THE ANCIENT SCHOOLS IN THE CITY OF LONDON |
By A. F. Leach. The history of schools in London, like the history of schools in England and mediÆval Europe at large, necessarily begins with the history of its great churches. Throughout England until the Reformation, and, in theory at all events, until the Revolution, schools were ecclesiastical institutions, and education was a matter of purely ecclesiastical cognizance. The Ordinary, that is, the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court of first instance, had everywhere cognizance of all matters in dispute which concerned schools and scholars, their internal discipline and their relations to the external world. It could and did settle the question of school supply, how many schools there should be, and where. If we want to know, therefore, what were the earliest and chief schools of London, we have only to ask, What were the earliest and chief churches of London? When we say churches, we must be careful to remember that the word churches for such purpose means churches of the secular clergy; that is, college and parish churches, not those of monasteries and religious orders. We must be careful not to confuse the two, and not to talk of St. Paul’s Cathedral Church as conventual, or of St. Martin’s-le-Grand Collegiate Church as a monastery. To do so is precisely like confusing New College, Oxford, with a Jesuit seminary, or Trinity, Cambridge, with a Salvation Army barracks. The chief secular churches of London were, first and foremost, St. Paul’s Cathedral; next, the great Collegiate Church of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, now, alas! swallowed up by the General Post Office; and third, the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, the London church of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the seat of his supreme ecclesiastical court, which has given its name to the Court of Arches, and was his “peculiar” property, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, the Bishop of London. In these three churches, some of the earliest extant documents of St. Paul’s reveal the existence of grammar schools, which were already old in the year 1138. These three schools, and they alone, constituted the whole of the public provision for education in London until the year 1441, when another grammar school was established in St. Antony’s Hospital. Some other schools were afterwards founded in connection with other churches before the Reformation. But while its earlier and its later pre-Reformation rivals have all disappeared, the earliest and greatest of all, the grammar school of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul’s, London, commonly called St. Paul’s School, with its unbroken pedigree of 800 years and upwards still ranks among the chief schools of the country, and holds as marked a position of pre-eminence in the greater London of 1900 as it did in the old narrow city of London in 1100. The story of London schools should, then, be simplicity itself; the more so as it suffers from a lack of material. Yet it has been so obscured and complicated by successive writers that it has been converted into a tangled and twisted texture of guesses and fables, which we must endeavour to unravel. It ought not to have been so. For, earlier probably than any other city in Europe, except York, London found its vates sacer, who for the admiration of his own and the information of later ages, sung the glories of its schools and scholars, their studies and their sports. Alcuin’s ninth-century poem[38] in Latin hexameters “On the Archbishops and Saints of the Church of York,” giving a vivid account of St. Peter’s School there, of which he was himself master in the third quarter of the eighth century, is the earliest account we have of any English school. The picture, drawn in poetic Latin prose of the twelfth century by “the son of Stephen,” of London schools and scholars, as they were during the boyhood of Becket, is not less full or vivid. One almost suspects from the way in which quotations from Latin poets are lugged in “by the hairs” that Fitzstephen was himself at one time a schoolmaster, before he became Becket’s chancellor and ended as a judge. At all events, he took a keen interest in schools and schoolboys, and devoted a good third of his famous description of London to the games and sports of the London schoolboy. “In London,”[39] he says, “the three principal churches have famous schools privileged and of ancient pre-eminence, though sometimes through personal favour to some one noted as a philosopher more schools are allowed. On feast days the masters celebrate assemblies at the churches, arrayed in festive garb. The scholars hold disputations, some augmentatively, others by way of question and answer. These roll out enthymemes, those use the forms of perfect syllogisms. Some dispute merely for show, as they do at collections;[40] others for the truth which is the grace of perfection. The sophists and pretenders are pronounced happy because of the mass and volume of their words; others play upon words. The rhetoricians with rhetorical speeches speak to the point with a view to persuasion, being careful to observe the precepts of their art, and to leave out nothing that belongs to it. “The boys of the different schools hold contests in verse, or pose each other on the principles of grammar or the rules of preterites and supines. Others in epigrams, rhymes and metres use the old street eloquence, with Fescinnine licence scourging their schoolfellows, without mentioning names; hurling abusive epithets and scoffs at them: with Socratic salt girding at the failings of their fellows, or perhaps of their elders; and in bold dithyrambics biting them with the sharp tooth of Theon. The audience ready to laugh With crincled noses redouble their shrill guffaws.” The beginning of this passage states as plainly as can be that there were schools attached to the three principal churches, that they were ancient even then, and privileged. By privileged is meant, not as Lord Lyttelton[41] in his Henry II. interprets it, that “by particular privilege was taught not only grammar, but poetry, rhetorick and logick”; but, as the context shows, that these schools were the only schools allowed at all, though occasionally a special schoolmaster was allowed on sufferance and by personal favour. Stow, who was the first to quote this passage, went on[42] to identify the three schools. The first, he supposed rightly, was St. Paul’s. But for the second he puts “S. Peter’s at Westminster,” and supports it by a quotation from Ingulphus’ Chronicle, now admitted on all hands to be a fifteenth-century forgery. The third, says Stow, “seemeth to have been in the monastery of St. Saviour at Bermondsey in Southwark. For other priories, as of St. John by Smithfield, St. Bartholomew in Smithfield, St. Mary Overies in Southwark, and that of the Holy Trinity in Aldgate, were all of later foundation.” This is a curious conglomeration of errors: which has unfortunately been blindly adopted by subsequent writers. Even if there had been a grammar school at Westminster, it could not possibly be described in the twelfth century as being in London, since Fitzstephen himself speaks of Westminster as being two miles off. The placing of a London school at St. Saviour’s, Bermondsey, is even more open to the same objection of not being in London. It is an interesting question from what MS. of Fitzstephen Stow derived his knowledge of this passage about schools. Out of four ancient MSS. now extant, only one, and that the latest, contains the passage. These MSS. are: (i.) MS. Lambeth 138 (wrongly referred to as 1168 in the Rolls edition of Fitzstephen). This is of the thirteenth century and has not the Description of London at all. (ii.) MS. Douce 289 at the Bodleian. This is also of the thirteenth century. It has the Description of London, but having lost its first leaf has only the last few words about schools, (iii.) MS. Cotton, Julius, A, xi., at the British Museum. This is of the early fourteenth century and has not got the Description at all. (iv.) Lansdowne MS. 398, late in the fifteenth century. This is the only MS. which has the Description of London and its schools in full, and it does not mention the churches which kept them. On the other hand, the Description of London, apart from the Life, is written at the beginning of the Liber Custumarum of the City of London, now in the Guildhall, a MS. of the first half of the fourteenth century. It contains the passage about the schools and after the word churches inserts “viz. the Bishop’s see, the church of St. Paul’s, the church of Holy Trinity and the church of St. Martin.” Mr. Riley, in his edition of the Liber Custumarum, thinks that Stow had this book before him. But the omission by Stow of the names of the three churches, and his bad guess as to what the churches were, seem to show conclusively that the Guildhall MS. was unknown to him, unless he garbled it for the sake of avoiding a difficulty. As we have seen, Stow says that Trinity Priory was not founded till after the time of which Fitzstephen was writing. In this he was mistaken. The Priory purports in its chartulary[43] to have been founded by “good Queen Mold,” the wife of Henry I., in 1108, and its most interesting endowment, the Portsoken, the land of the English Knights’ Gild outside Aldgate, in virtue of which the Prior of Christchurch, or Creechurch, as it was nicknamed, was ex officio an Alderman of the City of London, was given in 1125. There does not, however, seem to be any mention of a school in connection with the church before or after the foundation of the Priory either in its chartulary, or elsewhere.[44] On the other hand, we have testimony contemporary with the time of which Fitzstephen was writing, and many subsequent references, extending up to the time of Henry VIII., which show conclusively that the three churches with schools were St. Paul’s, St. Martin’s-le-Grand, and St. Mary-le-Bow, and that they preserved their monopoly till the middle of the fifteenth century. There was therefore no room for any recognised school in, or connected with, Trinity Church. Three explanations appear to be possible. (i.) There was a school in Trinity Church while it was a secular church, belonging to the College Church of the Holy Cross, Waltham, which ceased on its being converted into a Priory. (ii.) There was an adulterine or unlicensed school there, put down by the very document which conveys the contemporary testimony as to what the legitimate and privileged schools were. But more probably (iii.) the words are an interpolation due to a gloss by some badly-informed commentator. The curious thing is that in the very passage quoted, Stow cites, though inaccurately, a patent of Henry VI. by which, as we shall see, authority was given for the erection of certain schools, besides those at St. Paul’s, at St. Martin’s-le-Grand, and St. Mary-le-Bow in Cheap. It is rather strange that Stow did not know of the famous document at St. Paul’s, which tells us plainly what these three ancient and famous schools were. But then he had not the advantage we enjoy of Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte’s admirable Calendar of the St. Paul’s Muniments.[45] The one in question runs thus: Henry, by the Grace of God, minister of the church of Winchester, to the Chapter of St. Paul’s and William, Archdeacon, and their officers, greeting. I command you by your obedience that after three summonses, you launch the sentence of excommunication against those who, without a license from Henry, the Schoolmaster, presume to teach (anywhere) in the whole city of London; except those who teach the schools of St. Mary of the Arch and St. Martin’s the Great. Witness, Hilarius, at Winchester. It is at first sight mysterious that Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, should, even though he was King Stephen’s brother, thus interfere in the affairs of another diocese. The explanation is that he was in fact acting as Bishop of London at that time, holding the See during its vacancy in commendam, or in charge. This fact enables us to fix the date. It must lie between 1138, when, according to the chronicler, Ralph de Diceto,[46] who was Dean of St. Paul’s, “the Pope with the King’s consent, committed the care of the church of London to Henry, Bishop of Winchester,” and 1140, when “the Empress (Matilda) was received by the Londoners for their lady, and she made Robert of the Seal, bishop of London.” Rival schoolmasters had no doubt taken advantage of the relaxation of discipline during the prolonged vacancy of the See, consequent on the Pope’s setting aside the election of the Abbot of St. Edmund’s Bury to it, to set up “adulterine” or unlicensed schools. When the See was placed under a strong guardian, the arm of the church was stretched out to defend the monopoly of its children. But the injunction against rival schools was not, as has been represented by Dugdale,[47] any special favour to Henry the schoolmaster of St. Paul’s. It was merely in accordance with the common law of the church. We find precisely the same kind of proceeding going on at Winchester itself[48] at about the same time, and again as late as 1629; while copious instances of its use are to be found at Canterbury in the fourteenth, and at York and Beverley[49] in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Master Henry had been appointed schoolmaster by Richard Belmeis, Bishop of London, and his appointment is still extant among the archives of St. Paul’s, not only in a chartulary copy but in the actual original itself. As it is probably the oldest instrument of its kind in England, it is given in full. Collation of the School[50] Richard, by the Grace of God, Bishop of London, to William, Dean, and the whole assembly of his brethren, and to William of Oschendon his steward, and all his men, Greeting and blessing in Christ. I make known to you, my beloved, that I have granted to Henry, my canon, the pupil of Master Hugh, the school of St. Paul’s, as honourably as the church in best and most honourable wise ever held it, and the land of the court (atrio) which the aforesaid Hugh enclosed there to house himself in; and the meadow which I had granted to the same Hugh in Fulham, 4 acres; namely, the whole land from the ditch to the Thames (he paying) 12d. a year by way of acknowledgment at Michaelmas; and, in alms, the tithes of Ealing and the tithes of Madeley. Witnesses, William of Winchester, William of Occhenden, steward, and Hugh de Cancerisio. On the strength of this and a previous document, Bishop Stubbs speaks[51] of Bishop Richard de Belmeis, de Bello Manso (or Fairhouse), as having “founded” the “schools” (sic) “of St. Paul’s.” The previous document is only preserved in a copy in the early chartulary called Liber A. It is addressed to W. Dean and the whole assembly of canons (fratrum conventui) and informs the bishop’s “best beloved sons” that he has “confirmed (stabilisse) to Hugh the Schoolmaster, ex officio as Master, and to his successors in that dignity, the place of Mr. Durand in the corner of the Tower, where Dean William placed him by my orders between Robert de Auco and Odo.” The Bishop then proceeds, “I grant to him and to the privilege of the school the custody of all the books of my church,” and orders the dean to have a list of the books made out in an indenture, one part of which is to be placed in the treasury, the other to be kept by the schoolmaster, who is to be given seisin of the books; while any books that have been lent out, whether theological (divinorum) or of secular learning, are to be returned, on pain of excommunication. Hugh was also “to have the keys of the cupboards” (armariorum, aumbreys as they are now somewhat affectedly called) “which I ordered to be made for the purpose.” As no witnesses are recorded, the date of this cannot be fixed, except as being between 1111, when William became Dean, and 1127, when Bishop Richard died. It must, of course, be before the document appointing Henry as schoolmaster in succession to this same Hugh. Neither of the two documents supports Bishop Stubbs’ statement that Bishop Richard “founded” the “schools” of St. Paul’s. It is odd that the Bishop should have fallen into this mistake, as Dugdale[52] described the documents quite accurately, as grants to the Schoolmaster of St. Paul’s. Both of the grants imply that the schoolmaster’s office or “dignity” was in existence before. The later document is, of course, as it is called, merely a collation; an appointment of a new master, Henry, who had himself been a scholar in the school, to succeed a deceased master, Hugh. The earlier one merely confirms, not grants, to an existing officer or dignitary of the cathedral the residence he already enjoyed, at the same time annexing that particular residence to the office, while giving him the apparently[53] new duty of taking care of the books belonging to the church. The title of Master applied to Durand suggests that he too had been schoolmaster before Hugh, and lived in the same house as Hugh did, but that the house, then only an ordinary prebendal house, was now definitely made the schoolmaster’s official residence. It is particularly unfortunate that Bishop Stubbs should also have been misled by the plural form used in the original for a school into misunderstanding the mention of the school of St. Paul’s for a reference to schools, meaning more than one. There has been no more prolific source of misrepresentation as to the whole status and history of mediÆval schools than this misunderstanding. Yet it is beyond doubt that until the middle of the fifteenth century the word school was habitually not scola but scolÆ.