Scholarum)." We might perhaps conclude from this, that such was the usual title of the Rector of Oxford, so long as there existed one separate from the Chancellor. Why the Bishop chose to have his Chancellor so called, is not very clear. That like most of his predecessors, and all his successors, he really was at the same time Magister Scholarum (that is to say, here, "Rector Universitatis") is no reason for otherwise, the Chancellors might always have been thus styled on the part of the Bishop. I am inclined to think that the appellation was uttered in anger. The Bishop may have thought :- "If you choose no longer to be looked upon as my Chancellor, if you choose to use the academic seal, and be considered as belonging to the University, as proceeding out of it, and not as nominated and authorized by me, then you may be that; and be called whatever may remain to you after I have withdrawn my authority from you; that is to say, Rector, Head of the University, Magister Scholarium." But what if from the very first, there existed at Oxford only an Episcopal Chancellor, who then, like the Chancellor at Paris or elsewhere, originally combined the functions of Capischola, Magister Scholarum? What if the difference consisted merely in the fact, that in Paris these two functions were severed in the after-progress of things, whilst in Oxford, the two remained combined? This explanation sounds very plausible at first; but there is neither trace of the fact, nor the least probability, that the Oxford Studium rose out of the Cathedral Chapter to the Bishop of Lincoln, and grew up as a part of this Church, as the Paris Studium did out of the Cloister School of the Cathedral of Paris. Had the Lincoln Cathedral developed a scholastic organ of this kind, it would have been at Lincoln and not at Oxford. The reasons which tend to prove a completely different origin of the Oxford schools, must not be entered into here. The existence, however, of such a Studium once established, it was to be expected from the analogy of such matters in the West, that the Bishop would interfere by one of his officers named a Chancellor, although he may not have performed all the duties of such an office. Such an interference on the part of the Church may well be presumed; especially under the circumstances of the Conquest.

Not the slightest trace is any where to be found of any thing in defence of the opinion which Ingram puts forth as a matter of course, that the University rose out of a school belonging to St. Frideswitha. There is much to be said for the idea, that the Proctors were originally in the place of Rectors, each for his Nation, by the side of and over against the Chancellor; especially if what Walsh asserts be true, (v. Hist. Account of Univ. of Cambridge, &c.,) that the Procuratores in the oldest Statutes are mentioned also under the name of Rectores. However, I consider such vague assertions of little importance.

NOTE (62) referred to in PAGE 127.

On the refusal of the Bishop to confirm without personal presentation.

Beside the accounts to be found in Wood relative to these matters, we may cite the following as characteristic of the disputes. Parliamentary documents of the year 1290 state, "The Masters of Oxford declared, that they were never used to send their nominee [electum suum] out of Oxford for confirmation, but he was always confirmed by his messengers, and the Bishop's commission transmitted to him. The said Bishop however declared that the commission was of his own pure free will, so that when granted through his messengers, this was of his pure favor. And because the said Masters wanted to turn his favor into a right and custom, the said Bishop did not mean to continue it. At length the parties agreed thus: viz.: that the first time when the said Masters elected a Chancellor, the said Bishop came so near to Oxford, that the Masters of the same University could come to him to present their nominee, and return without losing any lecture, &c. And that if the Bishop shall be at a distance, he intends of his favor to receive them by proxies; but in no other way than of his own pure favor and free will." (Rolls of Parl. i. p. 16.) The reasons why the Bishop required the personal presentation we find expressed in 1288:-"The Bishop," says this passage, "refused to admit the presentation by proxy, asserting that he did not

...

choose in any way to commit to a person absent, and unknown to him, so great an authority and jurisdiction, which not only extended itself to things corporal, but also to things purely spiritual." That, on the other hand, the fears of the Masters relative to the dangers of any possible prolonged delay, were not altogether vain, appears plainly enough from the lengthy proceedings carried on before the London Convocation in 1350: upon which occasion, the Archbishop, after the repeated refusals of the Bishop to ratify the election of the Chancellor without personal presentation, himself confirmed him in office," considering the dangers which would probably threaten the University by leaving vacant the said office." (Wilkins's concil. iii. 3.)

NOTE (63) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 128.

Disputes respecting the spiritual attributes of the Chancellor.

