[From Proc IoMNH&ASoc vol 5]

THE ORIGINAL LANDS OF BISHOP BARROW'S TRUSTEES

Rev. Canon E. H. STENNING

In order properly to understand the Bishop Barrow Trust, we must go back to see the conditions that followed the Dissolution of the Monasteries, in the reign of Henry VIII.

In short, Henry's Vicar-General, Thomas Cromwell, was instructed to visit all the abbeys and monasteries and nunneries, ask for their trust deeds, determine whether or not they were fulfilling their function, and if not, they were to be disbanded.

There is no record of which of the various commissioners came to the Isle of Man. There were two religious houses here, the Cistercian Abbey of S. Mary in Rushen at Ballasalla, and the Nunnery of S. Bridget in Douglas. The fate of the latter does not concern this paper. The Rushen Abbey was the last British Monastery to be dissolved. Its fate did not overtake it until 1540, when the Lord of Mann was Edward, Fourth Earl of Derby; John Howden was Bishop, and George Stanley was Governor. Under the existing arrangements with the Crown, all the lands and buildings were handed over to the Lord of Mann, not apparently in perpetuity, but under Letters Patent and subject to an annual rental to the King, of £101. 15s. 11d. It is not necessary to consider all the lands of the Abbey, but we are concerned with those around Castletown.

The lands in Malew were bounded roughly as follows: To the east, along a straight line running roughly from the middle of Castletown Bay to Ballalonna. To the west, from Castletown boundary along the river Silverburn for half a mile, thence turning due west, and including Ballakeighan in Kirk Arbory. The whole of Kirk Malew therefore was included, with the following exceptions : —
a. a small parcel of ground around Castletown.
b. the mountain land from Grenaby to South Barrule.
c. Ronaldsway farm and Langness.

Of the Abbey lands, the best piece by far was the land lying between the present Douglas-Castletown road and Ronaldsway. Bishop Barrow had a good eye for land value.

Let us now consider the conditions under which the tenants ot the farms were allowed to retain their tenures. Land in tenure in the Isle of Man is held very differently from that in Britain. Crown lands, speaking generally, in the Island were held by tenants and passed on from father to son, or otherwise willed, subject only to the payment of a ground rent to the Lord — roughly like a perpetual lease in Britain.

The coming of the Commonwealth brought a change in the Lordship of Mann. After some uncertainty, Lord Fairfax was appointed. So far as can be ascertained there were no ejections of tenants on political grounds.

At the Restoration Charles, the Eighth Earl of Derby, accepted as tenants all those who had held their farms through the Commonwealth period, on payment of a small fine, which appears to have roused no protest. He had appointed as Bishop, first his father's old chaplain Sam. Rutter (the Archdeacon of Man before the Commonwealth), but he only lived three years, and in 1663 Isaac Barrow was appointed, a man of strong character and considerable scholarship. In spite of his East Anglian ancestry (he was son of Isaac Barrow, Esquire, of Spiney Abbey, Wickham, Cambridge) he was an incorruptible Royalist. Born in 1614, he went up at an early age to St. Peter's College, Cambridge, and became a Fellow in 1639. But he was not very happy, for Cambridge was for Cromwell, who himself had been at Sidney Sussex College in 1616. Oxford, however, took pity on him, and he was appointed Chaplain of Wykeham's college, New College, the natural home of Winchester boys in . Oxford. Here Barrow would see at first hand the value of the school in the life of the community. Life in Oxford was not very easy during the Commonwealth, and Barrow had to leave and return to the country. When the 'Merry Monarch' returned, there were many sees to be filled, and immediately Barrow was made a Fellow of Eton, presented with the good living of Downham, and on the death of Rutter was appointed Bishop of Sodor and Man, and consecrated in Westminster Abbey 5th July, 1663.

William Christian had been executed in the January of that year. The Earl of Derby, after seeing to the execution of Christian, and after proceeding against Ewan Curghey and Sam Radcliffe, had returned to Lancashire and appointed the new Bishop as sword-bishop, or acting Governor. Barrow records his impressions of the Island :—

I found at my coming that the people were for the most part loose and vicious in their lives, rude and barbarous in their behaviour, and which I suppose the cause of this disorder, without any true sense of religion and indeed in a condition almost incapable of being bettered, for they had no means of instruction or of being acquainted with the very principles of Christianity. Their ministers it is true took it upon themselves to preach: but were themselves much fitter to be taught, being very illiterate and wholly ignorant, having had no other education than what that rude place afforded them . . . they had no books . .. the poverty of the clergy gave no encouragement to such merchandise; their livings not amounting to above five or six pounds per annum which forced them to engage in all mechanical courses, even to the keeping of alehouses, to procure a livelihood.

