More on Huish Charities

HUISH'S CHARITY IN OLDEN TIMES.
(1645-1649).

As we are rapidly approaching the three hundredth anniversary of the death of Richard Huish, readers of our Magazine may be interested in a few little notes on the early days of the Charity which he founded. By his will, which is dated January 30th, 1615, twenty-two gentlemen of the neighbourhood were appointed Governors of the Charity, but during the troublous times of the great Civil War, some of these were killed and some joined the Royalist side, so that the administration of the Charity was taken over by one of the Committees appointed by the Parliament, called the Committee for the Advance of Money. From the records of this Committee, preserved in the national archives, the following particulars have been gleaned:

The first business of the Committee in dealing with this matter was to obtain full particulars of the existing state of affairs, and for this purpose they desired the presenting of all available documents relating to the property in Blackfriars. London, from which the income of the Charity was derived, Christopher Dodington, one of the Executors, was ordered to send in the papers, but he was at that time a prisoner of war. So we read that the keeper of the prison was to allow him to visit his house, under guard, for the purpose of searching for the papers. Two other Executors, William Sibsey and Thomas Betts, had similar orders, and were brought up in custody to answer matters objected against them. Poor Mr. Dodington told them that the last rents he received were paid in 1642. He had sent to the tenants since, but, alas! they had neglected payment. The others produced their accounts, but the Committee were of the opinion that they were "imperfect, and probably untrue," desiring further examination. On February 26th, 1647, Betts and Sibsey were ordered to pay £74 11s. within 14 days, and give security for the same, or it would be levied by distress. Ten days later, however, the Committee discovered that the sum owing was not £75, but £42, and requested that Betts and Sibsey should be set at liberty on giving a bond to pay that amount. This they evidently did, but failed to make good their promise, for on the 9th of March they were sent to prison for not rendering a true account, and failing to give satisfaction.

We must not assume too hastily that there was dishonesty on the part of these persons, for political feeling rankled in the breasts of all parties, and here were Royalist individuals face to face with a Parliamentarian Committee, so that we can understand the reluctance of the persons concerned to place implicit confidence in members of the opposing faction.

The tenants of the houses in Blackfriars, too, gave considerable trouble, for we read on December 1st, 1645, that the rents and arrears were to be levied by distress, as the tenants had refused to pay. Their complaints are almost painful. One of them, Peter Oliver, petitioned that he had been obliged, eight years previously, for the sake of his health, to go to live at Isleworth. He had spent £35 on repairs to the house which he sub-let, but it had been empty for three years, and rents were fallen so low that it would not then let for £10, instead of the original £18. Further, he urged that, although he was a servant of the King, at £200 a year, he had received nothing for five years. Moreover, he had contributed to the Parliament and therefore desired to be released from his obligation. The Committee, however, seem to have been obdurate, for the document is endorsed to the effect that he must pay, as he had not given the usual six months' notice.

A curious entry appears under the date of January 20th, 1647, when the Huish tenants were ordered to pay their rents, or their goods would be distrained and carried to Guildhall to be sold "by the candle." This was a kind of auction sale in which the bidding continued while a small piece (generally an inch) of candle remained burning, the last bidder before the light flickered out being declared the purchaser.

The case of one more tenant invites consideration. This was that of Mrs. Jane Chapman. She was summoned to appear before the Committee on October 20th, 1645, but three years later occurs her petition for lenient treatment. She held two of the houses, for one of which she paid £10 per annum, but, she remarks, "Sir Robert Phillips screwed the other up to £12." Besides this the Knight demanded fines amounting to £30 on the property, which she must pay or lose the benefit of the £60 she herself had spent in repairs, such as paving and wainscot. She had paid, so her plea runs, the Parliamentary taxes, which the landlord ought to do, and she saw only too well that she was going to be ruined by these leases. Was it because the tenant was a woman, or because Sir Robert was a Royalist that the petitioner was allowed her two houses at £10 each, and was later granted a further abatement of £22 on the arrears? Be that as it may, Mrs. Chapman does not appear to have been over grateful, for we read, on January 18th, 1649, that her estates, together with those of four others, were to be inventoried and secured towards the payment of their rents.

One of the good works carried out under Richard Huish's will was the foundation of a Scholarship, and it is extremely significant that the first reference to this part of the benefaction is the grant of £20 a year to John, the son of the Rev. George Newton, the Vicar of St. Mary's, Taunton. The activities of the father on the Parliamentarian side are well known, and may have influenced the Committee when they made their decision in the matter of the Scholarship.

That applicants for Scholarships knew the political tendencies of the Committee, and resolved to work upon them is perfectly clear. Anthony Harford, in asking for help, complained that he was unable to give his son the maintenance of a scholar at the University because of his losses for the public good, and the fact that he had been banished from Dartmouth for three years. Again, in consideration of the father's zeal, the grant was made to the son. Still another, William Westcombe, declared his fidelity to the Parliament, urging that when the Royalists came to Oxford he removed from the city, as he disliked their proceedings, and continued his studies in Parliamentarian quarters, even running into debt for his maintenance. Five members of the Parliamentarian Committee for Exeter, too, signed a certificate to his peaceable demeanour. We hope he obtained his petition, for apparently it was one thing to be nominated to a scholarship and another to receive the money. The William Westcombe, mentioned above, had to plead for the payment of no less than five years' arrears of his scholarship money, while it is painful to read that even William and Lewis Huish, nephews of the Founder, were compelled to beg an order for the payment of the arrears of their scholarships, as they had no other subsistence. This was granted the same day, February 4th, 1648, with the injunction that the allowance was to be paid regularly in future.

But what of the Almshouses themselves? They were in Taunton amid the scenes of strife, and it is therefore no surprise to read that the glass and tiling are out of repair, and that "it blows and rains on to the beds." This was in November, 1647. Leave was asked of the Committee for slight repairs, to be undertaken at once, to fit the Almshouses for the Winter, and for further substantial ones to be undertaken later, when the Summer had come. On the 22nd of January following, we read that the request for glazing and tiling the Almshouses at Taunton was granted. Three months had elapsed!

Here the collection of documents ends, and so we take our leave of the story of a Committee, worried by obstinate executors and defaulting tenants, by needy students and shivering almsmen. That was a long way back in the "good old times," and doubtless no one yearns for their return.

C. W. T.