Logo DBNL
De Zeventiende Eeuw. Jaargang 2 (1986)

De Zeventiende Eeuw. Jaargang 2

(1986)– [tijdschrift] Zeventiende Eeuw, De–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

The schooling of the Dutch calvinist community in London, 1550 to 1650
O.P. Grell*

In 1550 the Dutch congregation in London was officially established and received its Charter. The permission of the government of Edward VI to allow the Dutch in London to form a seperate corpus corporatum et politicum under their own superintendent, Johannes a Lasco, had been prompted by a desire of leading Protestants within the government to create a church which could serve as a model for the Church of England.1. Given the implied emphasis of Reformed Protestantism on the ability of its followers to be capable of reading the Bible one would expect at least primary education to have been given considerable attention in this new model community.

All indications confirm that the church did its utmost to fulfill these obligations of a truly Reformed congregation. It established its own school in the precincts of the church and employed a schoolmaster, a certain Hermes Backerel. This was done primarily to secure the children of the community the proper religious instruction, as can be seen from Marten Micron's De Christelicke Ordinancien der Nederlantscher Gemeinten te Londen, published during the Emden exile in 1554. It recommended public examinations twice a year for children who had reached the age of five in order to make sure that parents and schoolmasters were fulfilling their obligations in catechising them. Likewise the afternoon services on Sundays were limited to half an hour in order to provide the ministers with time to examine the older children in the articles of faith.2.

The early death of Edward VI brought the existence of this alien, model congregation to a halt. The accession of Edward's Catholic half-sister, Mary, forced most of the leading members of the Dutch church into exile during the autumn of 1553. When the church was re-established in 1560 under Elizabeth it was not allowed to continue as a separate Reformed community with its own superintendent, outside the Church of England. The Dutch community in Austin Friars was placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, but it was still allowed to retain its own Discipline. Elizabeth and her chief adviser and Secretary of State, Sir William Cecil, saw the re-settlement of the Dutch immigrants as beneficial in economic terms only. They had no need for any model, Reformed community. In practice this limitation of the congregation's freedom was more or less nullified through the appointment of Edmund Grindal as Bishop of London. Grindal, who had spent five years in exile on the continent and had befriended many leading Protestants, believed that the Reformed churches represented the ideal towards which the Anglican Church should strive.3.

The re-foundation of the Dutch church in Austin Friars did not see the continuation of the congregation's own school, nor the employment of another schoolmaster. The extensive costs of restoring the buildings of Austin Friars in addition to the assistance which had to be given to members who re-settled after their exile on the continent probably swallowed most of the community's resources. Later the wars in the Netherlands in the late 1560s and the 1570s meant that any resources the congregation could spare had to go towards helping the Dutch and Walloon who sought refuge in London.

In this situation the members of the church had to rely on the services of free schoolmasters of whom there were many, including some of Dutch origin in and around London. Initially this situation was not too disagreeable, especially to the wealthier members, since this type of education was more adaptable to individual requirements.4. In the long term, however, the arrangement turned out to be a disappointment to the Dutch church. The religious instruction provided by these free schools proved to be particularly dissatisfactory. By 1576 these shortcomings were of sufficient significance to be on the agenda of the Colloquium of the Dutch churches in England. The attendants were informed that several of the schoolmasters were not even members of the Dutch churches and the religious instruction they provided was suspect. In addition, some of the masters led an ungodly life, which might easily corrupt the children and infect them with false teachings. The Colloquium decided that the congregations should do their utmost to bring to a halt the activities of these masters within the communities. Likewise the churches were requested to maintain a stricter control over the schoolmasters who were members of their flocks. They were specifically reminded that it was their duty to make sure that the masters were well-grounded in the teachings of the church and able to instruct their pupils in the fundamentals of the Christian doctrine. It was emphasized that the elders, occasionally assisted by the ministers, were to carry out examinations and find out which books were used for the instruction of the children. The were also to admonish the schoolmasters to escort their children to services every Sunday. It appears that the religious instruction of the congregations' progeny was in disarray.

