the objectionable statutes, and "by the authority granted to "them made two more, favouring the civilians and ca"nonists."

In 1421, Henry V., himself an Oxford scholar, purposed reforming the University statutes.

66

In 1494, Henry VII. writes to the University, in prevention of probable disputes, that "the members of the University do not think of electing a new Chancellor till they "heard more of his pleasure concerning that matter.” They "answered with all submissiveness that they would obey "what he had commanded." When a vacancy occurred, the King delaying to signify the person of his choice, they proceeded to an election which was satisfactory to the King. He, however, in 1502, "by command given to certain Com"missioners in this case, ordered a particular statute to be "made, which being accordingly done, was inserted among "the rest of the statutes."

In 1541, Henry VIII. regulated the election of Proctors, by "appointing that none should undergo that place unless "he was eight years' standing complete in the Degree of "Master of Arts," and by "ordaining this year and for ever "after, till an advertisement was given to the contrary," who the electors should be.

In 1549, Edward VI., by his Visitors, put in the place of the old statutes a whole body of new, which remained in force till the enactment of the Caroline Code, except when suspended by Cardinal Pole, who gave statutes of his own, which in their turn gave place in 1559 to those of Edward. Under Elizabeth, the Earl of Leicester seems to have taken into his own hands a great part of the power, both legislative and executive, heretofore exercised by the Crown in the University.

1616, James I. writes to signify his pleasure concerning subscription to the three articles of the 36th canon by all candidates for Degrees, and decrees were made accordingly in Convocation the following year to enforce what he desired, with the addition of subscription to the 39 Articles.

66

In 1629, after various interferences by the Crown in the election of Proctors, the Procuratorical Cycle and the Statutes relating to it were sent with a letter by Charles I. to the Chancellor, by whom they were laid before Convocation, and there published and consented to. 1631, "the weekly meeting of the Heads, conformably to the ordinance of the "most serene King Charles I., which has been graciously "transmitted to the University in that behalf." (Car. Stat. Tit. xiii.) And lastly, 1636, the Caroline Code "accepted, "approved, ratified, and confirmed by letters patent." If there were any doubt as to the authority of the Crown here, the Caroline Code is a Charter granted at the suit of the University, and as such must be construed "most beneficially for the King and against the party" (Blackstone, ii. 347): but there is no need of this; the Code itself provides, in regard to "Statutes sanctioned or confirmed by "the King's authority," i. e. the whole Code, that "the special licence of the King himself" shall be necessary before the introduction of any explanatory Statute into Convocation (Tit. x sec. 2, chap. 2). A large power of initiating legislation is also given to the Crown, and that by way either of "command or suggestion" (Tit. x. sec. 2, chap. 5).

66

66

Now, referring to the quotation above from Blackstone (i. 478), I would infer from the subjection of the University to "particular Statutes," many of which were introduced by Kings, and all of which now in force were confirmed by a King, that the University of Oxford is not a corporation "merely lay, constituted for civil purposes," but pro tanto partakes of the nature of an eleemosynary foundation.

Nor is this inference from the legislative action of the Crown upon the University weakened by a consideration of its judicial and executive action. It may be admitted that the royal right of visitation cannot be historically based upon such acts of the prerogative as the preservation of "the peace and the administration of justice," between the town and the gown, northern or southern scholars, Welsh or Irish; or upon "the powers given to the Crown by Acts of

"Parliament now repealed; or upon "the undefined "notions in the days of the prerogative," which had some difficulty in removing an University Smithfield,* and was called in to pitch the streets; or upon "the personal cha"racter of the Sovereign;" or upon "the peculiar necessities "of disturbed periods, which are no precedents for other "times." I will refer to circumstances which are not open, in my judgment, to these or any other just exceptions, and which seem to me of a visitatorial character; such as the reception and decision of appeals, the inquiry into and the correction of irregularities arising in the corporation itself, general superintendence of the corporation as to the discharge of its duties, the sum of which is the fulfilment of the design of its institution; the Visitor's rule of proceedings being the Statutes of the Society.

