of Oxford, for diffusing heretical doctrines in Ireland, “sub pœnas spoliationis a gradu." Ten years before, a Carmelite was deprived of his Degree, and expelled from the University. We find mention made very often in Wood's Fasti of Mendicant Monks in the office of Chancellor, Proctor, &c.

NOTE (60) referred to in PAGE 124.

On the Chancellor and Archdeacon at the Universities.

There is no real need of proof, as to the position of the Bishop (and of the Chancellor, as his representative) towards the University. The general customs and arrangements of the Church, and the analogy with all the Cisalpine Universities of the same period, are sufficient.—At the same time, seeing the strange confusion of ideas prevailing upon this point, it may be as well to find room here for some documentary evidence upon the subject.

Among other things we may cite a Bull of the year 1247, addressed to the BISHOP of Lincoln. (v. Wood.) Moved by your supplications we grant you, by the authority of these presents, to forbid any one to teach there (at Oxford), until he shall have been first examined and approved by you or by Commissioners, to whom you may have granted full powers for this purpose, according to the mode of Paris,”— Mention is evidently made here, of the examination held previous to conferring the "Licentia docendi," as usual with the Chancellor in Paris. The exercise of these functions lay in the very nature of the Chancellorship, as long as they were not performed by the Bishop himself: nor is there need of Wood's addition, (made by him in a note,) that even here the Chancellor is meant for in fact he had always performed these functions in the promotions for degrees, ever since the latter half of the thirteenth century. That the Chancellor, even at that time, represented the Bishop in the general superintendence of the schools, is clear enough from this Bull: yet two ordinances of Robert Grosseteste (of the years 1247 and 1250) prove, that this by no means excluded the occasional direct interference of the Bishop.

That in his academic jurisdiction, the Bishop was generally represented by the Chancellor, is palpably evident from the whole after-course of things. It never could have occurred to the Chancellor afterwards, when his post, as Episcopal Officer, merged more and more in his Academic character, to have laid claim to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, if he had not exercised it before, in the name of the Bishop. That which alone requires especial evidence, is, the occasional interference of the Archdeacon, and the relation of his attributes to those of the Chancellor. There was evidently a period, when the Bishop, according to circumstances, or his own convenience, entrusted the same business at the University, sometimes to the Archdeacon, and sometimes to the Chancellor; or perhaps even by preference to the former, in spite of the original difference of their functions. For it was to the Archdeacon, as Episcopal Official, that devolved the simple Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (upon matters of heresy, unclean living, &c.) over non-academic clergy and laymen, This indeterminate position is clearly shown in the Compact of 1214, which says; "but if it should come to pass that any clericus should be taken, &c., as soon as required by the Bishop or Archdeacon or his Official, or by the Chancellor, or whoever may be deputed by the Bishop to this office," &c. The townspeople are then required to tender in their oath of 66 peace 'before the Archdeacon of the place and the Chancellor, or before one or other of them, if both are not present." The position of the Archdeacon is also referred to, in a Royal Letter of the year 1236, respecting the return of the scholars who fled after the riot about the Legate. It commences : The King to the Archdeacon and Chancellor of Oxford," &c. The same may be inferred by the manner, in which the Archdeacon Robert de Marisco the confidant of Bishop Grosseteste interfered in academic affairs, especially in the year 1248, upon the murder of a scholar of noble birth. In 1251 also, the Archdeacon appears, as mediator between the University and the Bishop, and as the actual representative of the latter, whilst the Chancellor seems already looked upon as a party concerned, as forming essentially one with the University. Thus for instance, in the year 1248, [we find a

66

letter of the Bishop of Lincoln.] "The Chancellor and University of Oxford having written to us, &c., &c., we therefore order you (the Archdeacon) to go over personally to the Town of Oxford and proclaim an excommunication &c., and make most diligent enquiry, &c., &c., and those whom you may find to be guilty, you shall punish by canonical reproof," &c.- Also we find a case in 1251, where the Archdeacon makes a statement to the Bishop respecting certain extensions of the Chancellor's jurisdiction, at the cost (in part) of that of the Bishop, which the University was endeavouring to effect by application to the King. It is not in my power to give more definite details respecting the relative position of these officers.