It was probably these problems in finding suitable schoolmasters for members' children which encouraged a former elder of the church in Austin Friars, Franciscus Marquinus, to become a schoolmaster and open his own establishment. Marquinus, a silkworker born in Italy, had settled with his family in London around 1559 and had been among the first elders of the congregation after its re-establishment.5. He was still making a living as a silkworker in the 1570s, but around 1580 he changed his occupation to that of schoolmaster. In 1583 he had twenty-four strangers' children as pupils and employed another member of Austin Friars, Peter Hurblocke, as usher.6. About a year later Hurblocke died while trying to save the life of a pupil with whom he had gone swimming. His death created serious problems for Marquinus since he had been in charge of the teaching of Latin, a language with which the former silkworker was unfamiliar. This threatened to disrupt the teaching in Mar-

quinus's school as he immediately informed the consistory of Austin Friars. The ministers and elders considered the matter serious enough to order one of their alumni, Jan Cabeliau, who had returned from the University of Leiden to receive his practical training before ordination by the congregation's ministers, to help Marquinus, teaching Latin for one month while still preaching once a week to the congregation; a clear indication of the value placed on Marquinus' school.7. The curriculum seems to have been very similar to that offered in grammar schools of the period. Marquinus operated a free school, but had in many ways extended the normal curriculum for this type of school, which would prepare its pupils for apprenticeship to a merchant, by adding some Latin instruction to the customary reading, writing and arithmetic, with a special emphasis on the teaching of accountancy.8.

The Dutch congregation appears to have been well satisfied with the services rendered by Marquinus and was not tempted to re-establish a school under the auspices of the church during the reign of Elizabeth. This attitude endured during the first years of James' reign and accordingly only a small paragraph in the Corpus Disciplinae of 1609 dealt with the education of children. It was only laid down that the consistory should decide which books and prayers the schoolmasters were to use and that they should encourage the schoolmasters to accompany their pupils to church.

Marquinus' position as the leading free Dutch schoolmaster vis à vis the congregation in Austin Friars was taken over by Abraham de Cerf during the early seventeenth century.9. Abraham de Cerf appears to have offered a standard, free school curriculum in his school including reading, writing and arithmetic, which was also typical for the so-called French schools in the Netherlands. He does not seem to have touched upon any of the classical subjects which characterized the grammar schools in England and the Latin schools in the Netherlands. As a consequence his own son, Johannes, had to go elsewhere for instruction in Latin.10. A number of de Cerf's pupils were boarders as can be seen from a letter he wrote to the consistory in Austin Friars in April 1634. Life was certainly not without its problems for an ageing schoolmaster in the early Stuart period:

I wish to thank you for all the friendship and love which you have shown me these thirty-six years since I came to London, assisting me with your advice, and sending me your children, which enabled me to gain my living and educate my children honestly. You also enabled my son Joannes to study, so that he is now an honest man. And as you have done so much for me in my youth, I hope that you will not forsake me in my old age, otherwise I shall be obliged either to go across the sea to seek a better position, or to become a burden to the Church. The last eight years so many misfortunes have befallen me, that I had to spend all my means and to incur debts, as some of you, whom I am unable to pay, know. I do not as yet ask for any gifts, but hope that you will produce me some pupils, either boarders or ordinary schoolboys, from London or other places as Sir Godtschalch, Sir Lamot and others have done before. You might also recommend me to merchants who come over here from across the Sea and require lodgings either

with or without board, or to some old men or women. Please show my letter to the Deacons.11.
Abraham de Cerf had to survive on what income he could make from his school. Obviously this task could become increasingly difficult for a schoolmaster like de Cerf who was well advanced in years and had not been able to afford to employ an assistant or usher. De Cerf had to find the majority of his pupils within the Dutch community. This, together with the fact that as an elderly immigrant to England, competition with native schoolmasters for English pupils were severe, only served to make his life more difficult than that of many English schoolmasters.12. It should, however, be added that de Cerf's close relations with the consistory of Austin Friars guaranteed him at least a minimum of social security. As a free schoolmaster Abraham de Cerf only received money for the time his pupils actually spent in his school. The lowest fees were paid for the smaller children who were only supposed to be taught to read. This group probably included pupils who were either orphans ore whose fees were being paid by the deacons out of the church's poorbox. This would help to explain de Cerf's insistence that the consistory showed his letter from 1634 to the deacons. Fees for the older pupils would have been considerably higher, according to how many of the other subjects, writing, arithmetic and perhaps accountancy, they were to be taught. The number who received this further education was obviously far smaller than that of those who were only taught basic reading skills.13.