The Bishop went on to suggest that the only means of overcoming this sad state was by setting up schools in each parish, and to give the children a chance of further education by attending some central grammar school.

As a result of Bishop Barrow's occupying the See, three important events occurred -

1. The setting up of parish schools, for keeping which and instructing, the clergy were given an extra six pounds a year, compensating them for the loss of their alehouses and other unseemly occupations. The money he obtained for this was £100 from the Royal Bounty, paid through the Insular Excise.

2. The Impropriate Fund was raised, partly by private subscription from English friends, but mainly by recovery from the Lord's revenue of the tithe which had been illegally confiscated from the Abbey revenue. These tithes were granted to the Bishop on a lease of 10,000 years in consideration of a fine of £130 every thirtieth year. This Impropriate Fund raised about £100 per annum, with which the stipends were increased of those clergy whose income was below £17 per annum, and extra for those vicars who undertook the work of schoolmasters. The Tithe Fund was entrusted to the Bishop, the Archdeacon, and two trustees nominated by the Lord.

3. The third great memorial of the Bishop's episcopate was the founding of the Bishop Barrow's Trust.

Bishop Barrow lived most of his time as Governor, not at Bishopscourt but in Castle Rushen. He appears to have been much struck with the goodness of the land of Ballagilley and Hangohill farms. Ballagilley appears to have been empty at the time. It was easily transferred to his own use. But Hangohill was different. After the Restoration it was held by the Lace family, and the Lace family of the period appear to have been sturdy fighters for their pieces of earth. The first mention of the ownership of Hangohill after the dissolution of the Abbey occurs in the Abbey Roll for 1607, when it is held by Thomas Norris.

in the Abbey Roll for 1623 we find:—

Cum monaster: Rushen lent a pred:
Monaster xxix die May A.D. 1623.
Coram Roberto Calcott Dom:
Arthur ffiges, seneschal.
John Hilcot, Comptroller.
Thos: Sankey et Ewan Christian judicil.
parcere slu;

ffarm land. Thomas Norris John Lace xxd.
John Lace is in possession and payeth the rent, enjoying by virtue of sale from the said Thos: Norris, and Ursula his wife, which sale is ratified.

The property is further described as 'farm land with two closes, Great close, and Sour close Rent xxs. and iii.s iv.d'. These two closes in the first extant map of 1768 are included in Ballagilley. (See end of this Paper).

In 1626 John Lace sought and received approval from Alice Dowager Countess of Derby for this tenancy, which approval was ratified by the Abbey Court of that year. In May, 1627, John was 'admitted' in the Abbey Court Roll as the owner of Hangohill farm.

In 1629 Arthur Figgis, seneschal of the Abbey lands, brought before the Abbey Court a claim from Robert Norris, son of the former owner, for the return of the farm to his ownership. John Lace objected; the case was heard, the ownership of John Lace was confirmed, and the finding approved by the Lord in 1633.

Between the action and its confirmation, in 1630, the father of Ursula Norris (see the deed above), Thomas Ireland, put in a claim for Hangohill on the ground that he had paid for a large share of it, in his daughter's name. His case was sent to a Deemster, who at this time was Lord Strange the heir to the Lordship, who very rightly declined to adjudicate in a matter in which he was an interested party. He referred the case to his brother Deemster George Stanley. The finding in this case became the basic claim all through the later proceedings of the Lace family. It runs:—

We have examined all the papers and evidence in this case, and this is our judgement: Not any of the barons of this Isle (Bishop and Abbot being prime) can, ought, or may dispossess or remove any of these tenants or any lawfully tenanted on these lands, but in the cases following :—

a, if any tenant be convicted of capital crime.
b. if by poverty he be unable to pay rents, customs, or dues.

Therefore John Lace cannot by law or custom be dispossessed.

Signed George Stanley and Twenty-four Keys.

We must now glance cursorily at the effects of the Commonwealth in Mann. Charles I had been taken in charge by Cromwell's army in 1648, and was tried, condemned and beheaded in January, 1649, so that in Britain Cromwell's power was supreme in 1649. But events in Mann were different, with Earl James apparently in complete control. He had by no means an easy task to control the Islanders. He had had to land at Derbyhaven himself with a considerable force of cavalry following a sending round of the cross, but this was presumably not so much anti-Derby as anti-tithe. This was in 1627. The Earl's Governor Gerrard was not a success, and the rugged personality of Edward Christian, the Earl's 'Lieutenant and Capten,' was in constant opposition to Gerrard. Earl James quelled the islanders by force of garrisons and even naval forces, so that while the Island was apparently 'for the King,' there was a very great under-current or disafféction and mistrust. John Greenhalge had succeeded Gerrard, and seems to have been a hard, severe man. He had no sympathy with the small-owner, whom he seems to have looked upon as a probable source of disaffection. This probably accounts for a further twist in the fate of Hangohill.