[54] The official title of a grammar schoolmaster was not Magister Scole Gramatices or Gramaticalis but Magister Scolarum Gramaticalium. He was schoolsmaster not schoolmaster. This was the style almost universally used in official and formal documents up to the reign of Edward VI. In less formal documents, such as Account Rolls and the like, the singular form began to oust the plural as nearly as possible in the year 1450. Before that time, though there are occasional uses of the word in the singular, the normal use was in the plural. A few references to original documents will be enough to show the identity of meaning of the singular and plural forms. Thus, in an inquiry as to St. Cross Hospital near Winchester in 1373,[55] when evidence was given that among the 100 poor fed every day in the Hundredmen’s Hall, there were 13 poor scholars sent from the Grammar School of Winchester; some witnesses call them “poorer scholars of the grammar school (scole gramaticalis) of the city of Winchester,” and others, “poor scholars from the grammar school (scolis gramaticalibus) there,” the school being called indifferently the grammar school and the high school of the city of Winchester. Again in the Winchester College Account Roll for 1394, the head-master of the college grammar school, which was not the same as the City grammar school, is called both Magister Scolis and Magister Scole. This evidence is the more clinching as it is rare at that date to find the word school in the singular at all. Indeed, except at Winchester and London, as will be seen presently, where there seems to have been a higher standard of classical accuracy, I do not know of another instance of the word school in the singular in the fourteenth century. The clearing up of this point is important, as the plural use has made people[56] search for two or more schools, and in consequence has led them to confound two entirely different schools, the Grammar School for the world at large, and the Song School chiefly, if not exclusively, for the choristers; and, in consequence, to maintain that the mediÆval grammar schools were poor starved things, where a dozen choristers at most stumbled through their declensions and their psalter. The documents of Richard de Belmeis then are not the foundation of St. Paul’s School. On the contrary, they point to it as previously existing, and to the schoolmaster as already one of the dignitaries or principal persons of the chapter. The true date of foundation and the real founder of St. Paul’s School must be sought in the foundation and founder of St. Paul’s Cathedral Church itself. The first foundation was in 604, when[57] Augustine, Archbishop of the Britains, ordained two Bishops, Mellitus and Justus: Mellitus to preach to the province of Essex, separated from Kent by the river Thames, and close to the Eastern sea, whose metropolis is London city placed on the banks of the said river, an emporium for many nations, coming by land and sea; whose king then was Saberet (or Sebert) nephew of Ethelbert by his sister Ricula, though placed under the power of Ethelbert, who then ruled all the English race up to the Humber. When the province received the word of truth on the preaching of Mellitus, King Ethelbert made in the city of London the church of St. Paul the Apostle, in which he and his successors had their bishop’s See. After Ethelbert and Sebert died in 616[58] there was a reaction to the old religion, and Mellitus fled abroad. When he tried to return, after the conversion of Ethelbert’s successor in Kent, London would not have him. It remained heathen till Oswi, King of the Northumbrians, converted Sigebert, a refugee prince, who, on returning home, made Cedd bishop of the East Saxons. But no mention is made of London as his See, and Tilbury[59] rather appears to have been his principal church. He died of the plague in 664. Wine,[60] expelled from Winchester, bought the See of London from Wulfhere, King of the Mercians, somewhere about 666. Thenceforward the history of the See and church is unbroken. It is only therefore from this last date that we can reckon the continuous history of St. Paul’s Cathedral or its school. There is no direct reference to the school in Bede, as there is to that of Canterbury, when the King of the East Angles got schoolmasters thence in 631. But the place[61] where lived the learned Nothelm, Bede’s principal informant as to the history of southern England, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, and Erkenwald or Earconwald, bishop from 675 to 692, whose name and fame in later ages, as the local saint of London, completely eclipsed that of St. Paul himself, much as St. Swithin did that of St. Peter at Winchester, can hardly have failed to maintain a school, any more than Canterbury or York or Winchester. The original statutes of St. Paul’s Cathedral have not survived. The earliest statute affecting the school appears in a collection made during the deanery of Henry of Cornhill,[62] 1243 to 1254, who had been Chancellor of St. Paul’s from 1217 till he became Dean. It is a statute relating to the duties of the Chancellor. When present, it is said, the Chancellor makes out the table (tabulam) of lessons, masses, Epistles, Gospels, acolytes, and performers of the service in course for a week (ebdomadariis) and hears the lessons [i.e. the reader has to read them over to him beforehand to see that he reads them correctly]. On feast days he hears the Bishop read, hands him the book to be read from at the beginning of mattins; and, clothed in a silk cope, holds the book for the Bishop to read at the last of the [nine] lessons. [The Chancellor himself, a later statute informs us, read the 6th lesson.] He introduces the clerks of lower grade to be ordained, and after examining them in school presents them to the Bishop for ordination, and administers justice to every one who makes any complaint as to their conduct. All scholars living in the city are under him, except those of a school of the Arches, and a school in the Basilica of St. Martin’s the Great, who claim that they are privileged in these and other matters. The Chancellor also keeps the chest with the school books in it. The reference to a school (unam scolam) in St. Mary-le-Bow and St. Martin’s respectively, may be compared with the plural for the same schools in the writ of Bishop Henry of Blois. In the digest of the statutes of St. Paul’s made during the deanery of Ralph of Baldock, 1294-1304, the words as to the Chancellor’s supremacy over the schools are repeated almost verbatim; but the plural form scolarum is used instead of the singular for the single schools at St. Martin’s and St. Mary-le-Bow respectively. This is pretty conclusive testimony of the identity in meaning of plural and singular for a single school. In this latter digest we find further details about the chancellor and a special statute, headed, “of the appointment of an M.A. to the Grammar School (scolÆ grammaticÆ).” The body of the statute is part of the statute as to the chancellor. It says: The Chancellor appoints a master of arts to the Grammar School (scolis) and is bound to keep the school itself (scolas ipsas) in repair. He composes the letters and deeds of the Chapter. He reads whatever has to be read in Chapter. He is the chief keeper of the seal, and receives a pound of pepper for every deed that is sealed or renewed, the Chapter receiving 3s. “If the Dean has to be ordained”—we may remember that William of Wykeham was Dean of St. Martin’s-le-Grand when still only an acolyte, and Reginald Pole, though a cardinal and an ex-dean, was not a priest till the day before he became Archbishop of Canterbury—“the Chancellor calls him by the title of St. Paul’s.” The chancellor is the chief keeper of the school books in the chest, and ought to show them once a year to the Dean and others appointed for the purpose, and a copy of the list of them is to be kept by the Dean, the Chancellor and a third brother [i.e. canon] appointed for the purpose. It is possible, of course, though not perhaps very probable, that there were no written statutes of St. Paul’s affecting the school earlier than those quoted. Whether there were written statutes or not, the writs of Bishop Richard prove the schoolmaster’s office to have been in existence at least 150 years before this earliest written statute. But we might have positively asserted that there was such an officer if those writs had not existed, because the maintenance of a schoolmaster was part of the customary constitution of cathedral churches. Alcuin’s description[63] of the duties of himself and his predecessor, Ethelbert or Albert, afterwards archbishop, as schoolmaster at York in the eighth century, shows a schoolmaster fulfilling precisely the same mixture of legal, clerkly, and educational duties which appear in the famous Institution of St. Osmund at Salisbury in the eleventh and the statutes of St. Paul’s in the thirteenth century. As early as 832 a definite conciliar decree embodied in the written canon law the obligation, already crystallised into custom, that every cathedral church should maintain a school. When Earl Harold[64] founded, or rather augmented, in 1060 the collegiate church of secular canons of the Holy Cross of Waltham with a dean and twelve canons, the principal person next to the provost or dean, as he is indifferently called, was the schoolmaster. The history of the foundation was written for us by one who was made a canon before 1144, having been “from tender years brought up in the church and taught Latin in its bosom.”[65] He was one of those who were turned out in 1177, when, with vicarious liberality, Henry II. converted the college into a priory of regular or Augustinian canons, in satisfaction of his vow to found a monastery in expiation of Becket’s death. This canon tells us[66] how Harold having heard that the Dutch was the best model, imported Master Athelard, a native of Liege, who had been educated at Utrecht, to assist Wulfwin the Dean in settling the constitution of the church. Our author himself, who does not give his name, says that his master[67] was “Master Peter, son of Master Athelard.” For the secular canons were, like their modern successors, allowed to marry, and this was the real reason why the favourers of monkery charged them with evil living. He tells us how a copious stream of learning flowed from this Peter after the fashion of the Dutch (Teutonicorum) and yet the lessons and classics and verse composition in no way lessened the practice of singing in the churches. So far from boyish habits were they, that they walked in procession, stood, read and sang, with as much gravity as if they had been monks; and chanted and sang by heart solos or in duets or trios, without book whatever had to be sung at the steps of the choir or in the choir itself.... As they came in procession, like canons getting up to mid-night matins, from school to choir, so when leaving choir they go to school. Here, then, we see that a school, a grammar school, was regarded as an integral and necessary, and a most important part of the foundation of a collegiate church before the Conquest. Similar evidence comes from another collegiate church of pre-Conquest foundation, that of St. Mary, Warwick. This church, situate in the middle of the town, is recorded in Domesday Book as possessing a hide of land. There was also a collegiate church of All Saints, a kind of garrison chapel, in the castle, the stronghold founded by Ethelfled, the Lady of the Mercians, against the Danes in 916, but which after the date of Domesday Book passed into the hands of one of the Norman invaders. Forty years after Domesday Book, in 1123, disputes having arisen between the two churches, the second Norman lord, Roger de Beaumont, confirmed to these two churches all their respective property as they held it in his father’s time. Then by a separate deed he confirmed “in alms,” i.e. in perpetuity free from feudal service, “to the church of St. Mary of Warwick the school (scolas) of the said church, that the service of God in the same may be improved by the attendance of scholars.” By a similar deed he must have confirmed All Saints in its school, as a writ of King Henry I. addressed to this Earl Roger and the ecclesiastical lords, the Bishops of Worcester and Chester, directs “that the Church of All Saints, Warwick, shall have all its customs and judgments of iron and water (i.e. the right of administering the ordeal) as they did in the time of Edward, and in like manner shall have its school (scolas).” A few years later the two collegiate churches were consolidated, the canons of All Saints being transferred from the castle, their residence there “being inconvenient,” and the property of the united church of St. Mary and All Saints was confirmed to it first by the Earl, then by the Bishop, including “the school of Warwick and trial of iron, water and duel.” So here again the school, and the right to keep it, is regarded as one of the most important attributes of a pre-Conquest collegiate church. The statutes made on the new foundation of Salisbury Cathedral within twenty-five years of the Norman Conquest are preserved. They are not indeed in a contemporary document, but written in a thirteenth-century hand in a new version of these statutes made on the removal of the cathedral from Old Sarum to the present Salisbury in 1220. There seems no reason to doubt their authenticity. These are the dignities and customs of the church of Salisbury which I, Osmund, bishop of the same church, in the name of the Holy Trinity, in the year 1091, have instituted and granted to the persons and canons of the same, with the advice of the Archbishop and the assent of King William. The Dean and Chanter (Precentor), Chancellor and Treasurer shall be always resident in the church of Salisbury, without any kind of excuse.... The chanter ought to teach the choir as to singing and can raise or lower the chant. The Treasurer is chief in the custody of the treasures and ornaments and the giving out of lights. In like manner the Chancellor (cancellarius) (is chief) in teaching school and correcting the books. Dean and Chapter, Treasurer and Chancellor have double commons, the rest of the Canons single commons. The Sub-Dean holds under the Dean the archdeaconry of the city and suburbs, the Succentor under the Precentor that which belongs to the choir (cantariam). If the Dean fails, the Sub-Dean fills his place, so the Succentor has the Precentor’s. The Schoolmaster (archischola) ought to hear the lessons and determine on them, carry the seal of the church, compose letters and deeds, and mark readers on the list, and the Precentor in like manner the singers. Here, then, we find four principal persons, of whom one, the chancellor, is also called schoolmaster. He is the legal and educational, while the chanter or precentor is the musical officer of the chapter. In the fourteenth century copy of the statutes of York Minster it is said of the chancellor that he “was anciently called Schoolmaster”; and the twelfth-century historian of the Minster, a contemporary of Bishop Richard of Belmeis, describes how Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman archbishop there, had just established or (as we may infer) re-established a provost and schoolmaster; but afterwards, about 1090, established that which afterwards became the regular cathedral “foursquare” constitution of dean (instead of provost), precentor, treasurer, and chancellor. In the oft-quoted Liber A at St. Paul’s, written in the thirteenth century, the copies of the writs of Bishop Richard of Belmeis and Henry of Blois, with some later documents, are headed “Of the Schoolmaster (De Magistro Scolarum) and Chancellor, seven letters”: and a marginal note to a later document of Bishop Richard Fitz Neal (1189-99), increasing the endowment of the schoolmaster, runs, “Note—the tithes given to the Schoolmaster of St. Paul’s, now the Chancellor.” The analogy, therefore, of other cathedral and collegiate churches, corroborated as they are by the records of St. Paul’s itself, the knowledge that we have of the existence of schools, not only at great capitals like Canterbury, Winchester, and York, but even at small places like Warwick and Waltham, amply justify us in asserting confidently that the schoolmaster and school of St. Paul’s existed not merely before the days of Bishop Richard de Belmeis, but before the Conquest, and in all reasonable probability from the days of Bishops Wine and Earconwald. What were these London schools? What did they teach? Lord Lyttelton[68] in his History of Henry II. spoke of them as “schools or rather colleges,” meaning university colleges, and Sir George Buck in 1631 described them as the Third Universitie of England.