:

however, we may be allowed to touch upon. How would it have been possible, at the earlier period, to have protected the property and existence of the Universities against the Towns, without a numerous and vigorous party, directly concerned in the privileges, &c.—in a word, without a ruling Democracy? We must not, at the same time, omit to observe, that in consequence of the diminution of time requisite for the course of study, the Master's Degree was obtained in the sixteenth century, many years earlier than in the thirteenth and fourteenth. Perhaps it would be better to give one decided instance of this : — Richard Lee (a Physician and a Chemist) entered the University of Cambridge in 1542, in his fifteenth year, and took his Master's Degree in 1548, without any especial favor. This was brought about not by Statute, but by Dispensations, which also depended upon the majority of the Masters. To judge by this instance, it cannot be wondered at, that the majority should have consisted of young men, of from twenty to twenty-four years of age. Nor can we say that the promoters of the Statutes of 1750 were wrong, when they remarked, in answer to the complaints of the opposition, "At the tyme of the makinge of the old Statute, theie were allmost all Regents that were of alle degrees in the Universitie, and that, auncyent men for the moste parte: but nowe theie be not only younger in age, but more youthfull and untractable."

NOTE (75) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 165.

On the Statutes of 1570, - and on the Test Oaths.

The account in the text, of the proceedings, with respect to the Cambridge Statutes, may be the more depended upon, as it is derived partly from authentic documents, and partly from the testimony of opponents to the Statutes. Among the latter, I reckon Walsh and Lamb. The few facts cited by the writers from trustworthy sources to which I had no access, I have used without agreeing in their opinions or conclusions: nor will it, I hope, be urged against me, that they have furnished the sharpest

weapons against themselves. But what are we to think of a historical and political author, who had free access to all the sources that were open to me, beside many others of the greatest importance; and could yet overlook the gradual developement of the power of the Heads, and assert that "the Statutes of 1570 completely revolutionized the whole order of things, by transferring a more than ordinary influence over all our deliberative proceedings, into the hands of the Masters of the Colleges!" I might cite much more to the same purport, - for instance, the common declamations against the Test Oaths, as originally unheard of and unknown in the Universities, "which were national establishments open to men of every sect," and, as first introduced by Cardinal Pole in a Catholic, and by James I. in a Protestant sense. Can anything be more confused and prejudiced, than this modern idea of national establishments, as applied to the Corporations of the Middle Ages? What can Mr. Walsh possibly mean, when he fancies the Catholic Church tolerated "men of all sects" at the Universities, whilst he himself, and those of his opinions, never can declaim loudly enough against the persecution of the Lollards* and other heretics? The decided form, however, of preventive Test Oaths, is to be found in the times of the Catholic Church. For instance, in 1425, the preceptors were obliged to take the following oath, among others." Also, thou shalt swear never to teach any of the conclusions laid down by the Friar W. de Russel (Item tu jurabis ut nullam conclusionum per fratrem W. de Russell positarum docebis — v. Wood). The "conclusions' mentioned, are Wykliffite doctrines. Lamb, it is true, also completely entertains all these distorted opinions, but he deserves our grateful acknowledgement, for having communicated all the documents, (v. Collect, &c. p. 335 to 402,) namely, (in addition to Statutes which were published by Dyer,) the memorial of the 160; the reply of the Chancellor and the Heads; the further objections of the complainants; the counter statements of the Heads; the resolution of the commissioners; and various other documents. I

*

[The Universities were not the less national for that. The Lollards and other "heretics were then persecuted in the Nation also.]

cannot attempt to examine the several points. The memorial contains a great and confused mass of perfectly inconsistent truths, semi-truths, exaggerations, and errors, collected together from a perfectly untenable point of view: and although the defence of the other party has many weak points, I am, after a most conscientious and unprejudiced investigation, altogether of the decided opinion of the Commissioners, "that the Statutes, as they be drawen, maie yet stande and no greate reason to make any alteration, &c.; and that theis younger men have been fare overseen to seek their pretended reformation, by disordered meanes," &c. The Heads complain bitterly, that whilst they are accused of oppression and intolerance, the most unbridled and arrogant licentiousness had gained ground, and that so far from seeking to direct the academic affairs, the time would soon come, when no respectable, sensible, and peacefully-disposed man would consent to accept such an office.

