisited: patterns of charitable giving insixteenth and seventeenth century England', History of Education, 8 (4), December 1979, 257-273.
3 Elizabethan schools with references to foundation documents are conveniently listed in A. M. Stowe,English Grammar Schools in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (New York, 1908), 25-54. The list is incompletefor London diocese, as Stowe omits 'the Library' of St Peter's Cornhill, the Chapel Royal of St James, andthe Essex schools of Braintree, Great Chesterford, Gosfield, Rayleigh, Langham, Thaxted, and WalthamHoly Cross. The inclusion by Stowe of Wethersfield is highly questionable, for the school was probably aprivate-venture grammar school. Harrow school is included, but it was not actually operational until1608. The confines of London diocese are extended here to encompass Southwark, which was part of thediocese of Winchester, and includes all peculiar jurisidictions within its boundaries.
0046-760X/82/1104 0267 $02-00 © 1982 Taylor & Francis Ltd
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
268 J. P. Anglin
In our examination it is necessary to keep in mind that primary sources are limited.Data on late Tudor schools are notoriously difficult to retrieve owing to the failure ofmany schools to maintain systematized records in their formative years and to a poorhabit of preserving them. Thirteen of our schools lack administrative and fiscal recordsfor the Elizabethan period, and available data for nearly all the schools preclude theconstruction of accurate lists of governors, terriers of school properties, studentpopulations, managerial activities, the terms and conditions of leases of trust propertiesand their holders, and minute breakdowns of income and expenses.4 These in turnseverely restrict the use of traditional legal sources in locating contentious casesassociated with matters pertaining to trust properties. The destruction from fire ofcause books for the Prerogative Court of Canterbury curbs most chances for thediscovery of malfeasance and mismanagement of school trust funds for practically thewhole reign.5 School accounts are often inseparable from other charities or fromcorporate funds, and those which are separable often consist of single entry totals ofannual debits and credits. Details of leases are rarely found in school and corporaterecords, thus making it difficult to estimate their profitability and to uncover collusionsbetween corrupt governors and lessees. The fact that the value of the properties ownedand leased by the governors was in a constant state of flux owing to the vagaries ofsupply and demand, the use to which property was put at a given time, the state ofrepair or condition of leased houses or lands, the real monetary value of rental propertyin an inflationary period—all essential details for defining fiscal accountability—areimpossible to uncover. Despite these serious problems there is much to be gleaned fromavailable sources, though our conclusions by necessity are often inferential.
The management of schools within the territorial confines of London diocese lay inthe hands of perpetual governing bodies, whose origins can be traced back to founders'wills or deeds, which conferred on them legal status and administrative and fiscalresponsibilities, including control of trust properties.Twenty-five grammar schools hadunincorporated governing bodies (feoffees) consisting of a membership ranging from 2to 24, while 13 fell under formally incorporated bodies authorized by letters patents.6
These latter were generally integral parts of London trade guilds and borough
4 There are no records for Elizabethan schools in Great Bardfield, Braintree, Elmdon, Gosfield, Halstead,Hampton, Langham, Maldon, Newport, Rayleigh, Stortford, Thaxted, and Wethersfield. Account books(often incomplete) exist for St Anthony's (see note 25), Christ's Hospital (Guildhall Library [GL]12,819/2), St Dunstan-in-the -West (GL 2968/1), Merchant Taylors' (GL Microfilm 298 [2], 299 [3], 300[4]), Dedham (Essex Record Office [ERO] D/Q 23/15/1), Felsted (ERO D/Q 11/33/1), St Albans(Hertford Record Office [HRO] D/P 99/8), St Olave's (Greater London Record Office [GLRO]P92/SAV/449/50), St Saviour's (GLRO P92/SAV/592 and microfilm X/12), and Walden (ERO T/A 327and T/A 401/2). Minute books covering portions of the Elizabethan period are available for publicinspection for Christ's Hospital (GL 12,806/1-3), Merchant Taylors' (GL Microfilm 325 [29-326/30]),Stepney (GL 5602/1-2), Dedham (ERO D/Q 23/15/1), and St Saviours' (GLRO Microfilm X/2, 1 andX/12.) Minutes for St Paul's, Barnet, and Highgate remain in possession of the governors. Limited data isavailable for several other schools. For the 'Library' at St Peter's Cornhill see GL 4165/1; for StDunstan's-in-the-West see GL 2968/1; for Great Bardfield see ERO D/DAQ 4; for Brentwood see EROT/B 223; for Colchester see ERO T/A 465/48-52 and T/A 465/113,115-120,122; and for Earls Colne seeERO D/Q 6/2/1-46. None of the diocesan schools kept registers of students in the Elizabethan period.
5 The handling of major bequests such as William Bentlowe's (ERO D/DA Q4) at diocesan courts is rarefor the Elizabethan period, as donors normally possessed property in several dioceses and consequentlyfell under the jurisdiction of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (note the bequests in Jordan). Diocesancourts handled small bequests, however, and judges actively intervened to protect them. For example, seeHRO ASA 5/5, nos. 191, 436, 454, and 1499; ERO D/ACA 5, fol. 104 and D/ACA 6, fol. 33v.
