It was common for centuries for those with money to found almshouses or schools (or both) in their wills for the benefit of people in their local areas. They would bequeath land, the rents from which would fund the institution, and they would specify details such as numbers to be accommodated, what provision was to be made for them, and who would be in charge. Someone had to oversee the execution of these provisions, and it was often the church.
Many of the almshouses founded before the Reformation were attached to abbeys or monasteries and were closed when those establishments were dissolved. The Charterhouse survived because it was a separate foundation with its own income, but it passed into the supervision of the local bench, the town's governing body. The bench appears to have taken little interest in it until 1571, when Robert Armyn blew the whistle on what had been happening. Unsure what their role was, the Aldermen decided to refer the matter to the Archbishop of York in a petition quoted by Tickell:
"That whereas one Thomas Turner, clerk, has been by the space of thirteen years now past, and yet is master of the hospital of the late dissolved Charterhouse near Kingston-upon-Hull, in all which time the said Thomas Turner has done, and yet openly doth, by divers and sundry ways, misuse the said hospital, contrary to the foundation thereof; not only in receiving and admitting thither, such as be neither halt, lame nor blind; but such as are well to live in the world, and have plenty of money, so as to let it out for usury. As also in letting out of leases of such lands and tenements as belong to the hospital; as well in reversion as by surrender of the old leases, and that for many years, and taking great fines, and incomes for the same. And also doth misuse the same by divers other means; as to your Grace shall manifestly and plainly appear. We beseech your Grace (the premises considered) the said Thomas Turner may be examined and sworn upon his oath truely and distinctly to answer to all such articles, and to every branch and member of the same, as are herewithall exhibited; whereby not only the truth of the premises may appear, but also the same may be restored to the right and true foundation. And your said orators shall duly pray to God, long to preserve your Grace in health and wealth, with much increase of virtue and gladness.
Christ. Stockdale, mayor"
The Archbishop replied to the effect that it was nothing to do with him, and they should sort it out themselves.
The petition expresses the problem that was building up in many charitable foundations. Without adequate supervision and regulation those in charge were able to siphon off the money for themselves and for people who were far from being the intended recipients. The Hull Bench responded by summoning Turner and confronting him with a long list of rules which he was made to sign up to, including submitting annual accounts. That worked for a while, but in the rather patchy records we have we can see the problem recurring time after time. 1671 the Master Richard Kitson was made to sign articles of agreement with the Bench but there were continual disputes over the finances in his time. In 1716 John Clarke began his 52-year Mastership. His struggles with the Bench over that time are well documented. What powers did the Master have and what should his pay be? Eventually the Bench was driven to take their case to the Court of Chancery in London in 1764, paying a total of £1,053 of the charity's money to achieve a settlement.
The Court of Chancery was the only recourse for anyone disputing the conduct of charities in this period, and it could take years to get a settlement. This allowed bad practice and corruption to flourish. There were grammar schools without scholars, the money going into the pockets of the trustees. There were almshouses where the trustees themselves leased the lands which formed the endowment at a fraction of their value, or borrowed money from the charity's funds. The impulse for change came from the MP Henry Brougham, who, after a struggle, got a Select Commission on Public Charities formed in 1831. It conducted a survey of nearly 30,000 charities and produced a massive report between 1837 and 1840.
This fits with the records we have about the Charterhouse. A commission looking into local government finances came to Hull in 1834 but asked only one question about the local hospitals i.e. almshouses. The answer came back to the effect "I thought you weren't going to ask about that". A separate enquiry was clearly in the offing. A document which we can date to 1836 is a meticulous hand-written booklet listing all the inmates of the Charterhouse, the date of admittance, age at admittance, whose "gift" they were, i.e. which Alderman had nominated them and notes about their circumstances. A final column in the table is in a different handwriting by someone who has checked by means of personal interviews if the information is correct. What is revealed in the document is corruption in the awarding of rooms. What we don't know is whether there was financial mismanagement going on. Certainly the number of beneficiaries was being maintained, and increased well beyond the 26 stipulated in the founding charter. But the revelations prompted the Aldermen to clean up their act, and a register of new inmates was started.
