John Healey Bromby

One of the most colourful Masters of the Charterhouse, John Healey Bromby was also the longest lived. 
He was born in Hull in October 1770 and after Cambridge and ordination he became Vicar of Holy Trinity in Hull in 1797.  As early as 1792 he was involved in the cultural life of Hull, as a founder member of an early Hull literary society, a "Society for the purpose of Literary Information", which had its first meeting on 19 June 1792. Other founder members included Dr. Alderson. In 1806 he married Jane Amis in London. One of their sons, Charles, became Bishop of Tasmania. Bromby gave lectures to the newly-formed Mechanics' Institute; three of them were published in a pamphlet in 1833, on “Time and its Uses” and “The Terraqueous Globe”. They were more moral than scientific. Bromby's career in the Church seems to have been limited by his politics, and one of his sermons provoked the displeasure of the Archbishop of York for its liberal views. According to his obituary: "In politics he was an advanced Reformer, at a time when the Liberal cause was an unpopular one, and during the first thirty years of the present century he was rarely absent from any meeting held to discuss public affairs, and usually spoke with vigour on behalf of his cause.” As well as his published sermons he also wrote an English translation of Plutarch's Treatise on Music, which was not published until after his death.

The portrait of Bromby (above) was painted by Hull artist Thomas Brooks in 1843.  The Hull Packet of 15 September described the likeness as "absolutely startling".  A limited number of engravings were made from it, one of which is in the National Portrait Gallery's collection.  The painting was bought by the Charterhouse in the 1980s and now hangs in the Master's house.

In 1849 Bromby's parishioners at Holy Trinity presented him with this silver inkstand (recently gifted to the Charterhouse) to commemorate his 50 years of incumbency.  It can just be seen in the portrait of him, on the right.  It has an inscription which notes their "unfeigned esteem" for him and that "a purse of 300 guineas" accompanied it.  It reads very much like a retirement present.  But Bromby had no intention of retiring; he stayed on as Vicar of Holy Trinity until 1867.

Perhaps it was the politics which were the problem when the Mastership of the Charterhouse became vacant in 1847.  Days after the death of Thomas Dikes an anonymous letter was circulated to the Council advocating Bromby for the job.  In his favour was supposedly the fact that he was “venerable” i.e. elderly, and deserved a less onerous job. He had also, the letter said, suffered financially because of his politics, which were now back in vogue. Perhaps the problem was Bromby's age - he was 78.  A month later the Council had two candidates to consider; Bromby, and George Moore Carrick.  They chose Carrick.
Carrick died two years later.  Bromby was quick to offer himself for the job. Even before Carrick was buried he wrote to the Mayor saying that he would be honoured to be appointed (and that his financial position was not as bad as had been said two years earlier). The Mayor, Thomas Palmer, passed the letter to the Hull Packet newspaper with a covering note to the effect that Bromby was announcing his candidacy. The editor was not enthusiastic about the prospect, saying, in effect, that Bromby was too old for a job which involved “active duties”. Bromby was not the only man to throw his hat in the ring with such speed. Six others declared themselves candidates, including John Scott, Vicar of St. Mary's, Hull. There was a remarkable amount of public interest in the contest, for reasons which seem to have been political.  The Council meeting at which the election was to take place had a full attendance, and the public gallery was crowded. The voting was by a system common at the time; after each round the person with the fewest votes was eliminated, until finally Bromby beat Scott by 4 votes. Bromby was 80 at the time.

Although he already held three livings, Bromby seems to have taken his role as Master seriously.  When inmates were fined for damaging water closets, the Master personally cancelled the order.  He produced a set of rules for the inmates, copies of which survive.  They seem rather tyrannical today, but were reasonable enough at the time.
In May 1866 Bromby wrote to the Advisers pointing out that there were currently 70 rooms in the Charterhouse, with the inmates receiving 6s. a week, coal, turves, water and medical assistance, and there was not enough
revenue to pay these allowances to an increased number of inmates. He proposed that part of the land at Hessle be developed as “villa residences”, leased out at £20 per acre per annum. To the annoyance of the advisors, who felt he was overstepping his authority, Bromby already had the plans drawn and lessees signed up. One of the leases was to go to Mr. Francis Reckitt, “biscuit manufacturer”, another next door to Mr. James Reckitt, “starch and biscuit  manufacturer”.  The increased income paid for 12 new rooms to be built.
John Healey Bromby's longevity created some startling records. On 28 November 1862 the bells of Holy Trinity Church “rang a merry peal” because he had “completed the 65th year of his office as Vicar of Holy Trinity parish.”  Two years later the paper reported another “merry peal” as the “Venerable Vicar” embarked on his 68th year in the job.  However, he resigned as Vicar in 1867 and bowed out of public affairs - but remained Master of the Charterhouse, becoming in 1868 the oldest clergyman in the Church of England.  He died of bronchitis on 25 March 1868.  His obituary says, “All who had the pleasure of his acquaintance to the end of his life will acknowledge that the cheerfulness and affability which were ever salient points in his character never deserted him.”  He was buried in North Ferriby, after a funeral procession which started at the Charterhouse. The newspaper reported that although no special announcement was made, “the inhabitants [spontaneously] left their places of business at the busiest time of the day, and lined the route of the cortege.”