[69] This was because of the mention of logic, and the statement that, not indeed as Lyttelton says, “many” but other “schools” were occasionally opened “by persons of note in philosophy,” by special favour. But to infer from this a University of London in the twelfth century is to transfer to it the ideas of the eighteenth century. The Trivium, the “trivial task” of the twelfth century school-boy, included rhetoric and dialectic as well as grammar. Grammar meant not only grammar strictly speaking, but the general study of classical literature. Rhetoric included not only the art of persuasion, the rules of oratory, but generally Latin composition, prose, and verse,[70] and declamation or recitation. Rhetoric was naturally incomplete without dialectic or logic, the art of argument. So powerful during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries did dialectic become, that not only did theology become almost a branch of logic but grammar itself was taught and practised “dialectically.” The “rostrum,” on which dialectic and rhetoric were practised, was to be found in the school of Winchester College as late as 1650. The distinction drawn by Fitzstephen between the boys who capped verses and the other scholars who held debates in rhetoric and logic was not coincident with that between a grammar school and a university college. The word “boy” was used strictly, as it still was as late as the Elizabethan statutes of grammar schools, for those under fourteen years of age, who were carefully distinguished on the one hand from children or infants under seven, and from youths (juvenes) of fourteen to twenty-one. Then, as now, youths of eighteen and upwards were found in the grammar schools, and William of Wykeham, and the advisers of Henry VI. in the foundation of Eton, all Wykehamists, were no innovators raising the age of schoolboys when they prescribed nineteen as the leaving age for the scholars of Winchester and Eton. There is therefore no necessary ground for the inference that the schools of London in the first half of the twelfth century bore any different character from that which they had in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries, when the same schools are described simply as grammar schools. On the other hand, the period of which Fitzstephen wrote was that of the origin of universities. It saw the birth of Bologna, of Paris, and of Oxford. At Paris, the university grew out of the extension and the rivalry of the schools, the grammar schools, of the cathedral church of Notre Dame and the collegiate church, as it then was, of St. GeneviÉve. At Oxford there is every reason to believe that the university developed in like manner from the schools of the collegiate churches, as they then were, of St. Frideswide and St. George in the Castle.[71] The “University” side of the schools finally emancipated itself, at an earlier period even than at Paris, from ordinary ecclesiastical control, through the conversion of these two collegiate churches into houses of regulars, and the extinction therewith of their control of secular scholars, while the Chancellor of Lincoln was too remote to exercise any effective government such as was exercised by the Chancellor of Paris. It was quite within the bounds of probability then that London also would develop a university out of the three ancient schools, and the permitted rivalry, by special favour, of the schools of other “doctors of philosophy.” But it was not to be. London even then was too great a commercial emporium, the prizes of successful trade were too attractive, business was too absorbing, the hum of markets and wharves was too loud for the voice of learning to make itself heard, or for schools, whether of theology or arts, to attract the pick of the intellect of the City. Paris, though the political capital, was not also the commercial capital of France, where Rouen, the independent capital of a rival power, occupied, to it, the position which the Port of London bore to London. The King’s Court and the King’s Chancery were the main avenues to success for clerks, and even so late as the reign of Henry III. the Castle of Winchester and Beaumont House at Oxford, or the Manor of Windsor, rather than the Tower of London, or even Westminster Hall, were the favourite resorts of the King’s Court, and the residence of the royal treasury and the royal chancery. Hence London never developed an Abelard and a mainly theological university like Paris. The settlement at Westminster of the royal courts, and the superior importance in England of the common law to the civil law for somewhat similar reasons, prevented London from producing an Irnerius or a Gratian and giving rise to a legal university such as that of Bologna. Indeed the greater fame of Paris and Bologna universities themselves was in the cosmopolitan spirit which, under the centralising influence of the Roman Church, made learned Europe almost a single nation, a potent obstacle to the development of a university of London. No exact definition of a university has yet been given, nor is capable of being given, and it may be doubted whether there is any university now in existence which really corresponds to the mediÆval university. But one salient mark of a university, a number of teachers and a number of adult students in the higher faculties, in theology and law, or philosophy, certainly existed at Paris in the days of Abelard, and to some extent in Oxford, but did not seemingly exist in London, or if it did exist was quenched by Henry of Blois’ mandate. If the London schools formed a university in 1138, a fortiori did the School of York form one in 735. In Alcuin’s description of the School of York as it flourished under Archbishops Egbert and Albert, an even greater multiplicity of subjects was taught than in the three schools of London in Fitzstephen’s day. Albert, its master,[72] “moistened thirsty hearts with diverse streams of teaching and varied dews of learning, giving to some the science of the art of grammar, pouring on others the rivers of the tongues of orators; these he polished on the whetstone of law, those he taught to sing together in Æolian chant, making others play on the flute of Castaly, and run with the feet of lyric poets over the hills of Parnassus.” Here we get the Grammar, Song, and Rhetoric of later days. Song had in London in 1130 already been relegated to a separate school. At York there was taught also arithmetic and geometry, and the method of calculating the ecclesiastical calendar, the music of the spheres, astronomy, physiography, “the rising and falling of the wind, the movements of the sea, the earth’s quake,” and natural history, “the nature of men, cattle, birds, and beasts.” Above all, Albert taught theology. This curriculum is considerably more extensive than that of the London schools, embracing many of what we should now regard as university subjects. York afterwards branched off into three schools—the Chancellor’s Theological School; the Grammar School under the Chancellor’s deputy, who became the Schoolmaster par excellence; and the Song School under the precentor. Yet as we should not call York School under Albert or Alcuin a university merely because many subjects were taught in it, neither can we dub the London schools of the twelfth century a university. We must therefore negative the claims of London to the possession of a university in the first half of the twelfth century. But we can at least claim that St. Paul’s School occupied the same position then as now, as the chief day-school for the sons of middle-class citizens. Becket’s biographer tells us what his education was: “Thomas spent the years of infancy, boyhood, and youth quietly in his father’s house, and in passing through the City school (scolis urbis); but when he became a young man he went to study at Paris (Parisius studuit). As soon as he came back, he was taken into public life in London, being made a clerk and accountant in the Sheriff’s office.” The true translation of scolis urbis is the city school; and the city school meant the school of the cathedral church of the City, the School of London. To this school Becket, whose father had at one time been sheriff of London, was sent. After leaving school, Becket went, in modern parlance, to Paris University before entering on professional life. He was born in 1118, so, as he may be presumed to have gone to Paris at about eighteen or nineteen years of age, he must have gone there about 1137, the time when John of Salisbury, the greatest writer of the age, was also there, sitting at the feet of Abelard, then lecturing in the College of St. GeneviÉve. Mr. Rashdall, laying down a somewhat arbitrary definition, maintains that Paris was not then, strictly speaking, a university, though he admits it was such probably by the middle of the century. However that may be, it is clear that in Becket’s case, as in John of Salisbury’s, the schools of Paris, not the schools of London, were regarded as giving “university” training. Fifty years later Becket would have gone to Oxford and the “martyrdom” would never have occurred. As it was, after his English and Pauline training, he was, with disastrous results, inoculated with the “fool fury of the Seine.” Still, St. Paul’s School may claim in him one of the earliest and most famous known Paulines, Henry the schoolmaster being the earliest. It has to be confessed that from Becket’s time onwards to Colet’s we know scarcely anything of St. Paul’s School beyond the bare fact evidenced by the statutes already quoted of 1243-54 and 1294-1304, and certain fourteenth- and fifteenth-century documents to be presently quoted, that it was pursuing the even tenor of its way. While there are documents at Canterbury containing very full evidence of the great position occupied by the Grammar School of the Archbishop and the Grammar schoolmaster there in the first half of the fourteenth century, while an unbroken series of the Acts of the Chapters of York and Lincoln preserve continual notices of the grammar schools of York and Lincoln, there is an absolute dearth of such records at St. Paul’s. One solitary Chapter Act Book of the Canons of St. Paul’s remains, and that is one of the last quarter of the fifteenth century. It is singularly uninteresting, being almost entirely concerned with continual renewals of leave of absence granted to the canons who were called Residentiary because, unlike the other canons, they were supposed to be always resident; with renewals of leases and the division of the spoil among the residentiary canons, and the “correction” of vicars—choral and minor canons—for devotion to the forbidden sex. All we know is that the Grammar School went on and that it was not the Song School or a choristers’ school, because we have conclusive evidence that this Song School was a different institution. Two statutes[73] in terms corresponding to those about the chancellor and the Grammar schoolmaster deal with the precentor (cantor) and the Song schoolmaster. “It is the Precentor’s duty to rule [or teach, regere] the choir in the raising and lowering of the chant, and in singing the psalms. It is his duty through the Song Schoolmaster to place the singers’ names on the table, to stir up the lazy to sing, and gently rebuke those who run about the choir in a disorderly fashion. On the greater feasts, if he is in choir and instructed as a singer, he begins the antiphons after the Benedictus and Magnificat and the processional chants and sequences. He examines the boys to be brought into the choir and given a title as choristers.” A statute as to those choristers made during the deanery of Ralph de Diceto, the historian, between 1180 and 1200,[74] shows that they were already then boarded in the Almonry. “As the boys of the Almonry ought to live on Alms” (or, as we might say, “as charity boys ought to live as such”) “they are to sit on the ground in the canons’ houses, not with the vicars at table, lest they become uppish and drunken and perhaps too pampered, and so unfit for the service of the church. Besides they sometimes go too early without saying goodbye to their host; and sometimes when they return to the Almonry from the feast, they despise the living there and spread evil reports of their Master.” The statute refers to the custom under which the residentiary canons had to give three meals daily to two minor canons, two chaplains, four vicars choral, two Almonry boys; the vergers and bell-ringers. The Master referred to was not the Grammar schoolmaster, as has been rashly assumed by some, but the Almoner, the master of the almshouse. To the early cathedral churches a hospital or almshouse was as essential an appendage as a choir and a Grammar School. Some of them still survive. The Dean of Hereford is still ex officio Master of St. Ethelbert’s Hospital, attached to St. Ethelbert’s Cathedral. York had its St. Peter’s Hospital, the ruins of the chapel of which, afterwards called St. Leonard’s Hospital, may still be seen. St. Paul’s, therefore, had its almonry, a Norman-French word for almshouse, and its almoner. In statutes made in 1263 the almoner is enjoined to distribute alms according to the method ordained by those who gave endowments for the purpose; poor people and beggars who die in or near the churchyard he is to bury gratis without delay. “He is to have, moreover, daily with him 8 boys fit for the service of the church, whom he is to have instructed either by himself or by another master in matters pertaining to the service of the church and in literature [i.e. grammar] and good behaviour; taking no payment for the same.” An Almoner’s Register begun in 1345 is fortunately extant,[75] which records the statutes, charters, and customs of the office. In it, the almoner records against himself that “if the Almoner does not keep a cleric to teach the choristers grammar, the schoolmaster of St. Paul’s claims 5s. a year for teaching them, though he ought to demand nothing for them because he keeps the school for them, as the Treasurer of St. Paul’s once alleged before the Dean and Chapter is to be found in ancient deeds.” The allegation that the Grammar School was kept for the choristers is historically untrue, though it is probably true that the choristers ought to have been admitted free to it. At least, the question was solemnly raised at Beverley in 1312,[76] when the Grammar schoolmaster wished to make all choristers beyond the original number attending the Grammar School pay fees; but the succentor, the Song schoolmaster, contended that he was bound to teach all the choristers free, and after inquiry