In spite of the judgment of 1630 however, Arthur ffiges the seneschal, himself a witness of the sale in 1630, and of the Lord's approval of 1631, some time between 1632 and 1639 put Thomas Ireland, father-in-law of Norris, into possession of Hangohill. So in 1639-40 the unfortunate John Lace is again proceeding against Jane Ireland, the widow of the said Thomas, for the profits of the lease on Hangohill farm. The case was heard by Earl James in the Abbey Court, and was again referred to the Keys. For the second time they found unanimously for Lace. They stated that his claim was good by the decision of their predecessors in 1630, and was further supported by, the, Statute of 1637,'An Act, of Settlement.'... . But again something went wrong, and either by the simplicity, or possibly by the fear of John Lace, the Earl himself took over the farm. It is most unlikely that the Earl had any hand in the business, but that the arrangement was made entirely ultra vives by John Greenhalge, who at about the same time took over the farms of Loughmallo and Dry Close. But both these farms were restored to their rightful owners between 1647 and 1650. In order to make things look less illegal, Greenhalgh gave the rightful owner Lace the right to graze two cows on Hangohill, at a nominal rental. On the other hand, the Norris family and Jane Ireland were granted cash compensation. John Lace died and his son, another John, but of stouter fibre, was strenuous and insistent on his rights of ownership.

In 1650, the Comptroller of the Abbey lands was one John Sharples, who seems to have been at least an opportunist. He took advantage of the general unrest, called together a most irregular 'Abbey Court' on 5th May, 1650, whereat he was petitioner, comptroller, and Clerk of the Rolls. Norris was brought in. Lace was ignored, a claim was made on Hangohill, Norris condoning, surrendering all claim to both Ballagilley and Hangohill on consideration of a lease granted to him on another parcel of land. The farms were therefore leased to Sharples for twenty-one years. That this Court was clandestine is shown by the following facts :—

i. Its findings were not disclosed till a month later. .
ii. Its findings were entered in the wrong place in the Abbey Roll.
iii. It had no powers in any case, to effect the business it professed to have settled.
iv. It made the false assumption that Norris was the rightful owner, in spite of the two judgments of the Keys.
v. Norris not being legally in possession could not legally be cited in the case.

In 1659 a sidelight on the case occurs in the Bridge House Papers. This is a petition to his Honour James Challoner, Governor.
It is the 'humble petition' of Thos. Whetstone :—

The Earl of Derby taking into his possession certain tenements, to wit, Hangohill, Ballagilley, and ye tenement of Robert Lucas, near to which yr petitioners inheritance lying convenient, ye said Earl of Derby (for ye better completion of his demesne) inclosed a parcel of intacks of ijs. rent, adjoining Ballagilley in the one place and another parcel of land adjoining ye land of Robert Clucas in another place, for loss of which parcels your petitioner had compounded to the same Earl as other inhabitants had, and yet without receiving any satistaction for ye same .. . but the Earl going out of the Island certain yeares . . . ye said parcel of land disposed of . . . wherefore your petitioner humbly desires your honour will be pleased to restore to him ye said parcel of land, and he is willing either to compound or to pay the composition agreed upon with the said Earl .. . if not satisfied, to refer ye matter to ye 24 Keyes. October, 1658.

Result . . . ordered to be investigated by ye 24 Keyes.

Result . . . According to ye reference, we certifie that ye petitioners case be good according to the law and constitution of ye Isle. Dated October 21st 1659. \u2018
William Harrison certified that Arthur Halsall shall deliver up this land to Thos. Whetstone.

But Halsall refused to give up the land till the case had been reconsidered by the Governor, for which he was taken in charge and imprisoned in Castle Rushen, while Whetstone was placed in possession. The actual topography of this land is difficult. When the Earl left the Island in 1652 we know that Lace was in possession of Hangohill. Which pieces of land therefore belonging to Thos. Whetstone were being farmed by Thos. Lucas, and Robert Clucas? In 1643 (Manorial Roll) Thomas Whetstone was farming Ballawhetstone, which is now Malew Church Farm. Just possibly the fields beside the Douglas-Castletown road where Quayle's Folly used to stand were the fields in question, as they abutted on Ballagilley and Hangohill but never formed a part of the property.