Brougham fought for the establishment of a permanent Charities Commission, but for many years Parliament would not back it. Meanwhile, huge social changes saw the need for almshouses and many other charities grow. The Hull Charterhouse more than doubled in capacity by building new rooms while the value of its endowment grew. In 1847 the councillors decided to be as transparent as possible by publishing the names on the waiting list and setting up a sub-committee to decide on admissions. But genuine reform of charities and a permanent Commission was opposed by the Church, by the courts and by municipal corporations, which were said to be among the most corrupt institutions. A permanent Charity Commission was finally established in 1853, but with watered-down powers, and blatant corruption among charities continued.
The Charterhouse did have run-ins with the Commission over changes it wanted to make, particularly in respect of the role of the Master. The councillors wanted to change the job to that of a chaplain on lower pay. The Commissioners held fast to the terms of the original foundation and the 1764 settlement. Terse responses from the Commission to the councillors' arguments are in the archives, and the anger is clear when the Commissioners eventually insisted on a new scheme of governance in 1901.
The modern Charity Commission is a much larger body with many more charities to regulate. No doubt corruption still exists so it is more important than ever.
The Court of Chancery was the only recourse for anyone disputing the conduct of charities in this period, and it could take years to get a settlement. This allowed bad practice and corruption to flourish. There were grammar schools without scholars, the money going into the pockets of the trustees. There were almshouses where the trustees themselves leased the lands which formed the endowment at a fraction of their value, or borrowed money from the charity's funds. The impulse for change came from the MP Henry Brougham, who, after a struggle, got a Select Commission on Public Charities formed in 1831. It conducted a survey of nearly 30,000 charities and produced a massive report between 1837 and 1840.
 |
| Henry Brougham |
This fits with the records we have about the Charterhouse. A commission looking into local government finances came to Hull in 1834 but asked only one question about the local hospitals i.e. almshouses. The answer came back to the effect "I thought you weren't going to ask about that". A separate enquiry was clearly in the offing. A document which we can date to 1836 is a meticulous hand-written booklet listing all the inmates of the Charterhouse, the date of admittance, age at admittance, whose "gift" they were, i.e. which Alderman had nominated them and notes about their circumstances. A final column in the table is in a different handwriting by someone who has checked by means of personal interviews if the information is correct. What is revealed in the document is corruption in the awarding of rooms. What we don't know is whether there was financial mismanagement going on. Certainly the number of beneficiaries was being maintained, and increased well beyond the 26 stipulated in the founding charter. But the revelations prompted the Aldermen to clean up their act, and a register of new inmates was started.
Brougham fought for the establishment of a permanent Charities Commission, but for many years Parliament would not back it. Meanwhile, huge social changes saw the need for almshouses and many other charities grow. The Hull Charterhouse more than doubled in capacity by building new rooms while the value of its endowment grew. In 1847 the councillors decided to be as transparent as possible by publishing the names on the waiting list and setting up a sub-committee to decide on admissions. But genuine reform of charities and a permanent Commission was opposed by the Church, by the courts and by municipal corporations, which were said to be among the most corrupt institutions. A permanent Charity Commission was finally established in 1853, but with watered-down powers, and blatant corruption among charities continued.
The Charterhouse did have run-ins with the Commission over changes it wanted to make, particularly in respect of the role of the Master. The councillors wanted to change the job to that of a chaplain on lower pay. The Commissioners held fast to the terms of the original foundation and the 1764 settlement. Terse responses from the Commission to the councillors' arguments are in the archives, and the anger is clear when the Commissioners eventually insisted on a new scheme of governance in 1901.
The modern Charity Commission is a much larger body with many more charities to regulate. No doubt corruption still exists so it is more important than ever.