by the Chapter into the “ancient customs” of the church it was decided that he was so bound, only the succentor was not to defraud him by admitting boys to the choir merely for the sake of getting free education in the Grammar School. Whatever may have been the choristers’ rights in the matter, the fact that the Grammar schoolmaster claimed and received payment for them shows with absolute conclusiveness that the Grammar School was not a choir school or a choir-boys’ school. Yet Mr. Lupton, late Surmaster of St. Paul’s School, in his Life of Colet actually cites[77] the will of one of the almoners, William of Tolleshunt, made in 1329, as proof that the Cathedral school, which he confuses with the Almonry school, “not only existed and flourished, but contained within itself the germs of a University.” Yet what are the facts? The Almoner says:[78] “I bequeath a shilling to each senior and 6d. to each junior of the boys of the church whom I educated in the Almonry. Also I give them my best Hugocio and the big and little Priscian, bound in one volume, Isidore’s Etymology, and all my grammar books, except those which my clerk Ralph has, and all the volumes of sermons which the Boy-Bishops used to preach in my time, to remain in the Almonry for ever for the use of the boys living in it, and never to be lent outside, or given away or sold.” The will goes on, “I bequeath also my books of the art of Dialectic (of which John of Stoneground has the old and new Logic), with the books of Natural History and other books of that art, in order that these books may be lent to boys apt for learning (ad scolatizandum) when they leave the Almonry; due security being taken for their return, to prevent their being alienated. The books of physic also, of which I have several about medicines; and also the books of the civil law, viz. the Institutes, Code, Digest, and Authentics, and these legal works I give to the use of the boys in the manner above written.” ST. PAUL’S SCHOOL (BEFORE ITS REMOVAL TO HAMMERSMITH) Says Mr. Lupton: “There were works on Logic, on Physic, on Medicine, on Civil Law... all were expressly bequeathed to the use of the boys.” Yes, but while the grammar books were for the use of the boys in the Almonry, these other books were, by the express terms of the will, to be lent to boys who had left the Almonry, when they went on to university studies, so that the very words cited to show that this school was something more than a grammar school prove the exact opposite; and this very case cited to show that the school in question was the St. Paul’s Cathedral Grammar School shows that it was a district foundation and intended only for the eight boys in the Almonry. That these eight boys, afterwards increased to ten, were the choir-boys, is shown by the will of Bishop Richard of Newport,[79] in 1315, giving to this very William of Tolleshunt, Almoner, one of his executors, and to the Almoner for the time being a house near St. Paul’s the rents of which, after paying £1 to the maintenance of the Lady Chapel, were to be applied “to the support of one or two of the Almonry boys for two years after they have changed their voices.” Again, among the earlier statutes of the Almonry it is ordered that “the boys after entering the choir are not to leave it except when their duty requires it.” William of Tolleshunt himself, too, bequeaths by his will a trust estate bequeathed to him some six years before “for the Almonry boys serving the choir, for their shoes.” In 1348 Sir John Pulteney,[80] knight, gave 20s. a year to the almoner to provide the choristers with summer clothes.[81] In return for the shoes the boys had to sing De Profundis, with the usual Pater Noster, Ave Maria and collects, every morning on getting up and every evening on going to bed; and for the summer clothes to sing an anthem after complin with prayers for the dead in the Pulteney Chapel. In 1358 William of Ravenstone,[82] Almoner, gave a tenement called the Stonehouse in Paternoster Row “for the support of an additional chorister or two.” That the choristers when clever were meant to go on to the universities is clear from a payment out of the chantry of Bishop Ralph (Baldock) who died in 1313. He gave 3s. “to poor students being sometyme choristers of the said cathedral church towards ther exhibicion yearly,” while a later benefactor Thomas Ever, in the reign of Henry IV., gave a like sum specifically “to the poore choristers of Paules towards their exhibicion in the University.” There is no question, therefore, that, while there was a grammar school maintained for the benefit of the choristers, it was quite distinct from the choir school for teaching them singing, and from the Cathedral Grammar School open to all boys. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that the choir-boys, being lodged and boarded in the Almonry, had a tutor provided for them to see that they learnt grammar. For one can hardly call the teaching of eight or ten choristers a school. There would not have been any need to insist on this school so much at length if the whole matter had not been thrown into confusion through the labours of a certain Miss Hackett who devoted herself in the first quarter of the 19th century to the interests of the choir-boys of St. Paul’s, who were then left without any proper schooling or care. She, with great energy, routed out all she could find in the records of St. Paul’s or elsewhere, relating to the choir-boys, and published it in a pamphlet misnamed Correspondence and Evidences respecting the Ancient Collegiate School attached to St. Paul’s Cathedral.[83] She succeeded in establishing in Chancery the claim of the choir-boys on the revenues of the Almonry. But her zeal outran her discretion, as whenever she saw in any of the records of St. Paul’s anything about a school or school-boys, she at once attributed it to the choir school and choirboys, and attacked the Chancellor, as well as the Almoner, on the ground that the St. Paul’s Grammar School was for the choir-boys. In this she failed. But she did a great deal of harm to the Cathedral Grammar Schools in general by imbuing people with the notion that they were mere choir-schools. Mr. Lupton makes the Grammar School to have been in Sharmoveres (now Sermon) Lane. Sharmoveres is a name of naught. It is simply a misreading of “Sarmoners,” i.e. Sermoners’ Lane, from a house which is said in a document of Edward I.’s reign to have belonged to “Adam le sermoner.” Sermon Lane is the modern shortening. This was not the Grammar School nor even the Almonry school, but a house bequeathed to the Almonry. Sermon Lane is at the west end of St. Paul’s, some little way from the church. The Grammar School was at the opposite or east end, in the churchyard, and quite close to the church. Having thus cleared away the confusion between the Grammar School and the choristers’ boarding-house we must leave the history of the Almonry without following it further, and for a little while turn from the history of St. Paul’s School to that of its two mediÆval rivals. The history of the school of St. Mary-le-Bow is unfortunately soon exhausted. The only references to it, apart from the various mentions of it in connection with the two other privileged schools, which I have been able to find, are in the Archbishop’s Register at Lambeth. The first of these is an order from Archbishop Robert Winchelsea,[84] September 25, 1309, settling a dispute as to the right of appointment of the schoolmaster. It is addressed “To our official,” i.e. the Official Principal or Judge of the Archbishop’s Consistory Court. The archbishop says that he had received a petition from “Mr. John, rector of the Grammar School (scolarum gramaticalium) of the Church of the Blessed Mary le Bow (de arcubus) London,” showing that he had been appointed master of the school by the Dean of the church (the Dean of the Arches, as he is now called), to whom “by ancient and hitherto peacefully observed custom the order and government and appointment of Master is well known to belong.” But “after he had quietly taught (rexerit) the school,” the Official, “wishing to change this custom,” had appointed one Mr. Robert Cotoun and removed Mr. John. The Archbishop informed the Official that, if the facts were as stated, he was to let Mr. John enjoy the teaching of the said school freely. The fact that the patronage of the school was vested in the Dean of Arches explains why we do not find appointments of the master in the Archbishop’s Registers as we do in the case of the Canterbury Grammar School. On March 23, 1382/3, however, an entry in Archbishop Courtney’s Register shows him committing to “his beloved son, William Poklyngton, clerk, the teaching and governance of the Grammar School of the deanery of our Church of Blessed Mary of the Arches now vacant and to our disposition belonging,” and appointing him master of the same school. The peculiar form of the appointment suggests that it was made by the Archbishop either because the deanery was vacant, or because the appointment had lapsed to him in default of the Dean. For some reason unknown this entry is cancelled in the original MS. On October 4, 1399, Archbishop Arundel[85] “at his manor of Lambeth”—it is never called a palace in ancient documents; his “palace” was at Canterbury—in like manner “committed the teaching and governance of the Grammar School of the Arches of London with all its rights and appurtenances in the Deanery of the Arches” to “Mr. Thomas Barym, master in grammar.” The school was clearly still in existence in 1446, when it is mentioned among the five grammar schools authorised by the ordinance of the ecclesiastical authorities, confirmed by Henry VI. Letters Patent of that year to be discussed later. These Letters Patent were interpreted by Stow[86] into a creation of the school of St. Mary-le-Bow. “In this parish,” he says, “was a Grammar-School by commandment of Henry VI., which school was of old time kept in a house for that purpose prepared in the churchyard, but that school being decayed, as others about the city, the school house was let out for rent, in the reign of King Henry the 8th for 4s. a year, a cellar for 2s. a year, and two vaults underneath the church for 15s. both.” It is probable, however, from the terms of the Letters Patent, that the school was held actually in the church, since St. Paul’s School is expressly described as being in the churchyard, while this school is, with equal exactness, described as being in the church. Of the third ancient school, that of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, there seems to be no history recoverable. Presumably when Henry VII. annexed the college to Westminster Abbey the documents were transferred too. But only one small Register of St. Martin’s, written in the fifteenth century, remains in the Westminster Chapter Muniments, and there is no mention in it of the school. There is, however, one reference to the schoolmaster in the City Letter Books.[87] “On Thursday before 24 August, 26 Edward I., 1298, John, the cap, hat, or hood-maker (cappeler) of Fleet Street entered into a recognizance to Master Hugh of Whittington (Wytington), schoolmaster (Magistro scolarum) of St. Martin’s-le-Grand for payment of £8 at Michaelmas year. Afterwards Master John of Whittington, brother and executor of the said Hugh, came and acknowledged that he had been satisfied of such sum. Therefore it was cancelled.” The entry is enough to show that the school was going on and that the master was a man of substance, being able to lend the then considerable sum of £8. The latter half of the fourteenth century was signalised by considerable activity in the foundation of new, or changes in old, grammar schools. This was due to two conflicting forces. On the one hand, it was due, as it was expressed in Wykeham’s foundation deed of New College, Oxford, to “the general disease of the clerical army, which through the want of clergy, caused by pestilence, wars, and other miseries of the world, we have seen greviously wounded,” or, as it was more shortly put in changing the appointment of a master of St. Peter’s School, York, in 1369, from a five-years’ appointment to a life tenure, to “the late Death and the rarity of M.A.s.” The demand for clergy to fill the ranks thinned by the Black Death of 1349 and its subsequent outbreaks, caused a demand for grammar schools. On the other hand, the incipient revolt of the townspeople against clerical domination which manifested itself in the substitution of lay for clerical ministers in the field of politics, and by the open propagation of Lollard opinions against image worship, transubstantiation, confession, and the celibacy of the clergy, and so forth, in the field of religion, created a demand for learning and for schools. The conflict of the two opposing forces is shown in the petition presented to Richard II. in 1394 (the very year, it may be noted, of the transfer of Winchester College, founded in 1382, to its present buildings) by the ecclesiastical authorities of London, who claimed the monopoly of education in “the three ancient and privileged schools.” “The King’s devout chaplains and orators, William,[88] Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Dean of your frank chapel of St. Martin’s-le-Grand and the Chancellor of the Church of St. Paul in London,” set out how to them, “as well by the law spiritual as by customary prescription in that behalf, the order, management, and examination of the masters of certain schools of the faculty of grammar in London and the suburbs, belonged, belong, or ought to belong, to them, with the advice of the Bishop of London, from time immemorial.” “Yet” they complained, “lately certain strangers, feigning themselves Masters of grammar, having no sufficient learning in that faculty, without the assent, or knowledge, and against the will of the petitioners, wilfully usurped their jurisdiction, and kept General Grammar Schools in the City in deceit and fraud of the children, to the great prejudice of the King’s lieges, and the jurisdiction of Holy Church. But when the three Masters of the schools of St. Paul’s, the Arches, and St. Martin’s for the care and profit of the king’s subjects, had gone to law against the foreign masters in Court Christian, according to ecclesiastical law, their adversaries had sued them in the secular courts to make them abandon their pleas.” The petitioners, therefore, asked the King, both because of his interest in his free chapel of St. Martin, and of the prejudice done to the petitioners, to direct letters to issue under the Privy Seal to the mayor and aldermen “to attempt nothing whereby the jurisdiction of Holy Church, or the process between the parties in Court Christian might be disturbed.” Whether the Privy Seal asked for was issued does not appear. Parliament was then supporting the Lollards.