6 Formally incorporated boards of governors managed schools at the Chapel Royal, Christ's Hospital,Colchester, Halstead, Mercers', Merchant Taylors', St Albans, St Anthony's, St Paul's, Stepney(Coopers'), Thaxted, Walden, and Westminster.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 269
corporations within the diocese, the governors chosen from within their ranks, andwere particularly favoured by donors because they were held to be honest and reliable.7
The principal defect in the feoffee form of government was that by default of itsmembers, complete control over a school and its trust properties could escheat into thehands of a single member, thus reducing chances to curb malfeasance and illegal use oftrust properties and income. Collectively the original governing bodies were amicrocosm of society as a whole, representing the 'best' choices available to thefounders of schools, and were perpetuated by such devices as inheritance, election bysurviving members, and appointments by family heirs acting as school patrons.8
Express trust provisions required members to reside near the school and to have vestedinterests in its success, but these proved insufficient to insure the perpetuation ofdedicated and committed governors. Just as class distinctions and social status failed toguarantee personal integrity, blood relationship provided no assurance of commitmentshould an heir view the trust a useless diversion from his proper inheritance. Theinability of grammar schools to meet their full potential in part can be traced to thecomposition of second and third generation governing bodies and in their indifferentmanagement of the schools and their incomes.
Stowe's masterful survey of the role of Elizabethan school governing bodies, basedalmost solely on school statutes and foundation grants, requires little augmentation,other than a few general statements on their overall achievements as seen in schoolrecords. For London diocese the administrative work of the governing bodies appearsto have been both static and unprogressive; in short, it consisted principally of theroutine performance of assigned duties laid down in the founders trusts or in schoolstatutes, which legally proved virtually unchangeable since they were viewed by thejudiciary as the intent of the founders. Major revisions of prescribed curricula andschool populations as well as diversion of school funds into revenue-producingproperties were virtually impossible.9 Progessive change was further precluded by the
7 According to Erasmus Colet 'found the least corruption in them' (quoted in J. H. Lupton, A Life of JohnColet, DD (2nd ed, reprint, Hamden, Connecticut, 1961), 167. The widespread abuses associated withchantries must have encouraged Colet to see an alternative to the feoffee form of trust government. AlanKreider, English Chantries, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979), 76-87,89, indicates a high attrition rate forEssex chantries because of mismanagement. The situation in London proved quite similar. Of the 413chantries and 70 guilds and fraternities I have been able to trace in London prior to the dissolution, I findthat almost half had disappeared before 1548 because of mismanagement, private suppressions by theheirs of founders, and from the merging of foundations because of insufficient endowments.
8 Within the governing bodies of London area schools are to be found nobles (at Earls Colne), well-knownLondon businessmen and lawyers (these predominated at Mercers', Merchant Taylors', St Paul's,Coopers', and St Dunstan's-in-the-West), church dignitaries (as at Westminster and St Anthony's),Cambridge dons (the master at Caius College headed the board of go vernors at Newport), country gentry(as at Chelmsford and Harrow), as well as parochial clerics (Dedham, Elmdon, Hampton, and St Peter'sCornhill), churchwardens (as at Felsted, Hampton, and Enfield), 'chief inhabitants' of the parish in whichthe school was situated (notably at Barnet, Great Chesterford, Dedham, Felsted, St Olave's, and StSaviour's), and even a lowly tanner (viz., Robert Bright, appointed with John Lucas, yeoman, as firstwardens at Brentwood Grammar School by Sir Anthony Brown on 28 July 1558).
9 See Gareth Jones, History of the Law of Charity, 1532-1827 (Cambridge, 1969), 70-73. Foster Watson,The Beginnings of the Teaching of Modern Subjects in England (London, 1909), xxi, also sees the lack ofinnovative change the consequence of 'authority and tradition': The grammar schools were controlledlargely by authority, which, after the manner of authority, sought to economize energy by drifting intotradition'. Realizing that some change was necessarily inevitable founders sometimes gave governorsdiscretionary powers to effect such 'as the change of time may require' and 'to supply [statutes] . . . everydefault'. Nicholas Carlisle, A Concise Description of the Endowed Grammar Schools in England and Wales(2 vols, London, 1818), 1,57,518; II, 20-1,142,518,579,585-7. Some of the most noted uses of that powerare the addition of petty and writing schools at Christ's and Dedham (both, however, the result of newbequests), the enhancement of staff salaries, changes in entrance requirements, and amount of studentfees.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
270 J. P. Anglin
fact that schools were managed on a part-time basis by educational novices some ofwhom were devoid of a classical education, and some of whose short tenures deniedthem any real chances to make substantive contributions. Many second and thirdgeneration governors appear to have served begrudgingly, indifferently, or even withhostility in their unwanted positions. Save for the parochially controlled schools, mostgovernors elected to exert a minimum of effort in the performance of their roles and todemonstrate a maximum of patience when forced to deal with short-term aberrant ordisruptive practices within the schools. Such decisions explain why governing bodiesseemed willing to tolerate abuses over extended periods of time and why, whenconditions became intolerable, they elected to 'buy off' unsatisfactory schoolmastersrather than to undertake expensive and time-consuming legal steps in disposing ofthem.10 Such indifference insured that student populations periodically fell short ofstatutory maximums and that staffs often included mediocre and infamous teachers. Indue fairness, however, it must be noted that the choices of the governors were frequentlylimited by the availability of funds and statutory salary restrictions, limitations whichalso proved instrumental when they formulated policies touching the size of studentbodies.