But to return to John Lace, and his claim.

Greenhalge died soon after the Earl (James) left for his fatal effort for King Charles. Duckinfield, the Commonwealth Governor, agreed with William Christian that there should be no evictions from tenancies. ;

But in 1659, on the arrival of Challoner, evidently inspired by the justice done to Whetstone, John Lace laid his claim before the Governor, who quickly examined the claim of Lace and the counterclaim of Norris, and sent all the papers to the Keys, who for the third time verified Lace's claim by a 'firme and authentick order.' Lace therefore immediately took possession and was in possession at the Restoration in 1660.

The Keys who signed the 'firme and authentick order' were:—
Richard Steavenson Robert Quaile John Garrot
Thomas Banckes Thomas Caine Thos. Moore
William Quaile Edward Curghey William Corlett
John Caine Hugh Cannell Thos. Norris Robert Steavenson
John Lorn Thos. Ratcliffe Sam Ratcliffe Thos. Casement
Dollin Clarke John Standish William Gawne (Bridge House Papers).

The Restoration brought back Charles, the VIIIth Earl. He made no changes in tenancies. John Lace paid his fine in 1660 and remained in possession of Hangohill till 1667.

In this year Isaac Barrow was both Bishop and Governor, and he had a mind to found his fund for the education of young Manxmen for the Manx Church. Earl James had had a similar idea, which he had made mention of in a letter to Charles his son in 1651. 'I have a design and God may enable me to set up an university without much charge (as I have contrived it) which may much oblige the nations round about us. It may get friends into the country and enrich this land.' Bishop Barrow proposed to the young Earl Charles that he, Barrow, should take over certain lands from the Lord's property, and use the incomes derived therefrom to provide scholarships for prospective clergy. So far the Bishop's conduct seems to have been exemplary. The regrettable part came in the matter of the carrying out of the scheme. He had set his heart on the farmsteads of Hangohill and Ballagilley. So far as the latter is concerned, there appears to have been no difficulty. The tenancy seems to have lapsed. But it was not large enough for his purpose, it needed Hangohill to round it off. He appears to have made not the slightest effort to treat with John Lace. He just out-Ahab-ed Ahab. He called together a clandestine Abbey Court of which only the mere record remains. The Court was held in his own residence in Castle Rushen.

Never before had an Abbey Court been held in Castle Rushen. No notice was served on Lace, who was not present. The Bishop sat as Governor, Bishop, Clerk of the Rolls, and plaintiff! No consideration was given to the tenancy or ownership of Lace. No surrender of his claim was offered or referred to by the Court. No mention of compensation or alternative accommodation was made. No conveyance of any kind was drawn up. The proceedings of the Court were not entered into the book until a considerably later period, and then in the wrong place! (Bridge House Papers). The act was one of blatant confiscation. No time was. lost. Lace was served with notice to quit. In fact he was away from home. His wife refused to go.

The Bishop acted quickly. He appeared in person with his officials at the farmstead of Hangohill. The wife, staunch soul, refused to quit, and defied the Bishop. He sent to Castle Rushen, to ask for Ensign Norris to bring a company of soldiers. They duly arrived, and proceeded to act with ruthless cruelty. Mrs. Lace and her infant at breast were sent to the dungeons of Castle Rushen. She had no food for four days. She and her infant suffered very seriously under the harsh treatment. At the end of the four days, the Bishop sent her four pennyworth of bread!

At Hangohill the farmstead was unroofed, as also were the out-houses. The corn in store was destroyed by the weather. The cattle were driven to the shore and several calves killed by the soldiers. No protection was left against wind and weather.

Lace himself returning in a few days was arrested, and committed to the dungeons in Peel, and after eight days of ill-treatment the wife and infant were released from Castle Rushen. Lace's appeal for release made from Peel Castle (which the Bishop refused) is preserved on a pathetic scrap of paper (Lib. Scacc.) in the Rolls Office. Lace lay in Peel Castle while the Bishop referred the case to the Keys.

Almost immediately — on 4th December, 1667 — the Keys heard all the evidence and examined the papers in the case, and found unanimously for Lace, suggesting that if the Bishop wished for the land he should pay him full compensation, with damages for the unlawful seizure of land and dwelling.