[89] But next year Richard was fetched back from his Irish War to put them down, and the leading Lollards had to recant on pain of death. Certain it is that the three church schools retained their monopoly for nearly half a century more. It was then attacked and broken up by assailants from within the pale of the church itself and by orthodox churchmen. The first breach of it, apparently for purely educational reasons, was made by the establishment of a grammar school in St. Anthony’s Hospital in Threadneedle Street. This hospital was so interesting an institution in itself, and the erection and career of its school have been so much misrepresented, that its history is worth telling at some length. Stow’s[90] account of this hospital is rather long but not very correct. It “was sometime a cell to St. Anthonies of Vienne. For I read that King Henry III. granted to the brotherhood of St. Anthony of Vienne, a place among the Jews, which was sometime their synagogue, and had been builded by them about the year 1231; but the Christians obtained of the King that it should be dedicated to our blessed Lady, and since, an hospital being there builded, was called St. Anthonies in London. It was founded in the parish of St. Bennett Fynke ‘for a mayster, two priestes, one scholemayster and 12 poore men.’” “Moreover, king Henry VI. in the twentieth of his reign gave unto John Carpenter, D.D., master of St. Anthonies Hospital and to his brethren and their successors for ever his manor of Ponington, with the appurtenances” and other property “towards the maintenance of 5 scholars in the University of Oxford to be brought up in the faculty of arts, after the rate of 10d. a week for every scholar, so that the said scholars before their going to Oxford, be first instructed in the rudiments of grammar at the College of Eton, founded by the same king. In the year 1474 Edward IV. granted to William Say, B.D., master of the hospital of St. Anthony’s to have priests, clerks, scholars, poor men, and brethren of the same, clerks or lay men, quoristers, proctors, messengers, servants in household and other things whatsoever, the like as the Prior and Convent of St. Anthony’s of Vienne. This Hospital was united, annexed and appropriated unto the Collegiate Church of St. George in Windsor about the year 1485. This goodly foundation, having a free school and almshouses for poor men, builded of hard stone, adjoining to the west end of the church, was of old time confirmed by Henry VI. in the year 1447.” Such is his account of the origin of the foundation. He then deals with its latter end. “One Johnson (a schoolmaster there) became a prebendary of Windsor and then by little and little followed the spoil of this hospital. He first dissolved the choir, conveyed the plate and ornaments, then the bells, and lastly put out the Almsmen from their houses, appointing them portions of 12d. a week to each (but now I hear of no such matter), their houses with other be now letten out for rent, and the Church is a preaching-place for the French nation. The school-house was commanded in the reign of Henry VI., and sithence also, above other; but now it is decayed and come to nothing, by taking from it what thereunto belonged.” The Hospital was at first a cell of the Hospital of St. Anthony at Vienne, a hospital famous throughout the world. There is no mention of any local habitation of the brethren of St. Anthony in England before 1249. Then in a document at Windsor, dated 1253, a grant to the hospital of the earlier date is mentioned, when the Church of All Saints, Hereford, was bestowed upon it by Henry III., and in 1253 a letter from Pope Alexander IV. congratulates the same king on having granted to the Master and Brethren of St. Anthony’s “a place in London among the Jews.” For further on this subject see MediÆval London, vol. ii. p. 268. Later writers have for the most part followed Stow. Thus Mr. Lupton in his Life of Dean Colet repeats[91] the story that the original foundation included a schoolmaster; and says that Edward IV. “augmented it. The school continued into the reign of Elizabeth, the rest of the property was not left to wait for the inquisition of Henry VIII.,” and then repeats, as typical, Stow’s story of the plunder by Prebendary Johnson. Again, Dr. Sharpe says,[92] “The Hospital appears to have always supported a Schoolmaster from its foundation.” As a matter of fact, the school was no part of the original foundation of the hospital, and only made its appearance when the main institution had undergone a complete revolution. The hospital existed for at least 100 years longer, and the school began at least 200 years later, and continued for nearly 100 years more than Stow leads us to believe. The life of the hospital lasted for as nearly as possible four centuries. It began about 1249; it ended in 1666. For the first 150 years of its existence it was in tutelage to a foreign and monastic parent. A brief period of independence followed under native English clerical (not monastic) rulers, for some three-quarters of a century; and the era of its complete and formal release from tutelage was signalised by the foundation of the Grammar School in it, which enjoyed the highest reputation for about 100 years. The institution was then again placed under an external master. But the school continued to flourish, and, instead of being destroyed in the reign of Elizabeth, lasted into the reign of Charles II., under whom both school and hospital perished, never to be revived, in the Great Fire of London. In 1434 John Carpenter became master or warden of the hospital, and he must be regarded as the second founder of the hospital and the actual founder of its school. He was a very considerable person in his day, being a great promoter of education and supporter of the secular clergy as against the regulars, the monks, black canons, and friars. His fine tomb, restored out of all antiquity by the ill-directed gratitude of Oriel College, is still to be seen in the ancient collegiate church of Westbury-on-Trym near Bristol. He was anxious to establish the secular canons of that church as his episcopal chapter instead of, or at least in addition to, the monks of Worcester. Indeed he actually called himself Bishop of Westbury and Worcester. He became Provost of Oriel in 1425, and Master of the hospital at least seven years later. Carpenter was mixed up with the foundation of Eton as well as with that of St. Anthony’s School. When he was made Bishop of Worcester, he was consecrated in the collegiate church of Eton, and it was as a trustee of Eton and Oriel, and only nominally in his capacity as Master of St. Anthony’s, that the grants, mentioned by Stow,[93] of the manor of Ponington, and quit-rents from several places in Hampshire, were made to him and the brethren of the hospital. What became of this grant it seems impossible to find out. No mention of it occurs in the accounts of the hospital, nor do the authorities of St. George’s, Windsor, Eton, or Oriel know anything of the property. Probably it was one of the Lancastrian grants for the benefit of Eton on which Edward IV.’s Act of Resumption operated, and so passed away from Eton and Oriel for ever. In 1441 the revolution in the constitution of the hospital was consummated. A Bull of Pope Eugenius IV. released the brethren of the hospital from the obligation to use a common dormitory and refectory, which by the Augustinian rule they were bound to use (though it is stated that there was no such dormitory or refectory), and enabled the clerks who served it to live in any decent place, until a dormitory and refectory were provided—a politic way of completely authorising its conversion into a house of seculars. At the same time, by the licence of Robert (Gilbert), Bishop of London, the church of St. Benet Finck was entirely appropriated to the hospital, and converted from a rectory into a vicarage. This was in order that the revenues of the rectory, worth sixteen marks a year, might be applied to the maintenance of “a master or fit Informer in the faculty of grammar,” “to keep a grammar school (regere scolas gramaticales) in the precinct of the hospital or some fit house close by, to teach, instruct, and inform gratis all boys and others whatsoever wishing to learn and become scholars (scolatizare).” Its foundation was only one of a long series of school foundations which marked the period of the reign of Henry VI., who, far more than Edward VI., is entitled to the credit of being the patron king of school-boys. Eton, Newport, Shropshire, Newland, Wye (now the Wye Agricultural College, Kent), Alnwick, Towcester, are some among the grammar schools still existing which were founded in the ten years 1440-50; while there were many more which are no longer existing or have been degraded into elementary schools, or converted into exhibition funds. The movement was the first breath of the Renaissance stirring the dry bones of the schools. It was the outcome of a beginning of reaction against the excessive cult of scholastic logic, and a desire to return to the humanities of the “artists” as opposed to the sophistry of the theologians. Considering the conspicuous part taken in the new movement by men like Beckington, Waynflete, and Say, all Wykehamists, we may attribute a considerable share of it at least to the influence of Wykeham’s foundation at Winchester. The most striking manifestation of the new spirit is seen in the Letters Patent granted in 1439, giving leave to William Byngham, rector of St. John Zachary in London, to found the College of God’s House in Cambridge, at first an annex to Clare Hall, and afterwards incorporated with Christ’s College. In his petition for the licence Bingham said that he had found all over the country grammar schools, formerly flourishing, now fallen into abeyance for lack of proper teachers. He therefore asked for leave to found a college of a master and twenty-four scholars for the training of Grammar schoolmasters, who were to issue thence to teach school all over the country. This, then, is the first Training College on record. In its statutes the importance of the classics was insisted on, not merely, as in the days of Wykeham and the foundation of Winchester, because grammar was the key which unlocked the Holy Scriptures, and was the gate to the liberal sciences “and theology, the mistress of all,” but because “it was necessary in dealing with law and other difficult matters of State and also the means of mutual communication and conversation between us and strangers and foreigners.” Here spoke the citizen of London and the man of the modern world. In much the same way Waynflete, himself ex-Headmaster of Winchester and first Headmaster of Eton, in his foundation of Magdalen College School, carried on by him from 1448 though not finally endowed and settled till 1480, provided by his statutes for the demyes being trained in grammar “that they might go out and teach others,” and he particularly ordered that they were not prematurely to be made sophisters.[94] In 1443 Walter Lyhert, who succeeded Carpenter on his promotion to the See of Worcester, in the provostship of Oriel, also succeeded him as Warden (Custos), as he was now called, of St. Anthony’s. He in turn became a bishop, being promoted to Norwich in 1445. He was succeeded in the Mastership of St. Anthony’s by William Say, a Wykehamist of some fame, afterwards Dean of St. Paul’s. Under his rule the new constitution was completed. By Bull of January 28, 1446, the Pope granted, on the request of Henry VI. as patron, power to make new statutes for the hospital and its inmates to the Bishop of Worcester (Carpenter), the Bishop of Norwich (Lyhert), William Waynflete, then Provost of Eton, and William Say, then master of the hospital. The school, like that of Eton, was thus inaugurated on the model and under the guidance of members of the College of William of Wykeham, which Henry VI. dearly loved and deeply studied, and to which he paid the sincere homage of exact imitation. The statutes made by Carpenter and the rest are not forthcoming, but considering the auspices under which they were made, we may safely conclude that they followed their model as closely as did those of Eton, so far as what was presumably mainly a day-school could follow the statutes of what was mainly a boarding-school. There are indeed not wanting minor indications that some scholars at least boarded in the hospital. We know at all events that in two things in which Eton departed from the Winchester model, St. Anthony’s followed suit, namely, the raising of the stipend of the master from £10 to £16, and the direction that the school should be a free school to all who chose to come. We also know that, as at Winchester and Eton, a singing master was established and a Song School; for in 1440, David Fythian, who was rector of St. Bennet Finck, and John Grene, clerks, at the request of John Carpenter (and we may be sure at his expense and in consideration of a payment by him) had granted a rent of ten marks issuing out of “the Cowpe on the Hoope” in All Saints parish, London Wall, with power of distraint on it and another brew-house called the Dolphin and a tavern called the Bell in Southwark, to pay “John Bennet of London, clerk, yearly 8 marks, and 4 yards of new cloth of gentlemens’ suit” for teaching singing “to the boys, who are and shall be in the church of the said hospital.” This meant, of course, the choristers. In 1449 the brewery called the Cup on the Hoop was definitely devised by will, which, when enrolled in the Hustings Court, at once operated as a conveyance and dispensed with the necessity of a licence in mortmain, to William Say, then Master, and the Brethren of St. Anthony’s, “for maintenance of a clerk to teach assiduously all the boys of the house chanting with the organ (cantico organico) and plain song,” but while John Benatt (sic) remained, the Master was not bound to find another teacher. The hospital was to enjoy the residue after providing for the Song schoolmaster. There is a series of documents connected with the hospital, the exact purport of which it is a little difficult to make out, but they seem to suggest some intention on the part of John Carpenter to benefit alike St. Anthony’s School and Oriel College, Oxford, by exhibitions at the university; bringing the school, though in a much modified degree, into the same sort of relationship with that college which Winchester bore to New College, or Eton to King’s, or Westminster afterwards to Christ Church and Trinity, Cambridge. Oriel College,[95] Oxford, possesses a conveyance, June 27, 1424, to John Carpenter and Henry Sampson, both fellows and afterwards provosts, and others of land at Dagenham in Essex. Nine years later, the manor or manors of Valence Gallants and lands at Frystelings and Copped Hall were conveyed to a similar body of feoffees. In 1442 the manor of Easthall was acquired. By deed of June 27, 1447, all these properties were conveyed to Carpenter and Sampson, and in 1451 by Carpenter, then Bishop of Worcester, to Oriel College, on condition of their granting them to St. Anthony’s, reserving a pension “for the exhibition of certain poor scholars in St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford,” a dependency of the College. By deed of 14th November in the same year, the college granted the lands to the hospital, reserving a rent-charge of twenty-five marks, and by deed of 20th November,[96] William Say, “Master or Warden of the house or hospital of St. Anthony and the brethren of the same” granted an annual rent of £20 to the Provost and fellows “of the Royal College, commonly called Oreall,” payable in St. Mary’s Church, Oxford, “for the exhibition and maintenance of scholars to study there according to the form and effect of certain provisions or ordinances to be made by John, Bishop of Worcester.” By another deed of the same day, the Bishop, John Carpenter, declared the conditions of the exhibitions, but, alas! only in general terms; and whether any ordinances were actually made by Carpenter, and if so, what has become of them, is unknown. When the exhibitions were established seems rather obscure. The earliest extant accounts, now at Windsor, of the hospital are for 1478-79 and 1494-95, and contain no mention of the Essex property or of scholars at Oxford. But in 1501-2, the rental includes the manors of Valence and Easthall and lands called Frystelyng’s lands in Essex let for £13 a year; and among the expenses is the item “The skolers of Oxford stypents, £10: 18s.” The first entry in the Oriel College accounts of any money received for scholars is December 6, 1504, when, £10: 6: 8 was received by the College “for Mr. Tretyng” and paid over to him. In 1521-22, the St. Anthony’s account, which is for expenses only, includes “for the exhibicion of the scolers of Oxford in Seynt Mary Haule £10: 7s.” St. Mary’s Hall was originally the rectory house of St. Mary’s Church, which was appropriated to Oriel College, who still appoint the vicar; and was probably the original home of the college and always remained a dependency of it. Hardly had the hospital and school thus been put upon a sound basis than the Wars of the Roses substituted the Yorkists for the Lancastrians on the throne. The Yorkist accession and the Restoration of Charles II. are the only epochs in English history since the Norman Conquest in which the successful party have not been content with the enjoyment of power and the prospect of having things all their own way for the future, but have set themselves more Gallico to destroy the good deeds of the opposite party and root out their remembrance, if possible, from the land. All the foundations of Henry VI. were threatened with destruction. For the purpose apparently of proving himself the true heir of the Plantagenet Edwards, Edward IV. professed the most extreme devotion to the collegiate church of Windsor. He showed his devotion in the vicarious way common in those days, by endowing it with the plunder of other places. An Act of Parliament on Edward’s accession in 1460 declared all the grants of the three Lancastrian Henries void. Part of the possessions of Eton was granted to other places; while the whole institution was by a Bull of Union in November 1463 annexed to St. George’s, Windsor. Whether, as has been represented,[97] it was intended that the school should cease to exist, is very doubtful. When St. James’s Hospital, Westminster, was granted to Eton itself as St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Oxford, had been to Oriel College, and St. Julian’s Hospital, Southampton, to Queen’s College, Oxford, those colleges only took the net surplus after keeping up the hospitals. Windsor in like manner was probably only intended to get the surplus after keeping up Eton school. However, the Bull was strongly opposed by William Westbury, the provost and ex-headmaster. In 1467 a large part of the Eton estates was restored to it, and in 1470 King Edward IV. himself asked for the revocation of the Bull of Union and obtained a commission from the Pope for the purpose, and a final decree revoking it was pronounced by Cardinal-Archbishop Bouchier on August 30, 1476. It was, one can hardly doubt, by way of compensation to Windsor for the loss of Eton College that St. Anthony’s Hospital was, in 1475, annexed and appropriated to it in the same way as Eton had been. The terms of the annexation were absolute.