Fiscally most governing bodies faced a serious and recurring problem: mostschools, inadequately endowed by their founders, lacked sufficient income to meetregular operational needs, to allow for liberal salaries as a means to attract first-ratemasters, and to expand services. Fewer than half the schools in the diocese everacquired sufficient operating revenues to meet all contingencies, while the reststruggled for mere existence. The problem of spendable income was particularly acutein schools where revenues were derived solely from fixed rent charges on lands or fromgovernment payments, since the ravages of inflation reduced actual purchasing power.What was deemed sufficient at the foundation of a school quickly proved inadequate,and additional endowments, private donations, and the judicious leasing of endow-ment properties, if such were fortutiously included in the trust, became critical factorsfor the mere survival of inadequately endowed schools. When these sources failed tomaterialize, the collection of fees became an essential resource for keeping schoolsoperational. That in the face of economic collapse governors succeeded in preservingunderfinanced schools for as long as they did is a marvellous achievement in schoolhistories, particularly when they were faced with prospects of little outside support andwith inherent factors which prevented real improvement in school finances.
New endowments did little to ease the fiscal problems of established schools. As lateas 1603 only six schools had managed to acquire substantial improvement in theireconomic position, the result of new revenue-producing endowments.11 Twenty-fivearea schools failed to attract supplementary endowments in any form. These included15 endowed schools, seven of which were forced to operate on fixed annuities, and 10
10 For example see Michael McDonnell, The Annals of St PauTs School (Cambridge, 1959), 111-112,137-142, 148-155, for the case of John Harrrison at St Paul's and Charles Alfred Jones, A History ofDedham (Colchester, 1907), 124, and ERO D/Q 23/15/1 fol. 15v for Richard Humphrey at Dedham.
11 These are Chelmsford, Christ's Hospital, Hornsey, St Albans, St Olave's, and St Saviour's (VCH Essex, II,512; Jordan, 212-13, 216, 217-8, 228; British Parliamentary Papers (BPP), Second Report of theCommissioners.. .to inquire concerning Charities in England for the Education of the Poor, Xb, 191;Schools Inquiry Commission, Special Reports by Assistant Commissioners, South Midland Division,1867-8, XIII (pt. x), 125-6; Theodore W. Dwight, Cases of the Commissioners of Charities (London, 1863),195-6.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 271
unendowed schools.12 As a consequence, the governors at Langham could depend onlyon a mere £2 to meet operational expenses, while those at Hampton, Stortford, andWalthamstow could draw a paltry £3, £5 and £8 respectively. Unendowed schoolsfound it particularly difficult to attract a patron, and of the two which succeeded,Westminster failed to acquire real income since endowments consisted of exhibitions.Barnet on the other hand acquired a £100 gift as well as a schoolhouse.13 The hard-pressed schools which operated on fixed annuities fared little better, as only four of the11 succeeded to attract additional gifts. Of these the foundation at Walden aloneacquired needed revenue producing property.14 Enfield's income remained static at£6/13/4, its new stock consisting of a much needed school building, while Dedham'snew gifts consisted of exhibitions and a residence for the petty master.15 Despite itsacquisition of revenue producing lands, the gift of William Martin in 1573, Halsteadfound it necessary to operate on its annuity of £12 annually from the originalendowment. The much-needed revenue was deferred over the duration of two lives andthen several years of income was denied the governors by unwilling heirs who requiredthe charity commissioners to prod them to transfer seisin.16
Governing bodies were helpless in improving the financial condition of theirschools for several reasons. First, benefactions tended to dry up after the mid-1570sbecause supporters of education directed their munificence to outlying provinces whereProtestantism was held insecure and uncertain. Locally the bulk of their donations wasshifted into non-educational charities.17 Second, extant school trusts won little supportfrom niggardly users, mainly since the broadcast method of founding schools failed toconsider local educational needs or to seek essential public support prior to theinstrusion of underfinanced schools into rural areas. Success in attracting gifts washighly dependent on the social composition of the immediate area, for the needs ofgrammar education were by no means universally shared by all classes. Having littleneed for grammar, parishioners at Hampton, Middlesex, allowed the school to lapserather than contribute supportive funds demanded by the original bequests,18 while theinhabitants at Hillingdon, Middlesex, refused to bear the expenses of a schoolhouse, aprecondition by a would-be founder, and hence lost their chance for a school.19 Third,
12 Those with fixed annuities were Elmdon, Felsted, Great Bardfield, Langham, St Benet Fink, Stortford,and Walthamstow. The ten endowed schools were Braintree, Gosfield, Maldon, Mercers', MerchantTaylors', Rayleigh, St Dunstan's-in-the-West, St Peter's Cornhill ('the Library"), Thaxted, andWethersfield. Other schools failing to attract supplementary endowments were Brentwood, Colchester,Coopers' (Stepney), Earls Colne, Hampton, Harrow, Newport, and St Paul's.
13 For Westminster see Carlisle, II, 109 and J. Sargeaunt, Annals of Westminster School (London, 1898). 112;for Barnet see Schools Inquiry Commission, Special Reports by the Assistant Commissioners, SouthMidland Division, 1867-8, XIII (pt. x), 106; VCH Herts, II, 79 and Cecil L. Tripp, A History of QueenElizabeths Grammar School, Barnet (Cambridge, 1935), 18.