But naturally this judgment was far from being acceptable to his Lordship. He found another stratagem. He called the Keys together again, not to re-examine the case, but to make the allegation that the estate had been mortgaged and otherwise engaged by Lace's father. This evidence caused a division in the Keys. The one part, a small minority, stated that as the father had mortgaged the land for £82. 8s. 9d. and that as the Bishop desired the land for pious purposes, a simple way would be for the Bishop to pay the difference between the value of the estate and the mortgage to the Laces, pay out the mortgage and take up possession. The majority, however, accepted the former findings of the Keys, found that the Laces had every right to mortgage their own land, that in any case the mortgage bore no relation to the question in hand, and that the papers in the case showed conclusively that the land was the property of the Lace family without any doubt of any kind. In any case the decision went by the majority report, and the Lace claim was allowed, with the demand that Lace was wrongly imprisoned, and should be released at once.

Thereupon the Bishop appealed to the Earl in England. The Earl seems to have acted with considerable ferocity. He summoned the 'yes-men' of the Keys to England, and they with the Bishop seem to have told him of a state of considerable unrest among the tenants of the Abbey lands. He wrote from Knowsley (Lib. Scacc.):—

Having too great an evidence of iniquity and factious humour in several of my 24 Keys, and that more particularly under their own hands in those partial proceedings concerning Lacy's title to Hangohill Farm and finding they endeavour to establish a right to their own farms, not only to the overthrow of my just deeds and prerogatives in the Island while they challenge an unlimited title to their own demands . . . I cannot but think it is time to obviate and suppress such insolent and exorbitant behaviour and_ therefore to declare that none of those 24 Keys who express such false and factious principles as were manifest in their former rude and unjustifiable paper and refused to joyne with officers in their repre- sentation of Lacy's case ye last Tynwald holden at St. John's on S. Matthew's Day 1668 . . . shall not be suffered to sell, mortgage or alienate any part of their property . . . and that all such mortgages and leases at the term of their lease shall be null and void . . . and further it is my will and command to my officers at the expiration of (heir leases to seize upon their lands for my uses, and none of them be allowed to compound for their estates . . . and I do presently call upon my comptroller for all papers opinions and verdicts of my 24 Keys... to state the rights of my tenants in the Island, who being in authority do lead the people into errors, mistakes and factions.

The recalcitrant Keys gave up the unequal struggle. The weight against them was too heavy. They signed a document in singularly shaky handwriting (Lib. Scacc.) -

Being given to understand that those of the members of our late company of the 24 Keys, now in England, reported and assured us whose names are subscribed, as having got our lands to order in the Lord, his business, by a restitution ...anda fine... now we hereby certify that we subscribe the said order voluntarily and of our own free will and accord as being well satisfied in the Lord's trust as witness our hand this ix day of June, 1660. :
Thomas Harrison Thos. Wood Will Cayne
Will Christian Henry Ratcliffe Robt. Stevenson
John Kneale Thomas Casement Robt. Quaile
John Norris Patrick Christian Will Curmode

There is no more blatant case of the application of force majeure by the Lord, in Manx history. It seems pretty certain that the Earl and the Bishop were either genuinely frightened that the Manx revolution was not over, or alternatively that they took advantage of the Restoration conditions to regain a great deal of power over the Keys and democracy. For the time it succeeded. Lace was dispossessed. But, following the suggestion of compensation by the Keys, the Bishop changed his mind, released Lace and gave him the right of continuing to graze two cows on Hangohill. This Lace seems to have accepted, but he did not live long. The infant son grew up, and in 1698 brought a suit against the Trustees of the Bishop's Trust — for a restitution of Hangoside. The suit was heard by Earl William, but no record has so far been heard or seen of the judgment. Obviously it did not succeed, for in 1704 Henry Lace again set forth his rights to the new tenth Earl, James. No answer was returned, but three years later in January, 1707, Earl James ordered reconsideration of the case by the Keys, with sequestration of the estate from the Trustees, while the case was being considered. The Earl propounded a query in law to the Deemster who tried the case, which seems to have been a suggestion that by accepting grazing rights on the estate, Lace had thereby forfeited any rights he may have had of the case.

The Keys and Deemster found for Lace.

Accordingly, Eleanor Lace the mother and her son Henry entered a plea in the High Court against the Trustees of Bishop Barrow's Charities. This was granted.

The case was called on 12th June, 1708.

The Trustees of the Bishop Barrow lands put their case into the hands of the Academic Master, the Rev. Wm. Ross, a very able man. The case lasted a few days and ended in a verdict for the Laces, and the Trustees were ordered to give up Hangohill to the petitioners.

Ross immediately appealed and the appeal was heard on 29th July of the same year. This time, by a somewhat unusual quibble, Ross was given the verdict, the reason being that the Lace family brought forward no lease, document, or evidence to show that they had any claim on the land for 21 years after the ejection of John Lace in 1669. As Quayle points out, the Keys in 1669 had shown that Henry Lace was the owner of the property, and therefore no such procedure was necessary.