[98] The King granted to “the Warden of Dean of the College of the Blessed Mary, St. George and Edward the Confessor in his castle of Windsor and to the chapter of the same college the Wardenship, advowson, parsonage, donation, collation, presentation, and free bestowal of the house, hospital or free chapel of St. Anthony, London, by whatever name it might be called, and the house hospital, or free chapel itself, with all its liberties, franchises, privileges, immunities, lands, tenements, rents, services,” etc., etc., belonging thereto, “to hold in pure and perpetual alms to their own use whenever it next became vacant by death, resignation, or otherwise”; and with power to take possession without any further process. On June 2, 1475, Dean and Chapter appointed Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and others their attorneys to take possession of the hospital, they having got Peter Courtney, then master of the hospital, to resign in consideration of a pension of 100 marks or £66: 13: 4 a year. As in 1478 he became himself Dean of Windsor, he did not suffer much by the transaction. Nor, indeed, did the hospital or school, which went on for at least 200 years more. Absolute as the terms of annexation were they seem to have been interpreted not as an abolition of the hospital, but only as a transfer to the dean and chapter of the right to the surplus, formerly taken by the master for his own use, estimated in the pension arrangement at 100 marks. This comes out clearly in one of the earliest Account Rolls of the hospital after the transfer, which is fortunately preserved at Windsor, and gives an exact picture of the way the hospital was managed. It is for the year 1478-79 when David Hopton, Canon of Windsor, acted as Master of the hospital. The total income was the very large sum of £539: 19s. or about £10,800 a year of our money. Of this only £18: 2: 4 was derived from rents or property, and that rental was subject to outgoings in the way of quit-rents of £7: 6: 8 and repairs to the extent of £9: 5s.; so that the endowment was really a minus quantity. The whole of the rest of the revenue was derived from voluntary subscriptions, which are called in the accounts “procurations,” being collected by procurators or proctors, exactly on the same principle that collections on Church Briefs were made after the Reformation. Indeed these and other like accounts make it clear[99] that the system of Church Briefs,[100] only abolished in 1828, was not of post-Reformation origin, but was extremely ancient. The right of collecting in a particular district was farmed out to different people who paid a fixed rent for the privilege for a term of years, and pocketed in return for the expenditure of their time and trouble whatever they managed to extract from the pockets of the faithful beyond the stipulated rent. Some specimens of St. Anthony’s Hospital leases to these farmers are preserved. There is one for the year 1479. It’s an Indenture made between the Dean or Warden of St. George’s College, the Master of St. Anthony’s, London, or in England, and the Canons of Windsor of the one part, and Thomas Morton of Worcester of the other part. In the same form as in a lease of land the Dean and Canons transfer, grant, and let to the aforesaid Thomas “all goods, profits, and commodities for any reason given, or to be given, assigned, or to be assigned, bequeathed, or to be bequeathed to and for the Hospital of St. Anthony in and throughout the whole bishopric of Hereford and archdeaconry of Oxford in places exempt [from the ordinary’s authority] as well as not exempt; with all pigs and other animals in the places aforesaid”; and constitute the said Thomas their lawful proctor and receiver in the premises, with full power of appointing substitutes, and without rendering any account. The term was ten years and the rent reserved £30 a year, payable in two half-yearly payments at Michaelmas and St. Philip and St. James’s Day. If the rent was in arrear the Dean and Canons were at liberty to dismiss the said Thomas and appoint another proctor in his place. The total rents of the Hospital shown in the account for 1478-79 derived in this fashion were: Bishoprics of Salisbury and Ely, and archdeaconries of Lincoln, Stow, Huntingdon, and Leicester, and Deanery of Rutland (3 proctors in one lease) | £128 | 13 | 4 | Archdeaconries of Northampton, Bedford, Bucks, and the jurisdiction of St. Alban’s (1 proctor) | 40 | 0 | 0 | Bishoprics of Exeter and Bath and Wells (3 proctors) | 44 | 0 | 0 | Bishopric of Rochester, and Deaneries of Shoreham and Croydon, with church of Criff | 4 | 0 | 0[101] | Archdeaconries of Derby, Stafford, Coventry, and Shrewsbury (2 proctors) | 22 | 0 | 0 | Archdeaconries of Chester and Lancaster | 11 | 0 | 0 | Bishopric of London | 22 | 0 | 0 | Bishopric of Winchester | 26 | 10 | 0 | Bishopric of Chichester | 8 | 0 | 0[102] | Province of York and Isle of Man (2 proctors) | 76 | 13 | 4[103] | Bishopric of Winchester | 28 | 13 | 4 | Bishopric of Hereford and Archdeaconry of Oxford | 29 | 6 | 8[104] | Archdeaconry of Canterbury | 26 | 13 | 4 | Bishopric of Norwich | 44 | 0 | 0 | Bishoprics of St. David’s and Llandaff | 8 | 0 | 0[105] | Bishoprics of Bangor and Asaph | 4 | 16 | 8 | | £523 | 16 | 8 | The rentals are interesting as showing approximately the relative wealth and population of the various districts of England at the time. The superior wealth of the south over the north and the eastern over the western parts stands out clearly. The total receipts, equal in value to over £10,000 a year of our money, show an astounding liberality on the part of the givers of the voluntary donations and subscriptions by which the Hospital was maintained. The expenditure is only given under a few different headings in gross, the reader being referred for details to a “paper book” which is not forthcoming. The wages of ministers, “priests, clerks, other ministers and servants” came to £45: 12: 8; the “robes of the said priests, clerks, scholars, poor, and other ministers and servants” cost £10: 13: 9. Bread made by Hobald, a baker of London, £21: 18: 7; beer bought from divers brewers at 1-1/2d. and 1d. a gallon, £35: 11: 8; other purchases (cati) £70: 14s. “Foreign” expenses totalled £40: 5: 11-1/2d. The Sacrist of the Chapel received £4: 0: 9 for general expenses; a general obit, 8s. 8d., and Thomas Sainge’s obit, 6s. 8d. The clothes of the poor of the Hospital consisted of ten shirts and eight pairs of drawers of fustian at 3-1/2d. a yard; ten pairs of shoes at 2s. 5d. each; and ten pairs of stockings (caligis) of wool at 8d. a yard, and cost 19s. 11-1/2d. A new vestry at All Saints’, Hereford, was erected for £10: 17: 11. Repairs on the Hospital and the Swan next door came to £82: 12: 2-1/2d. So that the “arrears” (arregaia, meaning in mediÆval accounts, not money due, but the clear surplus), amounting to £98, were handed over to the Treasurer of St. George’s, Windsor, “for the wages of 7 clerks and 7 choristers there.” In this amount, unfortunately, the salaries of the schoolmasters are not given separately, nor the number of “the children” or boys attending the school. Indeed, beyond the bare fact of its existence we know little of the history of St. Anthony’s School up to this time. It comes to light incidentally in a letter[106] from William Selling, Prior of Canterbury, to Thomas Bourchier, Cardinal-Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1472. “Please it your good fatherhood to have in knowledge that, according to your commandment, I have provided for a Schoolmaster for your ‘Gramerscole’ in Canterbury, the which hath lately taught grammar at Winchester and St. Anthony’s in London, that as I trust to God shall so guide him that it shall be worship and pleasure to your lordship and profit and increase to them that he shall have in governance.” As Archbishop Bourchier’s own nephew, the heir to the earldom of Essex, was a commoner at Winchester College,[107] this reference to the master of St, Anthony’s as having been also a master at Winchester, probably usher or second master there, shows that St. Anthony’s School already stood high in reputation. There is a much more detailed account than that above given in English for the year 10 Henry VII., 1494-95, which gives the expenses of the Hospital for the Michaelmas quarter, day by day, being in fact one of the “paper books” referred to in the Latin account. It is extremely interesting by reason of its details, telling us exactly what the Master and “the Hall,” i.e. clergy and schoolmaster on the one hand, and “the Hospital,” i.e. almsfolk and “children,” had for dinner every day. The account begins on Michaelmas Day, when two of the traditional geese[108] were given to the Hall “at dener” at a cost of 18d., while “the Hospital and chyldryn” were put off with two loins of veal at 8d. The Master, a Canon of Windsor, is the only one who is debited with anything for breakfast, but that was a substantial one, consisting of a neck of mutton and chicken. The others presumably only had the commons of bread and beer. At “soper,” “the Hall” enjoyed ten chickens for 15d, while “the Hospital and children” had two quarters of mutton for 7d., with a halfpenny for “erbis,” or vegetables, and 5d. for “potage fleich”; the day’s diet cost 4s. 9d. Next day all fared well with seven ribs of roast beef and stewed veal at dinner; and three-quarters of mutton at supper. The 1st of October there was “potage fleich” and loins of mutton for dinner; mutton and two “coneys” or rabbits for supper. On the 2nd of the month there was again “pottage flesh,” and pork for dinner, “for all the house”; ten chickens for supper for “the Hall”; mutton for the rest. Friday, October 3, though it was the feast of the dedication of the church, was no-flesh day. There was a “sewe” for 4d.; twenty plaice for all the house, twenty small pike, a quarter and a half of roach, and fresh herrings. The total cost was 9s. 5-1/2d. Presumably there were strangers. Saturday was again a no-flesh day. There was milk, 3d., and butter, 7d., for dinner, in the form of frumenty probably; salt salmon for “the Hall” and stockfish for “the Hospital” at dinner; five barbels for “the Hall,” and 100 eggs for “all the house” at supper, while the Master had, all to himself, oysters at 1d. The next week began with “half a beeff to lay in powdyr for the weke, 6s. 8d.,” while the Sunday dinner consisted of roast pork for dinner and mutton for supper. Pork, veal, beef, and mutton, varied with conies and soup, and for “the Hall” chickens; meat twice a day, and never the same at dinner and supper, show that our ancestors lived on a very much more generous and wholesomely varied diet than is commonly supposed. The two fast days only represented a pleasing change of diet: “Lamprons” or lampreys “for sew,” bream, fresh herrings and salt salmon on Friday; milk and butter “for dinner,” haddocks and whitings, 100 eggs on Saturday, were really not unsatisfying. The varieties of the fish menu were very extensive; it comprised sturgeon, cod, stockfish, fresh salmon, haddock, halibut, roach with shrimps (for sauce apparently), trout, carp, turbot, plaice, mackerel, thornbacks, gudgeons, guinards, flounders, smelts, sprats, mussels, crayfish, crabs, lobsters, eels, and conger eels, besides those already mentioned. On All Saints’ Day, which fell on a non-fast day, there was a warden-pie for all the house, the wardens, or pears, which cost 6d., while the flour cost 7d., and the “serypp” or sirop, 4d. On St. Nicholas’ Day, December 6, there was “fruit for them that ete no fish,” and 2 lb. of almonds. Among birds, besides cocks and fowls, geese frequently appear, with mallards, plovers, woodcocks, and larks, the latter for the Master’s table only. Beer as usual flowed in streams. The “good man” of the Swan—the brewery next door belonging to the Hospital—supplied for one quarter eighteen barrels of “threehalpenny ale,” and ten barrels of penny ale (a penny a gallon), while another brewer at the Checker supplied fifteen barrels of 1-1/2d., and ten barrels of 1d. beer. Beer, of course, served for breakfast and tea as well as dinner and supper. Still the quantity used was enormous. At St. Cross Hospital, Winchester, every poor man had a gallon a day, and at St. Anthony’s the provision must have been on the same scale. Wine was only drunk at the Master’s table, and that only on feast days. On Christmas Day everybody had mutton for breakfast. There was a filet of pork for “force gruel,” six geese and fourteen fowls for all the house at dinner, while “the Hall” had eight conies besides. There were eight plovers, six cocks, and three dozen larks for the Master’s dinner and supper; and mallards or wild duck for “the Hall,” at supper; a gallon of cream for the Master’s custard, a gallon of milk for curd. Two and a half gallons of red wine and “claryet” were drunk. There was dessert: 4 lb. of “raysons” and currants at 5d.; 2 lb. of great raisins, 2d.; 4 lb. prunes, 8d.; ½ lb. ginger, 10d.; 3 lb. dates, 7-1/2d.; 1 quarter of cloves and mace, 8d.; ½ lb. “saundre,” 7d.; ½ oz. saffron, 8d.; comfits, “counfeits,” 1 lb., 5d.; 4 lb. of almonds, 8d. On Boxing Day, the Hall had a “pottle of Malmsey to their brawn, 6d.,” and another gallon and half of wine. On New Year’s Day the Master had, among other things, half a lamb; curd for tart, and oranges, which, with butter, cost 2d. On Twelfth Day, the Epiphany, the whole house enjoyed mutton and frumenty, made of milk and wheat, for breakfast. Dinner included four fillets of pork in mortrews, bake-meats and tarts. But the great event was a “wassayle.” To this there went 3 gallons of red wine at 2s.; 3 lb. sugar, 12s.; 2 gallons of “strok” (what was that?); a curd, powder of cinnamon, ginger and other spices, and pears. It was a mighty brew, and must have been almost as trying as a Winchester “egg-flip” on Founder’s Commemoration. The staff of the Hospital (besides the Master, who was one of the Canons appointed for a year, who only resided at intervals) consisted first and foremost of “Master Nicholas,” the Grammar schoolmaster, at 50s. a quarter, or £10 a year—being at the same rate of pay as that of the headmasters of Winchester and Eton. Then there were four priests, of whom the senior, Sir John Galaway, received £4: 13: 4 a year, as against £5 a year given to a Fellow of Winchester for performing much the same functions, while the three others got £4 a year. A clerk (not called Sir), John Marche, “Maister of the children of the Song-School,” also got £4 a year. Then came six clerkes at £2: 13: 4 a year each. The poor usher, or “oysshur,” of the Grammar School only got 6s. 8d. a quarter, or £1: 6: 8 a year, a sad contrast to the £6: 13: 4 of the usher of Winchester College. It was less than the wages of the cook of St. Anthony’s, who got £2 a