14 ERO T/A 401/2.15 Leslie B. Marshall, A Brief History of Enfield Grammar School, 1558-1958 (Richmond, 1958), 15; VCH
Middx., I, 294; ERO D/Q 23/15/1, fols. 39v-41, 46v-48; ERO T/A 401/2 (Accounts Saffron WaldenTrinity Guild).
16 PRO C93/6/6.17 This is reflected in the small number of diocesan schools founded after 1570 and by Jordan's analysis of
benefactions (see Jordan, 87-88, 311).18 Carlisle, II, 119. For conditions of the bequest see the will of Robert Hammond in PCC F.18 Wrastley
1557.19 BPP, Charity Commissioners Reports (1822), IX, 248. The will of Robert Woolman (1570) contained a
provision that automatically terminated his endowment of 20 marks annuity to the parish for educationaland charitable purposes should the parishioners fail either to acquire crown authority for erecting theschool or to provide a sufficient schoolhouse.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
272 J. P. Anglin
crown restrictions on the capitalization of schools also proved crucial. Thoughapplicable only to incorporated schools, these limited the amount of freehold propertya school could hold and prevented most governing bodies from expending surplusstocks to acquire income producing realty. Most royal charters authorized governorsto 'hold', 'receive', or 'take' property of a clear annual value of £30-40 in excess oforiginal capital endowments, but they restricted such new acquisitions to gifts from astingy private sector. Only five governing bodies received authority to 'purchase' or'acquire' additional lands by expending surplus capital stock from public subscriptions,endowments, or rental surpluses, and none was allowed to exceed its prescribed capitalbase save by acquiring new patents.20
Governors had at their disposal revenues derived from one or more sources: fixedannuities from endowments, government payments, income from the leasing of schoolproperty, funds from the chests of corporate guilds and religious bodies, assessed rates,public collections, tithes, private grants, and student fees. While most sources hadunrestricted use, certain funds were specifically designated for university exhibitions,buildings, and salaries. Except for the fixed annuities and exchequer payments, incomewas variable, tempered mainly by the vagaries of the state of the national or localeconomy. Depressions and hard times usually meant a reduction in operationalincome, as lease payments fell behind, private donations declined sharply, and guilds
: reduced expenditures owing to shortages of corporate funds.21 National prosperity didnot always spill over into school revenues, and austerity budgets carried over. Longleases often prevented schools from enjoying the benefits of enhanced rentals. Whatparticularly hurt some schools was a precipitious drop in incomes which could not beeasily replenished. Those dependent on private cash contributions in meetingoperational expenses faced particularly difficult times. At Harrow, for example, theschool in the churchyard lost all its operational income when John Lyon died in 1592with the result that the parish lacked a school until Lyon's trust endowment becameavailable in 1608.22 From 1561 until his death in 1568 Richard Hills, the founder ofMerchant Taylor's School, subsidized Richard Mulcaster's salary with an annualdonation of £10, and the schoolmaster left when he lost that income.23 Changingattitudes of the public as to the nature of charity also had its economic effect on schooloperations. The evolution of a national system of apprenticeship and poor relief had aserious impact on public donations to Christ's Hospital, and the governors had toadjust budgets as well as reorganize its mode of operation.24 St Anthony's School,which had long been a favourite charity for generous Londoners, watched its resources
20 See those of Dedham, Christ's Hospital, St Dunstan's-in-the-West, St Olave's, St Saviour's, Brentwood,and Harrow in Calendar of Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary, IV, 225-6; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Elizabeth I,II, 226-7,268, III, 207-8; IV, 481-2; and VI, 298, 359. At Barnet the governors were allowed to 'have,purchase, or receive' lands with an annual value not exceeding £40, while governors at Hornsey(Highgate), St Albans, Chelmsford, and Thaxted were authorized to 'acquire' lands of a fixed annualvalue. (Calendar of Patent Roth, Edward VI, IV, 116-7; V, 33-4; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary,III, 154-56; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Elizabeth I, III, 207-8; IV, 161.
21 For example see F. M. W. Draper, Four Centuries of Merchant Taylor's School, 1561-1961 (London,1962), 10 for the case of Merchant Taylors', where shortages of cash prevented them from offering decentsalaries.
22 J. F. Williams, Harrow (London, 1901), 36; Jordan, 229.23 Richard L. DeMolen, 'Richard Mulcaster: An Elizabethan Savant', in J. I. Barroll, HI, ed., Shakespeare
Studies VIII (New York, 1975), 40, 71 (n. 62). '24 For the impact of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 (43 Eliz., c 12) on school income see Schools Inquiry
Commission. Special Reports by Assistant Commissioners, London Division, 1867-8, XIII (pt. x), 12.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 273
dry up and its prestige dip precipitiously when former patrons adopted more popularcharities.25
In the schools which were fortunate enough to acquire endowments of school-houses and staff residences, expenditures consisted principally of staff salaries and costsassociated with the repairs and maintenance of school properties.26 Elsewhere asizeable portion of income had to be diverted to the construction of necessary schoolbuildings, unless inadequate funds forced the governors to use rental property or tocoax local authorities to allow them temporary use of public buildings.27 Salaries forthe teaching staff consumed the bulk of operational funds, though these tended to bestatic owing to rigid stipulations incorporated in the provisions of the trustfoundation.28 When possible governors supplemented payments by means of directmonetary grants to individual teachers from private or corporate sources, urged theprivate sector to fund new endowments for that purpose, allowed teachers to take fee-paying students or to seek part-time employment when such was not specificallyprohibited in school statutes, or aided teachers in acquiring church benefices.Occasional expenses included those incurred in legal proceedings, the purchase ofinterior furnishings for the schoolhouse and staff residences, and minor operationalexpenses.