On behalf of the Lace family a further appeal was proposed, presumably to the Lords, but it was not possible, as the Laces had spent all their slender money and could not afford to proceed further.

So the farms of Ballagilley and Hangohill were firmly established in the hands of the Bishop Barrow Trustees, and remained undisturbed.

In 1786, however, Attorney-General Quayle, himself an ex-officio trustee, refused to act as such on the ground that: (a) He himself with one Taubman, presumably the tenant, had a case against the Trustees for payment for the construction of a road, and fencing, and drains and other improvements, and (b) that the Trustees were in unlawful possession of the property.

In support of his claim he collected all the evidence in the Lace case over the past century and a half, adding that, in addition, the estate had been passed in the Atholl succession to William Marquess of Tullibardine, who, attainted of treason in 1745, had been deprived of all his lands by the Crown, so that the Barrow lands were now Crown property. But this somewhat fantastic claim was abandoned after two counsels' opinion had been taken, and Quayle abandoned the claim, which was settled out of Court by payment of one hundred guineas. (Bridge House Papers).

One interesting point that arises among many others in this strange case is the personality of the Ensign Norris who carried out the ejection of the Lace family under Bishop Barrow's direction. Was he the son of the Thomas Norris who claimed the estate?

When Barrow was translated to St. Asaph, he held the two Sees in commendam. But he appears not to have drawn his stipend from Sodor and Man, for when Bishop Bridgman arrived in 1671 there was a considerable sum of money representing the accumulated stipend which legally belonged to Barrow. The matter was considered by earl William and the two Bishops. This money was placed in the hands of the Trustees . . . and it was decided that 'the whole profits for the year 1671 shall be placed in the hands of William Banks, of Winstanley, in the county of Lancaster, Esquire, till we can meet with convenient purchase for the erection of a public school of Academic learning.'

Signed William, Earl of Man.
Isaac St. Asaph.
Henry Sodor and Man.

It seems possible that Bishop Bridgman, who succeeded Bishop Barrow, had the idea of founding a College immediately, for he bought Rushen Abbey in 1672 as a site for that purpose. But the Trustees of his time could not raise the necessary funds and it had to be sold back to the vendor, Charles Moore. At this time of course there was no suggestion of any other school than the Castletown Academic School, for Bishop Barrow was still alive. But when Bishop Barrow died in 1679 his will showed a slight modification of the original deed. He said that the fund 'should maintain two scholars at an Academic school .. . if the school be not found within twelve months of my death then the scholars proceed to Dublin Unbversity.'

There is little detailed information about Bishop Barrow's Trust for the next century, but a summary of the income can be given :—

The following are the amounts received by the Bishop Barrow Trustees from their lands during the whole of the period from 1686 to 1801.

During these years a number of scholars was kept at the Academic School at amounts varying from £5 p.a. to £30 p.a. and supernumerary clergymen at £30 p.a. in ever increasing numbers, scholars at Dublin and Cambridge at £30 p.a. Two Vicars-General were paid £18 each.

Among interesting payments were those to Julius Cosnahan, later Vicar of Braddan, who was in turn Scholar at Castletown Academic School, student of Trinity College, Cambridge, Supernumerary clergyman as curate of S. George's, and finally Vicar of Braddan.

Another recipient was Colonel Wilkes, who, however, did not take Holy Orders, though he was a fine scholar, but later in life he insisted on paying back the monies advanced to him.

Both T. E. Brown and his father profited by the fund, but T. E. Brown belongs to the College period, and may possibly appear in further consideration of King William's College as a factor in the Bishop Barrow Charity from 1830 to 1860; to write of which, of course, I should have to obtain the permission of the Trustees. But it is a most interesting period.

Another piece of investigation which I have begun is the record of some of the Barrow clergy of the Island . . . clergy who were educated by the Bishop's Bounty.

An idea of the work and responsibility of the Trust is given by a typical balance sheet, such as that of 1818. It is in no way abnormal.
Here is a summary:—

Paid in from loan to John Christian, Lezayre, to cover loss on year: £44 Manx=Brit. £50.

It is only necessary now to see how the Bishop Barrow Charity gave rise to King William's College.

There can be no doubt from the figures that from time to time the Trustees of the Fund did not take very much care of their Trust. Often there was no meeting for several years on end. The minutes were kept on loose sheets of paper, but they were apparently always signed by all the Trustees present.

There were constant quarrels as to who should be called to sit on the Trust. In 1835, when the College was in being, the question was referred to the Privy Council.