We may now proceed to the other points connected with the post of Chancellor. We learn by a document of 1201 (important upon this point) that the Chancellor, even at that time, considered himself as belonging to the University, in a sense of which we find no trace in Paris, and such as lay in the nature of a Rector only. “Know all men, that we, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, with the whole company of the Masters of the same, are bound and indebted to the Prior and Monastery of St. Frideswide, in two hundred pounds of English money, &c. . . . Given in the house of our congregation," &c. There is also a letter from the Archdeacon to the Bishop of the year 1231, from which it appears that the Chancellor of that time as well as his predecessors, made use of the University seal,- that the Bishop looked upon this as a gross violation of the Chancellor's duty towards him — that is to say, as an Episcopal Officer, and that the Chancellor himself was forced to acknowledge this judgment as perfectly correct. The said Chancellor," says this writing, "has made use of the seal, called the seal of the University of Oxford, in his simplicity, as many of his predecessors have done: moreover, if you so command, he will never make use of it again, and is ready to give up his office at the nod of your good will and pleasure.” Since it appears by this passage, that the Chancellor could be dismissed from his post by the Bishop at will, we might conclude with every probability, that he was also nominated by the

Bishop alone. I am quite unable under these circumstances to understand in any other sense the expressions of the Compact of 1214, which says, "52 solidi for the use of poor scholars shall be dipensed by the hand, &c. or of the Chancellor whom the Bishop of Lincoln may set over the scholars there." And again, an oath before the Chancellor of the scholars, whom the Bishop may appoint." I grant at the same time, that the positive proofs, that the Oxford Chancellor was, at any time, nominated purely by the Bishop, are not altogether satisfactory. That at a later period the Chancellor was proposed by vote (“nominatus") of the University, and then named and confirmed by the Bishop, is clear enough from the proceedings connected with the presentation of the "electus" at the end of the century. To this point we shall return. But the very expressions then used by the Bishop to denote the position of the Chancellor, with regard to himself, appear clearly to indicate that a much greater dependence existed at an earlier period, when he was nominated and confirmed simply and directly by the Bishop. To this effect is an address of the Bishop to the University in 1290, in which he says to them: "As for the Chancellorship of your University,—an office, which until a fixed day now passed, Mr. W. de Kingscote held by our commission and of our special favor; we have thought fit, at the request of your devout affection, to bestow it, until we may give you other commands, on a discreet man, &c. &c. nominated by you to the same office." (v. Wood, ii. 393.) At what time this co-operation on the part of the University first began, I cannot more nearly determine. That it took place as early as the time of Grosseteste's predecessor in the Bishopric, appears from a declaration referring almost expressly to this period, and made by the Bishop in 1294. "The Chancellors for the time being," it says, were not elected by the Masters, but only nominated." We may presume, that this course of proceeding was at first pursued only upon some occasions, and in consequence of some peculiar circumstances, as a favor shown by the Bishop. Should however

this participation of the University in the nomination of the Chancellor at all times have existed as a right, it would more strongly

prove the peculiar nature of the Oxford Chancellor, as compounded of Rector and Chancellor, (in the usual sense of the Paris University.)

As an excuse for this very detailed explanation, I may be permitted to observe, that I have never found the remotest indication of any correct view of these matters, indeed scarcely an idea upon the subject, in any of my predecessors. It is only in an (otherwise very unimportant) article of Richardson, in Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries, vol. xii., that I have been able to find traces of a vague boding of the real relation of things.

NOTE (61) REFERRED TO IN Page 125.

Whether there may possibly have been once a Rector at Oxford distinct from the Chancellor.

In an earlier part of this work it was too decidedly and unconditionally denied, that there ever was a Rector at Oxford as Head of the University; when in fact I did but desire to protest against confounding the terms Rector and Chancellor as only different names for the same thing. I believe however that it is impossible to show, that the Head of the Oxford studium was at any time called Rector for the expression Rector Scholarum which occurs in Oxford, after the beginning of the eleventh century, may be taken just as well to mean Magister Regens. Least of all is there any authority for doing as Wood has done,- namely, bringing forward Rectores of this kind in his catalogue of the Chancellors, when the "Cancellarius Oxoniensis" is mentioned in documents, by function and by name, immediately after the commencement of the twelfth century. It is certainly possible, (although improbable,) that the expression may have really sometimes been used in earlier times, to signify the Rector of the University, whom we must then imagine to have existed in addition to the Chancellor. Grosseteste's statement (Wood A. D. 1294) is remarkable; "That when he was Chancellor, the Bishop of that time would not permit him to be called 'Cancellarius,' but only Magister Scholarium,' (vel