year, and the same as those of the butler or buttery man. Even his name is not given. Probably the explanation is that John Goreham, one of the priests, or one of the clerks acted also as usher. Of course, as was the case at Winchester and Eton, and all the College and Hospital schools, these salaries were in addition to board, lodging, and “liveries,” or broad cloth for their gowns. In the next extant account, 17 Henry VII., 1502-3, Mr. David was “skolemaister,” but received only 20s. a quarter, the same as R. Hall “the maister of Queresters”—a term which the Wykehamist will recognise as a living word. It looks as if this reduction of the schoolmaster’s salary was due to greed on the part of the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, who wished to have a larger surplus to put in their own pockets. Rogers was the usher, and received 6s. 8d. The livery of the schoolmaster and priests consisted of 4 yards of cloth at 3s. 4d. a yard, while that of the “clerks,” including the Master of the children, was only 3¼ yards, and the usher’s livery was the same as that of the clerks, sexton, and butler, 3 yards at 3s. The 12 “chylder” had 2½ yards at 2s. 4d. It is a little difficult to understand who the twelve children were. In a subsequent account for Michaelmas to Christmas 1521, twelve whose names are given had cloth for gowns; but then comes a heading “For the chylthern of the Songe Scole,” under which six only out of the twelve received hose and shoes, and had them repaired as well. Are the other six to be regarded as scholars in the Grammar School, or, as is perhaps more probable, choristers on probation? The next extant account is for 1521-22, when Mr. Ball was the schoolmaster and Richard-a-Lee the Song schoolmaster. The latter was succeeded in 1522 by William Johnson, who, although he got £5 a year as against the Grammar schoolmasters’ £4, was still reckoned on a lower grade among the clerks, while the schoolmaster was always ranked with the priests. There had apparently been a considerable curtailment in expenditure as the surplus handed over to Windsor this year was no less than £210, or more than double the sum they derived from it in their first year. The next schoolmaster whose name is known was Edmund Johnson. This was the “one Johnson,” of Stow’s account of “the spoil of the Hospital,” which is nothing more than a baseless libel. Edmund Johnson, or Jonson, was admitted a scholar of Winchester, at the age of eleven, in 1514, and became a Fellow of New College in 1522, remaining such for two years, and is described in the New College Register as having become “a schoolmaster.” Whether he was appointed to St. Anthony’s then, there are no means of knowing. Edmund Johnson was a “clerk” in the Hospital in 1522, and perhaps acted as usher, as no usher’s name is given. He can hardly be the same man. At all events he is described as “Scolemaster of the Grammar Schole in the said Hospitall” in a lease of November 16, 35 Henry VIII., i.e. 1543, by the Dean and Chapter to him of a house fronting “Saint Anthonies yarde,” being, perhaps, the house which had been usually occupied by the Master of the Hospital. The lease contained a reservation “for the use of the Scolemaister for the time then being,” of “the scolle house and the rome over yt, with the chambre next adioyning to the same schole.” In 1546, the first of the Acts for the dissolution of colleges and chantries was passed, and commissioners were appointed under it to certify the chantries and their value. They included St. Anthony’s Hospital under the heading of Berkshire, it being treated as part of Windsor in that county.[109] They reported, on the authority of “Sir Anthonye Baker, clerk, Master of the Hospital,” that in the parish of St. Benedict Fink, London, was “one hospytall of St. Anthony, founded to fynde one master, 2 prestes, one scolemaster, and 12 pore men there, perpetually to serve and saye the devyne service and to praye for the soules of there founders.” This is the statement which misled Stow and the other historians into thinking that the school was part of the original foundation. The correct description of the foundation of Henry VI.’s time was misread as a description of the original foundation under Henry III., to which it was wholly inapplicable. The value of the lands and possessions of the Hospital is put in the chantry certificate at £55: 6: 8 gross, with deductions of £4: 1s., bringing it down to £51: 5: 8. The stipends of the two priests were £8 each; of the curate of Seynt Benet Fynkes, £8; and of “the clerk that keepeth our Lady’s mass,” £9. These four make up the four priests we find in the Hospital accounts. The steward received £5, while the poor cost £31: 17s.; the “sexten” had £2. The schoolmaster’s stipend was £16; so that so far from the school being plundered at this time, the Master was far better paid than several of his predecessors, and received more than the Masters of Winchester or Eton. The total expenses came to £95 odd. “And so lacketh for the proportion of the same house £40: 11: 11, which ys borne by the Dean and Cannons of Wyndsore, whereunto this Hospytalle is annexede [and] unytide.” This is a somewhat slim way of putting the fact that the surplus expenses of the Hospital were met by subscriptions from the public to such an amount, that instead of the Dean and Chapter of Windsor defraying the deficit out of their own revenues, a sum three or four times as large as the whole revenue from endowment of the Hospital found its way into their pockets. The Chantries Dissolution Act of Henry was only permissive, giving the King, during his life, power to take possession of any chantries or colleges he chose; and advantage was taken of it to enter on barely half a dozen colleges, of which Windsor was not one. In 1547, a new Act of dissolution of colleges and chantries was passed in Edward VI.’s first Parliament; but Windsor was, alone among colleges that were not educational, specially exempted from its provisions. There is, however, a certificate, by the Chantry Commissioners of London and Middlesex, for the parish of St. Benet Finck, in which, while certifying a chantry in the parish church, they say complainingly (the certificates were in fact drawn up by the church wardens) that the Dean and Chapter of Windsor “is parson,” and the value of the same £16, “and but one priest by them found to serve the same, which priest is very unhable to serve the same.” They add that “within the said parish is a Grammar Scole by the name of a Fre Scole, called Saynt Anthonies, the Scolemaister whereof is nowe Maister Edmond Johnson, and his wages paid by the Stewarde of Seynt Anthonyes, and how muche is not knowen.” Now Stow is said to have been born about 1525. He tells us in a passage which is a locus classicus in the history of London schools as much as the famous “Description” of Fitzstephen himself, that in his youth, which, for this purpose, we may take to be from 1535 to 1545, the arguing of the schoolboys as to the principles of grammar of which Fitzstephen wrote, was still continued.[110] For I myself in my youth have yearly seen on the eve of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, the scholars of divers grammar schools repair unto the churchyard of St. Bartholomew, the Priory in Smithfield, where, upon a bank, boarded about under a tree, some one scholar hath stepped up, and there hath opposed and answered, till he were by some better scholar overcome and put down, and then the overcomer, taking the place, did like as the first, and in the end the best opposers and answerers had rewards; which I observed not but it made both good schoolmasters and also good scholars diligently against such times to prepare themselves for the obtaining of this garland. I remember there repaired to these exercises amongst others the Masters and scholars of the free schools of St. Paul’s of London, of St. Peter’s of Westminster, of St. Thomas Acon’s Hospital and of St. Anthony’s Hospital; whereof the last named commonly presented the best scholars and had the prize in those days. It is very doubtful, for reasons which will appear when we come to deal with Westminster and St. Thomas Acon’s, whether Stow’s memory was accurate when he brought scholars from Westminster and the Mercers’ School to St. Bartholomew’s before its dissolution. However that may be, Stow goes on: This Priory of St. Bartholomew being surrendered to Henry VIII. those disputations of scholars in that place surceased; and was again, only for a year or twain, in the reign of Edward VI., renewed in the cloister of Christ’s Hospital, when the best scholars then still of St. Anthony’s school, howsoever the same be now fallen both in number and estimation, were rewarded with bows and arrows of silver given to them by Sir Martin Bowes, goldsmith. Now, as Christ’s Hospital was only founded on June 26, 1552, and then, as we shall see, as a mere Foundlings’ Hospital, and Edward VI. died in the following January, there was not time for these renewed contests in his reign and Stow’s memory must have been at fault. The resuscitation of the contests is more likely to have taken place in the reign of Mary when the “old learning” and boy-bishops and the like revived with the “old religion.” However that may be, the school continued to flourish under Elizabeth, on Stow’s own showing.[111] Nevertheless, however, the encouragement failed. The schollers of Paules meeting with them of St. Anthonies, would call them “Anthonie pigs” and they againe would call the other “Pigeons of Paules,” because many pigeons were bred in Paules church, and Saint Anthonie was always figured with a pig following him, and, mindfull of the former usage, did for a long season disorderly in the open streete provoke one another with “Salve tu quoque! placet tibi mecum disputare?” “Placet.” And so proceeding from this to questions in grammar, they usually fell from wordes to blows, with their satchels full of bookes, many times in great heaps, that they troubled the streets and passengers; so that finally they were restrained, with the decay of St. Anthonies schoole. Strype,[112] in his edition of Stow a century later, gives further evidence: This school kept equal credit with that of Paul’s; both which had the greatest reputation in the city in former times. I meet[113] with a merry retainer at Queen Elizabeth’s Court, giving an account of the great entertainment she had in her progress, anno 1575, at Kenilworth Castle by the Earl of Leicester: “I went to school forsooth both at Polles and also at St. Antoniez! In the 5th form past Æsop’s fables, I wiz; read Terence, ‘Vos, isthoec intro auferte,’ and began with my Virgil ‘Tityre tu patulae.’ I could [i.e. knew] my Rules: and could construe and pars with the best of them.” Strype tells us also how this school used at a certain time of the year to go in procession. “Thus I find in the year 1562 on the 15th day of September there set out from Mile End 200 children of this St. Anthonies School, all well be-seen, and so along through Algate down Cornhill to the Stocks and so to the Freer Austins, with streamers and flags and drums beating. And after, every child went home to their fathers and friends.” This September outing was an old custom in schools. It was for a nut gathering. It appears in the accounts of St. Anthony’s on September 3, 1510, when “a sporting day in the cuntre” cost “the Hospital” 18d., the almsmen and choristers being entertained at home for 7d. William Malim mentions it as one of the Eton holidays in 1560; indeed, the drums and flags strongly suggest the Eton “montem.” Payments for such an outing occur frequently in the accounts of Winchester College. It forms the subject of a “theme” at Winchester by Christopher Johnson, Headmaster in 1560-70. As late as 1711[114] “nutting-money” was one of the regular payments exacted from Winchester scholars. Stow’s story of the suppression of the street-shows of the scholars is borne out by the curious injunction issued by the Lord Mayor on August 20, 1561.[115] Item, yt was agreyd that precepts shall forthewith be made to every one of my maisters the Aldermen for the stayinge of all skolemaysters and teacher of youthe within this cytye from makynge of eny more musters or commen and open shewes of theyr skollers, within the said cyttye or without, in ryche apparrell or otherwyse, eyther on horseback or on foote, upon payne of imprysonment. Edmund Johnson above mentioned became a Canon of Windsor in 1560 and apparently died in 1562.[116] So that the school was in fact at the height of its fame and success under the very man whom Stow accuses of having ruined it. Its fame and greatness outlived its so-called spoiler. Edmund Johnson, so far from being considered a spoiler of school, ought to be enrolled among the many great schoolmasters whom Winchester produced, along with Christopher Johnson, the witty Latin poet, who ruled over Winchester itself at the same time (1558-68) and was perhaps a relation. Among the archives of St. Paul’s Cathedral is a stray account of St. Anthony’s Hospital for the year 1564, and it shows both almshouse and school going on; the twelve almspeople duly receiving their shilling a week and the “Instructor of the school (scolarum) in grammar” his due stipend of £16 a year. After Johnson’s departure a fall may have taken place in the character of the school, but if so, that was not his fault. Strype indeed goes out of his way to correct Stow, and carefully tells us[117] that “it was in being in Elizabeth’s time when one Hilton a great and good man was master.” He must have succeeded Johnson. In 1584 another master, Thomas Browne, was schoolmaster and receiver of the Hospital, as one of his accounts[118] remaining shows. He duly paid twelve almsfolk 7s. a week and his own wages £16, besides £1 for himself as receiver. Even as to its then state and the state of the Hospital itself, there is reason to believe that Stow’s information was wrong and was probably derived from a tainted source. For in 1590 a determined attack on the Hospital was made by one of the band of informers who infested the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. It was a favourite device for some speculative attorney or money-lender to hunt up old monastic or chantry lands, allege that they had been confiscated to the Crown under the Acts for the dissolution of monasteries or of chantries, as the case might be, but had been concealed from it by the tenants, or other holders; and to obtain a grant from the Crown of such concealed lands by letters patent. Sometimes these patents were in the form of roving commissions for concealed lands over whole counties, sometimes for all the possessions of specific monasteries or chantries, sometimes for specific lands belonging to such foundations. The Crown in any case gained the cash paid down for the grant. The informer, if he recovered the whole property, made an enormous gain. More often he only levied blackmail on the proprietor, who was glad for a moderate payment to escape the trouble and vexation of a law suit, with the Crown as nominal plaintiff. The practice went on as late as 1620, when a too determined attack on the chantry lands of the City Livery Companies induced the Companies to combine and pay the Crown a sum down for quiet possession of the lands and for an Act of Parliament which stopped all further proceedings for concealed lands. The facts of the St. Anthony’s case are these:— In 1589 Edward Wymarke and John Leake obtained from Queen Elizabeth a grant by letters patent of all the lands of St. Anthony’s Hospital, as lands which had properly passed to the Crown, but had been “concealed” by the Dean and Chapter of Windsor. They then brought an action for ejectment in the Queen’s Bench against Timothy Lucy, gentleman, and Thomas Cooper, farmers of the manors of Valence Galant and Easthall and other lands in Essex. The Dean and Chapter took counter action by a Bill on the Equity side of the Court of Exchequer to restrain further proceedings in the ejectment. Leake alleged that the Dean and Chapter “compounded with the poor and put them out of their houses, and others that would not remain in a corner there until their end.” The church was shut up and “so remained until it was appointed to the French nation, long in Her Majesty’s time.” “The School was no more a Free School; but the Master