At least three of the Treasurers caused considerable financial worries, and were called upon to reimburse sums which they could not raise. But in spite of much vagueness of detail between 1668 and 1790 it is clear that with the rising value of land, Bishop Barrow's Fund was on the increase. Its profits were sometimes well invested in mortgages of leases of lands in the Island, which were let at a profit, and loans to reliable people. As a matter of fact many loans were lost. A loan to a Mr. Lucas on Knockrushen security was demanded in return many years before it could be written off. A loan to St. George's Church (then St. George's Chapel), in 1809, of £150 was made with the object of enabling the wardens to build a churchyard wall. Securities apparently were given, but in 1818 the wardens denied any responsibility. In 1819 a copy of the securities was sent and a peremptory demand, only to be met with the reply that the High Court had demanded from the wardens that no payment should be made of any of the Funds, which were apparently frozen by the debts of the Church!

A few typical incidents in the life of the Trust may be interesting. In June, 1796, a meeting was held in Castle Rushen. There were present the Governor (the Duke of Atholl), the Bishop (Claudius Crigan), two Deemsters (John Frissell Crellin and John Lace), and the acting Attorney-General (T. Stowell). The accounts of the Treasurer, Mr. J. Kelly, were received, and it was decided that so great an amount was too much to remain unproductive, so it was resolved to put it out to loan for twelve months at five per cent. But as Mr. Kelly was absent without leave, his accounts were not passed.

The Lord Bishop was asked to look out for young gentlemen properly qualified to benefit by the Trust.

In 1800 with the same Trustees except that J. Heywood, Water Bailiff, was present in place of the Attorney-General.

Rev. Joseph Stowell was transferred from supernumerary clergyman to be headmaster of the Free Grammar School at Peel. He was replaced by Rev. James Gelling, a student ordained, while John Allen and Stephen Harrison were elected students at £60 and £20 on producing bonds from their fathers that repayment would be made if they did not take Orders and stay in the diocese.

In July, 1801, with the same Trustees, and Archdeacon Dan Mylrea, it was decided that the estates of Ballagilley and Hangohill should be reorganised and divided into four equal farms, three to be let for 21-year leases, the fourth to be divided up into small plots for the convenience of residents in Castletown and neighbourhood. The Rev. James Gelling had been appointed in place of Rev. Thos. Stowell at Peel, but as the two schools there had been combined, and there was ill-feeling between the two governing bodies, and the Mathematical School Governors refused to pay their share of the income, Mr. Gelling was given permission to live at Peel and remain a supernumerary clergyman at £30.

In 1803 Alex. Shaw, Deputy Governor, presided in place of the Duke of Atholl and complaints were received as to favouritism in selecting candidates for the studentships. Strict rules were drawn up.

In 1813 meetings took place in Castle Mona.

Robert Brown, John Clegg, John Gill and Edward Craine (appointed to S. Mark's), were all given stipends as supernumerary clergymen. Robert Brown received f60. At this period Deemsters were not among the Trustees, but instead the Clerk of the Rolls, and the Receiver- General alternatively with the Water Bailiff. In 1815 Bishop George Murray arrived. This year Colonel Wilkes repaid the money granted to him as a student. The Trustees were harassed with defaulting tenants, and arrears, and had to reduce their expenditure, and every recipient except the academic masters was cut 12 per cent.

In 1821, at Castle Mona, it was decided that the four senior temporal officers to be called, were the Governor, the Receiver-General, the Clerk of the Rolls and the Water Bailiff. A defaulting Treasurer, by name Gelling, was dismissed. In his place was appointed a Rev. T. Thimbleby, in a few years to suffer a similar fate, his defalcations being £230! Mr. Thimbleby was instructed to make a thorough investigation into all the property and monies of the trustees.

In 1825 a congestion occurred, for there were still four supernumerary clergy, none of whom had received preferment, so that no ordinations could take place, and the four unordained candidates were given another year at school.

In 1826 Mr. Thimbleby defaulted, Mr. Lucas refused to repay his joan, and the St. George's accounts were taken from their hands.

In 1828 Bishop Ward arrived, and he apparently went thoroughly into the Trust, and decided that it would be better to modify the original plan of the Bishop and the Earl of Derby, and found a school. There was room in the deed of gift of Bishop Barrow to put the money to some more useful purpose, if the Trustees agreed. If the supply of clergy should be sufficent for the Island, then to what other public work or charity shall be by my Trustees thought more profitable for the Island.

Bishop Ward's scheme devised that there could be started a system involving both the keeping of supernumerary clergymen, and also of founding a public school (on the lines of many other English schools at that time being founded), and he roused the other Trustees to considerable enthusiasm, too great an enthusiasm for his later approval!