The dispute as to the spiritual attributes of the Chancellor assumes a more decided form under Bishop Oliver Sutton; although there are indications of the kind to be found under his predecessor. Wood says, (A. D. 1281,) "As the Chancellor had claimed several ecclesiastical rights, and had been accustomed to take cognizance of the offences of the clergy, which came under the Court of Christianity, Oliver Sutton, &c., called him to account for these doings, concluding his authority to be brought into contempt; on which account he designed to despoil the Academy of this right for the future." He allowed himself, however, to be soothed, (as the then Chancellor had or won his favor) and expressly granted him the further exercise of these attributes, with the proviso, that the appeal to the Bishop should remain. This is clear enough from the promise which he gave not to withdraw any "notorious offenders" from the punishment adjudged them. The quarrel, however, broke out afresh. The extent of jurisdiction claimed by the University against the Archdeacon, may be gathered in part from the transactions of the Convocation mentioned by Wood shortly after. The principal points are: the Proving of Wills, whether of clergy or

laity, and the superintendence over both, in matters of Police and of Morality, especially by means of an Inquisition to be held at indeterminate epochs, and in an unexpected manner, in different parts of the town. The length of time this state of mistrust and irritation lasted on both sides, or at all events on that of the University, may be seen in a statement made by Wood, (A. D. 1458,) when the University protested violently and solemnly against admitting the Bishop, even as arbitrator in a quarrel between it and the Townspeople. The dispute with the Archdeacon also lasted very long, and was recommenced by the latter of his own accord in the fourteenth century; the office having been bestowed by Papal provision upon a Roman Cardinal, who, under the influence of his own rapacity or that of his agents, sought to extend his jurisdiction as far as he could. All the former subjects of dispute being re-excited, and the whole affair brought before the Roman Court for decision, the University was put to immense trouble and expence. After the matter had been taken up by Pope, King and Parliament, it was at last decided in 1345, upon all essential points in favor of the University; whose jurisdiction within the above mentioned limits was confirmed. It would be superfluous to enter into details, but in addition to Wood, I refer my readers more especially to Rymer, who communicates numerous documents and writings bearing upon this subject.

The confirmation by the Synod of Reading in 1279, (v. Wilkins's concil. ii. 39,) of the right of the Chancellor to deal out ecclesiastical reproofs and punishments, has already been mentioned. This confirmation of the right does not exclude, but rather tends to support the idea, that it may have been previously exercised. In consequence of his exemption from the episcopal and archi-episcopal jurisdiction, the exercise of these and similar spiritual acts, (such for instance as absolution,) was claimed by the Chancellor, as proceeding directly from the "potestas apostolica."

NOTE (64) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 131.

On the Right of Episcopal Visitation at both Universities.

Upon this as well as upon many other points, less information is derived from the Cambridge accounts, than from those of Oxford. As to the election and confirmation of the Chancellor; beside the general notices in Fuller and Dyer, no further proof of the analogy with Oxford is necessary. The Bull of 1402, which did away with the ratification by the Ordinary, I find quoted in Dyer, (i. p. 32.) Whether it is any where printed, I do not know. With respect to the appeal to the Ordinary, it was expressly claimed in the Compact of 1276. "If it be necessary," it says, "in matters in which the Church is judge, recourse shall be had to us or our deputy." I find however as early as 1314, the following:"Royal letters were addressed to the Bishop of Ely and his deputy, to send in future no summons to take cognizance of decrees, to the hindrance of the University liberties." (v. Dyer.) The affair however was not decided till 1430, by the Barnwell case, "in which is contained the opinion of the delegates, as to the use and exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction towards scholars and others under rule," &c. In this case, the Pope, as is remarked by Dyer, (i. 38,) made enquiry by delegates, whether the University ought to be subject to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Chancellor, and exempt from every other; and gave his delegates full power, if they found the case so to be, to confirm this jurisdiction and exemption: which really took place. The Episcopal right of Visitation has, it is true, been disputed and denied, but to my certain knowledge, it was recognized even in the Bentleian contests. In Cambridge as well as Oxford, so long as the position of the Chancellor was uncertain, his jurisdiction often came into collision with that of the Archdeacon. Upon this point the decision of Hugh de Balsham (already often mentioned) is of importThe result in all essential parts is the same as that of the Oxford negociations in 1281 and 1345. All that belonged bond fide to the University, fell to the Chancellor and every thing else

ance.