How exposed a free schoolmaster was to the vicissitudes of life can be seen in de Cerf's case when in 1636 London suffered another serious outbreak of the plague. Abraham de Cerf was forced to close his school because all the wealthier members of the London Dutch community stayed in the countryside with their families thus removing his livelihood and forcing him to ask the deacons of the church for assistance.14.

When de Cerf died early in 1642 it was obvious that for him like many of his English contemporaries, schoolmastering had proved unprofitable in economic terms. His death highlighted a problem which the consistory in Austin Friars had seen coming fore sone time: For the first time in its existence the Dutch community in London was left without a qualified Dutch schoolmaster. The deacons pointed out to the consistory that members were inquiring with some persistence where to send their children to school as there was evidently no Dutch schoolmaster capable of filling the gap after the death of de Cerf. Instead the consistory referred the deacons to an English schoolmaster, Richard Dafforne, who could teach the children Dutch.15. Dafforne was bilingual, having kept a school in Amsterdam during the 1620s where he had also married a Dutch schoolmistress, Vroutie Jacob.16. His proficiency in Dutch had been proved with the publication of his Dutch reader, Grammatica ofte Leez-Leerlings-Steunsel in 1627.17. Later he returned to London with his family:

After many years residence at Amsterdam in Holland, I (upon the often Importunate Letters of some Merchants, my very good Friends) resolved to pitch the Tent of my abode in London, which being effected in Anno 1630.18.
Dafforne was certainly a man who knew the value of advertising as can be seen from the preface of his second book, published in English:
for the generall Advancement of those that affect Commerce, by Richard Dafforne, Author of the Merchants-Mirrour, Practitioner and Teacher of this Famous and Never Dying Art of Accomptantship; as also Arithmetick, with great facility in English, or Dutch.19.
Both Dafforne's books were written on the catechistical principle whereby an imaginary pupil asked questions and the professor answered. Should any of his pupils require further instruction, Dafforne made sure that his address was clearly indicated throughout his books. The titles of his English publications are enough in themselves to reveal the market for which Dafforne was writing. He was probably the most commercially orientated of all the schoolmasters who were in contact with the Dutch community in London during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and can be said to have constituted the peak in a development within the Dutch community in London which tended to place more and more importance on the instruction of children in the skills necessary for commerce.

Parallel to this growing emphasis on a schoolmaster who could teach the children the necessary commercial skills a downgrading of the importance of religious instruction seems to have taken place. Thus the original detailed instructions for the catechising of the smaller children from the age of five, and the older ones through the small and large catechisms respectively, were replaced in 1609 by far shorter instructions, only pointing out the general responsibilities of parents and schoolmasters.20.

However, the services offered by the free schools did not satisfy all the needs of the Dutch congregations in England. During the Colloquia of 1621 and 1624 it was decided that where the communities possessed sufficient means, schoolmasters should be employed by the churches.21. Without doubt the Dutch church in London was by far the richest Dutch community in England, but the church did not act on the Colloquia's decisions. In Austin Friars nothing happened until the spring of 1638, when the consistory found that the congregation urgently needed a good schoolmaster who could in particular teach Dutch to the younger generations.22. This interest in guaranteeing that the offspring was taught Dutch should be seen in the light of the fact that by the late 1630s it was more than fifty years since the church in Austin Friars had been reinforced by an influx of a substantial number of new refugees from the Netherlands. The community in London was slowly being dominated by members who were born in England and who found it increasingly difficult to uphold, not only their own Dutch identity, but especially that of their children.23.