What's in a name?

Thomas Dykes was elected Master of the Charterhouse on 5 February 1833.  Or was it Thomas Dikes?
The family name appears clear in the transcriptions of the parish registers.  Both his baptism in January 1762 and his marriage to Mary Hey in 1789 have it with an "i", although the "y" variant of the name is generally more common.  Thomas's entry into Magdalen College, Cambridge, in June 1785 appears in Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses as "Dikes or Dykes"; but Venn compiled his list years after Thomas's death, when confusion had set in.
The fact is that all his life Thomas insisted that his surname was Dikes.  Contemporary records have that spelling because that's how he wrote his own name, and there would have been no reason to disagree. Among other documents we have his signature on a warrant for the police to remove

inmate John Gill from the Charterhouse.  
Thomas was the leading Anglican evangelical in Hull, and people who have written about this aspect of his life in modern times, like Peter Stubley (A House Divided, pub Univ of Hull, 1995), draw on the documents of the time and use the "i" spelling.  

There are numerous mentions of Rev Dikes in the local papers of the time; they report on him as Vicar of St John's, and on his involvement in local good causes; they report his appointment as Master of the Charterhouse and print an obituary of him on his death.  Every single report has him as the Rev Thomas Dikes.  That was simply his name.

So why is there so much doubt about the issue that every reference to him today in the context of the Charterhouse calls him Dykes?
The clue appears in Dikes' will.  He makes his eldest son, also Thomas, his executor and refers to him as "my son Thomas Dikes (usually written by him Dykes)".  When the will was proved in December 1847 the official record refers to "the Oaths of Thomas Dikes otherwise Dykes and William Hey Dikes the sons the executors".  Clearly it was Thomas junior who had decided that the family name should correctly be Dykes and that his father had been wrong all his life (with his brother William apparently disagreeing).  It was presumably Thomas junior who registered his father's death - as Dykes - and who insisted that the memorial tablet in the Charterhouse chapel carry that version of the name.
Only two years after Thomas' death a book was published about him: Memoir of the Rev. Thomas Dykes, LL.B, incumbent of St. John's Church, Hull, with copious extracts from his correspondence, Rev. John King, (pub 1849, Seeleys, London).  King tackles the question of the spelling in a footnote: 
"It is right here to observe, that, during the whole of his life, Mr. Dykes spelt his name Dikes; but it was a corruption of the family name; and in a memorandum, found among his papers after his death, he directed that it should appear on his coffin with the y instead of the i.  This instruction was attended to, and the spirit of it is carried out in the Memoir now submitted to the reader."
This is hardly conclusive.  As we have seen, there is good reason (in the parish registers) to think that the "i" variant is not a corruption; and no source is given for the memorandum, which strikes me as highly dubious.
But the revision stuck.  He is Thomas Dykes on our roll of Masters, and one of the modern blocks of flats is labelled Dykes House.  It seems disrespectful to the man and his memory.

Evicted!