Note (76) referred to in Page 166.

On the Board of Heads at Cambridge.

I have already stated, that in the Cambridge Statutes, no express mention is made of the assembling of the Heads. These Statutes have no settled expression corresponding to the "Weekly Meeting" of the Oxford Statutes. The authority of the body may be deduced, however, partly from the incidental regulations, in which the Provosts or Principals are mentioned, and partly from the whole course and direction of these matters, as described above. To cite the passages of the Statutes, bearing upon the subject, would be unnecessary, as nobody doubts of their containing these arrangements; it is only their suitability and legality that are called in question by one party. To appeal however to the letter of the Statutes, in support of the power of the Heads, might with more reason be objected to. The manner in which the Statutes have been drawn up, upon this point, is such, that while most of the attributes of the Heads are very distinctly expressed (for

instance, in cap. 50, on the interpretation of the Statutes), others are only implied, hinted at, or even tacitly presupposed, and are to be interpreted only by a conclusion à fortiori. This is more especially the case with regard to the participation of the Heads in the general direction of affairs, along with the Chancellor and Proctors, about which there exists just as little doubt as about any other of their attributes, which are more definitely stated. But even in this point, there are minor details, which are expressly laid down; for instance, in a matter of discipline, where the Vice-chancellor is not allowed to pronounce any sentence of expulsion or rustication, or of imprisonment against Graduates, without the consent of the majority of the Heads. (v. cap. 52.)

NOTE (77) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 167.

On the Election of Powerful Statesmen as Chancellors of the Universities.

Although, even earlier, distinguished Prelates had been elected Chancellors, the system took a decided form first in 1453, when Neville, Bishop of Exeter, and afterwards Archbishop of York, was chosen Chancellor, and remained so by re-election till the year 1472, when he fell into disgrace with the King, and of his own accord laid down his Academic office. Then followed several Chancellors chosen after the old fashion. From 1484 to 1494, the dignity of Chancellor was filled by Russell, Bishop of Lincoln; then, till the year 1500, by Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury; then again, up to the year 1506, by different persons, either Prelates or resident-Masters; and, finally, till the year 1532, by Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury, in whom commences the list of Chancellors for life (in the above-mentioned sense; that is to say, as long as the circumstances lasted which determined the choice). The common opinion (which is repeated also by Lamb) that Russell was the first Chancellor who was elected for life, is (as far as we may judge from Wood's Fasti) entirely erroneous, as he was always re-elected, and declared himself, in 1494, incapable

of any longer holding the office, on account of the increasing infirmities of old age. This is, after all, a matter of indifference; and is only another proof of the necessity of receiving such traditional accounts with caution; since, even upon points where trustworthy information is at hand,- (where, as in this instance, only a reference to Wood is necessary,)—the greatest inaccuracy prevails, even among authors who lay claim to research. As for Cambridge, we find that Rotherham, Archbishop of York, was Chancellor there from 1473 to 1483. He was succeeded by several Bishops, most of whom continued many years, some only one; in the first case, probably by re-election. Fisher, Bishop of Rochester was elected in 1504, and remained in office at least until his fall in 1535. Whether he was elected at once for life, I cannot tell: but in 1528, the University endeavored to obtain Wolsey as Chancellor. The Statutes of 1570 say: 'The office of Chancellor shall be held as long as the ancient Statutes and customs of the University permitted, namely, for two years complete, or for such a time as the Chancellor shall be allowed by the tacit consent of the University to remain in office." So too the Oxford Statutes.-The first layChancellor, in Oxford, was Sir John Mason; in Cambridge, the Duke of Northumberland: both from 1552 to 1558. For the last two hundred years, none but lay-Chancellors have been elected.

NOTE (78) REFERRED TO IN PAGE 172.

On the Cycle of Proctors.

Before the institution of the Cycle, matters probably went on in Cambridge much as Wood relates of Oxford, when, without leave by Statute, powerful Election Clubs conspired to keep the office of Proctor among themselves. Doubtless these clubs (sodalitia) had fixed rules, for agreeing on their candidate; and if they could not carry his election, the riots ensued of which such bitter complaints were made. These were the inevitable consequences of the free election in the Senate, and gave an impulse to the obvious remedy of transferring the election to the Colleges by a set Cycle. The