Two additional factors made the consistory start looking for a schoolmaster

to be employed by the church. Firstly, Abraham de Cerf was getting old and the church could not expect to benefit from his services much longer. Secondly, the position of precentor (‘voorsinger’) had fallen vacant during the spring of 1638. On 8 April the three offices of Austin Friars decided to try to find a candidate who could fill this situation and at the same time act as schoolmaster to the community. This combination was common in the Netherlands. The three offices decided that the prospective candidate would be paid £20 per year for his church duties alone, whereas they clearly expected him to operate his school as a free school financed by fees from individual pupils. This was certainly not an insignificant salary when compared with known salaries of contemporary English schoolmasters.24. It was also decided that the candidate should have a good clear voice in order to fulfill his obligations as precentor. Apart from that he should be able to teach both Dutch and French, presumably reading and writing in both languages, as well as arithmetic. The governors of the church were not only emphasizing the need for someone to teach in the Dutch tongue, but they also wanted a schoolmaster who could cope with the curriculum suitable for a merchant community. The Middelburg schoolmaster, Mattheus de Coninck, who for some time appeared the most likely candidate, fulfilled these demands as can be seen from his application for the position in May 1638:

I, your suppliant, having heard from the Rev. Mr. Asman, residing in this town, that he thinks me fit for the post of reader (voorlezer) and clerck (voorzinger) now vacant in your Community, beg to offer you my services, being versed in the French and Dutch language, a Musician, and Schoolmaster, able to instruct the old and young according to the talents which God has granted me. I am a member of the Community, married and have one child. If you think that I would suit you, please inform me of the stipend and other emoluments connected with the post.25.
Later another good candidate from Flushing, Joahnnes Engelaer, offered his services to the London congregation:
I am thirty-two; my wife is thirty-eight years of age. I have kept a school for ten years, namely six years in the Parish of Cadsant, where I also served the Church as reader and precentor, and here in Vlissingen four years as schoolkeeper. I teach reading, writing, cyphering, and as much of music as the singing of all the Psalms. But I am especially experienced in the art of writing. My wife is able to teach the girls various manual occupations, as ‘lynnen nayen, spellewerck, steken, cammen ende clavesingel spelen’, besides reading and writing.26.
None of these excellent gentlemen was employed. De Coninck probably missed his chance of employment because of his unwillingness to come across for an interview, but the whole scheme most likely failed because of hesitation among the church's leading members about the advisability of accepting further economic liabilities at the time. Archbishop Laud's drive for uniformity and the restrictions placed on the alien communities through his Injunctions must have caused the leaders of the church further procrastination.27.

The plans appear to have been shelved until the old independent, Dutch schoolmaster, Abraham de Cerf died in 1642. It was the lack of educational facilities for the poor of the congregation which reactivated the demand for a schoolmaster to be employed by the church. It is evident that the services of Richard Dafforne, the English schoolmaster recommended by the consistory around this time, could only be afforded by the wealthier members of the congregation.28. During February the consistory of Austin Friars started to negotiate in earnest with a schoolmaster from Rotterdam, Cornelius van Ram.29. The consistory wanted to interview Cornelius van Ram before appointing him. Apparently this was the normal procedure and, as mentioned earlier, had proved a stumbling-block in 1638. Naturally the consistory offered to pay van Ram's travel expenses; he was even tempted with the promise of a gift should he decide to come across from Rotterdam. In April the consistory informed him that he would be guaranteed a salary of £30 per annum for a period of three years.30. At the beginning of June Cornelius van Ram informed the leadership of Austin Friars that he could not accept their offer because, as he wrote, he did not find it advisable to move to England during the present disturbances there.31. On the eve of the English Civil War Cornelius van Ram preferred the relative safety of Rotterdam to the insecurity of London.

After this second unsuccesful attempt to employ a schoolmaster, another four years elapsed before the church resumed its search for a candidate. Thus when a certain Abraham Boville applied for the position of schoolmaster in 1644 the consistory informed him that the congregation had no intention of employing a schoolmaster for the present.32. Two years later though, in 1646, the demand for a schoolmaster to be employed by the church was reiterated:

At the earnest request of various members of this congregation. The three offices have met and discussed the need for a good schoolmaster and they have unanimously decided that it is absolutely necessary to employ a schoolmaster. That a qualified candidate should be found and that he should receive a salary of £50 per annum for three years.33.
It was also decided that the elders should approach the wealthier members, those who had children as well as those who did not, in order to discover what funds the church could expect to have at its disposal. In the meantime the brethren were allowed to act individually in the search for a qualified candidate. Six weeks later, on 8 March 1646, the elder, Dirick Hoste. had received several letters from Middelburg recommending two good candidates.