Available data allow for few specific conclusions on the fiscal accountability ofgoverning bodies. In general those schools founded at the initiation of parents and/orgoverned by feoffees drawn from their ranks tended to enjoy a measure of goodgovernment as well as fiscal health. Such schools increased student populations,accumulated surpluses and sizeable capital stocks, and experienced practically none ofthe extended periods of decline so common for most schools. At Chipping Barnet,Dedham, St Olave's, and St Saviour's, local governors drew funds from a variety ofsources to accumulate building endowments and funds for meeting current expenses.These included resort to public subscriptions, the use of parochially owned lands asinitial school endowments, active campaigns for the solicitation of private gifts ofmoney and property, the levying of local rates, and the collection of student fees. Theparishioners at St Saviour's willingly submitted to the imposition of rates levied by thevestry for the support of the school. The six governors proved so adept fiscally that theywere soon able to lend surplus money to the churchwardens for repairs to the parishchurch.29 At St Olave's a sustained effort to build up school stocks proved so successfulthat over £700 in capital stock was realized by the middle of the seventeenth century.This was no mean achievement since the initial endowment consisted of a small andpractically worthless tract of land owned by the parish and transferred to the school.30
The governing body of 24 inhabitants at Chipping Barnet could not match this success,
25 Walter Besant, London City (London, 1910), VII, 420, 423. Documents of this school are among themanuscripts of St George's Chapel, Windsor. See particularly MS. XV .37.75 and MS.XV .37.89 for schoolfinances.
26 As at St Saviour's in 1562-3 (GLRO P92/SAV/449, fols, 27, 29, 33, 131, 133).27 Schools at Great Bardfield, Newport, and Thaxted were kept in public guildhalls while the Colchester
school was housed in a building provided by the borough. Chelmsford rented its school premises from theMildmays, while the schoolmaster at St Dunstan's-in-the -West paid an annual rent to the churchwardens for use of the church loft. Schools at Christ's Hospital, St Albans, St Anthony's, and Westminsterwere housed in buildings owned by the governing corporate bodies.
28 This is particularly the case in schools with fixed incomes. Founder's restrictions also kept salaries static.George Manning, master at Felsted, worked for over thirty years at a salary of twenty pounds, a sum fixedby the founder in 1564: Michael Craze, A history of Felsted School (Ipswich, 1955), 44.
29 GLRO P92/SAV/449, fols. 12, 29, 31, 33, 37, 87, 131, 133; GLRO Microfilm X/12 (Ms. volume ofaccounts of St Saviour's Grammar School, Southwark, 1571-1619), passim; Jordan, 215-6.
30 See Jordan, 217-8 for the names of benefactors and citations to manuscript sources.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
274 J. P. Anglin
but the school governors managed to build up a small sum secured by the vicar from adiocesan fund-raising campaign and his own pockets into a modest endowment of £100and a schoolhouse.31 Dedham's five governors, the vicar and four parishioners,demonstrated astute fiscal skills with their stock. They not only acquired a profitablelease of the'parish rectory by judicious use of a £200 endowment for an exhibition, butalso regained possession of a leased farm in the original endowment so that it might bemore advantageously leased for 'some overplus towards the setting forth of scholars atthe university'.32
Schools under governing bodies associated with city companies did not fare as well,nor did those whose funds were managed by those companies. With the exception ofthe unendowed Merchant Taylors' School and the Mercers' School, funded fromcompany stocks, only three diocesan schools had fiscal ties with the guilds: theIronmongers' Company managed funds but did not govern the school at Bishop'sStortford, while the Coopers' Company and the Mercers' Company governed andmanaged trusts for the grammar schools at Ratcliff (Stepney) and St Paul's respectively.The grammar school at Bishop's Stortford acquired an annual payment of a mere £5from the Ironmongers' Company, which served as guarantor of the original £2000foundation and dispenser of £100 annually from surpluses generated from the loans ofcapital stock in a variety of charitable enterprises. As the trust contained no provisionfor augmenting the fixed sum from accumulated surpluses, the school's share remainedstatic.33 Similarly the Coopers' School was guaranteed a fixed sum for the payment ofthe salaries of the master and usher from profits which were similarly distributed tonumerous charities. As the governing body, the company was responsible for theupkeep of the buildings connected with the school and was authorized to adjustsalaries, but the disbursement of school finances and endowment profits are difficult tosegregate from those of other charities.34
That St Paul's enjoyed unusual fiscal health is attributable more to the generosityand foresight of Dean Colet than to the governors appointed by the Mercers'Company.35 But the cautious dean's fiscal conservatism proved a mixed blessing to theschool and its governing body. Fiscally the soundness of the school owed much toColet's wise insertion of a statutory condition which allowed school properties to beleased for a maximum span of five years'. This meant rental properties, many of whichwere choicely situated, could be advantageously adjusted in new leases to meet their fullpotential value. By demanding an annual turnover in the ranks of the eleven surveyorschosen from the ranks of the Mercers' Company to govern the school, Colet reducedcollusions to a minimum but all but eliminated long term fiscal planning. Otherpreconditions kept the assets of the school artificially low, for the surveyors could notloan the money nor use profits to acquire new lands which in turn could be leased.Instead Colet forced the company to keep surplus cash on reserve in a special iron chest
31 For Undern's efforts to obtain funds in London see CLRO JOR 20, no. 2 and CLRO REP 19 (1575-9),fols. 7v, 50v, 52, 55v. For the gifts of Anthony Maynard and John Lonison see ERO T/A 401/2.