In 1828 the constitution of the Trustees was again altered. The Governor, Attorney-General, two Deemsters, Receiver-General and Water Bailiff were all included, with the Bishop and Archdeacon. This was thought by the Bishop to weight the Trust heavily in favour of the laity as against the Church, and protest was made by the clergy, very strongly, but since apparently the lay members of the Trustees were enthusiastic for the school side of the scheme suggested by the Bishop, little came of the protest.

In 1829 the Clerk of the Rolls (McHutchin) and Archdeacon Philpot were asked to meet together on the estate and choose a site for the new school. They duly met and selected the spot.

On 14th January, 1830, a meeting of the Trustees was held in Castle Rushen. It was resolved

a. to issue an appeal for funds to add to the accumulated funds of the Trust.
b. to clear the site by local labour.
c. to call for an architect's plans.
d. to begin planting certain trees and plantations.

Robert Cunningham was appointed Treasurer and Secretary of the building.

The remainder of the Trust land was organised as one farm, and its story belongs not so much to Bishop Barrow's Trustees, who were, of course, the owners of the land up to its miserable end, as Trust land, but to the story of King William's College, which, as I have said, is another story.

There are just a few threads to weave in to this end of the story. Bishop Ward soon found that he had roused a hornets' nest among his clergy! They foresaw the reduction of supernumerary clergy, loss of Vicar-General's stipends, and other losses to the Church.

Great trouble was caused in Castletown by the attempted closing of the Academic School, for the success of the College depended largely on the prevention of local opposition. The headmaster therefore must be put into a new job, and that caused considerable amount of stir. Then the Trustees found they must get much additional help in order to raise salaries for a teaching staff and a Principal, and Lord Brougham must be approached to get a Chancellor's living for the Principal to hold in plurality. Then, too, the presence of a College Chapel with power to offer pews at a rent, did not meet the approval of the Vicar of Malew. So the Bishop was more than torn in two. But the scheme was thrust ahead by the temporal Trustees. Petition on petition against the school was sent in to the Home Office, mainly by the Manx clergy. They were being robbed, the Bishop's Trust was being over-ridden by a scheme to benefit English boys. Governor and Bishop alike petitioned the Home Office, pro and con, while the Attorney-General complained that Bishop Ward wanted to get Church control of all the funds, rents and subscriptions.

General Smelt gave his opinion to the Home Office that the income of £500 was far more than was necessary to keep four boys at Castletown and two students at Orrysdale, Michael. The Master of the Academic School complained to the Home Office of his scurvy treatment. (Minute Book of Bishop Barrow's Trust).

Bishop Ward asked for a reconstruction of the Trustees to four lay and four church members, and in 1830 he complained also that the Governor proposed to take a Church Trust out of the hands of the Bishop who had always appointed the headmaster, although the King had graciously responded to his Bishop's invitation to be patron!

The Vicar of Malew applied to Lord John Russell, asking him to decline to allow the sanction of the Chapel of the College.

The clergy of Douglas sent a memorial to the Home Office saying the Funds of Bishop Barrow were being misplaced. A reply to the contrary was sent by the Clerk of the Rolls, J. McHutchin, when the Home Office asked his view.

The Vicar of Braddan organized a memorial against the College, though he sent his own son T. E. Brown later as a pupil to receive alike the benefits of King William's College and the bounty of Bishop Barrow's charity.

The parishioners of Kirk Marown, Kirk Maughold and Kirk Andreas all sent similar petitions. The Bishop himself refused to attend the Trustees' meetings, which, however, went on without his presence.

Archdeacon Philpot tried to act as peacemaker with the usual fate of peacemakers, being trusted by neither! But these events again hardly concern the lands. By degrees the affairs of the College were straightened out, and very great amounts of money were put back again into the lands, which came by the beginning of this century to be recognised as one of the best farms in the Island, and by choosing good tenants and keeping buildings, fences and gates in good repair, and by the appointment of enlightened members of the Trustees to control the farms, the lands was made productive to a high degree, added enormously to the success of the College, and was in short a model [? line omitted in test as following line duplicated] became an aerodrome. All that remains of Bishop Barrow's land is a strip about 300 yards wide in its widest part, and 50 yards in its narrowest, and 500 yards long; on which the College, the Junior House, and the playing fields stand, and with it has graciously been left a half field bought by friends of the College and added a few years ago to Bishop Barrow's land.

DATE CHART SHOWING THE PERSONNEL OF BISHOP BARROW'S TRUSTEES

Plans of the Lands