Mr. Ouerbeke, a talented man but not very able in Frech; likewise Mr. Minet, a man (according to the letters) of such excellent qualifications that his equal can hardly be found in the Provinces. This Minet, above-mentioned, stipulates the following conditions. 1 A convenient house always free of charge. 2 The costs of his removal paid. 3 An extraordinary payment of £30 for giving up his position. 4 £30 for the first year and £20 per annum for as long as he should continue as schoolmaster to the congregation.34.

These four demands were more than the congregation in Austin Friars could

meet and on 12 March the three offices informed Minet that they were not able to pay him a regular salary, but that they could offer him a choice of £50 per annum or free accomodation plus £20 per annum for the first three years and £20 for the following three years. Besides that they could offer him £20 towards his travel costs.35. However, it took some further bargaining before the consistory and Andries Minet reached an agreement about the emoluments of the position. Minet was to receive £50 per year for the first three years and £25 per year for the following three years. Moreover he was given £20 towards his travel expenses, and in case of his death his wife was to receive the rest of his salary for the current year. The consistory also promised to find him a suitable house and prepare it for his arrival.36.

Andries Minet arrived in London with his family around the beginning of August 1646 and presented himself to the consistory. During the consistory meeting on 6 August it was decided that the community should be informed about his arrival and his address from the pulpit the following Sunday. The congregation should also be exhorted to send children to his school.37.

In 1646, after two serious attempts, in 1638 and again in 1642, when the consistory had still insisted on interviewing prospective candidates, Andries Minet was employed without having been through his formality. His predecessors' unwillingness to collaborate on this issue appear to have spared him the ordeal. For the first time since its foundation the congregation had taken the significant step of employing its own schoolmaster. Minet moved into the house which the church authorities had rented on his behalf in Fenchurch Street, for an annual rent of £20. Here he was able to offer his services, teaching ‘the children of Dutch parents the Dutch language, as well as writing, ciphering, and French.’38. Andries Minet, however, was not satisfied with the house the consistory had found him. Already in November he informed the consistory that it was too small to house all his boarders. He therefore wanted to find a larger house outside the City, a suggestion with which the consistory was far from happy. The leaders of the church preferred a house in the vicinity of the church in Austin Friars. Two elders and two deacons were commissioned to help Andries Minet in his search for a new and better accommodation.39. These four gentlemen reported to the consistory on 3 December that they had found a suitable house for Andries Minet in Little Moorfields. The rent was £36 per annum. This new location of the school outside the City did not satisfy all the members of the congregation. It was argued that the school was too far out for the children who had to walk to school. Since the consistory had already rented the house, provisionally for half a year, the dissatisfied members were asked to be patient until a better place could be found.40. Either it turned out to be impossible for the elders to find a new and more central location for Minet's school or the dissatisfaction died down, since Minet was still living in the house in Little Moorfields two years later.

Obviously the salary Minet received from Austin Friars was not enough to support him and his family. When they had paid for their accommodation they had only £14 left. This sum clearly had to be augmented by pupils who

paid fees. The salary of £50 per annum for the first three years and £25 for the following three years can only have been a basic salary paid for teaching the poor children the skills necessary for reading. The deacons, for instance, had to pay separately for the meals Minet provided for the children who were in their care. The other children had to pay fees according to the level of instruction they requested, French and accountancy tuition obviously being the most expensive. Moreover, the pupils who boarded with the schoolmaster must have provided a substantial and most welcome supplement to his salary.41.