32 For endowments see VCH Essex, II, 539 and for the innovative use of Littlebury's endowment see B.P.P.,House of Commons (1834), The Reports of the Commissioners to Inquire Concerning Charities, XXI,216.
33 This school has neither a known instrument of foundation nor records. For the Margaret Dane bequestsee PCC 42 Bakon 1579, whose conditions are summarized in Jordan, 185. For the foundation seeWilliam Foster, 'Nicholas Gibson and his Free School at Ratcliff', LTR, XVII, 1-18.
34 Jordan, 211-12; Schools Inquiry Commission. Special Reports by Assistant Commissioners, LondonDivision, 1867-8, XIII (pt. ix), 73-4.
35 See Colet's statutes in Lupton, 271-84.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 275
at Mercers' Hall for use during 'lean times' and for meeting expenses in repairingendowment properties. Colet's conditions did much to keep the Mercers' honest, buthis inadequate compensation to the surveyors encouraged them to splurge onincidental expenses associated with their activities. Undoubtedly ecclesiastical press-ures succeeded in negating the company's claim that the 'overplus' 'belongeth to thesaid company by the special gift and appointment of the said founder'.36
The fiscal management of the six schools under the government of individualsappointed by borough corporations is extremely clouded by the fact that the financialaccounts are blended among those of the corporations and are all but indis-tinguishable. So far no evidence has come to light which suggests that civic authoritiesabused school properties in the reign, although the dishonesty which surfaces in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries makes clear that unscrupulous civic leaders hadample opportunity to take advantage of school revenues owing to their unrestrictedcontrol.37 Not a single borough proved willing to commit borough funds for theacquisition of new school properties, even though they enjoyed special authorizationfrom crown patents to do so. Nor did the authorities invest accumulated surpluses forthat purpose, leaving school funds unproductive in civic treasuries. The civicauthorities were willing, however, to offer corporation buildings for the use of schoolsand they were quick to expend corporate funds in legal suits to protect endowedproperty rights.38
The most blatant examples of the misuse of school properties are found ininstitutions managed by feoffees, particularly those which reverted by default of itsmembers into the hands of a single member who acquired complete control over theinstitution and its assets. In wrong hands this development resulted in the mismanage-ment of school assets and even their embezzlement, as unscrupulous feoffees absorbedsurplus income as their own once they fulfilled the bare conditions of the charity,colluded with relatives and friends to negotiate long leases of school properties atsubmarket prices, or simply pocketed all school revenues for personal use. The extentto which such abuses affected London area schools is difficult to uncover, sinceinquiries and suits touching them become practical only after the statutory legislationof 1597 and 1601 on chartiable uses facilitate more adequate supervision of trusts. Priorto this legislation governors were virtually free to do as they pleased, as the enforcementof educational trusts by chancery and the ecclesiastical courts proved both inadequateand sporadic.
Enforcement in chancery had been particularly handicapped by court costs,cumbersome procedures, and legal restrictions which combined to discouragelegitimate representative actions for the recovery of endowment funds illegallydistrained by governors through breaches of the trust.39 Cases of enforcement wererare. In the first thirty years of Elizabeth's reign, chancery heard just two casesinvolving disputed endowment properties belonging to schools in London diocese.40
In both, endowments had been gifts conferred through deed trusts which were
36 Michael F. J. McDonnell, A History ofSt Paul's School, 138-9 citing the Times, 12 February, 1870. Thesurplus continued to tempt the Company and in 1745 the corporation was indebted to the school estatefor £34637 (see Lupton, 168).
37 See the examples noted by Carlisle, I, 425, 513.38 See Morant's History of Colchester (173) and History of Essex (I, 72-3, 433); Dwight, 195-6; Carlisle, I,
512; Acts of the Privy Council, Elizabeth I, XVII, 410.39 Jones, op. cit., 7-9.40 PRO C/3/173/51 and C/3/109/79; Dwight, op. cit., 181, 195-6.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
276 J. P. Anglin
withheld, a situation which suggests that the chancellors left the real burden ofenforcement on the judges in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, whose testamentaryjurisdiction incorporated the bulk of the wills conferring endowments on areaschools.41 By exacting substantial bonds from executors backed with the penalty ofexcommunication, writs of excommunicato capiendo, and the power of the HighCommission, Canterbury officials had little difficulty in fulfilling trusts foundingschools. That they faltered in the role as guardian of trust cannot be attributed to theirlack of powers to demand and exact accountability of school feoffees but rather to thelack of means for maintaining close and adequate supervision over the proper use ofendowment funds. The sheer bulk of private charities under their protective wingprecluded any real opportunity to supervise individual operation of trusts. They couldguard only to the extent that they could discover abuses, and such discoveries wereapparently rare. Infrequent metropolitan visitations allowed the judges little oppor-tunity to learn of breaches of trusts at the local level. At best they could encourageinjured parties to petition them for relief and provide such at the court through privatesuits.