Being awarded a place in the Charterhouse was a much sought after privilege.  For a few, through the centuries, it ended in eviction.
The earliest such unlucky person in the records was Leonard Home who, in 1636, was "expelled for his evil carriage and misdemeanour”. With no more detail than that, we can only speculate about his actual offence. A little more detail appears about Frances Ellis in the Bench Book of 1714. In September she had been "expelled from God's House for being disobedient to the Master and disturbing the Brethren and Sisters". And in 1832 John Batman was dismissed for  "immoral and disorderly conduct". 
In the early nineteenth century it was still the Bench which made decisions about dismissals after requests by the Master.  In June 1831 it was reported that the conduct of John Webster had been “exceedingly irregular immoral and reprehensible”, and he was to be removed from the house and lose his pay. It seems that he was given another chance, because nine months later the Bench returned to the subject of Webster's conduct. It was still “disgraceful and discreditable”; he had not changed his ways and so was dismissed.
Not everyone went quietly.  John Gill had lived in the Charterhouse for nearly 20 years when, in 1847, he and his wife were dismissed for some unspecified "misconduct".  Gill refused to vacate the room.  The Master, Thomas Dikes, issued a warrant to the Chief Constable, dated 15 June 1847, requiring the police to remove Gill and his wife "using no more force than may be necessary".  We have no record of what happened to the Gills; but it is likely that their only recourse was the workhouse.
Henry Lee was more fortunate.  In 1859 he was threatened with dismissal for "having broken the rules of the house". The rules at the time were those drawn up by the Master, John Healey Bromby. Lee was given another chance, but died a few months later. Hannah Hammond was another who narrowly escaped. She was admitted in 1857. Eight years later, aged 78, she was threatened with dismissal for "unfeminine and disreputable conduct". She survived this and presumably mended her ways. She died 4 years later.
In 1866 Bromby complained about John Ridgway and his wife Ann. They were, he said, guilty of "gross misconduct". John was 81 at the time, so it is difficult to see what this amounted to. It is not clear what happened to them. An 1867 residents list shows them living "entirely out of the Hospital" but the register shows John dying in 1868.
So far the records do not mention alcohol, but it is safe to assume that drunkenness was a factor in some cases. In 1883 it was cited as a reason for eviction. According to the records of the council Jane Parker "had seriously misconducted herself and being of drunken habits [the Master] had thought it right to forbid her the house". (There is no record of a Jane Parker in our register, so we can assume that she was the wife of an inmate. But the only possible candidate for her husband had a wife with him called Sarah Ann.)
At the turn of the century two men were dismissed simply for "drunkenness"; Thomas Wilson in 1899 and Theophilus Routledge in 1901. A terse record in 1906 shows George Johnson dismissed for "misconduct". Three years later Mary Ann Stephenson was "deprived of room for insobriety".
As the 20th century progressed the records become more explicit, although in 1917 Christopher Hewson was simply "removed by the trustees". But some sad cases are recorded in the trustees' minutes in detail. There was, for instance, the case of Frederick Rutherford, who was born in 1826 in Staleybridge, Lancashire, and was in Hull by 1851. He was a general dealer, then a hosier and later the manager of a bookshop. He was married twice. The trustees heard none of this history in 1904, only that he was admitted to the Charterhouse in January 1894 and that his wife had left him a year ago. The Master was now complaining about his drunken habits, and gave specific examples, such as: “He was drunk on a seat in front of the Charterhouse from which he fell to the ground and could not get up without assistance”; he had been drunk and had been carried home by his friends. The final straw was when he had been “helplessly drunk in his room and calling for assistance”. His neighbours had all ignored him. When asked later why, they said that he had done it too often before and they were sick of it. The Master had heard him and forced open the door. The most worrying aspect was that Rutherford had broken a paraffin lamp and there was the danger of fire. “He does not get sufficient food,” said the Master, “and is generally in a dirty condition.” Rutherford was summoned to appear at the next meeting, where he apologised and was given a reprimand and a last chance. A year later the Master asked that he be removed from his room for “insobriety and uncleanly habits” but Rutherford died before this could be carried out.
Mary Ann Sunley, aged 73, started drinking too much and spending hours each night “screaming in the yard”. The Master, Fea, suspended her “from the benefits of the Charity” for 14 days. Two years later she was repeating the behaviour, and her son was obliged to remove her.  A number of other cases are recorded where drunkenness resulted in warnings and the stoppage of allowances but not eviction.  But there was no hesitation about William Copeland in 1919.  He was a 77-year-old former shoemaker who was arrested for indecent conduct in St. Mary's Old Burial Ground and sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. He was removed from the Charterhouse.
Later in the 20th century the references to dismissal become fewer and more guarded.  The trustees didn't want bad publicity, and residents had greater access to legal help to fight eviction.  There was also a growing supply of alternative housing for the elderly, and those who would have faced eviction in the past could now be persuaded to leave.