Andries Minet's financial circumstances were already far from perfect less than half a year after his arrival in London. In December 1646 he tried to talk the consistory into paying the remaining rent for the house in Fenchurch Street until he could move into the larger house in Little Moorfields. He claimed that his departure from Middelburg had caused him greater loss than he had expected.42. He received a negative answer to his request, but later in September 1647 the consistory granted him some money towards the repairs which had to be done on the house in Fenchurch Street.43. The financial problems appear to have been only forerunners for the economic difficulties Minet was to find himself in from 1649 onwards. During April 1649 it was evident that Minet was unreliable when it came to paying the rent for the house in Little Moorfields, and the consistory decided to withhold his salary until he produced the proper receipts, proving to the ministers and elders that he had settled the matter with his landlord. Since it was the consistory of Austin Friars which had rented the property on behalf of its schoolmaster, the church was in the last instance legally responsible for the payment of the rent. Accordingly it was decided in the consistory, during the summer of 1649, to terminate the lease of the house in Little Moorfields in order not to be held responsible for further outstanding rent. This decision made sense since the first three years during which Minet received £50 per annum had come to an end. For the next three years he would only be guaranteed £25 per year, £11 short of the annual rent of his house in Little Moorfields. After negotiations with the landlord it was agreed that Andries Minet could take over the lease of the house.44.

However, Minet did not remain much longer in Little Moorfields. Sometime during the spring of 1650 he moved back into the City to a house in Lime Street where his annual rent increased with £4 to £40. Fifteen months later he moved, yet again, to an even more expensive house in Broad Street. This was a curious development when it is borne in mind that he was already in financial difficulties before his annual stipend decreased from £50 to £25.45.

It was not only Andries Minet who was faced with financial difficulties. The consistory in Austin Friars already had problems collecting the money for the schoolmaster's salary before the first three years of his contract had expired. Some members refused to continue their contributions as early as January 1649, and later the same year when the first three years of the schoolmaster's contract had run out, several members refused to pay any more towards his salary.46. In spite of friendly admonitions by the consistory these

members appear to have been hesitant in their contributions and the collections for the schoolmaster's salary were regularly behind Schedule during the next three years.47. Satisfaction with Minet was apparently not the greatest within the congregation and many members chose to dispense with his services.48.

A couple of months after the arrival of Andries Minet the elder, Dirick Hoste, suggested that the consistory elect some ‘Curateurs’ who should inspect the school quarterly. According to Hoste such inspections were used in Zealand in order to get an impression of the children's progress. The consistory decided to adopt this system, but it opted for inspections only twice a year. The inspections were to be carried out by one minister and two elders in rotation, starting with the elder minister and the two most senior elders. These deputees were to form an impression of the children's knowledge of the articles of faith besides their general progress in learning and good manners.49. In January 1649 the consistory requested the ‘Curateurs’ to inspect Minet's school immediately. Rumours, apparently coming from Andries Minet's usher, a certain Martinus, had it that Minet neglected his school. During the next meeting of the consistory the ‘Curateurs’ reported that they were satisfied with Minet's management of the school and the children's progress. On the suggestion of Andries Minet it was decided that for the rest of the year the school should be inspected quarterly in order to stimulate the children to make an extra effort.50.

Only two further incidents involving Minet are mentioned in the consistory book for this period. In February 1652 the minister, Cesar Calandrini, informed the rest of the consistory that the French church in London had complained that preaching in French took place in the house of the Dutch schoolmaster. A week later it was reported by the two deputees, Calandrini and Otger, that they had spoken to Mrs. Minet who had promised that these activities would be stopped.51. Later, in November of the same year, another rather curious entry can be found. Even in the seventeenth century children were difficult to keep totally in control:

Mr. Minet, the schoolmaster, shall be given notice through the elder of the ‘wijk’ that henceforth he shall bring his pupils out of the church while the Communion is distributed so that they will not be found yawning during the ceremony.52.
Andries Minet appears to have managed to evade economic disaster while he received his basic salary from Austin Friars. Six months after payments from the church had ceased his financial position was disastrous. He was forced to appeal to the consistory for help to repay his debts, at the same time begging the ministers and elders to pay him a yearly pension. His debts amounted to £239 of which £139 were what he termed bad debts. He took the opportunity to state his case in writing:
But apart from the loss caused by my moving from one place to another, I had, after having found a convenient house for my pupils, to go outside the town, which some found too far, others too pleasant in summer, while in winter many