Gareth Jones clearly shows in his History of the Law of Charity that the passage ofthe Statute of Charitable Uses of 1597, amended and reenacted in 1601, allowed for newprocedures to tap local complaints of misappropriated trust funds and permitted thechancellors greater opportunity to assume an enhanced role in the overall guardian-ship of trusts.42 The acts empowered the chancellors to create formal commissions,following the receipt of complaints, to inquire into the state of charitable trusts. Thecommissioners, consisting of the bishop, the vicar-general, and at least three otherqualified men, were charged to conduct a formal investigation, assisted by 'a jury oftwelve "honest and lawful" men of the county unassociated with the trust property'.While conducting the inquisition, the commissioners invited interested parties toproduce evidence of malfeasance, and if finding such, issued a formal decree to thefeoffees demanding the restoration and/or proper employment of trust funds. Not onlyctould the commissioners recover distrained money and property with appropriateinterest charges but also they could void fradulent leases, revive lapsed rent charges,demand repairs to trust properties, issue directives as to the actual expenditure of trustfunds, and, with the chancellor's approval, make correctives as to defects in'conveyances and assurances to charitable uses'.43 In London diocese the com-missioners met with immediate approval, the effect of which was a marked increase inthe numbers of petitions to chancery for relief and in the work of commissioners.44
Unfortunately the role was only partially successful, and school propertiescontinued to be exploited. For the success of the commissioners was offset by theignorant state of interested parties as to the exact nature of trusts and the status of trustproperties at any given time; it was further offset by the combined pressures of socialdeference and aristocratic intimidation. Few beneficiaries of trusts were ever qualifiedto offer real challenges to feoffees, since the intricate details of trusts did not necessarilybecome public knowledge and since feoffees traditionally regarded their managementof trust properties as private rather than public business. When trusts were complex,particularly when they involved a variety of charitable services and incorporated
41 Diocesan and archidiaconal courts did handle trusts, but these were usually small and endowmentsgenerally applicable to poor relief and non-educational charities (see note 5).
42 For additional details and sources on topics included below see Jones, 39-52.43 Ibid., 59-72.44 This area desperately needs study. Some obvious cases are included in Dwight.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 277
properties from numerous bequests, it was all but impossible for beneficiaries todistinguish singular bequests. This proved critical to enforcement as blended accountsallowed unscrupulous feoffees considerable opportunity to distrain money or propertywith far fewer risks of discovery. Even an attempt to undertake measures againstblatant corruption required considerable courage on the part of interested parties andcommissioners alike, for the new procedures meant a direct confrontation withpowerful local dignitaries, who viewed such challenges of their managerial role as directattacks on their personal integrity. As neighbours of the feoffees, the commissionerswarily treaded a fine line in the midst of local traditions and outside pressures which didnot always ensure enforcement. These problems are clearly revealed in the case of twodiocesan schools, Chelmsford and Earls Colne.
The revenues of Chelmsford Grammar School appear to have been particularlyvulnerable in the hands of unscrupulous feoffees, so much so that numerous formalcommissioners were appointed in the course of the seventeenth century to inquire intotheir status.45 The first sign of corruption surfaced in 1605 when the schoolmaster,Richard Broadway, petitioned the crown to appoint a commission to inquire into whathe viewed to be a fraudulent diversion of school revenues to private use over the courseof a forty year period by Sir Thomas Mildmay, one of the school's four governors andsole manager of its fiscal resources.
Mildmay owed his role as governor to inheritance, his father, Thomas, being anoriginal governor, and through the approbation and default of the other boardmembers he had acquired virtual control over the school and its resources. Thissituation, which permitted such a diversion, enabled the younger Mildmay to appointBroadway as master in 1594. The relationship between the two men eventually soured,undoubtedly over religious differences, and young Mildmay took steps to drive the'temporysinge papist' from office. He withheld Broadway's salary for a year and a half,named a new master for the school, and initiated steps to eject Broadway from theschoolbuilding which housed the master. Undaunted by the social status of hisemployer, Broadway countered with an appeal to James I and a petition to chanceryfor relief. In both appeals Broadway introduced charges that Mildmay arbitrarily andunjustifiably mistreated him and that the governor further had personally 'received andconverted to his own use' surplus school revenues exceeding £800 in value. This sum,Broadway was to later show, included £430 of actual income and the potential revenueslost from a collusion between the governor and two of his servants, the effect of whichwas the negotiation of long term leases of school properties at rentals which not onlyignored the general rise in rents but also failed to take into proper account the actualmarket value of the property.
