A HISTORY OF SURREY 



alleges, had the roll of proceedings ' falsified 

 by causing forged interlineations to be made 

 with reference to this rent, and thereupon 

 refused to pay it to Guildford School. Heath 

 was deposed in 1559. In 1562 the corporation 

 of Guildford promoted and obtained a 

 Private Act =' for restoration of the payment. 

 Austen unkindly points out that while the 

 Act recites that the then Archbishop of 

 York, Dr. Young, wished ' by all means the 

 furtherance of the Schole,' he did, in fact, 

 do all that lay in his power to prevent the 

 restoration of the payment, and the Act was 

 only passed on the Bishop of Winchester and 

 Mr. William More, of Loseley, undertaking 

 that he should not be charged with the 

 arrears of the payment ; and he was exempted 

 by the Act accordingly. 



Since that time the school has remained 

 in undisturbed possession of its £1$ 6s. Sd. 

 It was a pity that the amount of energy and 

 the £^0 of money expended by John 

 Austen in recovery of this rent charge was 

 not expended in buying land. The sum 

 of ;£i3 6s. 8d., which was an adequate en- 

 dowment for a headmaster in 1481, and even 

 in 1548, has long shrunk to the dimensions 

 of a miserable pittance. But the whole en- 

 dowment of Guildford School has been 

 miserably mismanaged. It was not only 

 peculiarly unfortunate in having rent charges 

 on land instead of actual lands bestowed on 

 it,^ but the lands it had were granted away 

 on rent charges. Thus on 20 March 1598,* 

 the lands at Bromley, then let for £11 a year, 

 nearly treble the rent paid in 1545, were 

 granted away in ' fee farm for ever ' at the 

 fixed rent of X^I2 a year. Thus for an in- 

 crease of £1 a year the school was deprived 

 of what would now produce thousands a 

 year. So, too, the Tun Inn in Guildford was 

 sold in 1679 on a fixed rent charge. The 

 same process was repeated with Hamond's 

 endowment. 



William Hamond had been intending to 

 give the school a house and 40 acres of land 

 in East Horsley, but bestowed them instead 

 on his step-daughter Rose on her marriage 



' K. R. Mem. Roll, 339. Easter, 4 & 5 Ph. and 

 M. Communia Rot. n. In the first place three 

 lines had been erased and the account of the 

 chantry property written in. In four other places 

 the words referring to the chantry property have 

 been interlined. There is no doubt that Austen's 

 accusation is well founded. The Archbishop- 

 Chancellor deliberately falsified the record. 



» The Act is set out in an Inspeximus of 14 May 

 1563. Austen, p. 22. 



« Will, 27 May 1586. Austen, p. 60. 



* .-1 us 1:71. p. 121. 



with Lawrence Stoughton, of Stoughton, 

 procuring in exchange from the Stoughton 

 family a grant* in 1574 of the patronage 

 of the rectory of Stoke, now practically 

 part of Guildford, that they might present 

 the schoolmaster to it, whenever it fell 

 vacant ' for the incorraginge of lemed men 

 to take upon them the saide place of 

 scholemastershipp of the said schole.' Several 

 of the masters enjoyed the living. But during 

 the Civil War the Corporation and the then 

 schoolmaster, John Grayle, sold the advowson 

 to the then representative of the Stoughton 

 family.* The consideration was a rent charge 

 of £6 1 3 J. i\.d. on Claygate manor, and the 

 grant of some houses and lands in Guildford 

 worth £s a year. This would have been much 

 more valuable than the rectory, which was after 

 all only in the nature of a retiring pension. 

 But hardly had the Corporation got these 

 lands than they granted them away on a fee 

 farm rent of ;Cio a year to Thomas Canfield, 

 on 30 August 1658. 



In 1596' the rental of the school was 

 £^2 6s., so that Austen felt called on to 

 recommend the increase of the master's 

 pay from £zo to ^24, and of the usher's 

 from ;Cio to £1-^ 4/. id., leaving £/^ i^s. ^d., 

 which he considered an ample balance to 

 meet the repairs. In 1671 this had grovm by 

 the new endowments to £^2 iSs. ^d., a very 

 handsome endowment for the time. But the 

 effect of the disastrous method adopted of 

 dealing with the property was that in 1818 the 

 rental had only risen to £2-/. The Battersea 

 rent was now paid by Sir Walter St. John, 

 who had acquired the lands of the arch- 

 bishops of York there. 



It seems to have been doubted whether 

 the school went on during the interval 

 between the charter of Edward VI. and the 

 completion of the master's lodgings. But the 

 name of the master in 1555, Thomas Barker, 

 has been preserved. A letter written 16 April 

 1565. by Thomas Parrish or Par vyshe, student 

 of Christ Church, Oxford, to William More, 

 afterwards Sir William More, of Loseley, 

 entreats him to ' encourage those good men 

 of Guylforde ... to make an ende of there 

 scole which by your good help I double not 

 they have since worshipfullie begun.' Itloob 

 as if the school were not going on, but as he 



" The grant was invalid, as the arrangement was 

 made vnih the life tenant of the Stoughton estates, 

 but was confirmed by Livneace Stoughton in 1598. 



• The transaction was effected by will of Nicho- 

 las Stoughton, confirmed by his cousin and heir 

 19 February 1655. Austen, p. 201. 



' Ibid. 73. 



168 