absented themselves. I was then forced to look for another house in town, which I found still worse, as I got no Dutch, and had to depend on English pupils. I had also to rely upon special favours received from Englishmen, to prevent further misfortunes, and to obviate my troubling your flourishing Community with my family. Yet all was of no avail, but if I could have had Dutch pupils, I should have been encouraged, trusting that you, as lovers of study and well-disciplined instruction, would keep up my school, and relieve me in my great necessity, burdened as I am with debts, while I have to support my wife and seven children.53.
Minet's major complaint against the consistory was that it had failed to fulfill its original promise of sending the community's progeny to his school. It appears that only few members made use of his establishment. The ministers and elders requested Minet to prove that such promises had been made. The schoolmaster was unable to produce any evidence, and it was pointed out to him that it had always been members' free choice where to send their children to school. The elders informed him that they had loyally fulfilled their duty towards him encouraging members to use his school. Likewise the ministers had announced his arrival from the pulpit. Doubtless Minet had no case against the consistory, but in order to show their compassion the elders deceided to give him £100 on condition that he reached an agreement with his creditors and left England. Clearly the consistory did not want the situation to be repeated.54.

A month later the elders omitted the condition that Minet should leave the country in order to receive the £100; instead they insisted that he should provide them with security, as a guarantee that neither he, his wife, nor his children would burden the church in the future. Eventually Austin Friars was given security in Minet's house in Middelburg, rather ostentatiously named ‘Hemelryck’, but he himself was never to benefit from the assistance. He died early in January 1654, but the consistory honoured its promise and paid the £100 to his widow at the same time offering ‘eenen goeden reyspennink’ if she would leave for the Netherlands with her children. Two months later it was reported in the consistory that the widow Minet had left for Middelburg.55. The ministers and elders in London could breathe a sigh of relief, having saved themselves from futher trouble.

The decision to re-employ a schoolmaster by the church in the seventeenth century proved a minor disaster. Economically it turned out to be an expensive affair. At the same time the actual educational gains for the church by having its own schoolmaster appear to have been minimal. The wealthier members always preferred independent or free schoolmasters, like Richard Dafforne, while others found the location of Minet's school inconvenient, especially during the period when it was situated outside the City gates in Little Moorfields. The real benefit, if any, can only have been reaped by children of poor parents or orphans, whose education was paid by the deacons. They, at least, were secured a minimum of free education of a certain quality through the employment of the church's own schoolmaster.

Originally the congregation had started its own school in 1550 in order to improve the religious instruction of the children and ‘for a wider reformation of our congregation’.56. The individual skills acquired and subjects taught in the school were secondary to religion. When Andries Minet was employed in 1646, nearly a hundred years later, the emphasis on religious instruction had disappeared. Now the community primarily wanted a schoolmaster who could teach the younger generations Dutch. Children and grandchildren of Dutch immigrants were finding it increasingly difficult to understand and speak their ‘mother tongue’. A Dutch schoolmaster employed by the congregation was thought to be the proper remedy against this tendency to become anglicized within the church. Naturally the schoolmaster also needed the skills to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and French, all considered useful within a mercantile community like the Dutch congregation in London. Back in 1550 the schoolmaster's tasks within the community had been defined primarily in religious terms; in 1646 his role had been securalized. Admittedly he still had to teach his pupils the articles of faith, but the emphasis was now on the secular aspects of the subjects taught. Free schoolmasters, as well as those employed by the church were struggling economically during the early seventeenth century. It does not appear to have made any difference whether they, like Andries Minet, received a basic salary or, like Abraham de Cerf, had to survive on fees alone. They were both affected enormously by fluctuations in the attendance at their schools. Falling attendance meant an immediate decrease in their income and without the occasional support from the church authorities in Austin Friars they would never have been able to continue.

 

It will remain an enigma why a considerable yearly salary during six years did not secure Minet a financially sound start in England. He ought to have done considerably better economically than his predecessor, de Cerf. His failure to attract children of the richer and influential members of the community paired with the financial headache he caused the church guaranteed that the consistory had no ambition to re-employ a new schoolmaster in the forseeable future.57.


Vorige Volgende