66

66

The parallel is so strong between Oxford in the 14th century and London in the 19th, that I must ask permission to quote the following. "The King, Edward III., being given to understand that a great "many beasts, as oxen, cows, sheep, and calves, were daily killed "within the walls of the town, and also that dung, garbage, and other "filthinesses were commonly laying in the streets, lanes, and alleys "thereof, through and by which the air was so much infected that not only nobles but others of inferior note did decline coming near the "said town, and also that many, as well Scholars as Burghers living therein, were overtaken with infirmities of body so that many of them "died; he therefore commanded that proclamation should be made against all butchers or others that kill any such cattle. Hereby the mayor and burghers taking it very grievously that there should be "such a disturbance made among them, and especially among the "butchers, returned answer to the King, that in ancient time beyond "all memory a certain place was deputed and ordained for butchers, “wherein they might kill their beasts, and sell flesh, which place was "rented of the King for 100 shillings per annum, and was part of the "fee farm of the town; therefore the said butchers ought to exercise "their trade in the said place without any interruption, and especially "for the reason that another place cannot be provided for the exercising their trade without diminution of the fee farm aforesaid.' "At length the said nuisances being visible to all, the butchers' places "of killing were removed to Lumbard or Slaying-lane, without the "South gate." (Wood, Annals. 1338, 9.)

66 6

ROYAL DECLARATION.

411

Acknowledgments of the Visitatorial Power of the Crown by the University.

I will first mention acknowledgments, by the University itself, of the Visitatorial Power of the Crown.

66

In the year 1337 Archbishop Arundel resolved to visit the University for the establishment of sound doctrine there, but, apprehending opposition on account of the University's Papal exemption from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal authority, he requests the interference of King Richard II., who accordingly wrote to the Chancellor and Scholars that they claim no such exemption under the Pope's bull "to the prejudice of the King's authority, but that they altogether "renounce it, with attestation under their bonds of the fact, "before and in presence of the King's nuntio." This they appear to have done. They then took up another ground of opposition to the Archbishop: they alleged "that the 'right of visiting belonged to the King," to whom they referred the dispute. Richard, however, decided "that the "right of visiting the Chancellor and Scholars of the Uni

versity of Oxford doth belong, and ought for ever to "belong, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his church, "and not to him, as they allege." This disclaimer was no renunciation of royal authority. The King thereby simply put the matter on the right footing, showing that the question did not lie between himself and the Archbishop (as the University wished to make it appear), but between himself and the Pope, and in deciding for the Archbishop against the Pope he asserted his own supremacy. He besides indicated his willingness to give free scope to the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction, provided it were native. The Archbishop proposed visiting solely, "quoad hæreticam pravi"tatem," which the King was desirous he should do; but Boniface IX. had exempted the University "ab omni juris"dictione, dominio, vel potestate quorumcunque Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, et aliorum ordinariorum judi

66

66

cum." In 1411 the same dispute was revived. The

Archbishop again resolved to visit; the University again put forward the same pleas.* The King, Henry IV., on reference to him, ratifies the decision of his predecessor, viz. "that whereas the University pleaded that they were exempt "from Archiepiscopal and Episcopal visitation by the bull "of Pope Boniface IX. (which was adjudged prejudicial to "the Crown, and they thereupon alleged that the King was "the sole Visitor), he pronounced that the right of visitation "of the University did solely belong to the Archbishop of "Canterbury," with a threat of seizing into the King's hands all their franchises till submission. This was confirmed by Parliament.

I am come now to the well-known case reported in Rushworth's collection (ii. 324). In 1636, Archbishop Laud claimed to visit in spiritualibus both the Universities, jure metropolitano. The University pleaded that the right of visiting was settled in the King alone, as King and their Founder. The cause came to a hearing before His Majesty in Council. The Earl of Holland, Chancellor of Cambridge, claimed exemption for his University from metropolitan visitation, "it being never wont to be visited, save by His "Majesty, and those by commission from him." The Attorney-General, Sir John Banks, the Archbishop's counsel, says, "It must be acknowledged that your Majesty is

* I know that William Prynn undertook to prove that "no King "ever had or claimed that privilege; and moreover that King Charles "in particular had disclaimed it," referring to Laud's case;—and when the Vice-Chancellor and others were summoned before the Committee of Lords and Commons for regulating the Universities, the case at first seemed as if it would turn upon the allegation of the University that the King was their Visitor. But this particular point never seems to have come on for argument. The counsel for the Committee, John Bradshaw, took another line, and charged the University with contempt of Parliament. As for Prynn's law, "he confessed that they had no power by their commission to do it (remove Dr. Sheldon from All Souls), but the Parliament must not be baffled, and that they might "do many things ex officio agrecable to the mind of Parliament, though "not in their commission."-(Wood, ii. pp. 537, 569.) "viam aut faciam" should have been his motto.

66

"Inveniam