had £16 per annum allowed him, and compounded with the parents of the children to be taught there, at his pleasure; and now of late the curate of the parish church is farmer of the parsonage and master of the school and a preacher abroad, and by reason of his other calling there are now very few scholars, the master not employed, a bad room to dwell in and a school in name, but not free or of credit.” The patentees, however, generously offered that if the Lord Treasurer should think “that in passing the patent Her Majesty was hardly dealt with in it, or your zeal for the school to be maintained which is no Free School, so your Honour would procure from Her Majesty a foundation and take the patronage. I can be content there go a better maintenance to the Master, viz. £30 per annum or more, or to do any act your Honour should think conscionable.” The Dean and Chapter in their answer did not deny that they had diminished the number of priests, clerks, choristers, and scholars in the Hospital, but urged that they no longer got £323 a year as they used to do “by begging,” but now spent more on the Hospital by twenty nobles a year at least than they received. As to the School they said “the Schoolmaster teacheth as many freely as his grant bindeth him unto, for it was never free for all that come thither, but only for the poorer sort.” The schoolmaster himself, Mr. Brown, put in a separate answer. He alleged that “the School was never free to all comers, but only for the choristers of the house and all such other destitute children; as may be gathered by sundry ancient accompts. The Schoolmaster is bound by the words of his patent to entertain 40 poor scholars, whose friends are not able to pay for their teaching, if so many come, and offer their children to be taught freely.” He said that he had never refused any who claimed to be free. As for compounding, that was granted him, in regard that the revenues of the house will neither allow him an usher, nor his diet, as his predecessors had, among the priests. He denied that he was curate of the church as well as schoolmaster, though he acknowledged that having “the lease of the appropriation come into his hands he thought himself bound to do some duty in the church as well as in the school, and therefore entered the ministry the sooner.” “Neither,” he remarked, “is it so strange or odious a matter for a schoolmaster to be a preacher as it seemeth in Mr. Leake’s eyes,” though in this we may fairly say that Mr. Leake’s eyes were more far-seeing than the parson-schoolmaster’s. Then he pays a tribute to his predecessor. “This place prospered well enough under a schoolmaster who was also a preacher, Mr. Edmund Johnson. But then there was some hope that learning and religion might be rewarded; but the daily decreasing and falling away of which reward, as by other sinister means so most apparently by concealments” (this was a side blow at Mr. Leake), “hath discouraged parents to bring up their sons at their book, but even in the Universities also at this day, more is the pity.” He then utters the complaint which the unsuccessful schoolmaster, like the unsuccessful in all professions, has always made, and makes, that there is too much competition. “If there be fewer scholars in S. Anthony’s than have been heretofore, the true cause thereof has to be imputed to the multitude of teachers in every corner both of the city and country, and to the wonted reward of learning, and not to the want of diligence in the schoolmaster there.” Finally, he challenges the facts. “If trial be made it may be that both the number and the learning of his scholars may fall out better than Mr. Leake would have it.” The end of the whole matter was that it was referred to Her Majesty’s General Attorney, Sir John Pepham, and the Solicitor General, Thomas Gerton. They certified that as the grant of Edward IV., confirmed by Innocent the Pope, had made the Hospital unconditionally a possession of St. George’s College, the purchasers from Her Majesty ought not to molest the Dean and Canons or any of their Governors in the said lands. So Mr. Leake and his friends took nothing by their pains. Not many years later, however, the Chapter, on the ground that the Hospital cost more than they got from it, tried to withhold payment of the scholarship fund from Oriel College. This roused Oriel to look up the documents, and they counterclaimed not merely the customary £10: 8s. but the whole twenty-five marks of the original grants and threatened to enter on the Essex lands if it was not paid. Thereon the Windsor Chapter filed a Bill in chancery. Lord Keeper Bacon’s decree, November 17, 1617, founded on an award of Sir Henry Savile, T. Frith, a canon of Windsor, and Joshua Sanders, confirmed the right of Oriel to some payment; but in the absence of any proof from Oriel that they had ever received more, and the presence of proof on the part of Windsor that since they became possessed of St. Anthony’s they had never paid more, the decree was for £10: 8s. a year only. Windsor paid £30 for costs. The sum of £10: 8s. a year is still paid to Oriel College by Windsor College, though it is to be feared that not many scholars are now maintained by the payment. In 1600 St. Anthony’s School must have been in very low water. A curious compact was made by Mr. Thomas Smith, the schoolmaster in that year, with Mr. Thomas Bradshaw. The latter was to come to the school with “a dozen of his own scholars at the least” and to teach all the poor children in the parish of St. Benet Finck “being offered and brought unto him according to the limitation of the patent,” and hold the office of teacher or master conjointly with Mr. T. Smith, taking all the profits of his own pupils, while Mr. Smith was to take the profit on those brought in by him. Neither was to interfere with the teaching or management of the other’s scholars, except in case one of them was ill or absent, when the other was to teach the whole school. The scholars belonging to either were to be placed equally on both sides of the school. Finally, on payment at any time of £10 by Bradshaw, he was to have an assignment of Smith’s patent and place. The Chapter do not seem to have relished this bargain, as there are some notes attached to this agreement as to the terms of the original grant to Smith, which included a condition to appoint a deputy, and to teach free as many children as were brought thither up to forty; and to keep a register of such free scholars, to be exhibited to the Dean whenever required, and it is remarked that the arrangement with Bradshaw was a breach of these conditions. A draft surrender of the mastership by Smith, May 1, 43 Elizabeth (1601), is with this paper. It was not, however, executed by him, as ten years afterwards he is found still keeping the Hospital accounts as receiver and paying himself “pro informatione scholarium.” In 1622-23 William Walker acted in the same capacity as receiver and schoolmaster, and duly paid himself and twelve almsmen and women their stipends. In 1661-62, the latest account preserved shows him still acting in the double capacity, but receiving the augmented salary of £25 a year. In 1666 St. Anthony’s was burnt with the rest of London. The church was rebuilt after the Fire for the French Church, and still continues. But the school seems never to have been rebuilt, and when Strype published his edition of Stow in 1720 it no longer existed. So ended this once famous school. We must now return from the later history of St. Anthony’s School to its beginning. It was founded, as we have seen, in 1441. Five years afterwards there is a series of documents which are evidence of some struggle going on in regard to education in London, the exact purport and the result of which are equally obscure. All we know is that on May 3, 24 Henry VI., i.e. 1446, a writ of Privy Seal was sent to the Chancellor directing him to issue letters patent, which was duly done on May 6, dealing with schools in London. The letters patent are of course in Latin, in which language they long remained, but the Privy Seal, which is verbatim to the same effect, was in English. It begins by a recital which is almost an echo of the Petition to Parliament in 1394. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London “considered the great ‘abusions’ that have been of long time in London, that many and divers persons not sufficiently instructed in grammar presumed to hold common grammar schools in great deceit of their scholars, as also of the friends that find them to school,” and so they had “in their great wisdom” devised a remedy. They had ordained 5 schools of grammar and “no moo” within the said city; “one within the churchyard of St. Paul; another within the collegiate church of St. Martin; the third in Bow Church (Beate Marie de Arcubus, in the Letters Patent); the fourth in the church of St. Dunstan in the East; the 5th in our hospital of St. Anthony within our said city.” This they had openly declared by their letters patent thereupon made. The King, therefore, ordered his letters patent to be made confirming the letters of the bishops, and commanding “all our subjittes of our said citee “that they, nor none of them, trouble nor impeach the masters of the said schools in any wise in this “partie,” but rather help and assist them inasmuch as in them is. The letters patent were duly issued on the day the writ of Privy Seal was delivered, as the Act of Parliament required. This patent was misinterpreted by Stow[119] as creating schools “besides St. Paul’s” in the places named, only he puts St. Dunstan on the West for St. Dunstan in the East. He repeats this error[120] apropos of Bow Church, which he says was a grammar school by commandment of Henry VI., whereas, as we have seen, it existed before the reign of Henry II. Stow then goes on: “And in the next year, to wit 1394 (sic), the said King ordained by Parliament that four other Grammar schools should be created.” It is curious that in all the editions till Strype’s this extraordinary error of making 1394 the next year to 1446 was repeated. No doubt Stow had become acquainted with the ordinance of Richard II. and mixed it up with that of Henry VI. and never noticed the confusion. It is the case that in February 1446/7 an ordinance was made in Parliament about London schools. It was founded upon a very remarkable petition. The full wise and discreet Commons were asked “to consider the great number of Grammar Schools that sometime were in divers parts of the realm, beside those that were in London and how few ‘ben in these days.’ This,” they say, “causes great hurt not only in the spiritual part of the church, where often times it appears too openly in some persons with great shame”—we feel inclined to call Name, name!—“but also in temporal part, to whom it is full expedient to have competent congruity for many causes”—whatever that may mean. The petitioners go on to point out how London is “the common concourse of this land,” not only for Londoners born, but for others who come up, “some for lack of schoolmasters in their own country, and some for the great alms of Lords, Merchants and others,” so that many poor creatures would never have gained the “virtue and cunning” they have without such alms. Therefore they say it is desirable to have in London “a sufficient number of Schools and good Informers of Grammar” (the headmaster of Winchester’s title is Magister Informator), “and not for the singular avail of 2 or 3 persons, grievously to hurt the multitude of young people of all this London.” “For where,” they sententiously observe, “there is a great number of learners and few teachers, and all the learners be compelled to go to the same few teachers, and to no other, the Masters wax rich in money, and the learners poor in cunning, as experience openly shows, against all virtue and order of weal public.” Four parsons, Mr. William Lichfield of All Hallows the Great, Thames Street; Mr. Gilbert (Worthington) of St. Andrew’s in Holborn, suburb of the City; Mr. John Cole of St. Peter’s, Cornhill; and John Neell of St. Mary Abchurch, and Master of St. Thomas Acon’s Hospital, were, they say, stirred to devotion and pity by such considerations, and therefore asked that the rectors and their successors in their respective parishes may “ordain, create, establish and set a person sufficiently learned in grammar, and there to teach to all that will learn” with power of removal and new appointment in the rectors. The answer was “The King wills that it be do as it is desired, so that it be done by the advice of the Ordinary, or else of the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being.” It has been assumed that these schools were set up accordingly. Stow states it for a fact as to St. Peter’s, Cornhill,[121] St. Andrew’s, Holborn,[122] and St. Thomas of Acon’s Hospital,[123] and has been followed by other writers. It is doubtful if a single one of these schools was ever established, except that in St. Thomas of Acon’s Hospital. The very unusual form of the King’s answer to the petition at once raises suspicion. The first clause of it is the common formula for consent to a “private” bill, “Le roi fait comme il est desirÉ.” But it is followed by the very significant condition “so that it be by the advice of the Ordinary, the Bishop of London, or the Archbishop.” A veto was thus given to the very two officials who, doubtless under much the same pressure, had, only the year before, limited the schools in London to five: of which three were immemorial, that of St. Anthony’s Hospital in an exempt place of the Crown’s patronage was already established with the consent of the Bishop, and the fifth St. Dunstan’s was, like St. Mary-le-Bow, a “peculiar” of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not very likely, therefore, that the Archbishop and Bishop would be eager to assist in almost doubling the number of authorised schools in London. As regards St. Andrew’s and All Hallows the Great it is practically certain that no school was ever established. The two petitioning parsons of these churches both died very soon afterwards. The will of Gilbert Worthington of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, is given in Strype’s edition of Stow.[124] It was made July 28, 1447, and was proved on August 12 following. The only reference to schools or education in it is a bequest of five marks to his brother Walter to put him to school, and 40s. to the poor scholars of God’s House in Cambridge, just founded by Bingham. The inscription on his tomb, also preserved,[125] makes no mention of any school foundation. Neither Stow nor any one else states that there was any evidence of a school at St. Andrew’s. The date of the death of the parson of All Hallows, William Lichfield, is not given by Newcourt in the Repertorium, but as it there appears that Thomas Westleigh, S.T.B., was appointed to the rectory, vacant on the death of Lichfield, on November 1448, he must have died some time before that date. No proof of any grammar school having been kept here has yet been produced. Whether a school was established in St. Thomas’s Hospital is also doubtful. There is no trace of such a school in the documents published by Sir John Watney in his account of the Hospital, privately printed by the Mercers Company in 1592. The Hospital was surrendered to King Henry VIII., October 20, 1538. The Mercers Company, whose hall was next door and who had used its church for their purposes, almost immediately, December 18, 1538, opened negotiations with the King to buy it. On April 21, 1541, the King sold it to them for £969: 17: 6, an enormous sum, equivalent to some £20,000 of our money, subject to the conditions that they should keep three chaplains to pray for his soul, and also a Free Grammar School with a sufficient master to teach 25 children and scholars freely for ever. This was the origin of the Mercers’ School, and this alone is the reason for supposing that there had been a grammar school in the Hospital before. Until the Mercers allow their records to be ransacked by some expert with an eye open to the evidence as to schools, it is impossible to assert that there was or was not a school in the Hospital. It is strange, if there was, that no evidence has yet been forthcoming of its existence. The verdict must be, for the present at least, that its existence is not proven.
|
|