In response to the appeal, James I authorized Sir Julius Caeser to name theArchbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London as commissioners for a specialinquiry on the dispute. At Lambeth on 2 July 1606 Mildmay was allowed to respond toBroadway's charges, at which time he produced a written document on the history ofthe school finances from 1550 to 1605, a document which he had to reconstruct frommemory.46 During the entire period, he contended, the expenses of the grammar schoolhad exceeded the income from endowments by over £180. Hence Broadway's
45 The following account is derived from the Petre Estate Papers in the ERO, particularly D/DP 036/1-5and D/DP 037/5-7, 10-22.
46 An extract of the inquiry and a brief account of the dispute is contained in J. H. Johnson, 'ChelmsfordGrammar School', Essex Review, LIV (1945), 100-101.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
278 J. P. Anglin
purported 'surplus' was in effect a 'credit balance', a sum for which the school stock wasindebted to the feoffee. In the absence of an account book of school revenues andexpenses Mildmay made no attempt to break down school finances into theirconstituent parts and evaded the critical matter of leases. As a result the commissioners,having merely the word of the governor as proof, could only determine from theproceedings that 'Sir Thomas Mildmay seemethe thereby to make certeine allowauncesunto himself not fit in equitie to be allowed unto him'. The limitations imposed on themby their commission and by the desire to avoid the emnity of the powerful governorshould his word be disputed induced the commissioners to terminate the matter offraud with a simple command that outstanding debts be paid. As a result no witnesseswere called, even though Broadway provided detailed objections to points contained inMildmay's report which seriously questioned the governor's credibility. The com-missioners proved themselves far more effective in resolving the personal differencesbetween the disputants. With Mildmay's concurrence they arranged for the payment ofthe arrears in Broadway's salary, for the contentious schoolmaster to retain his job andresidence until the following Michaelmas term, and for the drawing up of schoolstatutes which were hoped would serve to prevent further disputes.
At Mildmay's death on 24 July 1608 John Lord Petre, another feoffee, assumed'the greatest power of managing and governing the said school and lands which eversince hath rested in that house'. By this action, Lord Petre, like the two Mildmay'sbefore him, successfully skirted the safety measures taken by the patron and founder ofthe school to protect endowment income. Consequently the same abuses continued topersist under the Petres, and further investigations were ultimately deemednecessary.47
At the Essex school of Earls Colne, the Earls of Oxford had long enjoyed the uniqueposition as sole governors, a consequence of a similar default of feoffee governorswhose names soon passed from memory.48 Save for the possible collusion in 1593between the earl and Simon Ivie over the leasing of school lands at a reduced rate, a dealwhich allowed the latter to make £70 profit, there is no proof to suggest that the Oxfordfamily consciously violated the integrity of school assets. Nevertheless they provednegligent and careless in the leasing of school property; they allowed a local weaver toenjoy illegal seisin for over 12 years of a tract of school property;49 they permitted theschool buildings to fall into a state of decay; and they suffered the school to endure longperiods of indifference and neglect. The fortunes of the school sank to extreme lowsunder the governance of the unfortunate Edward de Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford. DeVere's long absences in London allowed Anglican and Puritan factions in the parish todisrupt the operation of the school, while a temporary commission appointed tomanage school affairs and reorganize its finances proved inept at effecting neededchanges. A persistent stream of complaints of mismanagement of the school ultimatelyled to two separate investigations by special commissioners, neither of which couldprovide actual relief. In 1595 seventeen jurors appeared before the special chanceryinquisition conducted by four Essex JPs, but, having no authority to enforce asettlement and no chancery decree to correct faults, their investigation proved fruitless.In 1610 an inquisition by commissioners, whose powers were greatly enhanced by the
47 ERO D/DP 039/17, fol. 3. For details on seventeenth century abuses see part two of Johnson's article inEssex Review, LV (1945), 1-3.
48 ERO D/Q 6/1/1-3.49 ERO D/Q 6/2/2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Frustrated ideals 279
Statute of Charitable Uses, similarly failed to provide needed relief for obviousmanagerial faults. The commissioners desired to transfer control of school property tosix or eight county justices and to empower the bishop of London to appointschoolmasters, but they dropped the plan when the Oxford family successfully arguedthat the plan was tantamount to an illegal confiscation of inherited family property.
Problems such as these reached endemic proportions in the seventeenth century—Jones notes over 1000 cases undertaken by the charity commissioners alone—and itseems highly likely that abuses by trustees were common in Elizabethan schools.50
Researchers will find it difficult to delimit the extent of malfeasance and neglect, sincemuch of it was clandestine and evidence is so difficult to uncover in the few survivingrecords. Nevertheless efforts should be made, for they will allow for the isolation ofcases of graft and malfeasance and provide some indication as to their prevalence andtheir overall impact on the school system. Further studies on school government andfinances will also enable us to appreciate better the achievements of the honestmajority, which as we have observed, are remarkable in the face of the adverse andrestrictive conditions under which they laboured. Undoubtedly they might even allowsome future historian to argue that the success of the age in effecting an educational'revolution' owed in no small part to the successful efforts and labours of theseunheralded and little studied amateurs.51
50 Jones, 52.51 Provided, of course, there really was a revolution. See Kenneth Charlton's inaugural address in the Chair
of the History of Education at the University of London, King's College, (18 February, 1974), 'A TudorEducational Revolution?'.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
14:
23 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
